 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | ^WPT, you may be right, but if the funding was decimated - as happens in private business sometimes - the management and staff of the Parole Board are obliged to sit down and carefully work out what the top priority / high-risk cases are, and decide where they are prepared to make a mistake. You refocus resources, and try to maintain your mission.
Bayley was not a case where funding cuts should have made any difference. His record showed that he was liable to do what he did, and he should have been in jail under ordinary procedure. I don't think it is reasonable to make political excuses for an atrocious failure of duty. If it were a private business, I don't think many of us would accept financial constraints as an excuse for gross procedural failures that caused the death of an employee. |
Cheers:
1). At the time, Vic's parole budget was 2.5 million while NSW was about 15 million.
2). I can't find the article now (I'm at work) Vic Parole Board was seeing in ?10,000 people per year regarding parole which equated to devoting about 8 minutes per person
3). The system they were using was non electronic & was paper based. Staff simply couldn't avail themselves of necessary information in a timely fashion & efficient manner - I believe some of this is directly related to police as well.
In that context I can't see how anyone can do their job properly.
That's why I say blame pollies & in particular blame Libs although Labour do not get off scott -free.
Prioritization is fine too however I'm a professor of hindsight & in retrospect I can determine the highest priorities - I never fail 
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
 |
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ people do make mistakes, and I am not normally a fan of arrogant, armchair dissections of others' failures when under pressure in complex situations. I have enough of those of my own to dissect, and organisations, like humans, are fallble. However, this one was egregious. If you prioritise at all, why do you pass over Bayley with his history and the nature of his crimes ? Is that really what we, and particularly Victorian women, deserved for $ 2.5 million ? I'm not convinced that any organisation receiving that quantity of public money can say that this was not their responsibility bcause they were underfunded. If that is their attitude to their work, they have no business being there.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Non electronic? Gees how long ago was 2012! Surely a guy in prison can be looked up on the police data base in two seconds flat?
It costs 15 million dollars a year in NSW to decide if a prisoner should get out now or in a couple of years? No wonder taxes are so high.
Makes you wonder why this prick and others like him are ever up for parole at all.
So I googled and got this::
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jul/13/jill-meagher-murderer-adrian-bayleys-jail-term-cut-by-three-years-on-appeal
Why is he even being considered for release ever?
So he was convicted of a vicious assault while on parole and not jailed immediately. After being in jail for 11 years for several violent rapes. How is that possible?
No wonder Melbourne is now the murder Capitol of Australia, that is bizarre. Who ever made that decision should be charged themselves.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
mandy 
Joined: 03 Jun 2001
Location: Glen Iris
|
| Post subject: | |
|
It really has to make you wonder how many more Bayley's are out there quietly ticking like a time bomb.
While our daughters, mothers, sisters are also out there just going about their lives.
_________________
#TEAMBUCKS
#TEAMEDDIE
#TEAMCOLLINGWOOD
#SIDEBYSIDE |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| mandy wrote: | It really has to make you wonder how many more Bayley's are out there quietly ticking like a time bomb.
While our daughters, mothers, sisters are also out there just going about their lives. |
Yep truly terrifying
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
roar
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: |
Why is he even being considered for release ever?
|
^^ This!
I seriously think it's time judges were placed under proper scrutiny, as they are to blame for much of these scenarios.
_________________
kill for collingwood! |
|
|
|
|
Jezza 
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | Because there are murders that aren't horrific? |
Of course not, any homicide-related crimes, particularly murder are all horrific and terrible. I just noted that this case was particularly horrific because of the random nature behind it and the way the events of Meagher's disappearance played out.
Bayley and Meagher did not know each other prior to the events that took place, whereas many homicide related crimes often involve the killer and victim knowing each other, but obviously that's not always the case.
Through a lucky chance encounter, Bayley was able to take advantage of Meagher when she was presumably intoxicated or at the very least tipsy so to speak by assaulting her and later killing her. He wasn't specifically targeting a specific person in mind, rather he was targeting anyone in sight of him and who he saw as an easy and vulnerable target. Essentially, it was a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The fact that it happened in the streets of a major inner-city suburb and the pub Meagher was drinking in was only a short walk from her Brunswick home makes it somewhat more startling than other murder cases.
Referring back to your original post, any murder is horrific in its own right but the mass reaction from the general public suggests that this particular case really startled people in a way that was not anticipated initially.
_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | Non electronic? Gees how long ago was 2012! Surely a guy in prison can be looked up on the police data base in two seconds flat?
It costs 15 million dollars a year in NSW to decide if a prisoner should get out now or in a couple of years? No wonder taxes are so high.
Makes you wonder why this prick and others like him are ever up for parole at all.
So I googled and got this::
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jul/13/jill-meagher-murderer-adrian-bayleys-jail-term-cut-by-three-years-on-appeal
Why is he even being considered for release ever?
So he was convicted of a vicious assault while on parole and not jailed immediately. After being in jail for 11 years for several violent rapes. How is that possible?
No wonder Melbourne is now the murder Capitol of Australia, that is bizarre. Who ever made that decision should be charged themselves. |
It doesn't cost NSW $15 mil to decide if a single prisoner gets parole but costs $15 mil for a panel to consider whether over 10,000 prisoners deserve or don't deserve parole. That amongst other things would go to salaries etc.
In Vic then with (I'm assuming) a similar number of prisoners the budget is more than 500% less.
To say just call the police etc for their database is fine in a thread but is really not workable - in the context of processing so many people in such a short time.
