When murderer John Coombes was convicted for a second murder, what did the Adult Parole Board do? Let him out of prison in 2007 to murder his friend, foster mother Raechel Betts, and throw her body parts into the sea.
When violent offender William Watkins was convicted of raping a neighbour in 2000, what did the board do? Let him out of prison to rape and murder Laura and Colleen Irwin, two sisters living next door.
When drug trafficker David Clifford was convicted for physical assault and harassment offences, what did the board do? Let him out in 2008 to bash and murder hairdresser Elsa Corp.
When Steven Hunter was convicted of assault, false imprisonment and drug trafficking, what did the board do? Gave him parole in 2009, meaning he was free to murder Sarah Cafferkey three years later (just after parole ended) and dump her body in a wheelie bin.
When Francis McCullagh was convicted for burning, kicking and bashing the mother of his three children with blocks of wood in 1997, what did the board do? It let him out of prison to bash his girlfriend Melanie Harnden to death.
When Jason Dinsley committed a drug-fuelled rape at knife point, the board overlooked his 100 prior convictions and released him. He then battered Sharon Siermans to death in April with a cricket bat while her son hid in a bedroom.
And when convicted rapist Adrian Bayley was given his leave pass, he raped and murdered Jill Meagher last September.
This prompted the commissioning of the just-delivered report of former High Court judge Ian Callinan on the board’s catastrophic failures.
All these women might still be alive but for the board’s decisions.
In 1991, Bayley was given a five-year sentence for raping three women. He served only three years. In 2002, he was convicted of 16 counts of rape against five prostituted women, and received just under half the maximum sentence. In the year before he killed Meagher, the board was warned five times about his behaviour.
”There was no single documentation containing a straightforward complete chronology of his criminal history or analytical material relating to it on the files,” Justice Callinan said.
While violent sexual offenders and serious sexual offenders including paedophiles ”constituted an obvious and greater threat to society than most other offenders”, victims’ rights came second to the rights of offenders. Victims were often not even given notice of the release of sex offenders.
”I have no doubt that many of the victims of serious violent and sexual crimes do not believe that their concerns are fully taken into account by the ‘authorities’,” Justice Callinan wrote.
Victorian Premier Denis Napthine has said that a number of the 23 recommendations, including tougher criteria for release, will be adopted ”swiftly”. Why not all of them? Why not immediately? Delay could be lethal. (There have been 401 arrests for breaches of parole just this year).
Of course Victoria isn’t the only state where the criminal justice system fails women. Terrence Leary allegedly assaulted a woman in June after being out on parole for the 1990 murder of a 17-year-old girl.
In 2001, Sean Lee King, 27, beat his girlfriend Jazmin-Jean Ajbschitz, 18, to death in a ferocious, drug-fuelled murder. He was on parole for drugs and firearms offences and was facing separate assault charges.
The NSW State Parole Authority has been criticised for deciding to release murderers, sex offenders and other serious criminals based on deliberations lasting often only five minutes.
Former authority member Noel Beddoe told NSW Attorney-General Greg Smith that the ”safety of the community wasn’t always uppermost” in the parole process and that it was increasingly difficult to give complex cases the attention they deserved. Smith had asked Corrective Services NSW for a review of the handling of serious sex offenders on parole.
State governments should also take another look at sentencing. Alison Grundy, a NSW clinical psychologist in the field of sexual assault for more than 20 years, recalls a case in which a man convicted of sexually assaulting her client received a suspended sentence. But for stealing a caravan he was sent to prison for three years.
”I thought at the time – yep that about sums it up – women’s safety is not an issue and women’s lives are pretty cheap,” Grundy says. ”The right to freedom for men is infinitely more important under the law than the safety and lives of women.”
A Change.org petition calling on federal and state attorneys-general to enact stronger rape sentencing has more than 27,000 signatures.
Sentencing and release issues have become too much about the rights of offenders. More attention needs to be given to the rights of women, to value our rights to live a decent life. Or simply to be allowed to live.
7 Responses
I think it’s disgusting…they should be monitored and tagged like an animal, which they are!
