Tuesday, January 23, 2007

The Parole Board: Lock them up!

"Lock 'em up!" Lindsay Perigo, currently on mornings on Radio Live, says the parole board who let out Graeme Burton should all be locked up for culpability in the subsequent murder of Wainuiomata man Karl Kuchenbecker.

Is there any reason they shouldn't be locked up? Don't they share responsibility for Burton's rampage? Shouldn't they share responsibility for any subsequent damage caused by the prospective release of the murderer of six people in Raurimu? And for the release of the murderer of Stephen Choy?

Don't these bastards know that the justice system is not there just to give them a job? That it's primary job is not rehabilitation for murderers, but protection for the rest of us? Said the son of Henk van Wetering, murdered at Raurimu, "Whose taking responsibility? If these people are let out into society and then they re-offend, the government is failing and has its priorities all wrong," he said. Said the mother of murdered Michael Choy: "she hoped valuable lessons had been learned from the Graeme Burton parole affair." Not if you listened to the parole board weasels on TV's Close Up last night: "We did nothing wrong," the bastards sat there saying.

Lock the bastards up. Make them responsible for their mistakes. And reconstitute the justice system so it protects the innocent from the guilty.

Mercy to the guilty is injustice to the innocent.

UPDATE: You can see potted biographies here of the time-serving scum on the parole board, all of them with long careers sucking off the state tit. Scroll down to the "Non-judicial members" of the board to see those who would truly benefit from some time behind bars.

Perennial state tit-sucker June Jackson (right) is the cow who refused on TV's Close Up last night to feel remorse for Burton's killing of Karl Kuchenbecker. Her own 'career' is illustrative of the entire "non-judicial membership" of the board: former Commissioner for the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission; CEO of the Nga Whare Waatea Marae; former chief executive of the Manukau Urban Mäori Authority. "She has served on several government appointed committees, including the Review of Mäori Trust Boards 1994 and the Prime Ministerial Task Force on Employment Policy 1993... She was awarded a QSM in 1995."

Looks to me like the woman has never had a real job in her life.

LINK: Don't let him out, begs murder victim's mother - NZ Herald
My Dad's killer should not go free, says son - NZ Herald
Radio Live

RELATED: Politics-NZ, Law

Labels: ,

20 Comments:

Blogger CD said...

I'm not 100% on this, but apparantly the Parole board is only given information on court case hearings against the prisoner and a report of thier behaviour in the 3 months prior to the parole board hearing.

So the fights started/threats made/prior escapes can't be used in judgement.

So that's wrong for a start.

Another interesting fact: Law and Order (that's Police, courts AND corrections) is only 4% of the budget. Mind boggling.

1/23/2007 09:56:00 am  
Anonymous Sus said...

Can't argue with that, PC. I caught a few minutes on tape of Sainsbury's programme last night & that was enough to make me shake my head in disbelief.

This sanctimonious cow who looked like a cross between Georgina Te Heu Heu and Titewhai (sp?) Harawira having the gall to completely exonerate herself/the board from the horror in the Hutt Valley.

I was disgusted.

1/23/2007 10:13:00 am  
Anonymous Robert Winefield said...

Do away with parole full stop. Do away with victimless crimes and you shouldn't need to build too many more prisons.

Failing that, let the criminals serve their parole in the houses of the Parole board that freed them.

Maybe then the Parole board will take a little more notice of just how dangerous these thugs are...

1/23/2007 10:24:00 am  
Anonymous R said...

Sure these people shouldn't be paroled. But an inconvenient truth is that most serious crimes are committed by individuals who are NOT on parole or any other form of supervision.

The Sensible Sentencing Trust is part of the problem here. They delight in sending petty crims to take up space in an overstreached prison service. Then the whine when a dangerous crim is released to make more space for more petty crims. The problem is that the Sensible Sentencing Trust has just one solution for crimes: imprision the crim for as long as you can. This lack of vision and understanding is part of the problem. Perhaps the Sensible Sentencing Trust should look at some of their actions and take some responsibility?

