Latest news with #FamilyDivision
Yahoo
11-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
‘We want to have every tool available to prosecute them': Lawmakers to hear bill that would make torture a felony
HONOLULU (KHON2) — A bill that would make torture a Class A felony offense has strong support from city prosecutors and law enforcement. But critics warn it could lead to prosecutorial overreach. Two recent child death cases have put the spotlight on horrific acts of extreme, prolonged suffering, leading many to argue that Senate Bill 281 is needed. Honolulu Police echoed the support for the bill after last week's arrest of Sina Pili for the death of her adopted daughter. Woman arrested in connection to manslaughter of adopted child 'Passing Senate Bill 281 will equip law enforcement with necessary tools to intervene effectively and hold offenders fully accountable. Right now, without this law, we are failing children like Azaeliyah,' said Honolulu Police Lt. Deena Thoemmes. Senate Bill 281 defines torture as the act of causing serious bodily injury to another person within the actor's custody or physical control, suspending the minor or vulnerable person by the wrists, ankles, arms, legs, hair or other parts of the body, and forcing the victim to remain in an area unsuitable for human habitation, such as an area where urine or feces are actively present. Prosecutors are also looking to amend the bill to include starvation, saying it would give them a stronger legal tool to ensure justice in cases of prolonged abuse.'There are some sick people out there who starve their kids or foster kids and we want to have every tool available to prosecute them,' said Steve Alm, Honolulu prosecuting attorney. Those who support the bill say it would enable law enforcement to act sooner rather than later. 'When they find kids in this situation they don't have to find a bruise, but if they see they've lost a tremendous amount of weight they'll know, if this bill gets amended as we're hoping, it will give them a reason and probable cause to be able to make arrests, to get the kid out of that situation,' Alm said. But the Office of the Public Defender opposes the bill, arguing that existing laws already allow prosecutors to charge extreme abuse adequately. In testimony, they warn the bill's language is too broad and could lead to confusion and possible wrongful convictions. However, prosecutors say the length of time it takes to bring these types of cases to trial, including Isabella Kalua, Geanna Bradley and Peter Boy Kema, which can sometimes take up to a year, demonstrate the care they would take to ensure the investigation is thorough. 'We want to make sure we're charging the right person and we have all the evidence we need to successfully prosecute these cases,' said Tiffany Kaeo, deputy prosecuting attorney and Family Division chief. Senate Bill 281 is scheduled for a hearing on the morning of Feb. 11 before the House Committee on Human Services and Homelessness. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
11-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Assisted dying's safeguards were always a sham
The 18th-century satirist Jonathan Swift was the master of cynical, hyperbolic absurdity. In a particularly striking example of his genius, A Modest Proposal, Swift mocks Whig rationalistic 'humanitarianism' by suggesting the best way to solve the problem of hunger in Ireland was by having parents eat their own children. Alas, even Swift's acerbic pen would have struggled to capture the surreal disdain for truth which the assisted dying Bill's process is exposing in Parliament. Kim Leadbeater and her flunkies seem determined to prove Swift's adage that 'falsehood flies, while the truth comes limping after it'. The latest example is the news that the oft-promised High Court oversight of assisted suicide has been downgraded to a mere review body, a panel of experts, stripped of the legal powers and authority of a court of law. Leaked to the media at 10pm to catch the news headlines, the announcement also caught committee members off-guard the night before they were to consider amendments; a committee which is, lest we forget, already overwhelmed with back-to-back hearings and reading vast amounts of evidence in a short time. 'How can we properly scrutinise this legislation,' complained MP Sarah Olney, 'when new amendments are being made at the last minute, which potentially change the entire nature of the legislation we're attempting to scrutinise?' At the start of the process many of us were prepared to give Leadbeater the benefit of the doubt; writing her off as either ignorant or a puppet in the hands of No 10 or the powerful, well-funded euthanasia lobby. (A certain set of pink and lawyerly fingers have left more prints on this particular Bill than if it were a freebie from Lord Alli). However it is increasingly clear that Leadbeater is in fact a zealot of zealots, using her particular brand of manipulative sentimentality to ram through the Bill and deceive fellow MPs. This has been especially blatant with the details of those 'cast-iron safeguards' which encouraged dozens of rightly-cautious MPs to give the benefit of the doubt and allow the Bill to proceed to a stage when those safeguards would be fleshed out. In fact, they haven't been fleshed out at all; rather, they've been stripped to the bone, in defiance of every promise about procedure. Again and again, High Court approval was sold as one of the key checks and balances that gave the Bill 'the strongest safeguards in the world'. Leadbeater and other supporters repeatedly promised this, in Parliament and on TV. More than 60 MPs stated on the record that they voted for this at second reading. We are now being asked to believe that it has only just become clear that such a system would prove unworkable, despite the high-profile criticism provided by legal experts such as Sir James Munby, former president of the Family Division, who wrote a comprehensive demolition of the idea back in October. At the time, Leadbeater and her allies said nothing. But within a few days of the Bill passing in November, co-sponsor Jake Richards wrote an article speculating about ditching High Court approval in favour of a less 'time-consuming' system. Richards even accused those who pointed this out of misrepresenting his position. Untruths were aggressively briefed to newspapers, understandably annoying reporters who were fed (and wrote up) nonsense. Now, Leadbeater allies have seamlessly pivoted from 'it's not happening, how dare you suggest that!' to 'well, it might happen' to 'it is happening – and that's a good thing'. Swift would have struggled to capture the absurdity of the committee itself. Members heard from an Australian parliamentarian who called assisted dying a form of 'suicide prevention'. Concerned relatives trying to prevent loved ones taking their own lives have often been described as guilty of 'coercion'. Now we hear from Leadbeater and her allies that removing a safeguard is in fact strengthening it; what the Bill sponsor calls 'judge plus', is very obviously 'judge minus'. Listening to this inversion of truth is enough to make anyone question their own sanity. This is not the only discrepancy to emerge. The two ministers on the committee were supposedly there as impartial representatives of the Government. However, they have since been allowed to vote on the amendments as a matter of conscience, making the committee even more numerically skewed in favour of assisted dying than it first appeared. Many social workers, doctors and lawyers will want no part in the process, meaning that future 'death panels' will presumably be made up of (self-selecting) supporters of assisted dying, further complicating incentives. If you want a vision of the future, imagine a well-heeled KC billing for signing off 40 deaths that morning, then heading out for lunch at the Reform Club. Whenever colleagues voice their concern at the shambolic management of the process, Leadbeater repeats her mantra that the debate showed 'Parliament at its best', and urges MPs to maintain the same collegiate spirit. She regurgitates this line ad nauseam, despite the increasing chaos and growing displeasure around her; as if saying it enough times will somehow make it true. Many MPs voted the Bill to committee stage on the very clear understanding of certain safeguards. The challenge to those same MPs must be, do they now have the courage to change their position accordingly? Leadbeater may not have been upfront about the manner in which she would ram her legislation through, but for those MPs she and her allies misled, now is surely time to re-evaluate their position. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
