Capill up for parole
April 27th, 2008 at 11:38 am by David FarrarIn 2002 Labour changed the laws so even violent offenders and rapists could become eligible for parole after one third of their sentence.
The Criminal Justice Act 1985 did not allow a prisoner to be released from prison before two thirds of their sentence, if they had been convicted of any of the following crimes:
- Sexual Violation (includes rape)
- Manslaughter
- Attempted Murder
- Wounding on injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and wounding/injuring with intent to injure
- Using a firearm against law enforcement officer
- Commission of crime with firearm
- Robbery and aggravated robbery
But the Parole Act 2002 changed that, and lets all the rapists and other thugs become eligible after one third of their sentence. Labour only finally backed down on this in the last parliamentary term.
So in July of this year, Graham Capill will become eligible for parole, despite having served only three years of his nine year sentence.
Related posts:
- No parole for Capill
- Shipton out of prison
- Graham Capill drops appeal
- No undue risk to the community
April 27th, 2008 at 11:52 am
It seems to me being eligible for parole after only a third of a sentence makes a mockery of a judge’s sentencing decision. Surely a prisoner should serve most of a sentence before being considered for parole, perhaps after two thirds of a sentence. I certainly believe in helping prisoners gradually integrate back into society with parole rather than just throwing them out through the gate at the expiry of their full sentence.
Vote:April 27th, 2008 at 11:56 am
It seems to me being eligible for parole after only a third of a sentence makes a mockery of a judge’s sentencing decision. Surely a prisoner should serve most of a sentence before being considered for parole, perhaps after two thirds of a sentence. I certainly believe in helping prisoners gradually integrate back into society with parole rather than just throwing them out through the gate at the expiry of their full sentence.
As far as Capill is concerned I don’t believe in being too lenient with child sex offenders. I think they should be supervised for years after release.
Vote:April 27th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
What kind of treatment will Capill have gone through in prison? Does anyone know? What kind of attempt is made to curb those impulses?
Vote:April 27th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
You deliberately omit the indroduction of nationals laws in the early 90s which first bought in one third sentences before parole.
To save money of course , which bought the explosion of crime from 95 onwards.
One think you were formenting mischief
[DPF: The post made quite clear implicitly that non serious offenders could get parole prior to two thirds of their sentence, under the existing law. But Labour decided that this should be extended to rapists, killers, armed robbers and those who do serious injuries. GWW hates this being pointed out]
Vote:April 27th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Bob, the judges know the parole eligibility regime and factor that into their sentencing. That is one of the reasons that sentences have become a great deal tougher since the Parole Act was passed. They never used to be as tough as they are now. The regime is changing again once the Sentencing Council comes in, with parole eligibility once again returning to two-thirds of the sentence imposed. Of course, this means that sentences will probably come down! That said, our parole board is very good at getting around the law and keeping the prisoners in anyway. I think the average time served is somewhere between half and two-thirds of actual sentence, so getting out at one-third is relatively uncommon.
BTW, the two-thirds only applies to sentences over two years. Any sentence of two years and under and you get kicked out at the half way stage. Again, that is going to change with the Sentencing Council, with any sentence of up to a year being served in full and anything over a year having to go through the (two-thirds) parole process.
Ironically, it was part of Labour ‘getting tough on crime’ as a response to Norm Wither’s petition/referendum that led to the Parole Act in 2002. Now they are going back to where it was to start with- does that mean we are now going to be softer on crime?
Vote:April 27th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Ryan Sproull asks about treatment for Capill…
How about Capill’s responsibility for doing wrong? Capill is responsible for curbing his own impulses. What makes Ryan think that teams of therapists and psychologists can curb his offending? The psychologists may provide a good service by assessing the likelihood of re-offending and danger of releasing the prisoner, and by establishing whether there is any remorse. But for most criminals isn’t the question one of choosing right or wrong? And that’s where punishment comes in. Whether they re-offend is their choice.
If Capill chooses to re-offend the key of his cell will, or should be, thrown away. Capill was a rat bag, and it’s no use implying his offending was some sort of disorder. That implication comes when you ask what treatment he received. In fact he was a horny, lying, evil bastard who preyed on highly vulnerable youngsters. He is dead lucky to get a second chance at civilised life.
