• 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 murderer

lionking

In the Peanut Gallery
lionking
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
57,992
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?
 
rjh01 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
lionking said:
However he was sentenced to 27 years in 1987, which was then considered a fair sentence.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
lionking said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Samson said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is a thread about Bamber. Get him out of this thread.
 
lionking said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
rjh01 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
The Atheist said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
The Atheist said:
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.
Click to expand...

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."
 
theprestige said:
I'm sorry you don't see it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
The Atheist said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom