• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Julian Knight Hoddle St murderer

lionking

In the Peanut Gallery
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
56,349
Location
Melbourne
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Knight_(murderer)

There is no doubt that Knight killed 7 people and injured many others in a crime where my city of Melbourne lost its innocence. He is a reprehensible creature and I’d have no problem with him remaining in jail for life. However he was sentenced to 27 years in 1987, which was then considered a fair sentence.

What I’m interested in debating is his sentencing and the behaviour of the Victorian state government. When he came up for parole in 2014 the government passed a law specifically relating to him (this has happened before) that he never be released. He appealed but lost, so will die in jail.

“Do the crime, do the time” was thrown out the window, along with the principal of rehabilitation. As much as I hate this vermin, I think he has been done an injustice. I’m no doubt one of a very few that feels this way about Knight.

I’m very uncomfortable about laws which apply to individuals and about such a precedent.
 
If he ever did walk out having served his time, his life would probably not be worth a chewed farthing longer than a day. There will be some dark alleyway he will disappear into, ending up at the bottom of the Yarra. So he is actually safer behind bars, for him and for society.
 
Also remember the cost of keeping a person locked up is huge. So is there evidence that he would be a danger to society should he be released? If not then what is the point of keeping him locked up?
 
Also remember the cost of keeping a person locked up is huge. So is there evidence that he would be a danger to society should he be released? If not then what is the point of keeping him locked up?

Politics, nothing more.

The Victorian government did exactly the same to Garry David who was imprisoned for attempted murder, was classed as a threat to the public and a law was passed for him not to be released. He suicided in prison at 38, having been in institutions for 33 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_David
 
However he was sentenced to 27 years in 1987, which was then considered a fair sentence.

First off, you left a bracket off the end of your link - should be this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Knight_(murderer)

Second, the article states he was sentenced to life, with a minimum of 27 years, so it's not like they were compelled to release him at any stage, unless Aussie law is significantly different to ours.

I'm not seeing an injustice. The state passed a law to keep him in, but that doesn't change the sentence at all.
 
I'm not seeing an injustice. The state passed a law to keep him in, but that doesn't change the sentence at all.

The law changes everything. Without that law his fate is in the hands of the Parole Board, and once the minimum sentence has been served the Board looks for reasons not to release him.

Yes, he was declared a vexatious litigant, which I also have problems with, but he has done his time and deserves his time before the Parole Board in my view. The judge who sentenced him even in retrospect believes the sentence was right.

Yes, an unlikely victim of arbitrary action by the government, as was Garry David, but a victim nonetheless.
 
The law changes everything. Without that law his fate is in the hands of the Parole Board, and once the minimum sentence has been served the Board looks for reasons not to release him.

Yes, he was declared a vexatious litigant, which I also have problems with, but he has done his time and deserves his time before the Parole Board in my view. The judge who sentenced him even in retrospect believes the sentence was right.

Yes, an unlikely victim of arbitrary action by the government, as was Garry David, but a victim nonetheless.
Please check the comparable "British Empire" case of Jeremy Bamber.
The home secretary increased his sentence from 25 years to die in jail.
Bamber was not officially notified and the real problem obtains he is stone cold innocent.
And I agree your guy should be released.
 
Please check the comparable "British Empire" case of Jeremy Bamber.
The home secretary increased his sentence from 25 years to die in jail.
Bamber was not officially notified and the real problem obtains he is stone cold innocent.
And I agree your guy should be released.

There is a thread about Bamber. Get him out of this thread.
 
The law changes everything. Without that law his fate is in the hands of the Parole Board, and once the minimum sentence has been served the Board looks for reasons not to release him.

If your parole boards are anything like the Kiwi version it all seems pretty sensible to me - ours would have let Charles Manson out in about 1995, David Berkowitz would be working at a carwash and Ted Kaczynski would be a respected member of a church group.
 
Also remember the cost of keeping a person locked up is huge. So is there evidence that he would be a danger to society should he be released? If not then what is the point of keeping him locked up?

