News Phil Walsh RIP

Remove this Banner Ad

If the Walsh's family is supportive of this decision, I dont think anyone can past judgement against it.

Why would you think this. They're the least objective interested people that you could come across. I don't mind him ultimately being released. I just hope that if he goes off his meds and ends up in the same state that he was when he killed Phil, that it's the people who pushed for his release that are at the end of his knife and not some innocent person just going about their ordinary life. I hope it doesn't end up that way, but if it does, let's just hope it's someone involved in his release and not an uninterested party.
 
If the Walsh's family is supportive of this decision, I dont think anyone can past judgement against it.
From a public safety perspective, the opinion of the family probably shouldn't be considered. Most family members, particularly those with kids with mental health issues, will want their kids with them.

However if an independent doctor/s believe him to be of no threat then I'm all good. Doesn't sound like he would be a threat either.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

From a public safety perspective, the opinion of the family probably shouldn't be considered. Most family members, particularly those with kids with mental health issues, will want their kids with them.

However if an independent doctor/s believe him to be of no threat then I'm all good. Doesn't sound like he would be a threat either.
Yes of course, this goes part and parcel with him being potentially released.

Independent medically professionals, panels etc.

The point I was raising, is that the victims should have a say in the process.
 
Yes of course, this goes part and parcel with him being potentially released.

Independent medically professionals, panels etc.

The point I was raising, is that the victims should have a say in the process.
They should, and it must be a horrible thing for Mrs Walsh and her daughter.
 
If the Walsh's family is supportive of this decision, I dont think anyone can past judgement against it.

society has a right to be heard, and it’s standards upheld over and above the wishes of the family.

the law reflects this

however, in this case hasn’t that family suffered enough? Do we need to take him away from Mother if not needed, hasn’t she suffered enough? His sister

not a fan of this horrible heinous crime, but pure retribution isn’t the answer either
 
society has a right to be heard, and it’s standards upheld over and above the wishes of the family.

the law reflects this

however, in this case hasn’t that family suffered enough? Do we need to take him away from Mother if not needed, hasn’t she suffered enough? His sister

not a fan of this horrible heinous crime, but pure retribution isn’t the answer either
Yes well articulated. Thats exactly how I feel here.
 
From a public safety perspective, the opinion of the family probably shouldn't be considered. Most family members, particularly those with kids with mental health issues, will want their kids with them.

However if an independent doctor/s believe him to be of no threat then I'm all good. Doesn't sound like he would be a threat either.
Also very telling that it was not opposed by prosecution.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Presumably, because there's an ongoing inherent risk. If this person drops off their meds and finds themselves in the same mind space that resulted in their last killing, wouldn't you also want to get an inkling as to where the system has failed.
But surely it’s a system that’s failed then not a person.
The name is irrelevant.
 
vigilante process improvement?

come off it

I get that its a marginal discussion. But unless there's ongoing control, there's no certainty that one night Cy might not find himself in the same headspace as he was when shit went sideways. Do you want him next door to you and your family when thst happens? It's not about vigilante, it's about bureaucratic responsibility.
 
But surely it’s a system that’s failed then not a person.
The name is irrelevant.

The name is irrelevant. That someone, anyone, that's stabbed a person to death can be released a handful of years later makes no sense to me. If the release is predicated upon medication that the system can't keep on top of, do you want that person in a granny flat next to your property? Chatting with your family here and there?

Sure, according to the medicos, not a risk whilst taking prescribed meds whilst under control. But now that he lives next to your family, how do you know he's taking his meds?
 
I get that its a marginal discussion. But unless there's ongoing control, there's no certainty that one night Cy might not find himself in the same headspace as he was when sh*t went sideways. Do you want him next door to you and your family when thst happens? It's not about vigilante, it's about bureaucratic responsibility.

no it’s not. It’s a Lynch mob
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Presumably, because there's an ongoing inherent risk. If this person drops off their meds and finds themselves in the same mind space that resulted in their last killing, wouldn't you also want to get an inkling as to where the system has failed.
Otherwise you end up with a situation like in australia where close to 1200 people have died all through govt negligence and maybe one person ( fmr vic CHO ) at best copped it in the neck for it.
 
The name is irrelevant. That someone, anyone, that's stabbed a person to death can be released a handful of years later makes no sense to me. If the release is predicated upon medication that the system can't keep on top of, do you want that person in a granny flat next to your property? Chatting with your family here and there?

Sure, according to the medicos, not a risk whilst taking prescribed meds whilst under control. But now that he lives next to your family, how do you know he's taking his meds?
I’m not saying I agree, all I’m arguing that knowing the name is not the correct thing.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

News Phil Walsh RIP

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top