A podcast discussion questions the National Party's proposal to eliminate good character references for sexual offenders, arguing that such references are often irrelevant, unverified, and deeply harmful to victims, with no clear evidence of real sentencing discounts.
Stacked weekly counts; colour by lean. “n/a” covers government and iwi-Māori sources where lean isn't applicable.
How this topic has been named, week by week. A new alias winning out is usually a framing shift.
Verbatim segments from politicians speaking on podcasts and radio shows about this topic. Sourced via the voice-reference library — each speaker has been confirmed manually from their voice clip. Click play to stream the original audio from the publisher, pre-seeked to the moment the quote starts.
Um, sorry, I'm just trying to find my no, they they can choose to dismiss it. So they're not obligated to consider what has been presented in front of them. But what um what the process is is there's no due diligence given for anybody to write those things. So a defense lawyer or his or her client can procure a good character reference.
Up to 12 framings spread across orientations. Each framing is a short phrase the topic extractor generated to characterise the piece's stance — not a quote from the source. Click through to read the original.
references can be fabricated with no verification
Ruth Money: Chief Victims Advisor on National looking to scrap 'good character' assessments for sexual offendersSpotted something wrong on this page? Report a correction.
