Alli1982
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2012
- Messages
- 124
- Reaction score
- 157
GUILTY Australia - Jill Meagher, 29, Melbourne, 22 Sep 2012 #5
- Thread starter Salem
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
- Status
<modsnip>
What a freak. I don't understand it either. What's the point in it? Though there's lots of things I don't get about people with sexual problems like this.
I think we al want it to be AB because we all think he's such a <modsnip> that it has to be him, but I think this might be another guy.
marlywings
Former Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2012
- Messages
- 12,282
- Reaction score
- 144
Folks just a reminder to please leave out the name calling....this isn't allowed on WS.
The man accused of the murder of Jill Meagher charged with the rape of a woman over a decade ago:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/vic/latest...eaghers-accused-killer-on-fresh-rape-charges/
MEAGHER'S ACCUSED KILLER ON FRESH RAPE CHARGES
By court reporter Sarah Farnsworth, ABC
Updated February 1, 2013, 6:17 pm
Bayley's lawyers applied to the court to have the new charges suppressed, arguing it would prejudice the administration of justice and contaminate a jury in any possible trial in the case of Ms Meagher.
However, the magistrate refused to issue a non-publication order, ruling in the interests of open justice and reiterated Bayley is innocent until proven guilty.
Bayley will return to court on the new charges in April 2013.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/vic/latest...eaghers-accused-killer-on-fresh-rape-charges/
MEAGHER'S ACCUSED KILLER ON FRESH RAPE CHARGES
By court reporter Sarah Farnsworth, ABC
Updated February 1, 2013, 6:17 pm
Bayley's lawyers applied to the court to have the new charges suppressed, arguing it would prejudice the administration of justice and contaminate a jury in any possible trial in the case of Ms Meagher.
However, the magistrate refused to issue a non-publication order, ruling in the interests of open justice and reiterated Bayley is innocent until proven guilty.
Bayley will return to court on the new charges in April 2013.
SouthAussie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 30,291
- Reaction score
- 186,234
Wikipedia opts to retain Jill Meagher page
Posted on 31 January 2013
A Wikipedia page for Jill Meagher is to remain on the online encyclopaedia, after administrators decided against deleting it.
The page, Death Of Jill Meagher, was recently labelled with a deletion notice by the websites administrators, as they sought to decide whether the page met its criteria for being notable.
The notice has now been removed, meaning the page has become an official part of the popular reference website.
http://www.irishecho.com.au/tag/jill-meagher
Sexual Crimes Squad detectives have charged Mr Bayley with three counts of rape, two counts of intentionally causing injury, and single counts of making a threat to kill and unlawful imprisonment.
The charges came as investigators last night renewed their appeal for a witness who helped the woman to come forward.
They said the witness, a woman, drove a dark blue Hyundai Excel with sheepskin seat covers.
Police say the Hyundai driver stopped on seeing the woman jump from a car, and then drove her to get help.
The charging of Mr Bayley came days after police made an initial appeal for the Hyundai's driver to come forward.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/la...-offence-charges/story-fnat79vb-1226566971826
The charges came as investigators last night renewed their appeal for a witness who helped the woman to come forward.
They said the witness, a woman, drove a dark blue Hyundai Excel with sheepskin seat covers.
Police say the Hyundai driver stopped on seeing the woman jump from a car, and then drove her to get help.
The charging of Mr Bayley came days after police made an initial appeal for the Hyundai's driver to come forward.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/la...-offence-charges/story-fnat79vb-1226566971826
KG1
Registered user
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2010
- Messages
- 1,212
- Reaction score
- 36
See below link. The photo was taken by the victim and the offender's zip was still undone/open. Therefore IMO it is censoring his private part which otherwise would be visible in the photo.
http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/breaking-news-blog/victim-snaps-photo-of-flasher/20120530-1zhz9.html
After hearing legal argument in Melbourne Magistrates' Court yesterday, magistrate Amanda Chambers granted members of the news media access to the charge sheets.
Earlier, defence lawyer Amanda Vasiliou submitted that details of the hearing should be suppressed.
She claimed that this would be so as not to prejudice the administration of justice in any further court hearings.
Mr Bayley is due to face a committal hearing next month in relation to the Jill Meagher case.
If he is committed to stand trial, that trial is not likely to commence before July.
