What does extended supervision mean?

July 13th, 2012 at 2:58 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

The high risk sex offender dubbed ‘The Beast of Blenheim’, Stewart Murray Wilson, will stay under extended supervision for the maximum 10 years after his prison sentence ends and his parole term expires.

The order was imposed by Justice Graham Lang in a written decision issued in the High Court at Christchurch today, a week after he heard a day of legal argument.

He described Wilson as presenting “a rare and special case” and said: “He will remain at risk of offending against young females well beyond the expiry of his release conditions.

“An extended supervision order is therefore necessary, in my view, to achieve the statutory objective of protecting such persons from the risk of further offending in the future by Mr Wilson.”

Does anyone know exactly what extended supervision involves? How often can he be checked up on?

In 1995, a jury found Wilson guilty on seven charges of rape, one charge of attempted rape, two charges of ill-treatment of children, one charge of bestiality, one charge of attempting to stupefy and two of stupefying, three of assault on a woman, and six of indecent assault.

Many of the charges were laid as representative charges, indicating the offences had been committed more than once.

Wilson was jailed for 21 years in 1996 and has remained in custody even though he became eligible for parole some time ago because the Parole Board considers he presents a high risk of re-offending.

In hindsight 21 years was not enough.

Tags: ,

60 Responses to “What does extended supervision mean?”

  1. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    http://www.corrections.govt.nz/about-us/fact-sheets/information-for-offenders-and-their-families/extended-supervision—what-offenders-can-expect.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Manolo (13,837 comments) says:

    Wouldn’t a bullet be easier in the case of this incorrigible animal?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    Two year (max) sentences for breach of conditions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    It means he will be allowed out in public again.

    What a sick parody of justice .

    He should have been publicly hung.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    The vile sickness of Liberal society is well and truly revealed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Lee – you are way too soft. Surely he should have been tortured to death.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. kowtow (8,524 comments) says:

    Soft cock liberal “justice ” system.

    Look folks this is progressivism,ain’t it great?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Surely Parliament could have passed a We Don’t Like Him Act 2012 to keep him in prison forever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Nostalgia-NZ (5,221 comments) says:

    Lots of people here were screaming out for a law change when this story broke and ignoring the fact that extended supervision could and ultimately was applied for. Now that’s happening, meaning greater safety for the public. I thought DPF would remember the comments that extended supervision can extend right to being under guard 24 hours a day. Next ‘shocking’ headline please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. lyndon (325 comments) says:

    Or as corrections describes it in this case
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1207/S00159/extended-supervision-order-for-stewart-murray-wilson.htm

    Funny someone should have been commenting on the merits of changing the law to allow arbitrary extension of sentences without knowing about ESOs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Lucia Maria (2,467 comments) says:

    So, when he offends again, who will be held responsible?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Maybe if Wilson reoffends, he will be held responsible Lucia.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Mike,

    I would love it if you repeated your views face to face with his victims. I would happily pay to watch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Oh good, mm wants to hold him responsible only AFTER he has raped and/or murdered another women.

    What a nice chap.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Lucia Maria (2,467 comments) says:

    Mikenmild,

    Not if we adopt the Catholic priest approach. There’s been a whole new level of accountability forged with the prosecution of Mons. Lynn in Philadelphia who was found responsible for another person’s offending.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. tvb (4,430 comments) says:

    Extended supervision orders run for up to 10 years – usually for 10 years. They have a number of conditions attached to them and offenders can be monitored quite closely. Breach of an order can carry up to 2 years imprisonment and it is not unusual for offenders who breach the order to go to prison.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Lee
    I foresee some difficulties in holding him responsible for a crime beforen he has committed one.
    Lucia
    Yes, I’m pleased to see that Benedict the lots has taken personal resposnibility fior the whole shambles. He hast, hasn’t he?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. OneTrack (3,114 comments) says:

    Mikenmild – By the way, I hear he is being paroled to the house next door to yours. An opportunity. You could go and welcome him to the neighbourhood. And take him to meet all the other neighbours – and their children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Lucia Maria (2,467 comments) says:

    Mikenmild,

    Depends what you mean by personal responsibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    I see he likes bestiality as well as rape.

    Perhaps a local goat can be found that wouldn’t mind providing the extended supervision?
    Chain up Wilson and the Goat to one of those goat kennels you see everywhere. If Wilson behaves himself the goat might reward him with a bit of goat buttsex, while if he misbehaves he’ll just get butted by a goat… good job. And the human populace of Blenheim would have nothing to worry about.

    And on a serious note, what Mikenmild said at 3:35pm.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Viking2 (11,488 comments) says:

    Well 21 years from 1996 is 2017 so what the hell are we discussing this for. That’s another 5 years away.