I've given this a lot of thought over the years, and I have an answer that mostly satisfies me. I've given it here before, and argued for it here more than once. But it seems like every time the issue comes up, the forum resets to zero, as if no discussion has happened and nobody has ever reached any conclusions of their own.

I figure you've also given this some thought, and you've also come to some conclusions. I figure you probably have your own answers, at least provisional answers.

So what do you think? Under what circumstances do you think we should lock people up? Under what circumstances do you think we should release them? Do you think those circumstances apply in this case? Why or why not? If you don't have enough information, what info would you need, to reach a conclusion?
 
First off, you left a bracket off the end of your link - should be this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Knight_(murderer)

Second, the article states he was sentenced to life, with a minimum of 27 years, so it's not like they were compelled to release him at any stage, unless Aussie law is significantly different to ours.

I'm not seeing an injustice. The state passed a law to keep him in, but that doesn't change the sentence at all.
The law names him specifically. For everyone else, the law gives them parole hearings and the possibility of release. To me this violates one of the basic principles of a just society: That the same laws apply equally to all. To me, the injustice is obvious. I'm sorry you don't see it.
 
If your parole boards are anything like the Kiwi version it all seems pretty sensible to me - ours would have let Charles Manson out in about 1995, David Berkowitz would be working at a carwash and Ted Kaczynski would be a respected member of a church group.

That's an argument to reform parole laws generally, not to make special laws for individual citizens.

Besides, once we take away your appeal to emotion, I don't see anything wrong with returning those three to society once they've done their time and met with the parole board's approval.

Society could do a lot worse than have David Berkowitz working at a car wash.
 
Seriously, if his crimes are so heinous that he should not be given the option of parole, then why not make a law about that category of crimes?

What's the point of this? "If someone else did the same thing, we'd still want to have the option of letting them go after a while. But not you, for some reason."
 
I'm sorry you don't see it.

I see it perfectly, but do not care.

It's happened exactly once, and being in a fairly developed country, is highly unlikely to ever happen again.

We're not dealing with some rogue state here that denies human rights to entire nations and/or races, or attacks sovereign nations outside of self defence; it's not a country that maintains illegal imprisonment of people not charged with any crime, or carries out "renditions" to kidnap other nations' citizens, or some tinpot semi-dictatorship where the President pardons murderers because they were in the army.

Sorry you don't like it, but feel free to consider the old adage about cleaning your own house before crying about the neighbour's place.
 
I see it perfectly, but do not care.

It's happened exactly once, and being in a fairly developed country, is highly unlikely to ever happen again.

We're not dealing with some rogue state here that denies human rights to entire nations and/or races, or attacks sovereign nations outside of self defence; it's not a country that maintains illegal imprisonment of people not charged with any crime, or carries out "renditions" to kidnap other nations' citizens, or some tinpot semi-dictatorship where the President pardons murderers because they were in the army.

Sorry you don't like it, but feel free to consider the old adage about cleaning your own house before crying about the neighbour's place.

My apologies. I thought you were arguing that it wasn't a bad law.
 
My two cents.
Prison should exist only to protect society. It should be the onus of a person put in prison to demonstrate that society is no longer in danger from them. Otherwise remain incarcerated.
 
I see it perfectly, but do not care.

It's happened exactly once, and being in a fairly developed country, is highly unlikely to ever happen again.

We're not dealing with some rogue state here that denies human rights to entire nations and/or races, or attacks sovereign nations outside of self defence; it's not a country that maintains illegal imprisonment of people not charged with any crime, or carries out "renditions" to kidnap other nations' citizens, or some tinpot semi-dictatorship where the President pardons murderers because they were in the army.

Sorry you don't like it, but feel free to consider the old adage about cleaning your own house before crying about the neighbour's place.

It’s happened twice in Victoria alone. I cited the Garry David case earlier.
 
It can arguably be claimed that it also happened to Ronald Ryan, after a fashion. After 1951 there was one person executed in Victoria - Ronald Ryan in 1967, and there is no question that it was purely a political decision, by the Premier Henry Bolte. And with Ryan it is questionable that he even fired the bullet that killed Warden Hodson.


Bolte simply wanted him dead, so it happened. The Government of the day simply wanted Knight to rot in Jail. It happened.