1/23/2007 12:40:00 pm  
Blogger Lindsay said...

r said, "But an inconvenient truth is that most serious crimes are committed by individuals who are NOT on parole or any other form of supervision."

Where's your evidence?

1/23/2007 01:05:00 pm  
Anonymous R said...

Most criminal offenders who are recidivists finish up on parole for significant periods of their lives.In other words, all the bad eggs are put in one basket. Now sometimes one of the eggs breaks and causes a horrendous stench. And what happens? Everybody immediately blames the basket. Bit like Teh Muslim and Islam.

The Prison system get x amount of dollars for the year and they can imprision y amount of people. If they don't have enough money to imprison the current prisoners and the new prisoner then they have to parole some of the old ones.

Since PC is a libertarian I want to hear about solutions that don't cost the taxpayer any more money.

There is the option of shooting them which would play to the readers' frames here I guess.

If you want to lock up more people pay more taxes.

1/23/2007 01:19:00 pm  
Blogger Lindsay said...

r, You didn't answer my question.

Neither did you respond to my comment to you another site where you stated as a "real fact" NZ has the highest imprisonment rate in the developed world.

More tax isn't needed. Less spending on practices which indirectly lead to crime eg paying teenagers to keep kids they don't know how to raise, is what is needed. If you understood libertarianism you would know that taxation for the effective maintenance of law and order is supported.

1/23/2007 01:41:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Observations
Most appointed 2002 and since. Was there a clean-out of the old guard?
Be suspicious always of "held positions in .." and " has extensive experience in the field of ..." in a CV. Positions may have been horizontal with occasional bouts of vertical when sober. If positions cannot be more accurately described then they are hiding a something important and relevant like ..oh I don't know ... lack of ability perhaps.

1/23/2007 01:50:00 pm  
Anonymous R said...

I never said such a thing on another site Mitchell. I'm sure there is more than one person with a name starting with R.

Do your own research - I'm not your monkey.You will find I am correct.

Of course solo mothers are the cause of the problem - how could they not be? Look at all of the women on killing sprees.

I understand libertarianism very well thank you very much - and PC's post is not about libertarianism. It is about playing to his redneck readership and I am not afraid to call bullshit.

1/23/2007 04:01:00 pm  
Blogger leelion said...

According to R there a lot of working class white people from the Southern USA of a politically conservative nature reading this blog. Well I never

1/23/2007 06:15:00 pm  
Blogger Oswald Bastable said...

Sensible Sentencing are now responsible for crimnal activity? I can't recall the last time one of them held up a bottle shop or kicked some passer-by to death.

Someone is a few sausages short of a barbeque!

And the so-called- 'petty criminals'. Would they be thieves?
Commiting 'little' crimes like stealing from shops and taking cars? maybe a little burglary here and there?

The impact of these crimes is far more than one might realise- if you could comprehend the material on the Sensible Sentencing site.

Also overlooked is the Libertarianz position on 'Victimless crimes'- not imprisoning people for growing a bit of weed or building an non- government approved shed. Or there preference for reperation based resolutions for misdoings.

This would tend to free up a few prison bunks!

1/23/2007 06:31:00 pm  
Blogger Lindsay said...

r, my apologies if it was not you on the other site referred to.

I don't want a "monkey". I want you to substantiate your claims.

You said, "Since PC is a libertarian I want to hear about solutions that don't cost the taxpayer any more money."

You brought libertarianism into the discussion. I explained why more taxes weren't necessary to lock more people up. It's a matter of spending priorities.

Neither did I say solo mothers are "on killing sprees". But there is a strong link between children born to single mothers and crime. And unlike you I can cite evidence.

1/23/2007 07:15:00 pm  
Blogger PC said...

If anyone's wondering why 'R' is all over the park here, perhaps it's because it's our old friend 'Ruth,' who's been told she's not welcome here because she always is all over the park.

