What you are not being told is that, having been convicted of murder, Burton would be on a life sentence.
People do not understand why a person who gets 'Life' only get ten years in jail.
It has never been properly explained to Joe Public, that this life sentence has an imprisonment component, followed by a LIFETIME of parole. (The conditions may be loosened though)
At ANY TIME should the breach parole conditions, the released crim can be recalled to resume his sentence, without futher trial! From there they go back to the applying for parole process.
Now here is the crunch- Burton had breeched his at least twice since his release.
This tragedy DID NOT NEED TO HAVE HAPPENED.
Corrections again has blood on it's hands.
But with govamint-can-do-do wrong in place (except for the military and police), blood easily washes off....
Update:
Somebody must Pay
Here are the names of the parole board, coutesty of The Herald
Members of the Parole Board who released Graeme Burton
* Judge Bill Unwin: Retired in 1997. Former Canterbury District Prison Board chairman. Appointed to Parole Board in July, 2002.
* Judge Patrick Toomey: District Court judge from 1985 to 2000. Chaired New Plymouth District Prison Board. Appointed July 2002.
* Associate Professor Philip Brinded: Clinical director of Canterbury District Health Board's mental health division. Appointed September, 2004.
* June Jackson: CEO of Nga Whare Waatea Marae and its prisoner re-integration programme. Appointed July, 2002.
* Uialatea Stephen Thomsen: Samoan chaplain involved in Pacific Island-based crime prevention. Appointed in July, 2002.
* Sandy Gill: Worked with at-risk youth and adult offending. Appointed July, 2002
Hang your heads in shame!
12 comments:
Quite some line-up. Unfortunately a legal background does not a good assessor of human character make ... too fixated on the nebulous in life such as 'insight,' 'remorse,''I have seen the error of my ways,' & they just love being called 'sir.' i.e. their expectations create appeasing liars.
The power base are obviously 'armchair assessors,' probably not the right qualities .. the others, who knows???
As a group they don't offer a great deal of confidence that they are capable of making sound decisions.
Corrections Officers are not allowed to voice opinions at parole hearings, as we were deemed to 'have negative attitudes towards inmates'
Perhaps because we saw them at other that their best behaviour?
Jury of peers to lock em why not the same when deciding if we want them back amongst us?
Nup, Murray. The culture of so many of the incarcerated is just so alien to the Mr & Mrs Smiths & 'experts' in society - it is simply too easy for them to present 'well,' & 'genuinely' so for the brief period of their; psych. assessment, paper & pencil (probably canadian derived) 'risk assessment,' & appearance before the board. Also, it is easy for those people (parole board) to attribute within prison misdemeanour to the excess authoritarianism of the prison officers, many of whom are, 'there but for the grace of godders,' or ex navy, army or SAS.
Oswald is correct... attitude, characteristic behaviour, poor impulse control,etc. are more realistically adjudged by those managing them on a day to day basis, by those overseeing their relationships with others... not by those who 'want to see the best in everybody.'
How do you check for poor impulse control ... "you're just a bloody criminal, you get nothing!" ... "Yes boss."
Interesting Oswald ... what prison(s)?
Rimutaka and Mt. Crawford
ACC should not be an option, as it was no accident that he was shot.
Look, under the nice rules we seem to be hamstrung under, these doyens of society have to be released at some stage.
The twats that make up the board released this arse-wipe under the guidelines they work under. [The sight of the name Jackson doesnt fill me with confidence however...... but I digress!]
Where the blame lies, I believe, is with the probation officer who ignored the breaches of conditions by arse-wipe
Does it? Or does the blame lie with the panel of experts who obviously disregarded considerable available (?) information in their decision to parole.. & if it wasn't available, then why not?
& if it was available & sufficient parole conditions were invoked to avert any risks, with whom lay the resposibility for ensuring adequate & capable oversight? ... a lowly prbation officer?
Quite simply, they did not have to release him at that point.
Does it? Or does the blame lie with the panel of experts who obviously disregarded considerable available (?) information in their decision to parole.. & if it wasn't available, then why not?
& if it was available & sufficient parole conditions were invoked to avert any risks, with whom lay the resposibility for ensuring adequate & capable oversight? ... a lowly prbation officer?
Quite simply, they did not have to release him at that point.
Dont get me wrong, I believe the board to be comprised of academic fuckwits, however, they take cognisence of both pro and con reports.
The political pressure to release must become fairly intense after declining parole several times, then getting reports from psych that he is not deemed a significant risk.
Yes, I do blame the "lowly" probation officer who ignored rank breaches by arsewipe and warning signs.
No doubt [s]he is overworked, however thats no excuse.
With any luck, it might jerk a few of his/her colleagues into gear.
It has become quite apparrent that anyone who was had an association with "p" is a danger to society. He may have changed his ways but there is no way anyone could prevent him from getting P once he was released. he made a choice to take the drug and should be treated as if sober. the effects of P are well known and criminals who use durgs as an excuse should have legnthier sentances, because they have willingly chosen to place themselves in that state.
Nonsense, Leonardo. 'P' is a stimulant & will simply heighten arousal - make any prior disposition, particularly poor impulse control, likely to occur. If Kiwiblog is correct about Burton's excess whilst in penal rehab. then there is considerable to be answered.The Corrections statement that,"the action taken was timely and appropriate," seems rather fatuous under the circumstances - especially as it is well known that impending incarceration frequently results in a 'burst' of offending ... lots of examples in respect to burglaries, sex offences ... the notion that a further long period imprisonment awaits simply means consequences are ineffective i.e. a conscienceless loose unit.
If Corrections process does not, or cannot, accommodate the individual risk associated with their charges then what is their raison d'etre?
So process was followed - I am sure this will result in a warm fuzzy feeling of security.
Yeah, right.... tell that to kuchenbecker's widow and kids.
Post a Comment