In granting the release of the charge sheets to the media, Ms Chambers said details suggesting that detectives were going to interview Mr Bayley had already been publicised.
Ms Chambers said Mr Bayley was currently presumed innocent in relation to any and all charges he faced, adding that any potential jury would be bound by strict directions.
She said suppression orders in relation to yesterday's filing hearing were not necessary to protect the integrity of the jury system.
Prosecutor Patrick O'Halloran did not oppose the media's application for access to the charge sheets.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/la...-offence-charges/story-fnat79vb-1226566971826
What I find intriguing and confusing about magistrate Amanda Chambers’ refusal to grant the defence a suppression order relating to the new charges is that jurors would know through mainstream media that he has been charged with two separate violent offences- over a decade apart, nonetheless.
Leaving aside for the moment that no rational person would believe an offender would just commit two sexually predatory crimes 12 years apart without further offences either prior or intervening (perhaps suppressed convictions or crimes he simply got away with), the judge is arguing that jurors are intelligent and competent enough- and will be authoritatively instructed- to keep an open, objective, unbiased mind as to the facts presented- not charges in other cases concurrently pending- in the trial they will be partaking in. I find that an extraordinary claim because it is my understanding that not all prior convictions are introduced into the court precisely so as not to contaminate a juror’s decision-making process with ‘unrelated’ material, which can prejudice a trial.
So, if there have been prior convictions- ones having passed through the rigors of the legal system and been found to be sound and upheld in conviction- they cannot be admitted for fear of prejudice- though the jurors have every right to know of mere charges, which, presumably, can be found to not be substantiated in the court, thus bayley walking away an innocent man.
I find this remarkable because if the jurors should know anything, it should be prior convictions for offences- should any exist- rather than charges pending, because prior convictions are the graduated form of prosecution, thus more rigorously tested of charges, to which mere charges are the poorer cousins, sometimes remaining only that- unsubstantiated. In which case, why air charges though not substantiated- and related- prior convictions? Charges will only add more smoke further inclining a jury to convict, for people are naturally sceptical and the further authority stresses that they are only charges, thus unproven beyond doubt and un-importable, the further one yearns to assume contraption is upon us, I don’t trust authority, there is more to it, thus I am importing these charges as facts into my assessments. This is naturally what people do.
So the judge has ruled we can admit currently pending assertions by the prosecution (charges), which can be found to not materialise into convictions- though we cannot admit prior convictions (the graduated form, should any exist), for fear they might prejudice. LOL! This is the height of farce! It is simply absurd reasoning, for charges, were they later found by a jury to be unproven in a court of law, would serve no purpose other than to smear the defendant; and where a court is concerned with impartiality- as our system claims to be- publicly ventilating charges is a grave error. That is, not only can past convictions prejudice, but so can concurrently pending charges in separate, though concomitant (and pertinently related!), trials! They should simply role both cases into one trial with a single jury, and thereby admit that overlap is a necessary fact of life which far from being a hindrance is in fact a benefit as it builds context, narrative horizon to atomised facts.
The judge’s reasoning seems to be the following: charges can be proven, substantiated, and true in court, or not. A juror in the Jill Meagher case- as indeed this newly arisen case of the rape in 2000- will be aware of the other charges against the same defendant in the other case, though that will not inspire the juror to believe where there is smoke there is fire- for being charged with rape 12 years apart could innocently enough happen to any law-abiding person (leaving out the little dark gremlin of suppressed prior convictions, adding in of course the obligatory, if there are any at all)- that will simply inspire the juror to believe that one must convict or release based on the particular ‘facts’ presented in the court. This of course is absolute rubbish and anyone in their right mind would see that the court is an artificial contrivance of suppression orders, confected blinkering systems upon one’s natural intuition, in order to subvert ineluctable deductions, which in the end underpin every juror’s decisions: it’s impossible for one to be in close proximity charged of rape (and murder) in cases 12 years apart without their being truth in both- for why wouldn’t the police have dealt with the 2000 case in 2000- but rather now- 4 months after Jill Meagher’s case? Surely they must be related somehow, the natural reasoning, which the court cannot stop, goes. That being the case, one naturally, ordinarily, assumes that he was guilty of the other case (the one other than the one one is a juror in), which is now mere ‘charges’ that the judge has released from suppression, thus inadvertently importing the purportedly contraband: charges as sign of guilt. Hahaha! What a grand deceit we have for us wrought by apparent blind justice. Thus suppressing past convictions- though publicly airing charges in concurrent cases- is folly.
