Disgusted.

[JB1975]

Why wouldn't you want parole boards named? Would you want to know which people were responsible for allowing the paedophilles, rapists, murderers back on the streets to violate the lives of our loved ones?

They have no accountability.

If you take your car to a mechanic and he fails to fix your brakes correctly and you die as a result he goes to prison. Why should parole boards be exempt from punishment when people's lives are put at risk.

All of the system needs to be rebuilt to protect the good in our society. All these crims need to be locked up and treated like the scum they are.

They get it far too easy.... Far too easy. If you aren't capable of living in society then you should never be allowed to re enter it.

The people who grant parole aren't dealing with machines; they're dealing with people. Well even machines are unpredictable, but those humans, they're even more unpredictable. It is no easy thing to work out who is or isn't 'capable of living in society', and life being what it is things will sometimes go horribly wrong. So what's the answer?

People seem to think that the fundamental purpose of the parole system is to reward the convicted. Other people see the parole system (and the regime of conditions which come along with it) as an imperfect but worthy way of reintegrating former prisoners back into society. These people have often been incarcerated for years, locked down in cells for 23hrs a day amongst a cohort which is the most drug dependent, mentally disturbed and least educated in our society. A prudent approach might be to try and smooth their return to society, rather than dropping them into the world cold.

The overwhelming majority of people granted parole don't re-offend during their parole period. They try and make a go of things, and sometimes they even succeed and never find themselves back in prison. I'm sure the parole board don't get too much credit for such successes, but there's no doubt that we're all the beneficiaries of it.

 

[spartan-magpie]

Not crossing at the pedestrian crossing - 2 years

Swearing in public - 1 year

Drunk in a public place - 3 years

I don't think many of these things have the ability to kill people.

All the stuff I listed all is a common in a lot of cases where by people are being killed.

I'm old school in that sense. People have too many freedoms and have become complacent in their responsibility to their fellow man.


I'm not after a nanny state. Rather, I want a spartan state. If you do wrong you receive a brutal punishment...


This case is a perfect example. A woman doing absolutely no wrong is killed by someone doing something totally illegal. A father and kids left without a wife and mother. How can the book not be thrown at them?

 

[spartan-magpie]

The people who grant parole aren't dealing with machines; they're dealing with people. Well even machines are unpredictable, but those humans, they're even more unpredictable. It is no easy thing to work out who is or isn't 'capable of living in society', and life being what it is things will sometimes go horribly wrong. So what's the answer?

People seem to think that the fundamental purpose of the parole system is to reward the convicted. Other people see the parole system (and the regime of conditions which come along with it) as an imperfect but worthy way of reintegrating former prisoners back into society. These people have often been incarcerated for years, locked down in cells for 23hrs a day amongst a cohort which is the most drug dependent, mentally disturbed and least educated in our society. A prudent approach might be to try and smooth their return to society, rather than dropping them into the world cold.

The overwhelming majority of people granted parole don't re-offend during their parole period. They try and make a go of things, and sometimes they even succeed and never find themselves back in prison. I'm sure the parole board don't get too much credit for such successes, but there's no doubt that we're all the beneficiaries of it.

Maybe you should read up on the parolees in regards to sexual offenders and the percentage of re offending. It's much higher than you think.

The more recent high profile sexual/homicide cases all involved parolees.


Even law enforcement feel they have their hands tied with the way out justice system operates. It's far too lenient.

 

[Kappa]

I don't think many of these things have the ability to kill people.

All the stuff I listed all is a common in a lot of cases where by people are being killed.

I'm old school in that sense. People have too many freedoms and have become complacent in their responsibility to their fellow man.


I'm not after a nanny state. Rather, I want a spartan state. If you do wrong you receive a brutal punishment...


This case is a perfect example. A woman doing absolutely no wrong is killed by someone doing something totally illegal. A father and kids left without a wife and mother. How can the book not be thrown at them?

Carrying a knife, rape or being a paedophile don't kill people either.

Doubt driving at 0.06 does either

 

[JB1975]

Maybe you should read up on the parolees in regards to sexual offenders and the percentage of re offending. It's much higher than you think.

The more recent high profile sexual/homicide cases all involved parolees.


Even law enforcement feel they have their hands tied with the way out justice system operates. It's far too lenient.

I'm well-acquainted with the statistics, thanks. I didn't say that the system was perfect. I said that the system sometimes works very well, but that it's failures can overshadow its successes.