Sometimes Politicians get a bee in their bonnet about particular people, and act accordingly.





Norm
 
It can arguably be claimed that it also happened to Ronald Ryan, after a fashion. After 1951 there was one person executed in Victoria - Ronald Ryan in 1967, and there is no question that it was purely a political decision, by the Premier Henry Bolte. And with Ryan it is questionable that he even fired the bullet that killed Warden Hodson.


Bolte simply wanted him dead, so it happened. The Government of the day simply wanted Knight to rot in Jail. It happened.


Sometimes Politicians get a bee in their bonnet about particular people, and act accordingly.





Norm

Very good point.

Bolte was a pig of a man. Bigot, misogynist, ignorant ultra right populist. He would have bulldozed every historical building and cut down every tree if he was dictator (and he nearly was). And we recently named a bridge after him.....
 
Very good point.

Bolte was a pig of a man. Bigot, misogynist, ignorant ultra right populist. He would have bulldozed every historical building and cut down every tree if he was dictator (and he nearly was). And we recently named a bridge after him.....


Sir Henry Bolte in fact.

An absolute pig he most certainly was.

On the subject of Julian Knight I think he should remain locked up if he is a threat to society and only then. How you can say with confidence he is not, is the question that demands an answer. How much have we leaned about making those assessments, and how much effort is put into rehabilitation would be interesting to know.
 
I've given this a lot of thought over the years, and I have an answer that mostly satisfies me. I've given it here before, and argued for it here more than once. But it seems like every time the issue comes up, the forum resets to zero, as if no discussion has happened and nobody has ever reached any conclusions of their own.

I figure you've also given this some thought, and you've also come to some conclusions. I figure you probably have your own answers, at least provisional answers.

So what do you think? Under what circumstances do you think we should lock people up? Under what circumstances do you think we should release them? Do you think those circumstances apply in this case? Why or why not? If you don't have enough information, what info would you need, to reach a conclusion?

A person should remain locked up if they are a threat to society. If they are not a threat to society then some other punishment should be handed out.

Then there is the question of how can we be sure that a person who is released will obey the law? There should be some way to find out. And the main purpose for jail should be rehabilitation.
 
I should point out that Knight was given a life sentence, not life without parole, which is what Martin Bryant was given. When his minimum was served, the law allows him to be assessed by the Parole Board, but this was denied him by the law enacted for him and him only.

Some have mentioned rehabilitation. One of the many law suits initiated by Knight was to do with him being denied rehabilitation opportunities. If true, I would not be surprised at all.

As I said in the OP, I have no regard at all for Knight. I commuted by train to the city at the time of the massacre. I often changed trains at Clifton Hill station, meters from where it occurred. The event hit me very hard.

I still think he has suffered an injustice.
 
My two cents.
Prison should exist only to protect society. It should be the onus of a person put in prison to demonstrate that society is no longer in danger from them. Otherwise remain incarcerated.

This is not so much about whether he should or should not be released, but about government interference in the process. If there is no good reason to think he has been rehabilitated he can already be refused parole. If there is a problem with the parole system, it should be addressed by laws that apply equally to everyone.

Although I understand it was judged to be constitutional, it seems to raise concerns about separation of powers.
 
This is not so much about whether he should or should not be released, but about government interference in the process. If there is no good reason to think he has been rehabilitated he can already be refused parole. If there is a problem with the parole system, it should be addressed by laws that apply equally to everyone.

Although I understand it was judged to be constitutional, it seems to raise concerns about separation of powers.


That is a concern, but it's also true that Parliament creates the laws.



While he can be denied parole, eventually his sentence will be over and society may well be in danger again.
 
That is a concern, but it's also true that Parliament creates the laws.



While he can be denied parole, eventually his sentence will be over and society may well be in danger again.

He had a life sentence. As far as I know, that means he could have been refused parole indefinitely if there was any reason to think he still posed a danger. If there is a problem with dangerous prisoners being released it should be dealt with via parole reform that applies to everyone. It seems unlikely that Knight would have been released given his behaviour in prison.
 
