University of Vermont,The University of Vermont has announced that three new legislative trustees, a gubernatorial appointee, and a new student trustee are joining its board of trustees. The new legislative trustees, elected by the Vermont General Assembly to six-year terms, are Carolyn Branagan, Christopher Bray, and David Potter. Governor Douglas has appointed Mark Young, who previously served as a legislative trustee from 2002-2007, to a six-year term. The new student trustee, Adam Roof, was selected to serve a two-year term by the Associate Directors for the Appointment of The University of Vermont and State Agricultural College Student Trustees, Inc.Leaving the board are legislative trustees Edwin Amidon, James Leddy, and Martha Heath, gubernatorial appointed trustee Robert Young, and student trustee Beth Rice.All of the new trustees will participate in the board meeting scheduled for May 14 through 16.Branagan, a Republican from Georgia, has served in the Vermont House of Representatives since 2003. She was the House Education Committee clerk from 2003 to 2004 and is the House Ways and Means Committee ranking member in 2009/10. She is the Franklin County Republican Committee chair and is a member of the Governor’s Commission on International Education. She has also served as co-chair of the Vermont Legislative Women’s Caucus, chair of the Georgia School Board; member of the coordinating council of Vermont Interactive Television; and trustee and chair of the Vermont Maple Festival. She received B.S. and M.Ed. degrees from UVM.Bray, a Democrat from New Haven, has served in the Vermont House of Representatives since 2007. Formerly he taught at UVM for four years in the English department and founded Common Grounds Communications, which provides writing, editing, design and production services to a variety of clients and publishing houses. He is clerk of the House Agricultural Committee ; secretary of the Vermont Milk Commission; chair of the Rural Economic Development Working Group.; and member of the Vermont Forestry Commission and the Economic Development Committee of the Governor’s Dairy Task Force. He received a B.A degree from UVM in Zoology and an M.A. in English. He also graduated from UVM’s Snelling Center for Government.Potter, a Democrat from Clarendon, has served in the Vermont House of Representatives since 2005. Potter taught at Rutland High School for 31 years before retiring and was on active duty in the Air Force for 10 years. He is a member or affiliate of the West Rutland Rotary; the Rutland County Audubon Society; the Vermont Federation of Sportsman Clubs; the Rutland Regional Transportation Council; the Vermont Workforce Development Council; the Clarendon Selectboard; the Clarendon Planning Commission; the National Guard Association of the U.S.; the Vermont Sugarmakers Association; and the Vermont Woodland Association. In 2008 he was named Vermont Tree Farmer of the Year. He is a retired member of the Vermont Air National Guard, SQ Commander, Lt. Col.Young, of Orwell, is president and CEO of the First National Bank of Orwell. He currently serves as the Town of Orwell treasurer and trustee of Public Funds. He is a board member of Union Mutual of Vermont Companies and the Vermont Center for the Book and is a member of the Vermont Economic Progress Council. He was a member of the Vermont House of Representatives from 1993-2006. He is a past chair of the executive committee of the Vermont Bankers Association and received the Vermont Bankers Association Outstanding Community Service Banker Award in 2001.Roof, of South Walpole, Mass., is currently enrolled in the College of Arts and Sciences, majoring in Political Science and English. He serves on the Peer Judicial Board in the Harris/Millis residential complex, and is a member of the Dean of Students Advisory Board and the Men’s Club Hockey Team.
Stuff co.nz 27 July 2016The laws covering murder and manslaughter in New Zealand need reform, writes Massey University law professor Chris Gallavin for the Faces of Innocents series.Reform is required to ensure fairness to defendants, to avail the Crown of more options when charging (and plea bargaining), and to support judges when sentencing.Murder is broadly defined under New Zealand law. It is not limited to intentional killing. It also covers reckless killing when inflicting injury or committing an offence and includes death as a result of inflicting grievous bodily harm, stupefying or wilfully stopping the breath of a person all when related to particular crimes.Manslaughter covers all other culpable killings save for infanticide. Add to this the related offence of aiding and abetting suicide and we can see the complexity building.Still, holes exist. First, we need a mature discussion about euthanasia.Second, we have no corporate manslaughter provision. Health and safety prosecutions, when they happen, are insufficient. There should be serious criminal sanction for work-related and public death at the hands of corporations.(See the 2015 private prosecution of forestry companies and the dismissal of health and safety charges against Pike River Mine boss Peter Whittall on payment of $3.41 million “blood money”.)Third, there are insufficient defences. In 2009 the partial defence of provocation was abolished in the aftermath of the conviction of Clayton Weatherston for the murder of Sophie Elliott (note, he failed to establish the defence).The defence was replaced by a sentencing discretion that places pressure on judges to soften convictions of murder when they believe life imprisonment is not in the interests of justice, that is, when they recognise that not all murders are murders. There is no diminished responsibility in New Zealand for those situations where, for example, intruders may be killed by a homeowner who suffers from paranoia.We have no partial defence to murder in the case of excessive self-defence where some force is reasonable but too much is used; see many intruder cases, shopkeeper defence cases, or defence of theft of property on remote farms cases.Further, our ability to deal with victims of domestic violence who kill is woeful both in terms of charging and the defences available, with suggested reform representing an ad hoc patch on an already bloody quilt.Finally, so antiquated are our laws that we still retain the ridiculous requirement that victims die within one year and one day of the infliction of their injuries. If they do not there is no homicide.And now the case of young Moko. It is important to note that with our broad definition of murder a conviction was more easy to secure here than in most other countries. However, in light of the fact plea bargaining is now part of our prosecution system, the Crown was ill served by the law as it stands.Manslaughter is our only alternative to murder. This despite its availability to a jury in lieu of murder.So what is needed? I suggest a system of degrees of murder could prove helpful. My colleague Dr Bill Hodge has suggested that such a system could give rise to more appeals as defendants argue the margins between degrees.That is definitely possible.However, I contend that the possibility of an initial influx of appeals is preferable to the current state, which more often shortchanges victims, labels the Crown as the villain and paints judges as detached from reality.http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/faces-of-innocents/82267619/faces-of-innocents-why-our-murder-and-manslaughter-laws-need-overhauling