I'm making a point that the parole system is essentially a good one. Given that the overwhelming majority of crime is not committed by people on parole, it seems to me that a better approach might be to think about some of the underlying causes of crime, and what we might do as a society to prevent it. Why do so many of the state's criminals come from clusters of disadvantage? Why are they disproportionately suffering from mental illness? Why are they so under-educated? How do these factors contribute to criminal activity, and what can we do to reform these areas?

Harder questions, but the answers would be far more worthwhile than a tabloid swipe at the parole system.

 

[JB1975]

Maybe you should read up on the parolees in regards to sexual offenders and the percentage of re offending.

I'm up to speed, Spartan, but my learning doesn't come from the sensationalist presses.

 

[spartan-magpie]

Carrying a knife, rape or being a paedophile don't kill people either.

Doubt driving at 0.06 does either

Touché.

There is no reason to carry knives. None.

Rapists and pedophiles should never be allowed to be reintroduced to society again. Ever.

Drinking, imo, should be 0% of operating a vehicle. I like a drink too. I never drink if I'm driving there's no point risking my license when I can catch a cab or get a lift.

 

[TradeDraft]

Carrying a knife, rape or being a paedophile don't kill people either.

Doubt driving at 0.06 does either

It Could Kill Someone and same as the 3 you posted above

 

[Kappa]

Touché.

There is no reason to carry knives. None.

Rapists and pedophiles should never be allowed to be reintroduced to society again. Ever.

Drinking, imo, should be 0% of operating a vehicle. I like a drink too. I never drink if I'm driving there's no point risking my license when I can catch a cab or get a lift.

I appreciate your passion, but extreme hard-line stances on crime are never a good idea.

 

[TradeDraft]

I appreciate your passion, but extreme hard-line stances on crime are never a good idea.

So we should then just let them get away with it then?

 

[Kappa]

So we should then just let them get away with it then?

I believe there is something in the middle ground between both extremes Dave.

The vast majority of crime happens because of poverty or addiction, those are the things we need to target rather than mindlessly throwing everyone in jail for decades.

 

[spartan-magpie]

I appreciate your passion, but extreme hard-line stances on crime are never a good idea.

I respect that. I just think we teeter on the soft side.

Living out here in the western sins unfortunately I see too many things that I hate. Things that I never had to worry about growing up on the other side when I was a youngster.


I guess since I became a father I've become much more family oriented and focused. Seeing society today compared to my youth is like nigh and day. Peoples respect for their fellow man has become diluted greatly.

 

[JB1975]

I believe there is something in the middle ground between both extremes Dave.

The vast majority of crime happens because of poverty or addiction, those are the things we need to target rather than mindlessly throwing everyone in jail for decades.

Add mental illness to that mix.

 

[TradeDraft]

Add mental illness to that mix.

There is such a Thing as Mental Illness but Majoirty of the Time. It's no Excuse

 

[JB1975]

There is such a Thing as Mental Illness but Majoirty of the Time. It's no Excuse

Poverty is no excuse. Lack of education is no excuse. Being a victim of crime in childhood is no excuse. Mental illness is no excuse. No one is saying that these things are an excuse; they're factors which are present in a disproportionate number of our State's criminal population, and it might be a wise policy to address them in order to address the prevalence of crime.

 

[TradeDraft]

Poverty is no excuse. Lack of education is no excuse. Being a victim of crime in childhood is no excuse. Mental illness is no excuse. No one is saying that these things are an excuse; they're factors which are present in a disproportionate number of our State's criminal population, and it might be a wise policy to address them in order to address the prevalence of crime.

Maybe they should be Recognised before a Crime Happens

 

[Collingwood pro]

I believe there is something in the middle ground between both extremes Dave.

The vast majority of crime happens because of poverty or addiction, those are the things we need to target rather than mindlessly throwing everyone in jail for decades.

This. We seen what happened with the war on drugs in America. There are people who are in with life sentences for non violent first time drug offences, in comparison America I believe have 20 years for people who hijack a plane. When you go too hard line you allow those who do relatively minor crimes go to prison for long stretches and while they weren't necessarily criminals when they went there, they will have a higher chance of being one after they are released. Sticking people into jail and throwing away the key never targets the actual problems such as poverty or addiction. This is why rehabilitation and prison need to be balanced as said above for the majority of crimes. In saying that the consequences due to these actions that the kids took need punishment, it not only affects the victim and there family but also their families and have more than likely ****ed up their future.

 

[Kappa]

Add mental illness to that mix.

True, but mental illness and drug addiction often go hand in hand.

 

[JB1975]

True, but mental illness and drug addiction often go hand in hand.

