Serial Killer Released on Parole

Forums › Off topic › Serial Killer Released on Parole

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2025707 30-May-2018 15:09

gzt:
MikeB4:

I am not saying I agree with the release, I do not know all the facts relating to the decision by the Parole Board to form an opinion either way. I hope it does not turn out to be a tragic mistake.

I don't know either but I'd guess the sentence is ending sometime soonish that and other factors they may have decided a supervised parole with conditions etc is a better scenaio than end of sentence releasing with $20 and a bus ticket or whatever they get at the sentence end.

I thought that there were no custodial sentences that ended this way. All prison sentences have parole with vary degrees of conditions.

I think there is obviously very little information about his conditions or what criteria he has met to be eligible, so this does lead to people potentially coming to their own conclusions (I am not immune to this myself).

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2025826 30-May-2018 18:20

BTR:

Ok this talk of sentences based on laws at the time is nonsense. If that was thw cause why did the Governemtn apologise to people who were convicted of being homosexual in the past.....

Your arguement is invalid, times change and there should be nothing wrong with saying we got his sentence wrong and reassessing it. If a case can go back to trial i.e. retrial as the Bain case has multiple times for example why can we not reassess someones sentence?

A reassessment could work in the guilty parties favour or in the crowns favour. I have no issue with this.

Its hard to disagree, but where do you draw the line? Todays law, or 20 years ago, or 100 years ago?

andrewNZ

2487 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2025865 30-May-2018 19:35

To anyone suggesting capital punishment, ask yourself: "If I knew for certain I'd be killed after being caught, is there any limit to what I'd to evade or escape capture."

Someone with nothing to lose is amazingly dangerous.

As for this case, 20 years is a long time. I have changed a lot, I'm sure you all have.

Without knowing the intricacies of the case, we can't know if there is a risk.

We are, as we do in many areas of our lives, asking professionals to make decisions for us

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2025873 30-May-2018 19:41

andrewNZ: To anyone suggesting capital punishment, ask yourself: "If I knew for certain I'd be killed after being caught, is there any limit to what I'd to evade or escape capture."

Someone with nothing to lose is amazingly dangerous.

As for this case, 20 years is a long time. I have changed a lot, I'm sure you all have.

Without knowing the intricacies of the case, we can't know if there is a risk.

We are, as we do in many areas of our lives, asking professionals to make decisions for us

Sure, you might have changed, a lot, even a massive amount, but he still killed 3 people and tried to kill a 4th. 20 years for that doesn't seem like a long time.

gzt

17127 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2025883 30-May-2018 19:54

Wiggum:
BTR:

Ok this talk of sentences based on laws at the time is nonsense. If that was thw cause why did the Governemtn apologise to people who were convicted of being homosexual in the past.....

Agreed and this is a very good point. Bad things were done under Apartheid for example. Perfectly "legal" at the time in South Africa. People were not immune to prosecution when laws/governments change. People still got tried for crimes against humanity. It should be no different in cases like this. I would love to see a central international criminal court for handling these kind of cases, one thats independent from government.

Bad examples. It was illegal to murder people in South Africa. If a person was unlawfully killed and the killer was known and not prosecuted those were the kind of things that were reviewed and prosecution taken. Working for the state does not grant any right to kill unlawfully under any circumstances.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#2025885 30-May-2018 20:01

MikeB4:

I am not saying I agree with the release, I do not know all the facts relating to the decision by the Parole Board to form an opinion either way. I hope it does not turn out to be a tragic mistake.

I'll put money on this guy killing again.

In fact, it is inevitable. Just hope it is not me!

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2025887 30-May-2018 20:03

networkn:

Sure, you might have changed, a lot, even a massive amount, but he still killed 3 people and tried to kill a 4th. 20 years for that doesn't seem like a long time.

From a retribution POV then yeah probably not.

From a crime prevention / public safety POV though, it probably doesn't matter much.

The harshness of possible sentence vs probability of being caught is probably something you and I can rationalise - "whoops - I'd better not have another glass of wine - I have to drive" both from a wish to want to avoid harsh punitive consequences, and probably also from a moral POV that we don't want to harm others.

Murderers etc don't consider the consequences of their actions to their victims nor themselves. If it was otherwise, then there'd be a correlation between murder rate and harshness of sentence in comparable nations - but AFAIK there isn't.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

bmt

574 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2025890 30-May-2018 20:11

As a layman I would be surprised if it was even possible for the government to alter the law and enable this guy to be re-sentenced for longer, or do anything which would prevent him from being released.

I imagine such a thing would be a matter for the Supreme Court, and you'd probably have Human Rights Tribunals get involved, some UN courts system, The Hague etc.