Yet more evidence that male created legal system has never applied to women. Men created their legal system to provide individual male protection from male political interference and also to protect men’s property. Hence the term ‘a man’ home is his castle!’
This is why male property theft continues to be deemed by men’s male supremacist legal system a far more serious crime than mens’ everyday sexual violence against women and girls.
Note too all those males ‘rewarded’ for subjecting women to sadistic sexual violence, went on to murder yet more women upon being released. I wonder if men’s male supremacist legal system also ‘rewards’ males who have murdered other males with ‘early release’ because these male felons as seen as no longer a threat to other men?
As usual male created legal system decides ‘we’ll implement certain aspects of Justice Callinan’s report,’ meaning men will not enact these important recommendations if the issue concerns women’s right to legal protection from violent males.
Men constantly claim ‘yes we’ll do this or that’ but such platitudes are just that ‘platitudes’ designed to fool women 24/7 but I for one am not buying it. Deeds not words is what is required from men’s legal system and I predict nothing will change because the issue isn’t about protecting men and their property – hence it isn’t important to men!
Note too parole boards just like their brother, the legal system believes that a convicted male’s history of violence against women is irrelevant because the only issue is when will we release this male because he poses no threat to other men.
This is why male violence against women is pandemic and unceasing because men and their male created legal system continue to excuse/justify/ignore fact violent men do not ‘magically change’ and ‘threat to society’ continues to mean ‘threat to mens’ society and system – because women and girls don’t count – since men continue to claim they aren’t human. Ergo: no one was harmed because violent men do not pose a threat to men.
Verily! Men make me sick, and it’s about time we stopped pandering to them. I say we monitor, tag them and then put them in CAGES! At the very least! This is nothing more than what they deserve.
Ruby, I just can’t decide. Is it better if you’re serious, and actually think that men should be caged, or if you’re joking, and are taking the question of whether the violent deaths of women could have been prevented as an opportunity to attempt some kind of sarcastic point?
there’s no accounting for morons in office who call good evil and evil good. These scum need to be locked up and the key thrown away. A psychopath is a psychopath, and will manipulate these dickheads into letting them out. Why do they do this? Aren’t these women precious enough to protect? It’s sick.
Having worked with young women over the last decade who are victims of violent crime, I am appalled that we are still waiting for definitive action to be taken to ensure the safety of our women and children. I believe this is not only a systemic problem, but also a reflection of the greater issue that people in positions of power, such as the Parole Board in these cases, are overlooking the potential harm of the decisions they are making. Have they grown complacent, or have they become hardened to the depth of criminality that they are working with? How much more information do they need, or how much more time should they be spending with offenders before making their decisions? One would hope that these positions would be replenished regularly to maintain consistency and strength in the outcomes. When parole is used as mostly an incentive to maintain control in detention, who is actually making the call to grant freedom and on what basis have they determined that these criminals are no longer a threat? I was disgusted to learn in Ian Callinan’s report that Adrian Bayley did not event meet in person with the Parole Board. How could it possibly have been determined that good behaviour inside jail was going to guarantee good behaviour outside jail, when appropriate authorities did not even meet with him before he was released? Psychologically, there are many indicators which could determine whether a criminal is likely to offend again. Where are those reports, who is conducting them, and why aren’t they being utilised more effectively? To me, this is the part of the process which is letting us down and threatening the safety of innocent victims, people who we know. It’s not just high profile cases, it is women and girls that we know who are being put at risk – our neighbours, work colleagues, friends, sisters, and our daughters – and it is not okay. It is unfortunate that it has taken the life of women like Jill Meagher for this issue to become a more visible topic, but surely the example of these cases makes it blatantly obvious that change is needed within the people and the processes of this system.
Nicole, I am not ‘taking the question of whether the violent deaths of women could have been prevented as an opportunity to attempt some kind of sarcastic point’. I am stating the fact that men and their violence deserve to be accorded with due justice. The notion of men being caged is not unethical or unjustified, as you imply. What is, on the contrary, is men and their disgusting ways, as they have proven throughout history, and continue to. For women and children, I say that it is better that men receive absolute zero tolerance. If this means keeping them in cages, so be it.