Last edited:
A person should remain locked up if they are a threat to society. If they are not a threat to society then some other punishment should be handed out.

Then there is the question of how can we be sure that a person who is released will obey the law? There should be some way to find out. And the main purpose for jail should be rehabilitation.

Thanks!
 
A person should remain locked up if they are a threat to society. If they are not a threat to society then some other punishment should be handed out.

Then there is the question of how can we be sure that a person who is released will obey the law? There should be some way to find out. And the main purpose for jail should be rehabilitation.


:thumbsup:

And there seems to be evidence that rehabilitation works. In Scandinavian countries, where they really work at it, recidivism is very low. In the USA, where the incarceration rate is so much higher than anywhere else, and a token attempt only is made to rehabilitate, recidivism is high.
 
He had a life sentence. As far as I know, that means he could have been refused parole indefinitely if there was any reason to think he still posed a danger. If there is a problem with dangerous prisoners being released it should be dealt with via parole reform that applies to everyone. It seems unlikely that Knight would have been released given his behaviour in prison.

This has become a circular argument I think. Knight claims he has been denied access to rehabilitation, and I think this is likely. After the law was passed in 2014, then there was absolutely no point in attempts at rehabilitation. So no point in being a model prisoner.

Also I think his misbehaviour in prison is at the low end. No violent offences, but possession of contraband, porn, racist literature and so on. It may in other circumstances have led to an extension of his time in prison, but it would not have been enough to keep him locked up indefinitely.
 
He had a life sentence. As far as I know, that means he could have been refused parole indefinitely if there was any reason to think he still posed a danger. If there is a problem with dangerous prisoners being released it should be dealt with via parole reform that applies to everyone. It seems unlikely that Knight would have been released given his behaviour in prison.

The state has passed a law prohibiting Julian Knight, personally, for ever leaving prison.

What's his incentive to behave?
 
This has become a circular argument I think. Knight claims he has been denied access to rehabilitation, and I think this is likely. After the law was passed in 2014, then there was absolutely no point in attempts at rehabilitation. So no point in being a model prisoner.

Also I think his misbehaviour in prison is at the low end. No violent offences, but possession of contraband, porn, racist literature and so on. It may in other circumstances have led to an extension of his time in prison, but it would not have been enough to keep him locked up indefinitely.

I was looking at this on the Wiki page you linked to: "a large amount of contraband items were also located in Knight's cell, such as blades, sharpened knives, white supremacist literature, war literature, medication bottles, a leather belt, two television remote controls, an extension lead, a can opener, bale hooks, permanent markers, computer disks - many containing information relating to prison security and staff, pornographic material, sandpaper, masking tape, prison manuals, staff pictures, T.A.B. betting information, and prison and staff rosters".
Assuming that is accurate, some items suggest preoccupation with violent acts. Personally if somebody has a long-standing obsession with violence (in this case 15 years after the original offence) I would be concerned about the prospect of re-offending. However, I don't think whether he would ever be released on parole is relevant to the concerns over the government passing laws that effectively change the nature of the sentence for an individual prisoner. He should be entitled to apply for and be considered for parole on the same grounds as other prisoners whose sentence includes this.
 
The state has passed a law prohibiting Julian Knight, personally, for ever leaving prison.

What's his incentive to behave?

Possibly none, other than receiving disciplinary actions in prison. However, that also applies to anyone who receives life without parole in the original sentence. I was thinking of acts that occurred prior to this law being passed. I don't know much about his more recent behaviour.
 
I seem to remember reading something to the effect that the challenge to this law failed because the granting of parole fell outside the jurisdiction of the courts. Therefore the government was not interfering with the independence of the judiciary. In other words, the judge is still free to set a non-parole period but has no say in whether parole is actually granted, so interference with that aspect is not unconstitutional. The law didn't actually remove the minimum term from the sentence but restricts the granting of parole to circumstances where Knight is dying or incapacitated.

That may be technically true but it sounds dubious in terms of the intentions behind separation of powers. When a the possibility of parole is set as part of the sentence the intention is that the prisoner will be considered for it on the same grounds as other prisoners.
 
Back
Top Bottom