I really can't see how anyone can expect proper decisions to be made when the system is so manifestly underfunded & overstretched.
The parole board at the time took responsibility coz the awful incident occurred in their watch but blame is always easy to apportion in retrospect.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I know a guy who in prison can be looked up on the police data base in two seconds flat. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Ridiculous argument, two different ways:
(1) The Parole Board can't possibly be expected to make sensible, evidenced decisions on a life-changing matter in 8 minutes per application. Grossly under-staffed and under-funded. The blame fault for this disgrace must be laid squarely on the shoulders of the right-wing politicians who brought the situation about. So far, WPT is correct.
(2) To consider and reject an application from the likes of Bailey - as bad a prospect for parole as you could possibly get - even the laziest, most irresponsible Parole Board you could possibly imagine should need no more than 8 seconds.
The disgraceful funding cuts undoubtedly have resulted in some very bad decisions, no doubt hundreds and hundreds of them. But you can't excuse this one that way. This one was Blind-Freddie-obvious and the irresponsible morons who made it should have been sacked immediately. (In reality, if you make a decision as stupidly dangerous as this one while in charge of (say) an ordinary motor car, you will be tried for dangerous driving causing death and sent to jail.)
Still worse, however, was the judge who tried Bailey for a very bad, unprovoked assault causing very serious injury one night in Geelong and let him out on bail to do it again. That coot ought to be strung up by the goolies (if any) and never be allowed to practice law again. Ever. Hell, a doctor doing something equally stupid and irresponsible would be struck off, why should a lawyer be allowed to get away with it?
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Nobody should get paroled just for doing their time without shanking someone. Without evidence of active contrition, attempts to fix any psychological or behavioural issues and model citizen behaviour both in jail and on the street during any period of parole then it should be denied/revoked.
Bleeding hearts and bad budget cuts are both to blame. I could think of so many ways to cut government spending before I'd be hitting essential services. A Government's ONLY role (or primary one if you're a Statist, big Government type) should be to keep citizens safe from crime or foreign incursions and in this instance they failed abysmally. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | Nobody should get paroled just for doing their time without shanking someone. Without evidence of active contrition, attempts to fix any psychological or behavioural issues and model citizen behaviour both in jail and on the street during any period of parole then it should be denied/revoked.
Bleeding hearts and bad budget cuts are both to blame. I could think of so many ways to cut government spending before I'd be hitting essential services. A Government's ONLY role (or primary one if you're a Statist, big Government type) should be to keep citizens safe from crime or foreign incursions and in this instance they failed abysmally. |
I think that's misconceived. The logic of parole is to get people out under supervision, rather than just letting them loose without any control or management (which is what happens if you keep them inside to the end of their sentence). It's not "bleeding hearts" - it's based on the (quite conservative) view that people are less likely to reoffend if they are paroled under appropriate conditions.
This bloke getting out was just a mistake, in all the circumstances, and says nothing about the effectiveness of parole as a risk-management strategy. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I don't deny that parole 'works' at least statistically in reducing recidivism but a prisoner that has done absolutely nothing to show they are trying to rehabilitate or already has a record of recidivism or parole violation shouldn't be waved through. Parole only works when the right people are paroled, maybe there needs to be additional safeguards put onto prisoners who 'max out', i.e if you are denied parole and finish your sentence then there is a mandatory period of supervision. Just like parole but without the sentence reduction. Surely would only take some well written legislation to make it happen. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Tannin makes a very good point
Yes this clown was out on parole, but he was then arrested for assault while on parole and the judge let him free on bail. Surely the judge had access to the information of his past record and the fact he was on parole at the time he made that decision?
And apologies WPT, I didn't realise the brainwashing techniques were still in use in the early 80's. 
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | (1) The Parole Board can't possibly be expected to make sensible, evidenced decisions on a life-changing matter in 8 minutes per application. Grossly under-staffed and under-funded. The blame fault for this disgrace must be laid squarely on the shoulders of the right-wing politicians who brought the situation about. So far, WPT is correct.
(2) To consider and reject an application from the likes of Bailey - as bad a prospect for parole as you could possibly get - even the laziest, most irresponsible Parole Board you could possibly imagine should need no more than 8 seconds.
The disgraceful funding cuts undoubtedly have resulted in some very bad decisions, no doubt hundreds and hundreds of them. But you can't excuse this one that way. This one was Blind-Freddie-obvious and the irresponsible morons who made it should have been sacked immediately. (In reality, if you make a decision as stupidly dangerous as this one while in charge of (say) an ordinary motor car, you will be tried for dangerous driving causing death and sent to jail.)
Still worse, however, was the judge who tried Bailey for a very bad, unprovoked assault causing very serious injury one night in Geelong and let him out on bail to do it again. That coot ought to be strung up by the goolies (if any) and never be allowed to practice law again. Ever. Hell, a doctor doing something equally stupid and irresponsible would be struck off, why should a lawyer be allowed to get away with it? |
I tend to agree with this. While I would far prefer that judges and parole boards be given maximum discretion, it's hard to see the decision to let Bayley back onto the streets as anything other than jaw-droppingly bad and, of course, tragic and, surely, it's far from the only instance where such a poor decision has been made. I'm not quite sure what the solution is apart from a wholescale reform of the system, and such proposals inevitably seem to play into the hands of the tough-on-crime crowd. So, while I share many of these sentiments, I'm not sure what the answer is in the long run.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