    He needs to be incarcerated in a place that makes him safe. (like many others.) Genetically he cannot help himself in the same way as mental health impaired people can’t. (and dare I say it lesbians and homosexual people).
    That he represents a danger to others indicates the need for permanent detention.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. GPT1 (2,122 comments) says:

    21 years is ok as a discrete sentence. The probably was that preventative detention was not available for first offenders at that time (I am pretty sure it is now but Graeme or FES will know) so despite the fact he had been offending over a number of years he could only get a discrete sentence.

    In my view he is the perfect candidate for PD.

    ESOs can control virtually every aspect of a prisoners, er, released person’s life as I understand it. Right down to owning pets, where you can work, where you can go etc. Some can be a bit daft (I heard of one that had a condition of not to go with in 500m of a park – it was actually impossible for him to be driven from prison to accomodation and not be in breach) but the powers are extensive from what I understand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Viking2 (11,488 comments) says:

    Perhaps he would make a good priest. There ya Lucia you could adopt him into your local gang.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Indeed, this is a serious topic, although one would not know that from the rabid responses. We don’t lock people up unless they have been found guilty of a crime. We do have laws that allow for indefinite detention – Wilson did not meet those criteria at the time he was convicted. It looks like the extended supervision should be more rigorous than usual and that’s really all that can be done. If people really want indefinite detention then they should ask our elected representatives to change the law, which has already been strengthened since Wilson was sentenced.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. alex Masterley (1,517 comments) says:

    David asks the question”what is an extended supervision order?

    An extended supervision order is one which contains the standard release provisions imposed on person released from jail at the end of their sentences and any special conditions imposed by the Board under section 107K of the parole act which apply for the period determined by the Board, or in this case the period determined by Justice Lang in his decision.

    At the risk of being tedious I set out the relevant provisions of section 107K which addresses the content of extended supervision orders

    (1) At any time before an extended supervision order expires or is cancelled, and whether or not it has come into force, the Board may, on an application by the chief executive or a probation officer, impose on the offender—
    (a) any special condition that the Board is entitled to impose under section 15; and
    (b) a special condition requiring the person to reside at a specified address and be subject to the standard detention conditions set out in section 36(2)(a), (b), and (d), as if the person were on home detention.
    (2) If an offender is subject to a special condition referred to in subsection (1)(b)—
    (a) the condition may include a requirement that the offender submit to being accompanied and monitored, for up to 24 hours a day, by an individual who has been approved, by a person authorised by the chief executive, to undertake person-to-person monitoring; and
    (b) the standard release conditions do not apply.

    i suspect the parole board will tie up Mr Wilson with close monitoring for as long as they can within the limits allowed by the Parole Act.

    Lee,

    Mike is correct. Mr Wilson has reached the end of the term of imprisonment imposed on him. He has to be released subject to release conditions.

    As an aside I understand that the sentencing judge at the time commented that he would have wished to impose a sentence of preventative detention upon Mr Wilson but could not as the law as it then stood did not permit it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    The only rabid response has been your pathetic liberal platitudes mm.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. s.russell (1,642 comments) says:

    As Viking2 says, the 21 years wont be complete until 2017. So why is he being released in September of THIS year. Is the sentence meaningless?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Alex,

    So what?

    Which is more important, protecting women from being brutally raped by this sick monster, or liberal legal niceties?

    Neither you nor mike are women, nor are you family members of his victims, so your pathetic intellectual masturbation is easy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Fuck the liberal crap that currently passes for “law” and “justice”. Just put him against a wall and put a bullet in his head.

    Criminals and monsters thrive on the tolerance and legal niceties of liberal society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. alex Masterley (1,517 comments) says:

    According to Justice Lang’s decision Mr Wilson has a statutory release date of 1 September 2012.

    If Mr Wilson offends or breaches his parole conditions between the statutory release date and the end of his sentence he can be recalled as i understand things.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Believe it or not, the community is not always able to protect everyone from sick monsters. Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on your perspective, we have a rule of law instead of chaotic vigilante justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. alex Masterley (1,517 comments) says:

    Lee

    Why ad hom attack? It diminishes the point you make.

    The why is because it is the law. I am bound for a variety of reasons to uphold it, whether or not I like it.

    Personally I would have wished to see Mr Wilson incarcerated for the rest of his natural life but that could not happen in 1996.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    We don’t have a “rule of law”.