Repealing what we now consider archaic laws and convictions is one thing (i.e homosexuality), but going in the complete opposite direction is quite another. Is there an example of such a thing happening in any first world country?

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2025894 30-May-2018 20:16

Fred99:

networkn:

Sure, you might have changed, a lot, even a massive amount, but he still killed 3 people and tried to kill a 4th. 20 years for that doesn't seem like a long time.

From a retribution POV then yeah probably not.

From a crime prevention / public safety POV though, it probably doesn't matter much.

The harshness of possible sentence vs probability of being caught is probably something you and I can rationalise - "whoops - I'd better not have another glass of wine - I have to drive" both from a wish to want to avoid harsh punitive consequences, and probably also from a moral POV that we don't want to harm others.

Murderers etc don't consider the consequences of their actions to their victims nor themselves. If it was otherwise, then there'd be a correlation between murder rate and harshness of sentence in comparable nations - but AFAIK there isn't.

I think this case is slightly different than some others. This guy planned out and executed 3 murders. In my mind that makes him a lot more dangerous, than someone who kills in a jealous rage, or is high as a kite on meth.

I agree that consequences aren't really a factor in these premeditated murders, he didn't even try and get away with it.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2025902 30-May-2018 20:43

networkn:

*I* feel it's ludicrous that a serial killer could ever get 22 years. It's unfair to the victims, the families of the victims and the public to put this person into the general population, even with heavy restrictions.

I would be very interested to see what criteria they use to determine this was something reasonable to do.

Try as I might, I can't see any reasonable explanation.

The general criterion rather simple. You can go look it up for yourself -- look up the Parole Act. As for HOW the Parole Board concluded that the person no longer poses an undue risk to the community, that would most likely be based on expert reports, including psychological reports. Murderers almost never kill again -- this is statistically known. Most people stand a far better chance of dying from accidents, heart attacks, and god knows what else. This issue doesn't warrant any drama from people who haven't actually viewed the relevant case files.

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2025905 30-May-2018 20:49

dejadeadnz:

networkn:

*I* feel it's ludicrous that a serial killer could ever get 22 years. It's unfair to the victims, the families of the victims and the public to put this person into the general population, even with heavy restrictions.

I would be very interested to see what criteria they use to determine this was something reasonable to do.

Try as I might, I can't see any reasonable explanation.

The general criterion rather simple. You can go look it up for yourself -- look up the Parole Act. As for HOW the Parole Board concluded that the person no longer poses an undue risk to the community, that would most likely be based on expert reports, including psychological reports. Murderers almost never kill again -- this is statistically known. Most people stand a far better chance of dying from accidents, heart attacks, and god knows what else. This issue doesn't warrant any drama from people who haven't actually viewed the relevant case files.

Sure, that is a reasoned response. The problem is most murderers aren't serial killers who plan out and execute 3 people providing advance notice to the media.

I can't proclaim to have done a lot of research on this particular statement, but I'd imagine the number of times a serial killer has left prison in other countries at all, is an incredibly small sample size, so based on this I am unsure how anyone could conclude the likelyhood of this person doing the same again with any degree of certainty.

I am unsure if you would know this, but I would be curious as to whether there is any required compulsion to give someone parole if they have served their sentence.. Ie does someone who serves 20 years of their 20 year sentence get extra "weight" added to the consideration of their parole, if they have been in prison 5 more additional years, or 10 past the original sentence, or is it just a simple, do they meet the criteria, or don't they?

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2025908 30-May-2018 20:58

networkn:

I agree it's not the same as the David Bain case, however, there is merit to the idea that the Crown can quash a conviction for something like homosexuality retrospectively, that in specific cases, where sentencing was inappropriate that sentences can be reviewed. As someone else pointed out, he got a 66% discount on his sentence, which today would be exceptionally unlikely. It would, however, open a massive and very likely massively expensive can of worms.

The Crown can appeal a sentence that is manifestly inadequate. That's the legal test. This is a right of appeal that must be exercised within a strict time limit -- the Crown doesn't get to randomly bring this issue back up at any time it pleases, for reasons that any fair-minded and semi-intelligent person should be able to understand. And, no, no matter how many times you assert that it's right somehow that the Crown gets to apply a new sentencing regime to someone sentenced under more lenient laws can be justified, it can't: again, not if you care about NZ living up to promises that it solemnly made under international law: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - to which NZ is a signatory and the provisions of which were adopted in domestic law via the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act - explicitly prohibits this.

networkn:

One thing I don't understand, is if someone is given a non-parole life sentence of 20 years, is there a point at which the crown is compelled to give weight to a parole? I presume there is something in place that prevents the crown from dismissing a parole option out of hand.