And to whom shall we turn for loyal confirmation of all of this? Why none other than the good prosecutor Patrick O'Halloran, who we are suitably informed “did not oppose the media's application for access to the charge sheets.” Well, now, why should he? Being the gifted psychologist, O’Halloran just did the mental gymnastics I did right before you here and made the obvious deduction: bayley is cooked if the charge sheet is released. And may it be so.
Hence, the moral here? Charges are as good as convictions because mud sticks. Allow one, allow both. Deny one, deny both. Consistency, systematicity should be applied. Denying convictions but allowing charges is giving with one hand blind justice, though taking with the other by peeking beneath the veil of objectivity.
I personally believe they should admit:
1) currently pending charges;
2) past charges unproven in a court of law- which the jurors will be instructed to regard to a lesser extent for they were not substantiated empirically- but they were nonetheless put forward by police- those ‘hunches’ I spoke of a few pages earlier in post #278, thus having merit to the extent that the trained detectives are our proxies, our eyes and ears and consciences, walking that last line of defence against calamity, thus we must put our trust into their judgement, and trust that charges they brought were charges we must take into our reckoning because they are built on hunches formed at the crime scenes we don’t want to see, so they go there to spare us having to go there, and in the darkness of those places, with the smells and sights and horrors, certain judgments are made therein, and it is those judgments, the ones beyond the law, beyond provability, in the realms beyond shadows of doubts and empirical standards, it is in those places where certain assessments are made by grieving hearts, assessments crystallising into charges which cannot be substantiated, which remain unproven yet are most true, it is those charges which need and must be told to jurors, for without those failed charges that bespeak the real depth, how can we as jurors really know what to rule? Such that the innocent get justice and the wicked get punishment? This is the appropriate forum for displaying those police hunches where they ‘just know’; this is the appropriate forum for the qualitative aspect of a case to be introduced- not newspaper articles, nor books- so that we, too, ‘just know’. And,
3) past charges proven to the strength of conviction by jury.
They should admit everything, the full spectrum of assertions, charges and convictions and the juror should then be trusted by authorities like magistrate Amanda Chambers to make judicious decisions- as instructed by the judge’s order, if need be- in regarding in decision-making to more and less extent certain charges, assertions, detective’s hunches.
All of these elements contribute to the narrative, collectively amounting to an overarching character test for this individual. That is, having so much spot fires in one’s life surely would lead to an overall truth which is missed in presenting facts in an isolated, contrived, manner by suppressing passed convictions, detective’s knowledge. In short, we’re missing the forest for the trees by disallowing various types of information.
Finally, my message is the following: the only people i trust are detectives, and this has been all and only about how we hear their message (post #278). Where do we hear the detective speak? Where is the place we go to to hear the detective's story, who speaks to us in facts and also and more importantly, who uses the language of the in-betweens, the intangibles, who tells the story of the less-than-empiricals, which speak the horrible fates of victims. And the answer should be that we go to the jury panel to hear the detectives speak, so that we can ensure the truth is heard, and justice finally delivered. Anything short of this, everyone is sold short, most especially the poor victims.
Earlier, defence lawyer Amanda Vasiliou submitted that details of the hearing should be suppressed.
She claimed that this would be so as not to prejudice the administration of justice in any further court hearings.
Mr Bayley is due to face a committal hearing next month in relation to the Jill Meagher case.
If he is committed to stand trial, that trial is not likely to commence before July.
In granting the release of the charge sheets to the media, Ms Chambers said details suggesting that detectives were going to interview Mr Bayley had already been publicised.
Ms Chambers said Mr Bayley was currently presumed innocent in relation to any and all charges he faced, adding that any potential jury would be bound by strict directions.
She said suppression orders in relation to yesterday's filing hearing were not necessary to protect the integrity of the jury system.
Prosecutor Patrick O'Halloran did not oppose the media's application for access to the charge sheets.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/la...-offence-charges/story-fnat79vb-1226566971826
What I find intriguing and confusing about magistrate Amanda Chambers’ refusal to grant the defence a suppression order relating to the new charges is that jurors would know through mainstream media that he has been charged with two separate violent offences- over a decade apart, nonetheless.
