I'm obviously naive, I thought that the courts decided the sentence for various crimes. But no, that's just for show. The real justice system lies in the parole boards.
Once a person has been found guilty of a most severe and heinous crime, sentenced to be locked away for 8 years, 9 years, or life (which isn't) then the real bargaining begins.
Providing you don't commit any more crimes in Prison, or no-one reports you for committing any crimes in prison, you can front up to the parole board and plead for mercy. Not the same mercy as a murderer failed to give to their victim, but the kind of liberal mercy that says "guys, I only needed a couple of months to think through my evil deeds, and I've come to the conclusion that what I may have done through implication was wrong and, not that I'm guilty, but maybe this thing shouldn't have happened, and now that I've fully rehabilitated myself, you can let me go early."
For crimes of violence and sexual abuse, for crimes such as committed by Capill and Shipton, this is absurd. And we've recently seen how people who abused positions of trust, and traded on their supposed integrity, suddenly try to sound penitent and contrite. And even if they were genuine, that's not the point. They are in jail to do the time for the crime, the full time. If they find themselves ready for release early, having finished their rehab homework with time to spare, then they can move into the planning phase. Planning how, on their release they will spend their entire lives making up the damage they have done. Given the enormity of their crimes, I'd say they are going to need a lot of time for planning.
And the parole board need to narrow their scope. They are not set up properly to overturn the findings of the court. Prisoners can try for an appeal, and that process is handled, but not a retrial in front of a parole board, that gets them out in half the time. And even if the Parole board rejects the application - it does so after it causes a whole pile of anguish for the victim(s) and their families.
What I'd like to know, given the "extensive" psych profiles done etc, how much time and money tax payers are putting into this process. The money could go into rehab programs, victim support and speeding up the trials in the first place.
Here's a very nice election policy for voters to get their heads around:
"As a party that agrees justice for victims as fundamental to the court process; as a party that accepts courts are the best place to hand down an appropriate sentence; as a party dedicated to focusing limited financial resources in to areas that will help victims and reduce repeat offenses - we the XXXX party will END PAROLE on all crimes of violence and sexual abuse."
I could give you around 5 good, recent links that prove my point so well, but frankly, if you can't wrap your head around this simple concept, and you haven't been reading the papers, you are a lost cause anyway.
And to all the others that managed to read this far: You know I make sense.
Related Link: Just about anything in the papers to do with parole hearings recently
Once a person has been found guilty of a most severe and heinous crime, sentenced to be locked away for 8 years, 9 years, or life (which isn't) then the real bargaining begins.
Providing you don't commit any more crimes in Prison, or no-one reports you for committing any crimes in prison, you can front up to the parole board and plead for mercy. Not the same mercy as a murderer failed to give to their victim, but the kind of liberal mercy that says "guys, I only needed a couple of months to think through my evil deeds, and I've come to the conclusion that what I may have done through implication was wrong and, not that I'm guilty, but maybe this thing shouldn't have happened, and now that I've fully rehabilitated myself, you can let me go early."
For crimes of violence and sexual abuse, for crimes such as committed by Capill and Shipton, this is absurd. And we've recently seen how people who abused positions of trust, and traded on their supposed integrity, suddenly try to sound penitent and contrite. And even if they were genuine, that's not the point. They are in jail to do the time for the crime, the full time. If they find themselves ready for release early, having finished their rehab homework with time to spare, then they can move into the planning phase. Planning how, on their release they will spend their entire lives making up the damage they have done. Given the enormity of their crimes, I'd say they are going to need a lot of time for planning.
And the parole board need to narrow their scope. They are not set up properly to overturn the findings of the court. Prisoners can try for an appeal, and that process is handled, but not a retrial in front of a parole board, that gets them out in half the time. And even if the Parole board rejects the application - it does so after it causes a whole pile of anguish for the victim(s) and their families.
What I'd like to know, given the "extensive" psych profiles done etc, how much time and money tax payers are putting into this process. The money could go into rehab programs, victim support and speeding up the trials in the first place.
Here's a very nice election policy for voters to get their heads around:
"As a party that agrees justice for victims as fundamental to the court process; as a party that accepts courts are the best place to hand down an appropriate sentence; as a party dedicated to focusing limited financial resources in to areas that will help victims and reduce repeat offenses - we the XXXX party will END PAROLE on all crimes of violence and sexual abuse."
I could give you around 5 good, recent links that prove my point so well, but frankly, if you can't wrap your head around this simple concept, and you haven't been reading the papers, you are a lost cause anyway.
And to all the others that managed to read this far: You know I make sense.
Related Link: Just about anything in the papers to do with parole hearings recently
The primary objective of any criminal locked away for a few years is to convince the parole board that they’re a fit and proper person to re-enter the community. It’s not “bargaining” but deception and trickery for many evil prisoners. Many prison wardens are aghast when certain evil criminals con the board into the much sought after early release. Every celled up crim knows that’s vital to fool the parole board, which is always stacked with namby pamby psychologists, who favour the rights of the criminal. I can assure you that many examples exist and I find it appalling that prison wardens cannot present more evidence and input into parole hearings? Our recently paroled youngest murderer is a walking time bomb waiting to explode,mark my words. Is it any wonder New Zealand is such a dangerous country.
ReplyDeleteYep, you make 'good sense.'
ReplyDeleteCourse you do Zen, personally i think the bargaining process starts in court though, first there is the reduced sentence for pleading guilty, then there are the other similar cases that hinder the sentences, then there are the appeals where the sentences are slowly reduced.
ReplyDeleteThen there's the coddling in jail by leftist scum who won't punish the perp no matter what, and the parole boards who are not accountable to the victims. When i see the sentences handed down sometimes, i wonder why we even bother anymore, just tell the victims to just eff off, at least that way they'll be telling it straight and not deceiving them with fantasies of justice.
I think you've got things a little off. Parole is considered for prisoners serving more than two years after one third of their sentence though the same 'leftist scum' are the ones increasing this to 2/3 of the sentence. Parole boards are chaired by a DC Judge and usually two lay people, if they reject a prisoner they can be reheard in 6 months. For the very serious crimes the judge at trial has the option of imposing a minimum non parole period which tend to be high.
ReplyDeleteThere are various factors that decrease from the starting point or increase it in the Sentencing Act, so it can go up or down, this however is up to the judge. Prosecutors asking for lower penalties or plea bargaining is fairly limited in NZ.
One thing that does need fixed is the victim's appearance before the parole board, especially for multiple offenders.
Thanks for the info Fergus. Still not good enough, even moving from 1/3 to 2/3. And has it happened yet, or are people still talking about it?
ReplyDeleteAnd I might have to dig up the links to illustrate that last minute plea changes, denial of guilt, getting out early and re-offending and judges failing to impose sensible sentences with very clear non-parole periods are indications that the parole system is not working.
And as you say, what it does to the victims is not good by a longshot.
I believe the legislation has been passed, once the sentencing council guidelines are in place then I think the new rule will be brought in by an order in council.
ReplyDeleteCurrently minimum non-parole is up to 2/3 of stated sentence or 10 years (lesser of the two), Court of Appeal has indicated that this is to be used for serious cases of offences of the type. Parole boards can't even consider until they've served 2/3 and still won't release if they find them a threat.
For serious sexual offences there's always the option of preventative detention which is indefinite maximum.
You might not trust judges but there are cases where the lay members of a parole board have overruled the DCJ so usually experienced judges have a fairly good idea of the characters they're dealing with and the appropriate penalty.