Look, I am bound to offend the "Play nice at all cost" crowd with what I am about to say but it's really hard to take your views on what are quite serious and important issues if you don't even bother to inform yourself of some basic facts before commenting. The Crown in the context of criminal prosecution and related steps thereunder refers to a crown prosecutor acting under the authority of the Solicitor-General to prosecute crimes etc. With that in mind, does anyone seriously think that the Crown should be able to determine whether someone gets parole? Even if you're referring to the Crown in the sense of it being the executive branch of the government, I'd like to think that an average adult learned somewhere that the judicial branch of the government decides the legal status of something/somebody when the issue is dispute, whilst the executive branch carries out the law as enacted by parliament or as determined by the judicial branch.

The body that determines whether prisoners get parole is called the Parole Board. It's routinely mentioned in new media articles. Have you seriously not heard of it?

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2025940 30-May-2018 21:10

Look, I am bound to offend the "Play nice at all cost" crowd with what I am about to say but it's really hard to take your views on what are quite serious and important issues if you don't even bother to inform yourself of some basic facts before commenting. The Crown in the context of criminal prosecution and related steps thereunder refers to a crown prosecutor acting under the authority of the Solicitor-General to prosecute crimes etc. With that in mind, does anyone seriously think that the Crown should be able to determine whether someone gets parole? Even if you're referring to the Crown in the sense of it being the executive branch of the government, I'd like to think that an average adult learned somewhere that the judicial branch of the government decides the legal status of something/somebody when the issue is dispute, whilst the executive branch carries out the law as enacted by parliament or as determined by the judicial branch.

The body that determines whether prisoners get parole is called the Parole Board. It's routinely mentioned in new media articles. Have you seriously not heard of it?

Well, I have obviously incorrectly believed that the parole board (Which of course I have heard of) was an extension of the crown in some way (but perhaps rather I am using the crown in the incorrect manner), if that isn't the case and I have used the incorrect term, then I guess I am corrected now.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2025941 30-May-2018 21:11

Oon matters to do with criminal justice, a significant number of NZers seem determined to take the view that everyone should be free to rant and rave about these issues, with the social licence being that the more extreme your view is when it comes to denial of the rights of the offender and his/her humanity, the better you come across. This is nothing other than a form of obnoxious moral exhibitionism.

Most people's basic social filters and the genetically hardwired tendencies to want to avoid embarrassment seem to go right out the window the moment an opportunity comes about to show what a tough guy/gal the person is when it comes to dealing to the evil criminal. Ask yourself this honestly: do you rant and rave about quantum physics or other matters on which you know little about? You most likely don't. The scary thing is that to inform yourself a bit more about matter of criminal justice is hardly as tough as learning quantum physics. Yet most don't bother trying before raving on.

Why not consider doing the responsible thing and withhold comment on complex issues and issues of facts/judgement over a matter on which, to MikeB4 and others' point, you will never fully appreciate or have the opportunity to see and determine all the relevant nuances?

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2025952 30-May-2018 21:24

dejadeadnz:

Oon matters to do with criminal justice, a significant number of NZers seem determined to take the view that everyone should be free to rant and rave about these issues, with the social licence being that the more extreme your view is when it comes to denial of the rights of the offender and his/her humanity, the better you come across. This is nothing other than a form of obnoxious moral exhibitionism.

Most people's basic social filters and the genetically hardwired tendencies to want to avoid embarrassment seem to go right out the window the moment an opportunity comes about to show what a tough guy/gal the person is when it comes to dealing to the evil criminal. Ask yourself this honestly: do you rant and rave about quantum physics or other matters on which you know little about? You most likely don't. The scary thing is that to inform yourself a bit more about matter of criminal justice is hardly as tough as learning quantum physics. Yet most don't bother trying before raving on.

Why not consider doing the responsible thing and withhold comment on complex issues and issues of facts/judgement over a matter on which, to MikeB4 and others' point, you will never fully appreciate or have the opportunity to see and determine all the relevant nuances?

People rant and rave about technology related things on here every day! Some of those people clearly have little or no understanding of it compared to others, but rather than stomp all over them and make them feel stupid with our "superior" knowledge, we extend a bit of understanding and try and educate. If we took the same harsh view you have above, this community would have little reason to exist or would only have membership of the few elite with all the knowledge. A little tolerance goes a long way.

I think your reasoning behind why people do it is inaccurate.

Most people want things to be fair. Without a law degree and exposure to the all the information, it's probably that people are going to conclude that someone who killed 3 people and tried to kill another in cold blood as a preplanned event, after notifying a newspaper, shouldn't be out after only 20 years (and therefore unfair). I'd even go so far as to suggest some WITH a law degree and all the information may draw the same conclusion.

Your assertion that those of us without the qualifications understanding shouldn't be entitled to a view or opinion, nor to question the validity of a decision, or be allowed to express said opinions, falls short of the values of the community.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7