    We have the rule of liberalism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Alex,

    I apologize for the Ad Hominem. I just get very angry at the ease with which liberals justify evil.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. peterwn (3,277 comments) says:

    Presumably an offender with foreign or dual nationality could escape extended supervision by returning to his country of origin.
    The Parole Act is silent on whether an individual subject to intensive supervision is free to leave NZ. but as the purpose of intensive supervision is preventative rather than punitive, presumably the offender cannot be forced to remain in NZ.

    If the offender is a foreign citizen but a NZ resident presumably the offender would be deported once the denunciation aspect of his sentence was fulfilled.

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

    Castration, in the nicest possible way, would solve the problem.

    If it’s OK for your cat,why not a serial rapist?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. iMP (2,387 comments) says:

    Really what it means is, if he steps an inch wrong (is seen near a victim’s home), we can bang him back inside.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Nostalgia-NZ (5,221 comments) says:

    It actually means this..

    ‘may include a requirement that the offender submit to being accompanied and monitored, for up to 24 hours a day,’

    Which corrections said during the last mass panic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Yvette (2,824 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria – Lynn in Philadelphia who was found responsible for another person’s offending.

    No – Lynn was found guilty of helping to cover up priest sex abuse during his tenure as secretary of clergy for the Philadelphia archdiocese from 1992 to 2004.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Lucia Maria (2,467 comments) says:

    Yvette,

    Lynn was found guilty of “Endangering the Welfare of a Child”. Not of covering anything up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Yvette (2,824 comments) says:

    Lucia – ‘covering things up’ was precisely what William Lynn did, and so “Endangering the Welfare of a Child” by attack from others, not physically himself.

    PHILADELPHIA — A Roman Catholic church official was convicted of child endangerment but acquitted of conspiracy Friday in a landmark clergy-abuse trial, making him the first U.S. church official branded a felon for covering up abuse claims.

    Monsignor William Lynn helped the archdiocese keep predators in ministry, and the public in the dark, by telling parishes their priests were being removed for health reasons and then sending the men to unsuspecting churches, prosecutors said.

    Lynn, 61, served as secretary for clergy from 1992 to 2004, mostly under Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua.

    “Many in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia hierarchy had dirty hands,” Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams said. “They failed to realize that the church is its people.”
    Williams said he did not have sufficient evidence last year to charge other officials, including Bevilacqua, who died in January at age 88.

    Lynn had faced about 10 to 20 years in prison if convicted of all three counts he faced – conspiracy and two counts of child endangerment. He was convicted of only a single endangerment count, which carries a possible 3 1/2- to seven-year prison term.

    The jury could not reach a verdict for Lynn’s co-defendant, the Rev. James Brennan, who was accused of sexually abusing a 14-year-old boy in 1999.

    Despite Lynn’s acquittal on the conspiracy charge, the trial exposed how deeply involved the late cardinal was in dealing with accused priests.

    Bevilacqua had the final say on what to do with priests accused of abuse, transferred many of them to new parishes and dressed down anyone who complained, according to testimony. He also ordered the shredding of a 1994 list that Lynn prepared, warning that the archdiocese had three diagnosed pedophiles, a dozen confirmed predators and another 20 possible abusers in its midst.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Lucia Maria (2,467 comments) says:

    Yvette,

    There’s a lot of opinion in that piece that you’ve posted from the prosecution who also accused him of intending that children be abused, ie the conspiracy charges which he was found not guilty of. The fact remains, he was only convicted on one charge of child endangerment, specific to one child. Chances are that his conviction will get overturned as it sets all sorts of unintended precedents, of the type where if we were to apply them to the subject of this post, someone would be held responsible were he to offend when released.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Yvette (2,824 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria – No, the context of Lynn to this thread would be if Stewart Murray Wilson did offend again, and Lynn knew and did not tell anyone, and/or actually helped Wilson relocate or otherwise cover up his crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Lucia Maria (2,467 comments) says:

    Yvette,

    Again, that’s not what Lynn was convicted of. He was convicted because of his knowledge of the offending potential, of a particular priest which lead to that priest raping a 10 year old boy. That’s why he was found guilty of Endangering the Welfare of a Child, as far as I understand it. Have a look at this link which explains the crime:

    Endangering the welfare of a child is generally classified as a crime involving danger to a person. A parent, guardian, or other person supervising the welfare of a child commits this offense if he or she knowingly endangers the welfare of the child by violating a duty of care, protection or support, or the failure or omission to provide a child with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain the child’s physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the child.