Free will plays a bigger role in human life than lefty-liberal determinists maintain. Our appalling violent crime proves this in my view. The offenders have more than adequate means of life, sympathetic courts, and almost idealisation from NZ’s lefty culture. They are treated as though they commit crime because THEY are somehow victims of the rest of us. They are given the message it’s not really their fault — it’s the hue of their skin, their broken families, their vandalised neighbours, the schools, the lack of education they in fact spurned, too few state mentors, or perhaps a personality disorder (rather than a psychiatric illness).
Balls!
Vote:April 27th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
GWW, did Labour extend the 1/3 rule to violent criminals in order to save money? It just seems that you attribute “saving money” as a motive to anything that National did, but that anything that Labour does is automatically above question. Labour good, National bad, is that it?
Vote:April 27th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
That new comment counter is a bit scary really…pity you can’t modify it to also display average karma…
Vote:April 27th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
testing counter
Vote:April 27th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
It’s been my understanding that psychology has got to the point where we can tell if people are rehabilitatable or not. If they’re not, they’re a danger to society and “throwing away the key” is probably appropriate. If they’re rehabilitatable, they shouldn’t receive sentences. They should have to prove that they are no longer a danger to society by working their way back up through the levels of behaviour modification/rehabilitation to prove it. I don’t see how sentence length is associated with complex pyschological disorders and how judges have a good enough understanding of this to form the correlation. Sentence length currently seems proportional to public disgust levels of the crime and the whole “prison is for rehabilitation” is a vacuous phrase.
Vote:April 27th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Also, the counter is strange. Average karma would be much better!
Vote:April 27th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Yeah – total Karma (or average Karma) would be more useful…
Edit: 500+: seriously?
Vote:April 27th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
What can you get from it??
Vote:April 27th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Without wanting to detract from Capill’s crime, would he have been prosecuted if he had been a serving Labour MP? Or would the Police have deemed it to be not in the public interest to do so?
Vote:April 27th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Duxton
“Without wanting to detract from Capill’s crime, would he have been prosecuted if he had been a serving Labour MP? Or would the Police have deemed it to be not in the public interest to do so?”
Of course not, dear leader would have described Capill as only being guilty of trying to help people and when pushed the useless and Police commissioner would have ensured that while a prima facie case existed it was not in the public interest to prosecute.
Vote:April 27th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Duxton good point, surely Capill will now put his name forward for National party selection, along with every other loser from other parties.
Vote:Remember too it was not in the public interest to prosecute Gerry Brownlee for assault during an election meeting ( but he was convicted on a civil case)
April 27th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Did GWW just suggest we have a prosecution open season on politicians who have broken the law? Imagine! The top labour benches would be deserted and the general population would be offering their jury services in droves. Now THAT would be reality TV I’d watch.
Vote:April 27th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Ghostwhowalks3:
You don’t really want to get into a discussion about >Labour MPs in the dock now, do you?
Vote:April 27th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Peal Oil , just two words Nick Smith
Vote:April 27th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
The 1993 Crimal Justice Amendment Act said this
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.
http://gpacts.knowledge-basket.co.nz/gpacts/public/text/1993/se/043se43.html
Vote:April 27th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Ghostwhowalks3:
You want more? Just five words: Taito Phillip Field and alleged bribery.
Vote:April 27th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
ghost, how about this for a roll of honour….
Heather Simpson
Helen Clark x 3
Philip Field
David Benson Pope x 2
Dover Samuels
Judith Dyson
David Parker
Trevor Mallard
Peter Davis
Mike Williams
There are bound to be more that I have overlooked such is the level of corruption inside the Labour party
And while I am on the subject of rolls of honour, can you tell me which dawn service dear corrupt leader attended this year or as in the past, has she simply not bothered?
Vote:April 27th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Big Bruv:
You missed these (as at 27 October 2007 – so already superseded by future events, like Mallard’s day in court):
- Ruth Dyson (sprung for drunk-driving on her way home from Parliament)
- Marian Hobbs and Phillida Bunkle (who faced double-dipping claims)
- Harry Duynhoven (infringed arcane nationality rules)
- Lianne Dalziel (caught out telling porkies to journalists)
- Tariana Turia (sacked after she took issue with the Foreshore and Seabed legislation, resigned from Parliament and came back as Maori Party leader)
- John Tamihere (sacked after he made imprudent comments to Investigate magazine)
And help me out here. Which of those political prisoners has Helen let out on parole? Or, if you prefer, released from servitude to the Labour Party?