Bye bye 'R.'

1/23/2007 07:20:00 pm  
Anonymous R said...

It sure is strange that I'm not welcome Peter when you jack my links without citation.

I know I make you feel uncomfortable dear.

That's why you censor and only link to misogynists, racists, stoners and homophobes.

XXXXX

1/23/2007 09:26:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ruth said...
[I know I make you feel uncomfortable dear.]

Ruth, how about you make me feel comfortable? Any chance?

1/23/2007 09:41:00 pm  
Anonymous R said...

PC jacks my links and my memes.I don’t care for a link from him. I simply think that people should follow proper blogging protocol. It’s possible that PC doesn’t know such protocol (which is the most likely excuse forthcoming).

He has NO RIGHT to sanctimoniously posture about me being unworthy to comment on his glorious blog.

Yesterday was pro-choice blogging day - a fact he, as a prominent libertarian, chose to ignore completely.

Go figure.

1/23/2007 10:01:00 pm  
Blogger Cheezy said...

I'm going to take PC at his word here and assume he's being serious when he suggests parole board members get, erm, "locked up" when someone who they release early kills someone. (Is it a good idea to take this idea seriously? I dunno. I'm new around here. Certainly I rarely take Lindsay Perigo seriously anyway).

If we do this, then we're effectively saying that parole board members have to guarantee the future good behaviour of people who they parole early... So only insane people would ever want to serve on a parole board.

So, in those circumstances, obviously, we'll have to do away with parole altogether. Now this IS an argument that you could logically make, but as has been noted elsewhere in this thread, it would be expensive.

1/24/2007 12:00:00 am  
Anonymous Sus said...

Cheezy: "Certainly I rarely take Lindsay Perigo seriously".

Why?

1/24/2007 09:42:00 am  
Blogger PC said...

Cheezy, you ask if I'm serious?

I'm serious that those who act with the full power of the state behind them should not be immune from either criticism, scrutiny or responsibility for their actions when they fuck up. Do you think they should be immune from responsibility?

"If we do this, then we're effectively saying that parole board members have to guarantee the future good behaviour of people who they parole early..."

No, it's saying they need to be held accountable for their actions. Do you think they should be immune from accountability?

"So only insane people would ever want to serve on a parole board. "

And the difference with what we have now is...

"So, in those circumstances, obviously, we'll have to do away with parole altogether... but as has been noted elsewhere in this thread, it would be expensive."

It's far from obvious to me.

But as far as your substantive point goes, and as has been noted elsewhere, the current cost of justice, law and corrections ALTOGETHER (ie., the very jobs that government is set up to do) cost only about 4% of total government spending. It's hardly a major priority for them, is it?

And as has also been pointed out elsewhere, if you empty existing jails of people who are only there for 'crimes' in which no force has been initiated (ie., so-called victimless crimes, or crimes against the state) then there's plenty of room for the people who should be there (ie., those who have initiated force against others).

And yes, Cheezy, you are new around here. Any reason we should take seriously who you take seriously?

1/24/2007 01:11:00 pm  
Blogger Cheezy said...

"Do you think they should be immune from responsibility?"

No I don't. Do you think suggesting that someone who proposes that parole board members be jailed if they make a poor decision is, by natural extension, also suggesting that they should be immune from all responsibility?

If it's far from obvious to you why we couldn't have a working parole system if the board members sitting on it had jail sentences for themselves hanging over their heads if they made the wrong decision, then you're not trying very hard. (I hope. If you are, then... oh dear).

"Any reason we should take seriously who you take seriously?"

"Who" I take seriously? Again, you're having some trouble with comprehension. I said it was your idea of sentencing parole board members to prison which I didn't know whether to take seriously or not. You as a person I don't know from a bar of carbolic soap - so I neither take you seriously nor unseriously. I'm even struggling to muster any indifference ;-)

1/25/2007 09:40:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

<< Home