It’s happened twice in Victoria alone. I cited the Garry David case earlier.
Julian Knight Hoddle St murderer
- Thread starter lionking
- Start date
It’s happened twice in Victoria alone. I cited the Garry David case earlier.
fromdownunder
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 6,721
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
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.....
Thor 2
Philosopher
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.
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
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.
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.
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.
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:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Thanks!
Thor 2
Philosopher
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.
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.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
The state has passed a law prohibiting Julian Knight, personally, for ever leaving prison.
What's his incentive to behave?
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.
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.
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.