Field to be freed on parole

October 6th, 2011 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Disgraced former MP Taito Phillip Field has been granted parole.

He will be released from jail later this month after serving one-third of his six-year sentence.

This was Field’s first parole hearing.

Field was found guilty of 11 of 12 charges of bribery and corruption as an MP after having Thai nationals carry-out work on his properties in return for immigration assistance between November 2002 and October 2005.

He was also found guilty of 15 of 23 charges of wilfully attempting to obstruct or pervert the course of justice, alleging he tried to derail investigations into the work on his homes.

I don’t have a huge issue with this. Field is not a threat to the community and unlikely to reoffend. Cases like him are appropriate for early parole. Having said that, I wonder if he accepts he did wrong doing, and has any remorse. he might still hold to the official Labour position that the only thing he was guilty of is trying too hard to help his constituents.

Tags:

13 Responses to “Field to be freed on parole”

  1. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    Why do you say he is unlikely to reoffend? He has always maintained he did nothing wrong and if nothign else displayed a concerted effort and avoiding being held accoutnable.

    I’d put him in the high risk category as well as asking why he is getting out when no evidence of remose has been displayed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Elaycee (4,286 comments) says:

    Something doesn’t quite stack up for me here:

    For Field to be released on parole, I understood that he had to firstly accept his guilt / accept the consequences of his actions and express remorse. But according to the radio reports, Field still maintains his innocence… So either the radio reports are just another media beat up or there is no longer the requirement to accept guilt etc as a condition of being granted parole.

    Is anyone able to fill the gaps here?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. mikenmild (10,610 comments) says:

    I’m not sure that acceptance of guilt is specifically required. The overall consideration is supposed to be one of public safety.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. david (2,531 comments) says:

    I’m with Elaycee. I was certain that acceptance of guilt and expression of remorse were two pre-requisites to even get a parole hearing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. berend (1,630 comments) says:

    Release after one third of your sentence. What a ridiculous concept.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. ciaron (1,312 comments) says:

    don’t have a huge issue with this. Field is not a threat to the community and unlikely to reoffend. Cases like him are appropriate for early parole.

    Sorry, can’t agree when the crimes are corruption and obstruction of justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. jaba (2,089 comments) says:

    hope he brings out a book on the last year or so of his role in Labour and how he was treated

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. peterwn (3,140 comments) says:

    He must have convinced the Board and those who contribute reports of his acceptance of guilt and remorse.

    The dilemma for a truly innocent person is whether to eat a dead rat to leave the Big House as soon as possible or to maintain innocence and stay there longer. I suspect that at each successive hearing less weight is attached to admission of guilt and remorse.

    Although release after a third of the sentence seems ridiculous, he is essentially ‘on probation’ until the awarded sentence expires. That sort of burden is no joke.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. backster (2,073 comments) says:

    Six years of Community Service maybe laying tiles might have been a better sentence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. toad (3,668 comments) says:

    The irony is that a serially corrupt crook like Field gets to vote in the November election even though he has served only a third of his sentence, while some poor sod banged up for a couple of months because the cops caught him or her with a bit of dak doesn’t get a vote.

    Nat supporters here can thank the Nats’ least competent MP, Paul Quinn, and your Party’s backing of his stupid Bill that disenfranchised all prison inmates for that injustice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Why the hell should a crim inside get a vote? They made the choice to be anti-society by their actions so they deserve to lose societal privileges and rights till they are released…end of story.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. kiwi in america (2,431 comments) says:

    toad
    Perhaps the dienfranchised criminals should’ve thought of the loss of their vote before they offended. If this policy was put to a referendum I venture to say it would pass with over 70% of the vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. GPT1 (2,087 comments) says:

    I do support parole but I cannot help but think 1/3rd is a bit early in terms of the deterrence aspect. Perhaps if it was backend Home D as an option (which would make sense for a non violent offender such as Field) rather than “mere” parole. Note I am not sure what restrictions are on his parole – he may even be restricted in his movements.

    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.