• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Julian Knight, "Hoddle St" mass murderer, soon due for parole

lionking

In the Peanut Gallery
lionking
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
57,994
Location
Melbourne
In 1987 a young, Australian army cadet with no criminal record murdered seven people and injured 19 in Melbourne's Hoddle Street. I remember it like it was yesterday, as I caught the train past the murder site daily. He was sentenced to life with a 27 year non-parole period, which expires in 2014.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Knight

By all reports he has been a model prisoner (yes I know he was declared a vexatious litigant, but I don't believe that's relevant) and seems to have shown remorse.

It seems to me that if a non-parole period has any meaning at all, he should be considered for release. The government seems to have decided that this will not happen:

the Victorian government has stated that it is "unlikely" Knight will ever be released.
Click to expand...

Although the government is not the Parole Board, it can legislate to keep a prisoner in jail beyond the sentence (as happened with Garry David http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_David). But should someone who has served his non-parole period and seems to be rehabilitated be released regardless of prevailing public opinion?
 
I guess it's for the same reason Mark David Chapman will never be released: as soon as he's out on the streets, he'll be six feet under them.

Michael
 
Damien Evans said:
I don't think you're going to get many pro release posts from Melbournians. Certainly I'd rather he not be.
Click to expand...
I understand this, but it's more a question about the principle of a non-parole period. If he were tried today I have no doubt that there would be no non-parole period set and he would never be released. I gusee I'm asking if it is proper for a government (and a society) to effectively adjust a sentence.

And yes I know that parole doesn't have to be granted, but if it isn't in this case, why?
 
coalesce said:
I guess it's for the same reason Mark David Chapman will never be released: as soon as he's out on the streets, he'll be six feet under them.

Michael
Click to expand...
Maybe, but vigilanteeism like this is not that common here.
 
lionking said:
In 1987 a young, Australian army cadet with no criminal record murdered seven people and injured 19 in Melbourne's Hoddle Street. I remember it like it was yesterday, as I caught the train past the murder site daily. He was sentenced to life with a 27 year non-parole period, which expires in 2014.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Knight

By all reports he has been a model prisoner (yes I know he was declared a vexatious litigant, but I don't believe that's relevant) and seems to have shown remorse.

It seems to me that if a non-parole period has any meaning at all, he should be considered for release. The government seems to have decided that this will not happen:



Although the government is not the Parole Board, it can legislate to keep a prisoner in jail beyond the sentence (as happened with Garry David http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_David). But should someone who has served his non-parole period and seems to be rehabilitated be released regardless of prevailing public opinion?
Click to expand...
He should never be released. Taking seven innocent lives should earn him life in prison with no parole even if he has come to his senses.
 
lionking said:
Maybe, but vigilanteeism like this is not that common here.
Click to expand...

Provided he actually is rehabilitated and doesn't shoot up a street again, the worst that will happen to him is the media will hound him for a while, I can't see the average man on the street doing anything at all.
 
lionking said:
And yes I know that parole doesn't have to be granted, but if it isn't in this case, why?
Click to expand...

I guess that's up to the parole board, or whoever it is that makes the decision. Having a no parole period only means that there is a period in which they definitely will not be released, it says nothing at all about their chances of being released early once that period is finished. The guy was sent to prison for life. Whether that actually means life in Australia or is actually a euphemism for "not actually anywhere near life" as it is in the UK, there should certainly be no expectation that someone will be released before that sentence is finished.
 
Damien Evans said:
Provided he actually is rehabilitated and doesn't shoot up a street again, the worst that will happen to him is the media will hound him for a while, I can't see the average man on the street doing anything at all.
Click to expand...
What do the families of the victims have to say about his release? While he may no longer pose a danger to society I feel he has earned a place in prison for life. Punishment is supposed to deter a person from committing a similar crime. An object lesson so to speak.

He should never be released.
 
Cuddles said:
Whether that actually means life in Australia or is actually a euphemism for "not actually anywhere near life" as it is in the UK, there should certainly be no expectation that someone will be released before that sentence is finished.
Click to expand...

It's the UK definition of "life".

I agree with your point about the Parole Board, but if parole is not granted I'll be intrigued to hear the reasons - and "the public won't like it" isn't a valid one. What I can see happening is that he will be recommended for release, but the government will invoke the Garry David precedent and legislate to keep him incarcerated. I'm not sure that this will be just.
 
Cainkane1 said:
What do the families of the victims have to say about his release? While he may no longer pose a danger to society I feel he has earned a place in prison for life. Punishment is supposed to deter a person from committing a similar crime. An object lesson so to speak.
Click to expand...
Is the threat of life imprisonment what deters you from shooting people? I suspect not. I further suspect that most people who do shoot others are aware of the likely consequences and do so anyway, so it is not acting as a deterrent for them.
 
Rat said:
Is the threat of life imprisonment what deters you from shooting people? I suspect not. I further suspect that most people who do shoot others are aware of the likely consequences and do so anyway, so it is not acting as a deterrent for them.
Click to expand...

I think the threat of life imprisonment is what causes many of these murderers to turn the gun on themselves in the end, those that don't probably didn't have the guts. So your right, it's not a deterrent.

BTW, why did this guy go on this shooting spree? The wiki article in the OP doesn't say.
 
First, to everyone who's saying leave him locked up for life, do you support the death penalty, at least in this case? Because that's what you are effectively advocating, just without actually carrying it out.

In my case, I would have been okay with executing this guy. The purpose of the justice system is to protect society and it looks like everyone's agreed this guy will be a serious danger for the rest of his life.


As for the question posed in the OP about parole, I would be okay with him receiving parole. Having said that, I am looking at this from the perspective of someone who has a relative who has been a parole board member for years so I know a bit more about how the system works. (At least in Canada)

And cases like this kind of break the system. The purpose of parole is to allow an offender back into society while the justice system still has power over them and can watch them closely.

In Canada (and I'm assuming Australia), when an offender's sentence is up, they become just another man in the street, although one with a criminal record. The police have to treat the offender the same as the pillar of community he is living next to. (At least under the law, real life is more murky of course.) If the offender is still serving his sentence but under parole, he does not have all of his rights back yet and he can be put back in jail at any time because his sentence is not yet complete.

Sorry for explaining that, but I find that a lot of people don't actually realize that parole is not a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card, you are still very firmly under the justice system's thumb while on parole, so I figured I'd mention it.


For this specific case, yes, I do support him being eligible for parole and being allowed to go through the process. Indeed, the entire point of the parole system is gradually allow offenders back into society while keeping an eye on them to make sure they are no longer a danger to society.

D.
 
The Wikipedia article says he's currently serving "seven consecutive life sentences." Do they mean concurrent life sentences, or is "life" in Australia 3.8 years? :boggled: I do wish judicial systems everywhere (the US included) would just quit using that word. It's lost all meaning.

And why should the expiry of the non-parole period mean automatic release? It seems to me that at that point he only becomes eligible for parole, pending review and approval. Charles Manson in the US has been "eligible" for parole for decades, but steadfastly fails his review each and every time it comes around. His failures become more epic each time.
 
Diazo said:
...snip...

In Canada (and I'm assuming Australia), when an offender's sentence is up, they become just another man in the street, although one with a criminal record. The police have to treat the offender the same as the pillar of community he is living next to. (At least under the law, real life is more murky of course.) If the offender is still serving his sentence but under parole, he does not have all of his rights back yet and he can be put back in jail at any time because his sentence is not yet complete.

...snip...
Click to expand...

In the UK someone like this would only ever be released "under licence" which lasts for life which means that any breach of the licence can mean immediate return to prison, terms of a licence can be that they have to inform the police of their address, that they have to tell anyone they have a close relationship with what they had done and so on.

I don't know if Australia and Canada use the same system but I would have thought they do?
 
Cainkane1 said:
What do the families of the victims have to say about his release? While he may no longer pose a danger to society I feel he has earned a place in prison for life. Punishment is supposed to deter a person from committing a similar crime. An object lesson so to speak.

He should never be released.
Click to expand...

I'd think the feelings of the family, while making for good news time-filler, is irrelevant. The justice system isn't there to make the victims feel better, it's to punish those who don't follow society's laws.

As for this parole situation in particular, he should be evaluated for parole by the same standards as anyone else.

jalok
 
Jalok said:
I'd think the feelings of the family, while making for good news time-filler, is irrelevant. The justice system isn't there to make the victims feel better, it's to punish those who don't follow society's laws.

As for this parole situation in particular, he should be evaluated for parole by the same standards as anyone else.

jalok
Click to expand...

Nonsense. You do not evaluate homicidal maniacs the same way you do more ,for lack of a better word, "rational" criminals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom