Life with no parole
November 2nd, 2004 at 9:44 am by David FarrarNational at the last election pledged to bring in life with no parole for the very worst murders.
Ahmad Riyaz Khan would seem to be a prime example of the sort of murder that should see him locked away forever.
I don’t want this guy out on parole at age 42. He has shown absolutely no remorse. He went down to the service station, dragged by her hair the poor girl, who briefly dated him, and then poured a entire bottle of lighter fluid over her. Finally he set her alight.
There must be few more horrible or terrifying ways to die. Quite simply if someone did that to someone I loved, I would want them dead, and would happily help the process along.
Her family should never ever have to cope with the possibility of having this killer appear before the Parole Board, thus re-inflicting on them the trauma of reliving the murder through the media coverage of whether he will be released.
I do not advocate life without parole for all murders. But I do for this one.
No tag for this post.
November 2nd, 2004 at 12:22 pm
As you should know, parole is about regulating people’s behaviour after they leave prison. If we didn’t have parole, we’d need to invent it. You may think that National can pull a swiftie by pretending to abolish parole but people are not that silly.
What you should be calling for, if you are honest, is longer sentences for the kinds of crime you talk about.
The only outcome of truly abolishing parole would be chucking people from prison straight into the community, with no ability to manage their re-integration into society. This would mean higher re-offending rates, more needless work for the criminal justice system and larger prison populations. None of which are good things.
Vote:November 2nd, 2004 at 12:47 pm
Jordan – you miss the point – I don’t want this guy to ever leave prison. Do you?
How can one hanve a longer sentence than life imprisonment? The problem is not the sentence, it is the possibility of parole.
97% of young criminals released from prison already reoffend. How can that get worse? Amongst the adult prison population 85% reoffend within five years!!
You claim a higher prison population is a bad thing. Well it is not as bad as letting this guy out again.
Vote:November 2nd, 2004 at 1:36 pm
Well David , I would do a Karl Rove and let the public see this :
Criminal Justice Amendment Act 1993
“(3) An offender who is subject to a determinate sentence of
imprisonment for a term of more than 12 months, not being a sentence for
a serious violent offence, is eligible to be released on parole after
the expiry of one-third of that sentence.
So national started the ‘Parole after only one third served’. As well the 1993 Act made people like Mikus get only the sentence that applied at the time of the crime not the sentence at the time of the trial
But I found an even better one from 1991
Foreshore and Seabed Endowment Revesting Act 1991
3. Treaty of Waitangi—All persons exercising functions and powers
Vote:under this Act shall have regard to the principles of the Treaty of
Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).
November 2nd, 2004 at 1:38 pm
This scumbag makes an eloquent and compelling case for capital punishment. Why spend a fortune on keeping him in prison? While, agreed, some murderers should be paroled eventually, this person should go to his maker as soon as possible.
Vote:November 2nd, 2004 at 2:08 pm
Only around eight current National MPs were in the Parliament from 1991 and 1993.
National has quite different policies today than it did then.
Vote:November 2nd, 2004 at 2:35 pm
Agreed – mercy to the criminal is more cruelty to the victims. A definite lock the door and throw away the key case. Something I’m more than willing to pay taxes for – protection from such predators.
Vote:November 2nd, 2004 at 3:49 pm
David – it’s not parole that is the issue, if you want him to never leave. It’s sentencing law. Unless you are seriously proposing that it should be a true life sentence i.e. incarcerated until the guy dies, then it is covered by the current law.
I think any parole board would be mad to let such a person out after 1/3 of their sentence. They’d hold him as long as required/possible, and only let him out at the end of the sentence, CONSISTENT WITH CONTROLLING HIS RELEASE INTO THE COMMUNITY.
Again. Parole is not the problem. Your complaint is about the sentence.
Vote:November 2nd, 2004 at 6:20 pm
Actually , i left out a good bit of the 1993 ACT
(4) An offender who is subject to a sentence of imprisonment for a
term of 15 years or more for a serious violent offence is eligible to be
released on parole after the expiry of 10 years of that sentence.
This set the upper limit of 10 years when you are eligible for parole which is 10years.
Vote:I think its a bit rich to say ‘only’ 8 current MPs were around in 1993. If it wasnt for the 20% party vote , they got last time,it would be something like 25
November 2nd, 2004 at 6:27 pm
I would support the death penalty as the only appropriate penalty but if it is to be Life Imprisoment it should mean that not a shorter term.
Vote:Judges expect witnesses to tell the truth, then invariably set an example by lying themselves when pronouncing sentence. Our papers are full of reports of severe sentences for vile crime. The term then has to be subdivided by three and allowance made for home detention to arrive at some idea as to what the sentence actually was.
November 2nd, 2004 at 9:39 pm
It is nonsense like ‘Parole is needed for reintegration’ that has got us with the ever increasing crime rate we have now. The answer is simple. Have criminals serve the full sentence and only then begin a ‘parole / reintegration
Vote: