The Law Parole/Indefinite Detention for violent sex offenders

[Freo Big Fella]

I'm not normally one of the lock-them-up-and-throw-away-the-key types that drives law and order policy here in the west, but it's hard not to want to join the lynch mob when it comes to stuff like this.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/22046148/rapist-allegedly-breaches-order-days-after-release/

Psychiatrist Mark Hall wrote in a report to the court TJD had "prominent psychopathic traits" and his next offence was likely to occur in a relationship.

Dr Hall estimated "the offending would involve violence, with a chance of escalation to serious life-threatening violence".

Despite that and evidence TJD had sexually abused his own child recently, the judge freed him under an order that included wearing a tracking device.

In 2011, TJD was categorised a dangerous sex offender and ordered held indefinitely. That was rescinded in 2012, but soon after his release on a supervision order, he breached the conditions.


He's now been released again, apparently breached one of the conditions, yet hasn't been immediately taken into custody.

Is there some sort of ingrained professional bias in the shrinks/case officers et al involved in corrections and assigned to these guys that blinds them to the danger they present to others? Or is it a case of sociopaths learning how to "game the system", so to speak.

Between Adrian Bayley, Brett Cowan and this guy, as well as lesser known examples of the same thing like Gary Narkle, it seems incomprehensible that a trained professional could look at their repeated propensity for sexual violence, yet somehow think its appropriate they be released back into the community.

 

[skilts]

I'm not normally one of the lock-them-up-and-throw-away-the-key types that drives law and order policy here in the west, but it's hard not to want to join the lynch mob when it comes to stuff like this.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/22046148/rapist-allegedly-breaches-order-days-after-release/

Psychiatrist Mark Hall wrote in a report to the court TJD had "prominent psychopathic traits" and his next offence was likely to occur in a relationship.

Dr Hall estimated "the offending would involve violence, with a chance of escalation to serious life-threatening violence".

Despite that and evidence TJD had sexually abused his own child recently, the judge freed him under an order that included wearing a tracking device.

In 2011, TJD was categorised a dangerous sex offender and ordered held indefinitely. That was rescinded in 2012, but soon after his release on a supervision order, he breached the conditions.


He's now been released again, apparently breached one of the conditions, yet hasn't been immediately taken into custody.

Is there some sort of ingrained professional bias in the shrinks/case officers et al involved in corrections and assigned to these guys that blinds them to the danger they present to others? Or is it a case of sociopaths learning how to "game the system", so to speak.

Between Adrian Bayley, Brett Cowan and this guy, as well as lesser known examples of the same thing like Gary Narkle, it seems incomprehensible that a trained professional could look at their repeated propensity for sexual violence, yet somehow think its appropriate they be released back into the community.

You, like the courts, overestimate the efficacy of a pretend science. Their uselessness becomes more obvious the more often they are paid to say nothing meaningful. Such pretenders provide no useful advise to any court. If, by some mischance, you were to confront them with this, and they answered honestly, they would acknowledge their irrelevance to and uselessness in the process. The few of their type who have any conscience at all are severely embarrassed by the undue reliance placed on their evidence by courts.

 

[telsor]

I think they should use phrenology instead.

 

[Slax]

I believe that when someone reoffends whilst on parole they are sent back to serve their full sentence with no option of parole with new convictions to be served subsequent to that

 

[Niximus]

It is certainly tough. If you rule out the chances rehabilitation then what's the point in sentencing, just make the punishment for any crime life.

If you want legal system that gives people the opportunity to turn their lives around then you'll get people who reoffend.

A society at either extreme would be a scary place, so you need to find a balance somewhere in between.

 

[samFFC]

You, like the courts, overestimate the efficacy of a pretend science. Their uselessness becomes more obvious the more often they are paid to say nothing meaningful. Such pretenders provide no useful advise to any court. If, by some mischance, you were to confront them with this, and they answered honestly, they would acknowledge their irrelevance to and uselessness in the process. The few of their type who have any conscience at all are severely embarrassed by the undue reliance placed on their evidence by courts.

Leaving aside the criticism of Psychiatry (which is misguided, in my opinion), what would you propose we used instead?

 

[samFFC]

It is certainly tough. If you rule out the chances rehabilitation then what's the point in sentencing, just make the punishment for any crime life.

If you want legal system that gives people the opportunity to turn their lives around then you'll get people who reoffend.

A society at either extreme would be a scary place, so you need to find a balance somewhere in between.

Well said.

 

[skilts]

Leaving aside the criticism of Psychiatry (which is misguided, in my opinion), what would you propose we used instead?

Something equally useless. Might as well share the money around. The fact is, that an experienced judge has a better understanding of human character than any psychiatrist. The intrusion by these people into the interpretation of actions, states of mind and of sentencing considerations is used in an attempt to give a veneer of objectivity and considered understanding to the process. In most cases, psychiatrists would be lucky to spend, at most, an hour with defendants, before passing professional judgement on their psyches in a court room. This is worse than useless, it is dangerous.

As I wrote, were you to ask a psychiatrist, most would say that they are operating beyond their expertise, when enlisted to advise courts. They are asked questions to which they have no meaningful or informed answers. As with many in this profession, they see it as their role to be useful and helpful to the court's considerations, even though they know they are out of their depth. If no one were to perform this role, it seems unlikely we would be in any way deficient.

 

[ania95]

my tennis coach accused my exboyfriend of being a sex offender, it was really bizarre when i heard my coach say it!

 

[little graham]

If the shrink is presented with a subject that has experienced dodgy pretend science before, the shrink will nail him. Unfortunately today most sex offences occur under the care of these dodgy pretend scientists.

 

[LosBeatles]

In most cases the judge knows there is no danger to his or her family so releasing the offender doesn't make any difference to them

 

[Leeda]

It is just beyond me when everyone is on the same page about an offender going to be offending again, and then lets this person out again and then get's a bit scared by the choke of authority about someone doing what they always have done, and then they go and say ... Oh no, we let this person out again!!

It is pretty simple but we have to reform the prison/remand/short term drug dealer/knotty thief and whatever else.

We have enough practical minds in the law and reform positions to grapple with the really gross offenders and why aren't they doing it?!

 

[Belnakor]

In 2011, TJD was categorised a dangerous sex offender and ordered held indefinitely. That was rescinded in 2012, but soon after his release on a supervision order, he breached the conditions.

.

this is the key on this one.. if he was put on an indefinite hold order no less than 3 years ago how on earth is he up for release? just doesn't make sense.

too many bleeding heart judges out there. If this guy reoffends the judge should blamed.

 

[Niximus]

Indefinite is not synonymous with for ever even though many people use it that way.