Browsing by Author "Sinclair, Angela"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4

Restricted
Indian Removal
(Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, 2011) Sinclair, Angela
This paper will look at interactions between the Indians1 of the land that is now the United States and the law with respect to the forced relocation of those Indians. This paper will look at the evolutions of the United States Government’s perceptions and ideas with respect to the Indians leading up to the Indian Removal Act of 1830, the reasons for and the context of the Indian Removal Act, the debate surrounding the Indian Removal Act, and finally the implementation of the Indian Removal Act and the results of that Act. This paper looks at the issue of Indian Removal as one of the major moves by the United States Government to marginalize the Indians permanently and absolutely. The paper will follow the some of the people instrumental to the creation and implementation of the Indian Removal Policy, the attempts made to avoid the necessity of removal such as citizenship and assimilation pushes, also some Marshall court decisions will be considered for their effect on Indian removal, and finally the actual removal of the Indians will be looked at by focusing on a few tribes specific experiences. This author is skeptical of whether the underlying goal of the Indian removal process was to encourage extinction of the Indians or at least of their traditional way of life; but will focus on considering whether there was a moral purpose in removing the Indians or if it was done for solely economic, political and racist reasons. Throughout the paper the author will try to highlight and emphasis that the context of the time is instrumental in the understanding of Indian Removal. In looking back at this issue often the examiner focus on Indian Removal as an Indigenous peoples issues or an instance of genocide and attempted extinction while that view is correct it is a narrow view. To fully understand Indian Removal one must attempt to see the situation as it was seen in the day. While it is correct Indian Removal had some racially motivated and very ethnocentric purposes it arguably had more important purposes including peace, expansion and the protection of the newly created United States government. Like most things related to politics, the story at first glance is not the whole story.
Restricted
Pre-Trial Cross Examination of Vulnerable and Child Witnesses in New Zealand
(Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, 2011) Sinclair, Angela
A terminally ill person who doctors predict has one to two months to live is the State’s pivotal witness in an armed robbery and murder case. The prosecutor knows that the case will be at least six months before it comes to trial no matter what he does to rush it through, and if the witness does not live long enough to give evidence in the case, the case will fall apart, and a suspected murderer will walk. What can be done in this situation? This paper will look at pre-trial cross examination in criminal cases in New Zealand. The goal of this paper is to review the use of pre-trial cross examination in New Zealand and determine if the law is doing all it can to allow for and support the gathering of the highest quality cross examination evidence from both vulnerable and child witnesses in criminal cases, while at the same time working to minimize the harm caused to these witnesses.
Restricted
Prosecution of Enforced Disappearance
(Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, 2011) Sinclair, Angela
In the nine years since the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court (ICC) came into force no one has been successfully prosecuted or even charged with enforced disappearance in front of the ICC, despite the strong news and scholarly claims that enforced disappearance has happened at large scale during these years. On August 31, 2011 “the UN called on all States to end the “heinous crime” of enforced disappearances which has seen countless people vanish into secret prisons or worse, often never to be seen again, in cases of conflict and internal unrest.” The UN went on to say “It is (enforced disappearance) the first and foremost human tragedy, the problem of a profound pain, the pain that does not differentiate, that has no nationality, no religion, has no race or age.”
Restricted
Why Flag Burning Does Not Qualify as Offensive Behaviour under the Summary Offences Act
(Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, 2010) Sinclair, Angela
Why flag burning does not qualify as offensive behaviour under the Summary Offences Act 1981 (SOA)1will be the overall focus of this paper. This issue will be grappled with mainly through the case of The Queen v. Valerie Morse.2 I will start the paper by first considering the right to freedom of expression, then I will move on to give some background information including an overview of other consequential case and a detailed review of the Morse case. Following the Morse case information I will consider the criminalization of flag burning in New Zealand. Then I will move on to explore two questions; first- what does the term offensive mean, and was the burning of a flag offensive? Second- is the limitation imposed by charging Ms. Morse with a crime for burning a flag a limitation that is “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”? In this section I will propose my own definition of offensive. And finally I will consider the New Zealand Courts’ use of American jurisprudence on the topic. There is a wealth of information and cases from all over the world dealing with freedom of expression and specifically protest, in this paper I will try and keep a clear focus on the Morse case and tie everything in with New Zealand law.