Agreed. It can be hard or impossible to work out where one begins and the other ends, and drugs are often used as a (not entirely irrational) way of dealing with mental health problems.

The point I suppose is to take a broader approach, an integrated approach, but this is a small hope given the woeful neglect of drug rehabilitation and mental health services in Victoria.

 

[Kappa]

Agreed. It can be hard or impossible to work out where one begins and the other ends, and drugs are often used as a (not entirely irrational) way of dealing with mental health problems.

The point I suppose is to take a broader approach, an integrated approach, but this is a small hope given the woeful neglect of drug rehabilitation and mental health services in Victoria.

The mental health industry is one that's extremely new, it's really only in the past few years we have as a society began to take mental health seriously. I imagine it's going to be a booming industry over the next few decades.

The amount of people who live with mental health issues, from the severe, to things like mild depression and anxiety is astronomical.

 

[JB1975]

mental health industry is one that's extremely new, it's really only in the past few years we have as a society began to take mental health seriously

I can assure you that the mental health 'industry' isn't new. It has a fairly long history in this State, going all the way back to the Department of Lunacy (true title) before Federation. True enough, our society is more willing to recognise things like depression and anxiety, and the stigma attached to these issues is being gradually eroded, but mental health and illness has been a medical, social, cultural and political issue in Victoria and Australia for a long time.

The problem of mental health services in this State is a problem repeated in other jurisdictions: the state is increasingly absolving itself of all responsibility, hoping that private services will pick up the slack. The problem with that model is that the most desperate can't access adequate care from a private provider. Even as 'recently' as the 1990s, we saw under Kennett the closing down of many of Victoria's long-established mental health institutions, purportedly to allow the 'integration' of the mentally ill into society, but in reality the move was part of a broader agenda of economic rationalism.

While the older model had its problems, it at least acknowledged (a) that people can't always function in society, and (b) that the community should bear the cost of helping such people. It might have needed reform; it didn't need dismantling. In any case, when the state walks away from the mental health needs of its citizens, we all pay. This is precisely what has happened.

No, these issues are far from recent, and the correlation between mental health and crime has been established for over a century.

 

[PicaBoo]

I can assure you that the mental health 'industry' isn't new. It has a fairly long history in this State, going all the way back to the Department of Lunacy (true title) before Federation. True enough, our society is more willing to recognise things like depression and anxiety, and the stigma attached to these issues is being gradually eroded, but mental health and illness has been a medical, social, cultural and political issue in Victoria and Australia for a long time.

The problem of mental health services in this State is a problem repeated in other jurisdictions: the state is increasingly absolving itself of all responsibility, hoping that private services will pick up the slack. The problem with that model is that the most desperate can't access adequate care from a private provider. Even as 'recently' as the 1990s, we saw under Kennett the closing down of many of Victoria's long-established mental health institutions, purportedly to allow the 'integration' of the mentally ill into society, but in reality the move was part of a broader agenda of economic rationalism.

While the older model had its problems, it at least acknowledged (a) that people can't always function in society, and (b) that the community should bear the cost of helping such people. It might have needed reform; it didn't need dismantling. In any case, when the state walks away from the mental health needs of its citizens, we all pay. This is precisely what has happened.

No, these issues are far from recent, and the correlation between mental health and crime has been established for over a century.

Where do we make the distinction between criminal behavior and a mental health issue. The lack of compassion or remorse. I feel that too much gets classified as poor mental health. That would apply to almost anyone. Some people and their crimes shouldn't be rehabilitated. The risks are just too big. Does it mean society gives up on those people ? Unfortunately yes. But you got to draw a line somewhere on inexcusable behavior.
On a side note: What I noticed that as a parent you get a different outlook to life, law and order as children get older. Probably you get stricter as you try to keep the critters under control

 

[JB1975]

Where do we make the distinction between criminal behavior and a mental health issue. The lack of compassion or remorse. I feel that too much gets classified as poor mental health. That would apply to almost anyone. Some people and their crimes shouldn't be rehabilitated. The risks are just too big. Does it mean society gives up on those people ? Unfortunately yes. But you got to draw a line somewhere on inexcusable behavior.
On a side note: What I noticed that as a parent you get a different outlook to life, law and order as children get older. Probably you get stricter as you try to keep the critters under control

I'm not sure what you mean by the bolded bit. I've never suggested that mental illness and criminality are the same things. Instead, I've only pointed the well-reported fact that there is a disproportionate amount of mental illness amongst Victoria's criminal population (and other jurisdictions), and that mental illness can be considered one of a number of factors which increase the risk of offending.

