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

[Diazo]

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?

I see I could have been a bit more clear, I was talking about parole in general and how it worked.

For cases like this, Canada has the "Dangerous Offender" designation which has the same purpose as what you are describing. I don't know all the details not actually working for the parole board but it's intent is to have the justice system keep an eye on people like this even after their sentence is served.

D.

 

[I Ratant]

It's OK to keep an eye on a potentially dangerous offender after release, but when they revert, it's more needless death.
Safer to not provide that opportunity.

 

[Damien Evans]

I see I could have been a bit more clear, I was talking about parole in general and how it worked.

For cases like this, Canada has the "Dangerous Offender" designation which has the same purpose as what you are describing. I don't know all the details not actually working for the parole board but it's intent is to have the justice system keep an eye on people like this even after their sentence is served.

D.

In his case even with parole his sentence will never be over, he was sentenced to seven life terms.

 

[Alt+F4]

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.

How is life in prison without the possibility of parole the same (or even similar to) the death penalty? In prison you can:

1. eat
2. sleep
3. watch television
4. have sex
5. visit with your family and friends
6. receive mail
7. read
8. at least one hour a day exercise

then there is 9 - 100.

 

[Diazo]

Okay, it looks like I need to clarify this.

The type of people in question that have done something bad enough that I would be okay with the death penalty for them are going to be locked up in a maximum security prison.

What you are describing is more what you'll find in a minimum security prison.

Those are two very different living environments.


At this point I'm verging on thread derail, but I need to explain my view on the death penalty for me to make any sort of sense as I'm coming off as being a bit out there right now because while I support the death penalty, I do not support many of the actual times it has been used recently.

To avoid a TLDR moment I'm going to boil it down as much as I can.

1) Everyone has the right to live and be free, as long as they do not impinge on other peoples freedoms.

2) When you infringe upon another peoples freedoms you get your own freedoms taken away in proportionate reaction depending on how badly you infringe other peoples freedoms. This specifically includes up to and including your own right to life! See police carrying loaded pistols and SWAT teams.

3) Why is lethal force allowed the police in crisis situations when there is clear danger to life and limb, but not to the rest of the justice system when there is clear danger to life and limb if an offender is release back into society?

4) For the death penalty to be applicable, there must be a clear danger to life and limb should an offender be released. The justice system is to protect society, it is not to punish offenders.

5) How is sitting in a jail cell for the rest of your life any different from being dead? The people I would support the death penalty for are the ones who are going to get the 'Dangerous Offender' label applied to them and kept in jail anyway. To me, languishing away your life in a jail cell, a common room with very limited amenities and an exercise yard is no different then being dead.


Alright, the two biggest things out of that are we (society) say that yes, it's okay to kill offenders (under very limited circumstances) to the police, then tell the rest of the justice system, no, you can't kill offenders under any circumstances at all. I don't find that this disconnect makes sense. (I do understand how it works but that doesn't mean it makes sense to me.)

The second is that, to me, someone locked up in a jail cell for the rest of their life is dead, they just aren't buried in the ground yet. I am aware this is a subjective morals and values thing, but that is how I stand.

Alright, I went on too long anyway so just to make my position clear:

I support the death penalty for offenders who pose a clear and present danger to life and limb of society if they are released and because of this will never see the outside of a jail cell for the rest of their natural life.

I very specifically do NOT support the death penalty when it is used in a punishment/justice role.

D.

 

[Alt+F4]

How is sitting in a jail cell for the rest of your life any different from being dead?

I don't mean to be mean, but you do know the difference between being alive and being dead, right? Ok, let me rephrase what I posted above.

When you are alive (even in prison) you get to eat, sleep, be happy, be sad, have sex, make friends, make enemies, watch television, send and receive mail, exercise, get an education (probably), make amends for wrong-doings in addition to 10,000 other things.

When you are dead you can't do anything.

 

[bit_pattern]

But should someone who has served his non-parole period and seems to be rehabilitated be released regardless of prevailing public opinion?

Yes. Without a doubt. The judiciary should never be reduced to being at the whim of the mob, it should be dispassionate and distanced and be free to make independent decisions based on the law and not populist opinion.

That being said, from everything I've read about Knight's behaviour it does not sound like the man has been rehabilitated and as such is unlikely to get parole anyway, but that's not a decision for me, you, or the editors at the Herald-Sun to make. I'm sick and tired of the tabloid media trying to undermine the judiciary, we pay highly respected professionals, not newspaper editors, to make tough and often contentious decisions in life and we should let them make those decisions in good faith without interference from the likes of News Ltd.

 

[fuelair]

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

This one. If people act properly. (The families and/or their friends).

Just in case it is not clear, if someone kills or harms in any major way my wife, most of our relatives or any of certain other people it will be in their best interest to be killed being captured or to be in a very secure facility the rest of my life. I do not forgive and have a very long memory. I am generally a nice person - but that far it does not extend.

 

[SezMe]

Just in case it is not clear, if someone kills or harms in any major way my wife, most of our relatives or any of certain other people it will be in their best interest to be killed being captured or to be in a very secure facility the rest of my life. I do not forgive and have a very long memory. I am generally a nice person - but that far it does not extend.

fuelair provides a crisp, short lesson on conflicts in the Middle East.