Leaving aside for the moment that no rational person would believe an offender would just commit two sexually predatory crimes 12 years apart without further offences either prior or intervening (perhaps suppressed convictions or crimes he simply got away with), the judge is arguing that jurors are intelligent and competent enough- and will be authoritatively instructed- to keep an open, objective, unbiased mind as to the facts presented- not charges in other cases concurrently pending- in the trial they will be partaking in. I find that an extraordinary claim because it is my understanding that not all prior convictions are introduced into the court precisely so as not to contaminate a juror’s decision-making process with ‘unrelated’ material, which can prejudice a trial.
So, if there have been prior convictions- ones having passed through the rigors of the legal system and been found to be sound and upheld in conviction- they cannot be admitted for fear of prejudice- though the jurors have every right to know of mere charges, which, presumably, can be found to not be substantiated in the court, thus bayley walking away an innocent man.
I find this remarkable because if the jurors should know anything, it should be prior convictions for offences- should any exist- rather than charges pending, because prior convictions are the graduated form of prosecution, thus more rigorously tested of charges, to which mere charges are the poorer cousins, sometimes remaining only that- unsubstantiated. In which case, why air charges though not substantiated- and related- prior convictions? Charges will only add more smoke further inclining a jury to convict, for people are naturally sceptical and the further authority stresses that they are only charges, thus unproven beyond doubt and un-importable, the further one yearns to assume contraption is upon us, I don’t trust authority, there is more to it, thus I am importing these charges as facts into my assessments. This is naturally what people do.
So the judge has ruled we can admit currently pending assertions by the prosecution (charges), which can be found to not materialise into convictions- though we cannot admit prior convictions (the graduated form, should any exist), for fear they might prejudice. LOL! This is the height of farce! It is simply absurd reasoning, for charges, were they later found by a jury to be unproven in a court of law, would serve no purpose other than to smear the defendant; and where a court is concerned with impartiality- as our system claims to be- publicly ventilating charges is a grave error. That is, not only can past convictions prejudice, but so can concurrently pending charges in separate, though concomitant (and pertinently related!), trials! They should simply role both cases into one trial with a single jury, and thereby admit that overlap is a necessary fact of life which far from being a hindrance is in fact a benefit as it builds context, narrative horizon to atomised facts.
The judge’s reasoning seems to be the following: charges can be proven, substantiated, and true in court, or not. A juror in the Jill Meagher case- as indeed this newly arisen case of the rape in 2000- will be aware of the other charges against the same defendant in the other case, though that will not inspire the juror to believe where there is smoke there is fire- for being charged with rape 12 years apart could innocently enough happen to any law-abiding person (leaving out the little dark gremlin of suppressed prior convictions, adding in of course the obligatory, if there are any at all)- that will simply inspire the juror to believe that one must convict or release based on the particular ‘facts’ presented in the court. This of course is absolute rubbish and anyone in their right mind would see that the court is an artificial contrivance of suppression orders, confected blinkering systems upon one’s natural intuition, in order to subvert ineluctable deductions, which in the end underpin every juror’s decisions: it’s impossible for one to be in close proximity charged of rape (and murder) in cases 12 years apart without their being truth in both- for why wouldn’t the police have dealt with the 2000 case in 2000- but rather now- 4 months after Jill Meagher’s case? Surely they must be related somehow, the natural reasoning, which the court cannot stop, goes. That being the case, one naturally, ordinarily, assumes that he was guilty of the other case (the one other than the one one is a juror in), which is now mere ‘charges’ that the judge has released from suppression, thus inadvertently importing the purportedly contraband: charges as sign of guilt. Hahaha! What a grand deceit we have for us wrought by apparent blind justice. Thus suppressing past convictions- though publicly airing charges in concurrent cases- is folly.
And to whom shall we turn for loyal confirmation of all of this? Why none other than the good prosecutor Patrick O'Halloran, who we are suitably informed “did not oppose the media's application for access to the charge sheets.” Well, now, why should he? Being the gifted psychologist, O’Halloran just did the mental gymnastics I did right before you here and made the obvious deduction: bayley is cooked if the charge sheet is released. And may it be so.
Hence, the moral here? Charges are as good as convictions because mud sticks. Allow one, allow both. Deny one, deny both. Consistency, systematicity should be applied. Denying convictions but allowing charges is giving with one hand blind justice, though taking with the other by peeking beneath the veil of objectivity.