Vote:April 27th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Cheers POC…I knew “Judith” was not right but could not be arsed checking, I could no possibly be expected to remember ALL of the crimes committed by Labour members.
Vote:April 27th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
it sickens me he only got 9 years, and now he’s eligible to apply for parole after only 3, disgraceful
Vote:April 27th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
I once shook Capill’s hand, and now I know where it’s been it creeps me out.
I feel nothing but pity for the guy. He was raised in a strict Dutch Reformed Church environment, the son of a minister (and founder of the High School I attended), and taught from an early age that sex was icky. When you’re that repressed, you get to marriage and there’s no way you can have a satisfying sexual relationship with your wife, because you’re not supposed to enjoy it. You feel guilt, shame and a lack of fulfilment. You can’t reach any level of confidence or intimacy with your wife because there is a conflict between your own needs and your guilt. You don’t feel in control of your needs.
From there, it’s a matter of time before you turn to children because you are in a position of authority and that’s the only way you can express yourself sexually and get what you want.
Maybe that’s a simplistic way of looking at it, but I’m convinced that religious repression of sex is a key factor in paedophilia. I’m not arguing for the other extreme – licentiousness, but puritannical attitudes are not helping people achieve satisfaction in one of God’s greatest gifts to mankind.
Vote:April 27th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Blair M says of Capill: “I feel nothing but pity for the guy” then goes on to blame Capill’s religious father and a strict puritan upbringing.
Hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of children from puritan families are not paedophiles. Otago-Southland was settled by the Free Kirk, a puritan denomination and the paedophile incidence there is no higher than anywhere else in the country. Samoans and Tongans come from a puritan-religious background. They don’t seem to be notable for paedophilia.
And thousands of paedophiles do not (not) come from puritan backgrounds. Think of that Hungarian scumbag who killed the little girl in Napier. Think of paedophile Catholic priests in NZ, Australia, and the United States. I don’t think you can correctly say Roman Catholicism is a puritan religion.
Capill made evil choices and committed evil actions. His father and his upbringing are not to blame. He is to blame. No-one else.
And what bullshit about puritans’ children being unable to enjoy marital sex. How come they had such big families?
Vote:April 27th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Make no mistake: Capill’s actions were evil, disgusting, illegal and fail just about every test of human decency known.
In instances like this I’m always perplexed to hear folks who have already decided that Christianity isn’t for them (their right of course) helping to justify that position by pointing to folks like Capill and saying ‘that’s why’ (even if only to themselves…). How about instead being brave enough to look at the life and teachings of Jesus and saying ‘that’s not for me’. I think that would be a more honest justification for rejecting Christianity.
Back to the issue at hand, I think Capill should be made to serve his full sentence. No Parole
Vote:April 27th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
I am a follower of Christ, albeit a bad one. Though that said, I have yet to meet a good follower of Christ. I think that’s the point of Christianity.
I believe that Jesus was personally celibate, though beyond his condemnation of adultery and lust, he made no substantive pronouncements regarding sex.
Jack, I am not absolving Capill of personal responsibility, but I do believe that Capill’s puritan upbringing did not help him any. Nor am I saying that a puritan attitude to sex automatically breeds paedophiles. What I am saying is that it sure doesn’t help much. I also think that Catholicism can be very repressive – the simple command that clergy be celibate – unknown amongst both Protestant and Orthodox branches of the Faith – creates a repressed sexual environment for priests that, to be sure, many can cope with, but also many can not.
Individuals should always be held accountable. But we should also look at the circumstances around them, and ensure they are not bred.
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
The guy is such a hypocrite. A while ago I came across a site that had undertaken some type of forensic analysis of the press release he issued after being sentence, thought it was quite revealing (http://www.verify.co.nz/case-grahamcapill.php). There is one there on Mark Lundy too.
Vote:April 28th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
I think we should give the little nonce parole, but on the strict condition that he appear in a televised Celebrity Boxing show on prime-time TV, and has to do battle with the likes of… (in ascending order of scariness)… Lindsay Perigo, David Kirk, Trevor Mallard, Dean Lonergan, Tariana Turia and, in the final big battle of the bad-asses, David Tua.
Squeal little piggy!…hehe… he squeals good…
Vote: