Bail on Parole

April 26th, 2007 at 6:35 am by David Farrar

The story of Hiro Joe shows all that is wrong with our justice system.

In 2002 he reaped a 15 year old girl. He got a miserly six year term (less than one third the maximum). Thanks to Labour’s new parole laws, he got parole after one third of the sentence – after a couple of years.

Late last year he then kidnapped someone and was arrested. Now despite still being on parole, he got bail which allowed him to flee.

If someone is out on parole, and they are charged with a serious crime, then they should not be eligible for bail and/or have their parole cancelled. But instead we have the farce where Mr Joe is on both parole and bail at the same time. No wonder he fled – couldn’t believe his luck.

Parole is a privilege, not a right. But again a prisoner is freed despite a “high risk of violent offending and a medium-high risk of sexual offending” assessment.

Tags:

20 Responses to “Bail on Parole”

  1. james cairney () says:

    Yes that is a problem, but in an economic sense there has to be wholesale changes to other areas of our ‘justice’ system to allow for more funding in these regards (where I imagine there is broad agreement).

    I would start with the de-criminalisation of cannibis. What an utter waste of millions of dollars for what is essentially paternalistic law that does not harm (or risk harm) to a person aside from those who choose to smoke it. It makes as much sense to criminalise KFC.

    With these savings people would have
    1. more individual freedom, and
    2. more money to target genuine crime risks that most people actually care about. Your example is an example of this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Horace () says:

    Leftwing Penal code:

    1) Catch criminal.

    2) Hug.

    3) Release.

    The Hug’n’Release program may also be bolstered with blaming anything and anyone else other than the criminal or their actions. If things get really sticky, blame society and “move on”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Lisa () says:

    OMG when will they ever learn??? How many lives need to be destroyed by these cretins before the laws charged with protecting innocent people, actually do? Freakin outrageous… Is there a man hunt on for this time bomb?? With not much left to lose he is a very real threat to us all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Simon () says:

    To be slightly fair to Labor it was the Alliance retard McCarten who started all the outreach to scum programs. Geez Labor back then though thought they were shit hot. Those were the days.

    Anyways with the social democrats running things it’s only going to get worse which will pave the way for the right/National to reintroduce the death penalty at a later stage and start executing the scum. Until then make sure you know exactly where to get a weapon in the house.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. james cairney () says:

    Horace, Simon.

    You seem to imply that the current government are ‘soft’ on crime, I wonder what you are measuring that ‘toughness’ against?

    Is it the last NZ government?
    Is it Australia?
    Is it the UK?
    Is it some subjective standard of what you believe is ‘appropriate’?

    Given the significant increases in sentencing that have resulted in practice (as well as numbers serving) I can’t help but wonder where these ideas originate.

    In my opinion they are far too hard on some ‘crimes’, have too many criminal offences, and are too soft on certain serious crimes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Craig () says:

    The law is adequate in regards to sentencing, in most cases. The police catch the crims and a successful prosecution is brought. Why oh why do our judges continue to display such leniency? what world are these people living in. Just months after Burton, another lost cause is let loose on the public.
    Given bail afer commiting a crime while on parole?? HOW?
    For the sake of us all, JUDGES PLEASE LISTEN..criminals are not nice people, they will not change behaviour just becasue you are nice to them. They will see it for what it is, a weakness and they will exploit it. Good luck to this particular judge looking in the mirror every morning, should Joe go on to rape/kill some poor innocent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Andrew W () says:

    Maybe it because there aren’t enough prison cells, I know – shoot them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Whaleoil () says:

    Time for some Bounty Hunters….oh would that be legal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Toa Greening () says:

    I thought the most alarming aspect of this case was that Mr Joe only served 2 years for raping a child!!!

    When are we going to make our most violent criminals serve the actual time they are charged with? The government should seriously consider sending the worst violent offenders to outsourced prisons in Asia or the Pacific Islands. My understanding is that these prisons are operated much more efficiently and would have no issues in rehabilitating these people for a suitable amount of time at a fraction of the cost.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Toa Greening () says:

    Just read the first comments and disagree on decriminalising cannabis. Drug dealers provide the catalyst for major acts of violence. Therefore drug dealers should be treated the same as violent offenders and be rehabilitated for the full term by prisons in Asia or the Pacific Islands.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Mr I.P .Freely () says:

    HE VOTES LABOUR ,give this rapist/kidnapper a break ,(BULLIES)touchy/feely like sonic

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Jennifer Robson () says:

    Why do continue to mislead with your comment ..
    “Thanks to Labour’s new parole laws, he got parole after one third of the sentence – after a couple of years….

    Labours parole laws were the ones put in place by National previously.

    Yes , its true National indroduced the ‘one third time’ served rules

    See Section 47 of 1993 Criminal Justice Amendment Act

    “(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.

    Labours 2002 Parole Act just continued the previous arangements

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. David Farrar () says:

    Jennifer – as you well know that was for non violent crimes. Big difference.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Oswald Bastable () says:

    And labour have had how long to fix this?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. thehawk () says:

    CAN WE FIND OUT AND PUBLICISE THE NAME OF THE JUDGE RESPONSIBLE?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. james cairney () says:

    “Drug dealers provide the catalyst for major acts of violence”

    Unsubstantiated and unqualified nonsense, what do you base this claim on?

    Furthermore, if that was sufficient grounds for the criminal sanction then alcohol would need to be criminalised quick smart. Alcohol being the outright winner in the ‘catalyst for major acts of violence’ category.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Jennifer Robson () says:

    David you are mistaken about ‘Labours new Parole laws’
    The Parole Act 2002 DOES NOT mention release after one third of time served
    See s20 Parole Act 2002
    http://rangi.knowledge-basket.co.nz/gpacts/public/text/2002/se/010se20.html

    The one third served rule was bought in by National in 1993

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Lisa () says:

    Why introduced cannabis into this debate, James? Have you got a personal agenda.

    Contrary to belief, cannabis is not a harmless drug. It is a risk factor for destabilisation in mental status and can often precipitate psychosis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Lisa () says:

    Why introduced cannabis into this debate, James? Have you got a personal agenda.

    Contrary to belief, cannabis is not a harmless drug. It is a risk factor for destabilisation in mental status and can often precipitate psychosis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. stomper () says:

    James Cairney – are you supplying or using drugs? You sure seem defensive and ignorant regarding the crime caused by either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.