I personally believe they should admit:
1) currently pending charges;
2) past charges unproven in a court of law- which the jurors will be instructed to regard to a lesser extent for they were not substantiated empirically- but they were nonetheless put forward by police- those ‘hunches’ I spoke of a few pages earlier in post #278, thus having merit to the extent that the trained detectives are our proxies, our eyes and ears and consciences, walking that last line of defence against calamity, thus we must put our trust into their judgement, and trust that charges they brought were charges we must take into our reckoning because they are built on hunches formed at the crime scenes we don’t want to see, so they go there to spare us having to go there, and in the darkness of those places, with the smells and sights and horrors, certain judgments are made therein, and it is those judgments, the ones beyond the law, beyond provability, in the realms beyond shadows of doubts and empirical standards, it is in those places where certain assessments are made by grieving hearts, assessments crystallising into charges which cannot be substantiated, which remain unproven yet are most true, it is those charges which need and must be told to jurors, for without those failed charges that bespeak the real depth, how can we as jurors really know what to rule? Such that the innocent get justice and the wicked get punishment? This is the appropriate forum for displaying those police hunches where they ‘just know’; this is the appropriate forum for the qualitative aspect of a case to be introduced- not newspaper articles, nor books- so that we, too, ‘just know’. And,
3) past charges proven to the strength of conviction by jury.
They should admit everything, the full spectrum of assertions, charges and convictions and the juror should then be trusted by authorities like magistrate Amanda Chambers to make judicious decisions- as instructed by the judge’s order, if need be- in regarding in decision-making to more and less extent certain charges, assertions, detective’s hunches.
All of these elements contribute to the narrative, collectively amounting to an overarching character test for this individual. That is, having so much spot fires in one’s life surely would lead to an overall truth which is missed in presenting facts in an isolated, contrived, manner by suppressing passed convictions, detective’s knowledge. In short, we’re missing the forest for the trees by disallowing various types of information.
Finally, my message is the following: the only people i trust are detectives, and this has been all and only about how we hear their message (post #278). Where do we hear the detective speak? Where is the place we go to to hear the detective's story, who speaks to us in facts and also and more importantly, who uses the language of the in-betweens, the intangibles, who tells the story of the less-than-empiricals, which speak the horrible fates of victims. And the answer should be that we go to the jury panel to hear the detectives speak, so that we can ensure the truth is heard, and justice finally delivered. Anything short of this, everyone is sold short, most especially the poor victims.
Daniel fought through tears to explain the impact Elsa's death and Clifford's trial had had on the family.
"There had been a dozen people murdered since 2008 by parolees. Clearly the system prioritises the rights of violent criminals over those dozen families," Daniel said.
"It is not only that Elsa is not here, but knowing what she went through that night. (It) is something that you can never get away from."
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/la...-parole-killings/story-fnat7jnn-1226567054352
"There had been a dozen people murdered since 2008 by parolees. Clearly the system prioritises the rights of violent criminals over those dozen families," Daniel said.
"It is not only that Elsa is not here, but knowing what she went through that night. (It) is something that you can never get away from."
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/la...-parole-killings/story-fnat7jnn-1226567054352
Scoobysnack
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2012
- Messages
- 222
- Reaction score
- 270
I am cross at myself for not finding out about this rally sooner than on the 6pm news last night.
Is there somewhere I can add my name to this petition. ( have a busy morning will do some online searching this arvo.... but thought I would put it out there in case anyone does know
)Here is link to facebook page... https://www.facebook.com/ElsaJanetCorp
<modsnip>
SouthAussie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 30,291
- Reaction score
- 186,234
Talking about parole board reforms .... the article you posted sure shows the shortcomings of the Parole Board when making parole decisions, Paulie11.
It sounds like a mostly impersonal process of rubber-stamping many parole submissions, depending on which category they fall under. Parole board seems more of an administrative job rather than fulfilling a duty to make sound decisions based on individual circumstances, criminal history, and public safety.
Absolutely! I got the exact same feeling- it's just admin and paper-work to them. It's very sad that this is a career for people and basically paper-work. The mention of mnemonics just really exposed the system; it's about funding and statistics.
I have a suspicion that the only way these matters will change is by having less offenders, because the more offenders there are, the more bureaucratic the system becomes. I doubt they will increase funding for more parole workers. I get the feeling the American system is a lot worse than ours. But that is little consolation to us here.