 

[Zep]

While his non-parole period is drawing to an end, that in no way guarantees he will be allowed out on parole if he ever applied. I suspect that he is not very likely to convince any parole board he is sufficiently rehabilitated, ever. Or if he does, it won't be until he is in his dotage and dying anyway.

 

[qayak]

I see I could have been a bit more clear, I was talking about parole in general and how it worked.

For cases like this, Canada has the "Dangerous Offender" designation which has the same purpose as what you are describing. I don't know all the details not actually working for the parole board but it's intent is to have the justice system keep an eye on people like this even after their sentence is served.

D.

The Dangerous Offender designation is to allow a criminal to be kept in prison indefinitely. They do not get a fixed time sentence it is "indeterminant." They do not get parole. The designation is reviewed after 7 years and then every 2years thereafter. Paul Bernardo is a dangerous offender.

You are thinking of Life with the possibility of parole which means that after the specified time, depending on the crime, the person is on parole for the rest of their life.

With a fixed term and no parole, the person is completely free after the time served. Karla Homolka comes to mind. She spent 12 years in prison and was free to go even though many people wanted conditions put on her release.

 

[MG1962]

I don't think you're going to get many pro release posts from Melbournians. Certainly I'd rather he not be.

I dont think you would get any complaints from non Melbournians either

 

[lionking]

While his non-parole period is drawing to an end, that in no way guarantees he will be allowed out on parole if he ever applied. I suspect that he is not very likely to convince any parole board he is sufficiently rehabilitated, ever. Or if he does, it won't be until he is in his dotage and dying anyway.

Yes I understand that, but assuming that he has been a model prisoner (and there has been no evidence that he hasn't), his release must be considered or else the court's judgement to set a non-parole period will mean nothing. I note that the judge in question has said that he would have made the same decision. If the judge thought that there was no possibility of rehabilitation, he would not have set a non-parole period.

I'm not saying he should be released. I'm undecided at this stage.

 

[Zep]

Yes I understand that, but assuming that he has been a model prisoner (and there has been no evidence that he hasn't), his release must be considered or else the court's judgement to set a non-parole period will mean nothing. I note that the judge in question has said that he would have made the same decision. If the judge thought that there was no possibility of rehabilitation, he would not have set a non-parole period.

I'm not saying he should be released. I'm undecided at this stage.

The non-parole period is only the time in which there is no possibility of parole, no matter how reformed he is. After that, he is still incarcerated, but he may then only apply for parole, as and when his reviews come up. And other parties may also petition the parole boards when they happen.

It is not an automatic granting of leave from prison when he applies, so it isn't a ticket-of-leave situation. The default decision will be that he stays locked up and serving his custodial sentence (i.e. multiple life sentences = until he dies) in maximum security until he can show he is sufficiently reformed to be allowed out. And even then it will be with severe restrictions.

Myself, I don't think he will get past square one. Someone will petition his parole boards to keep him there, or object to any relaxation of custody, every time. He shouldn't get his hopes up really... Good thing too.

 

[lionking]

Fair enough. Ironically I worked for the (then) Victorian Law Department when Knight went on his rampage, and my daughter works for the Victorian Government Solicitor (John Cain, the son of the ex Premier) right now. I should have referred to her.

 

[The Fool]

He should get the same consideration as our system has given mass murderers in the past. Can't think of one that ever made parole.

 

[lionking]

He should get the same consideration as our system has given mass murderers in the past. Can't think of one that ever made parole.

I think you're right. And you should know as someone on parole (or probation, or whatever) .

 

[The Fool]

I think you're right. And you should know as someone on parole (or probation, or whatever) .

nope, I didn't do it...some teenage girl hacked my account after giving me a date rape drug..

strangely, she didn't rape me, just hacked my JREF account...can't figure that one out

Thats my story....

 

[Suddenly]

This is the only part that bothers me:

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?

Changing a sentence after the fact with no additional findings of guilt violates the rule of law in my opinion. There is a fundamental unfairness here. Like in "Yellowbeard" where the guy finishes a 20 year sentence only to be told that when he was sentenced it was assumed nobody lives that long in prison so he is given much more time. It's a bit absurd and arbitrary.

The parole board should be making the call based on whatever criteria is set out by law. If the nature of the crime and public sentiment are on the list, good luck him.

 

[lionking]

This is the only part that bothers me:



Changing a sentence after the fact with no additional findings of guilt violates the rule of law in my opinion. There is a fundamental unfairness here. Like in "Yellowbeard" where the guy finishes a 20 year sentence only to be told that when he was sentenced it was assumed nobody lives that long in prison so he is given much more time. It's a bit absurd and arbitrary.

The parole board should be making the call based on whatever criteria is set out by law. If the nature of the crime and public sentiment are on the list, good luck him.

I agree. The "Community Protection Act" applied only to Garry David AFAIK:

The government sought to keep David imprisoned indefinitely by introducing the Community Protection Act 1990. That legislation gave Victorian Supreme Court judges the power to hold David in "preventative detention" for twelve months if the judge was convinced by evidence before them that David was still a risk to the community and likely to commit further offences if released from prison.

If the Parole Board decided that Knight should be released, then the government would have to pass a similar act of parliament, which would lead to a political and legal bunfight. At the end of the day, votes would be lost in a big way if he were released, which is why I believe he never will, despite any questions of merit.