Australia - Victims' families call for axing of the Adult Parole Board

[marlywings]

Victims' families call for axing of the Adult Parole Board as new case of releasing a criminal turns fatal

July 16, 2013


VICTIMS' families have called for the axing of the Adult Parole Board as a new case emerges of a decision to release a criminal early turning fatal.
The families of murder victims Sarah Cafferkey and Elsa Corp have slammed the body as ineffective, unaccountable and deadly.

In a fresh controversy for the parole system, the Herald Sun has discovered that a man charged with murder had been granted early prison release over a series of violent crimes

http://www.news.com.au/national-new...inal-turns-fatal/story-fnii5sms-1226679843709

 

[H A L 9 0 0 0]

I'm guessing this is in relation to the recent jewellery shop armed robbery in a Victorian town.

I've started to notice a pattern where, in the days after a crime like this, the media hints at the suspect's shady history and the fact they were on parole, but doesn't give any specifics away. Was the same a few months ago after that young mum was murdered in Ballarat.

We have prisons for a reason. Sad fact is some humans are more akin to vicious animals that should be either muzzled, chained up, fenced off or put down for the safety of the community. "Cost effectiveness" of keeping dangerous people locked away shouldn't be a factor when the safety of the wider community is at stake.

Seems to me that parole boards letting individuals with well established histories of violence to roam free in the community is a bit like taking a vicious dog out of an animal shelter and putting it in a yard with small children- with no supervision- just saying "Be nice'' and hoping it won't maul anybody!

 

[Ausgirl]

Another problem is - a violent criminal will serve his time for however many rapes, robberies, murders... and this history, no matter how long or how bad, is not taken into consideration when sentencing for the next offense. And it b-well ought to be! A three strikes and you're in for life, no parole, policy would go a long way to saving lives, IMO.

It's so easy to blame the courts when sometimes they must just want to bang their heads on a wall in frustration, as their hands are tied by law..

It's not just rapists and killers, either - habitual pedos who don't kill thier victims get stupidly short sentences, get out, rape another child, serve time, get out.. ad infinitum until they DO kill a child. Or get caught distributing *advertiser censored*, which somehow carries more jail time than actual rape.

I 100% support any move to increase sentences for criminals who offend while on parole.. BUT I also think those with a list of violent and/or sexual crimes behind them, on parole or not, ought to serve heavier time too.

 

[H A L 9 0 0 0]

Yep Ausgirl, something's pretty screwed up with a justice system when a person can bash, terrorize and rape innocent women again and again, be released time after time, finally be found guilty of murder and accused of still more violent rapes, and STILL be granted any leniency!!!

Tom Meagher hit the nail on the head when he said it's all about penny pinching.

Why pompous judges feel it is appropriate to ignore community sentiment and NOT award the kinds of harsher sentences that ARE within their power makes little sense to me. Especially when there is a clear demand for appropriately harsh sentencing from the community for people like Bayley. If the community don't feel punishments fit the crime surely that can only encourage more violence and disorder in the form of vigilante justice? Sometimes I think they let these recidivist idiots back out there just to keep themselves, the lawyers and law enforcement in jobs.

 

[Flinders]

Thank you Hal and Ausgirl.

Thinks link is to an Australian page called 'Smart Justice'. From what I can understand, they do not advocate the tightening of parole because the rehabilitation benefits for a broader group of offenders.

http://smartjustice.wordpress.com/2013/07/04/parole-in-the-news/

I am only posting to highlight other's opinions.

 

[Flinders]

OK, let's look at the Australian Institute of Crime statistics.

Quote.

Recidivism Rates and Victim/Offence Type

On average, just over 13 per cent of sex offenders were known to have recidivated sexually, with rapists showing higher rates of sexual, violent and general recidivism than child molesters.

http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/C/7/5/{C75FBED3-38E3-4FB2-AA62-5E94CE775717}2003-06-recidivism.pdf

I am not good with Math but if the same person is one of the 13% reoffenders and is on their 2nd or 3rd charge.... What is the odds they will be committing another sex crime? I think most likely.

To the parole board, etc... Would you like this repeat offender to date your daughter? Why not?

Moo

 

[Ausgirl]

It's always good to keep a balanced POV, Flinders. Cheers for the link.

I note that it cites "exceptional" cases, though.. People committing violent crimes while on parole is become less and less "exceptional" though. Hence, all the support for reform, I suppose.

I wish there was a kind of 'cumulative' view of an offender's crimes allowed for consideration in sentencing.. makes more sense to punish the true repeat offenders, to me.

Mind you, cases of rape and murder and crimes against children all need review as far as general sentencing goes, IMO.

 

[Flinders]

Edit. Checking my link about parents who are convicted of manslaughter and reoffending.

 

[H A L 9 0 0 0]

On average, just over 13 per cent of sex offenders were known to have recidivated sexually, with rapists showing higher rates of sexual, violent and general recidivism than child molesters.

I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly, but it sounds like 13 out of every 100 rapists/molesters etc will sexually assault further victims once they are released back into the community.

So for every 1000 sex offenders released, there will be potentially 130 people raped/assaulted/molested? That seems like a VERY high level of harm if it's considered to be within acceptable limits.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting this?

 

[Flinders]

More information from the AIC paper.

Langan and Levin (2002) traced re-arrest, reconviction and reincarceration rates of 272,111 United States prisoners in 15 states. The data show that many sex offenders perpetrate multiple offences: approximately one per cent (n=3,138) of all released offenders had been imprisoned for 21,600 rapes and just over two per cent had committed 22,800 other sexual assaults. The follow-up found lower recidivism rates for sex offenders than for most other violent offenders. The study provides evidence of some degree of specialisation and a high degree of criminality among sex offenders:
• rapists were over four times more likely to be re-arrested for rape than non-rapists;
• the odds of non-rape sex offenders being re-arrested for homologous offences were almost six times that of a non-sexual offender being arrested for sexual assault; and
• just over one-quarter of prisoners re-arrested for rape were convicted, slightly less than those arrested for other sexual offences.
Finally, a meta-analysis of 61 recidivism studies with over 23,000 subjects from six countries did not support the popular view that sexual offenders always commit further sex crimes. In a meta-analysis, the findings of numerous small studies were aggregated, resulting in sample sizes that were large enough to detect even small effects. On average, just over 13 per cent of sex offenders were known to have recidivated sexually, with rapists showing higher rates of sexual, violent and general recidivism than child molesters. While these averages must be interpreted cautiously due to methodological differences between the studies, sexual recidivism rates across the studies rarely exceeded 40 per cent, even with follow-up periods of 15 to 20 years (Hanson & Bussiere 1998).

End quote.

Hal, I read the document as reporting 13% do reoffend.

 

[Flinders]

THE husband of murdered Jill Meagher has demanded an apology from the Adult Parole Board for releasing his wife's killer - and has labelled its members cowards.

Tom Meagher told the Herald Sun he had not ruled out joining a class action against the State and felt the parole board had disrespected him.

Mr Meagher said he was furious that the board had failed to respond to a series of questions he emailed to it on June 24.

WAYNE FLOWER
HERALD SUN
JULY 24, 2013 12:01AM
http://m.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-...ult-parole-board/story-fni0ffnk-1226683987201

 

[Flinders]

Angela Anderson (@ange_anderson) 10news
31/07/13 9:25 AM

Queensland State Attorney General Jarrod Bleijie is fed up with judges giving crims who are at risk of reoffending suspended sentences and parole

 

[Flinders]

ABC Radio Brisbane (@612brisbane)
31/07/13 7:37 AM

The State Govt considering scrapping court-ordered parole and suspended jail sentences for convicted criminals. @abcnews at 7:45

 

[Flinders]

Shelley Lloyd (@shelleylloydabc)
31/07/13 9:53 AM

A prisoner support group says it would be a bad move to scrap suspended sentences and court-ordered parole. @abcnews at 10 @612brisbane

 

[Ausgirl]

Shelley Lloyd (@shelleylloydabc)
31/07/13 9:53 AM

A prisoner support group says it would be a bad move to scrap suspended sentences and court-ordered parole. @abcnews at 10 @612brisbane

The members of that prisoner support group need to sit in a room face to face with Tom Meagher and say that out loud.

 

[marlywings]

Court-ordered parole, suspended sentences may be dumped as state gets tough on criminals

July 31, 2013

QUEENSLAND's Attorney-General has admitted he did not consult judges or the legal fraternity in his push to abolish suspended sentences and court-ordered parole.
Jarrod Bleijie has today promoted his plan to put more people behind bars for longer, saying it was "what Queenslanders want".

Under the plan, judges would no longer be able to set a release date for prisoners or impose a "suspended" sentence in a move condemned by the Queensland Council of Civil Liberties

http://www.news.com.au/national-new...ugh-on-criminals/story-fnii5v6w-1226688347819

 

[Flinders]

This is from The Sentencing Council NSW

Standard Minimum Non-parole Periods

Question paper released

The Council has released a consultation paper to seek the views of stakeholders. The deadline for submissions is 25 October 2013.

The paper raises issues around three main questions:

What offences should be standard non-parole period (SNPP) offences under the SNPP scheme and how those offences should be identified?

The level at which the SNPPs should be set for those offences?

Who should identify/recommend changes to the SNPP offences in future?

In light of the Attorney General's request, the Council is calling for urgent submissions on SNPPs for child sexual assault offences by 11 October 2012.

To tell us your views you can send your submission by:

Post: GPO Box 6, Sydney NSW 2001
Email: sentencingcouncil@agd.nsw.gov.au
It would assist us if you could provide an electronic version of your submission. If you have questions about the process please email or call (02) 8061 9270.

Recent amendments to the SNPP provisions

As background to this review, we note that the Government is implementing the recommendations of the NSW Law Reform Commission to clarify to operation of the scheme in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Standard Minimum Non-parole Periods) Bill 2013.

http://www.sentencingcouncil.lawlin.../sent_council_current_projects/snpp_2013.html

 

[revampz]

thank goodness they are doing something.....

There should be a mandatory parole period without a doubt.!!!

The main issue behind this problem, the jails are full to the brim and it is costing more and more to house the increasing jail population. Therefore I think the parole system is being used to free up a few spaces.

They need to address that as well. But this is a good start

 

[Brightbird]

Another problem is - a violent criminal will serve his time for however many rapes, robberies, murders... and this history, no matter how long or how bad, is not taken into consideration when sentencing for the next offense. And it b-well ought to be! A three strikes and you're in for life, no parole, policy would go a long way to saving lives, IMO.

It's so easy to blame the courts when sometimes they must just want to bang their heads on a wall in frustration, as their hands are tied by law..

It's not just rapists and killers, either - habitual pedos who don't kill thier victims get stupidly short sentences, get out, rape another child, serve time, get out.. ad infinitum until they DO kill a child. Or get caught distributing *advertiser censored*, which somehow carries more jail time than actual rape.

I 100% support any move to increase sentences for criminals who offend while on parole.. BUT I also think those with a list of violent and/or sexual crimes behind them, on parole or not, ought to serve heavier time too.

BBM - I think history of similar offences is taken into account for sentencing, but not for determining guilty/not guilty.

I agree, sentences for sex crimes are ridiculously short. I would support a three strikes and you're in for life policy.