What sort of things do you feel get unjustly classified as mental illness? Do you mean in the criminal justice system, or in more general society?

You suggest that some people can't be rehabilitated, and I've got no doubt in my fragile mind that this is the case. However, unless we intend to create a system where every criminal gets locked away until they're dead, then I'd suggest that rehabilitation needs to improve. But in any case, most of my points have been directed to prevention rather than rehabilitation, to the idea that there are things society can do to ensure that less crime gets committed in the first place: education, better mental health services, drug and alcohol rehabilitation services...all the unsexy stuff.

 

[PicaBoo]

I'm not sure what you mean by the bolded bit. I've never suggested that mental illness and criminality are the same things. Instead, I've only pointed the well-reported fact that there is a disproportionate amount of mental illness amongst Victoria's criminal population (and other jurisdictions), and that mental illness can be considered one of a number of factors which increase the risk of offending.

What sort of things do you feel get unjustly classified as mental illness? Do you mean in the criminal justice system, or in more general society?

You suggest that some people can't be rehabilitated, and I've got no doubt in my fragile mind that this is the case. However, unless we intend to create a system where every criminal gets locked away until they're dead, then I'd suggest that rehabilitation needs to improve. But in any case, most of my points have been directed to prevention rather than rehabilitation, to the idea that there are things society can do to ensure that less crime gets committed in the first place: education, better mental health services, drug and alcohol rehabilitation services...all the unsexy stuff.

Soz, didn't mean to suggest that you did. It was more a question in general.
And to answer your question, in this context the criminal justice system where certain behavior is explained as a result of a mental health issue and therefor can be treated. I am sure some people can be 'cured' but there are some that can't. And yes , I think we should aim for a system where certain individuals should never be released in society again. Part of the reason could be prevention due to the possibility to re offend, part could be punishment due the nature of the crimes.
Do agree that the whole discussion on crime gets too easily caught in sound bites like tougher laws, less leniency etc. Especially by politicians as it gives them a boost in the polls. Problem with the image of the unsexy stuff is the amount of resources thrown at it in order for people NOT to commit crimes (again) whereas the victims seem to come off 2nd best.

 

[JB1975]

Soz, didn't mean to suggest that you did. It was more a question in general.
And to answer your question, in this context the criminal justice system where certain behavior is explained as a result of a mental health issue and therefor can be treated. I am sure some people can be 'cured' but there are some that can't. And yes , I think we should aim for a system where certain individuals should never be released in society again. Part of the reason could be prevention due to the possibility to re offend, part could be punishment due the nature of the crimes.
Do agree that the whole discussion on crime gets too easily caught in sound bites like tougher laws, less leniency etc. Especially by politicians as it gives them a boost in the polls. Problem with the image of the unsexy stuff is the amount of resources thrown at it in order for people NOT to commit crimes (again) whereas the victims seem to come off 2nd best.

We do have some sort of system in place already, for certain individuals, although the arrangements are invariably ad hoc and constitutionally dubious. Derek Percy, possibly the most vile psychopath we've seen in this State, was found not guilty for the murder of Yvonne Tuohy in 1970 but was detained 'at the Governor's pleasure' until he died last year. The system is also trying to find a way to keep Julian Knight (who was due for parole this year) behind bars for as long as possible. His initial sentence was criminally inadequate, and he's never indicated any remorse for the mayhem he created. I agree that people like this should not be let back into the community, under any circumstances, and I think that there needs to be a sounder legal basis for keeping them in custody for 'the term of their natural lives'.

The victims of crime will always come off second best. That's what being a victim of crime means, and their experience of crime should and does have a part to play in the sentencing of offenders. But there must also be a point where our imperatives switch from punishment to healing, to the hope that both victims and perpetrators can get on with their lives, and to the hope that released prisoners might meaningfully contribute to society...or at least not go out and create more victims. The unfortunate thing about the prison system is that it is a fundamentally hostile environment, one which is hardly conducive to self-reflection, learning, and psychological betterment. And so this is where the parole system should, can and does help, by providing a halfway house between 'inside' and 'outside'. If it's an imperfect system (which it is), lets work out ways of making it better rather than tearing it down: better services to treat addiction, education and training programs, mental health services, more parole officers etc.

We need to listen to victims, but we also need to rehabilitate offenders and to think more about how we can prevent crime rather than simply punish it. It's the only way to ensure that there are less victims in our society.

PS: Percy was found 'not guilty' by reason of insanity, although he was found to have committed the act.