BreakingNews
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2012
- Messages
- 1,940
- Reaction score
- 6,527
Regarding jurors, the judge usually gives very specific information for a jury to consider and this makes it easier for the jury. A juror might think that the person is as guilty as, but the facts and the law might not add up to guilt.
When I was a juror on a murder trial, the panel took many hours to decide on guilt. The public could not understand why we took so long, but we were only going over all the things the judge told us to consider. The jury even got locked up in a motel overnight because we hadn't reached a verdict. But in actual fact, we just hadn't finished going through all the information the judge told us to consider.
OT, but my other half delighted in telling all who would listen that I had been in court and was locked up at the end of the day.
I am cross at myself for not finding out about this rally sooner than on the 6pm news last night.
Is there somewhere I can add my name to this petition. ( have a busy morning will do some online searching this arvo.... but thought I would put it out there in case anyone does know
Here is link to facebook page... https://www.facebook.com/ElsaJanetCorp
<modsnip>
good on you for caring, Scoobysnack.
Yes, that gets to the heart of the matter- believing one is guilty doesn't always mean the evidence is there to convict them. But i think this legalistic attitude is very bad for safety in our society because many people who cops/detectives 'just know’ are guilty, get off- frequently to convict again; and so by the time we 'have enough evidence' to satisfy the voracious empiricism of our legal system, it is too late for some poor victim, as the evidence comes at the expense of their health, safety, and tragically in many instances, life. That is simply not good enough- it is not good enough to convict bayley solely on the death of a tragic victim, which is why i believe detective's hunches have to be somehow imported into the legal process, because as it stands, we have this narrow, legalistic, blinkered, contrived system of sets of rules which must be negotiated as to how to play this game called ‘the law’, though we in addition have what is ‘common knowledge’ amongst the detectives and cops, gleaned from years of experience on the beat, knowing how these things go- knowledge that can stop killers in the making, yet all of that nous, all of those street smarts, are simply not imported into the court and told to the jurors, and the jurors see a bespectacled defendant (theatre is all important here), humble and contrite, devoid of context, and make wrong moves: the evidence wasn’t there to convict him, which means the following: show me the torso. Basically, it’s all a game of charades. As far as I am concerned, the only thing we need in a case is this: the detective telling us his version of events. The rest is irrelevant. He can import whatever facts he wants. We need to trust detectives, for without that trust, we’re left up the creek because there isn’t always sufficient evidence. Man, just look at Casey Anthony. The legal circus is nothing but theatrics, it’s a sport for the well-heeled, playing with victim’s lives; it’s despicable.
Bayley certainly isn't interested in getting at justice for victims and the truth as we are- his sole interest is to manipulate his way out of conviction. So while Bayley is lying at every turn to get out again- to rape and murder again, no doubt- we have to play by the ridiculous rules. It's a disaster that in an adversarial legal system the aim is not to get to the truth, which is really a by-product of the competition, but it is to play this competitive game where the prosecution attempts to jail the defendant, while the defendant, sportingly, manipulates any possibilities available to him to outwit, out-manoeuvre, out-guile, sidestep prosecution. It’s ridiculous! They should relax the law on the admission of evidence.
I know that what I am arguing is a slippery slope, and what’s to stop a detective from placing evidence on a suspect that they ‘just know’ is guilty? From there, it becomes a circus of a different kind. But the current system is broken.
Reform parole systems; greater monitoring of parolees; longer, tougher sentences; more CCTV/surveillance; more rehabilitation; more police; reforming legislation, the judiciary, legislation. I don’t know where the answer lies. But we can always be assured that for the victims it is too late.
Paul mcGovern
Inactive
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2012
- Messages
- 55
- Reaction score
- 0
Paulie11...I love your passion...<modsnip>
SouthAussie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 30,291
- Reaction score
- 186,234
I think we make a big mistake in having a one-size-fits-all parole system.
Perhaps the current system works okay for white-collar crime or non-violent crime, I don't know.
But it is evidently not working so well with violent offenders. Its time for a big change in how we deal with them.
- Status
DNASolves
Staff online
-
CarlK90245UID Moderator
Online statistics
- Members online
- 124
- Guests online
- 1,742
- Total visitors
- 1,866