    Pretty much everyone knows that Stewart Murray Wilson is going to offend again, that’s why he’s been given extended supervision, which, if the man wants to rape again, is not going to stop him. Those releasing Stewart Murray Wilson into the general population will be acting much like Lynn, and yet most probably will not be held responsible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Yvette (2,824 comments) says:

    Lynn’s case still doesn’t have anything to do with this thread in that while Lynn [and “Many in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia hierarchy"] knew of the offending potential, they did nothing to reveal it. Here, many people know of Wilson’s previous crimes and apparently the inevitability he will offend again. No one is covering anything up.

    You stated “Lynn in Philadelphia who was found responsible for another person’s offending.” He crime was not alerting people to the offending of another, which is why he endangered a child.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Chuck Bird (4,897 comments) says:

    “As an aside I understand that the sentencing judge at the time commented that he would have wished to impose a sentence of preventative detention upon Mr Wilson but could not as the law as it then stood did not permit it.”

    He could have effectively. He could have made the sentences consecutive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. duggledog (1,559 comments) says:

    Extended supervision means the NZ justice system is completely mental. What does the supervision cost? Aaaargh!

    ‘Corrections’ – my arse. They don’t get ‘corrected’, they get educated on how not to get caught and looked after far too well.

    What interests me is not necessarily people like the Beastie Boy here, or the murderers / repeat drunk drivers / youths that smack over old people in Tokoroa that seem to be increasing every day, it’s how we have completely eradicated the concept of actual punishment, and taking people like Wilson OUT of society. In New Zealand we seem to be unable to stomach the idea of any sort of punishment, in any form. Why?

    A lot of inmates have absolutely no qualms about going inside, at all. I have a mate who is a prison guard and he reckons for a lot of them it’s just part of life. They know they’ll be inside now and then, and just carry on, business as usual inside or out.

    I don’t give a fuck if it costs too much to keep some like Wilson in prison indefinitely – change the legislation & bill me. I don’t give a flying fuck if they get bread, water and hard labour whilst in prison either. Same as most people

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Chuck
    Someone with legal knowledge may correct me, but my understanding is that consecutive sentences are not generally available in such cases, so even if a judge did go to town, an appeal would be successful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Mark (496 comments) says:

    The reason why he didn’t get preventative detention was almost all of his crimes occurred before preventative detention was available to be used by the sentencing judge. That is offending occured before that crime could be sentenced to preventative detention.

    There was one charge that the judge could of used for preventative detention but he was found not guilty by the jury so it was not available to the judge to do, so he added up the sentences under the law and sentenced him to 21 years.

    Most judges in NZ allow you to serve the sentences concurrently which did not occur in this case, which shows you the likelyhood of him reoffending.

    I prefer the Texas solution where they are locked up for mental reasons even once they have done the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. hmmokrightitis (1,590 comments) says:

    Ah mike, is it lovely in your logic driven, nothing personal, rational world? Would you welcome this man into your house, let him sleep in the room next to your daughter? Im about to tuck my 7 year old daughter into bed, kiss her good night. I don’t doubt for a second what this fucktard would do to her, given even half a chance. Just because he has yet to do so doesn’t make him less guilty – it makes him a danger to society. So, let him sleep at your place, and come back to us.

    I took my parents to France a while back, when I was living in London. Mum was a little doddery by then, and was the last to get on the train when we hit the metro. Couldn’t see her, looked for her – two gypsy’s were fleecing her – one in front holding up a shawl, mum trying to push past, another behind her, hand into her bag. Being a big lad, I managed to pull Mum into the train, together with the front gypsy prick, whilst being able to kick the one left on the platform in the face – broke his jaw. Second one got similar treatment on the train, and the gendarmes caught up with us at the next station. Mum was utterly terrified. But then I guess in your world, Im the villain, right? Cos the first one did nothing wrong. Cant presume guilt through the lack of proven action in breaking the law can we?

    Do tell me why, Im intrigued.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. UrbanNeocolonialist (289 comments) says:

    Extended supervision sounds very expensive. If he is at such high risk of re-offending and has never acknowledged guilt then would he qualify as a head case of sufficient magnitude to commit him in a psychiatric facility?

    Alternatively could a special act be passed to give him preventative detention? Might only take a few minutes of parliament’s time, the whole act would be little more than a single sentence of text. And there is nothing preventing parliament from doing this if it chooses to, as the only limit on parliament’s power is that they may not pass a law that can not later be repealed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Scott Chris (6,153 comments) says:

    Lee, what your emotional and childish reasoning(?) prevents you from understanding is that the law as written and applied has to stand because changing it to apply retrospectively would set an arbitrary and dangerous legal precedent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. big bruv (13,931 comments) says:

    Lucia

    “Mikenmild,

    Not if we adopt the Catholic priest approach. There’s been a whole new level of accountability forged with the prosecution of Mons. Lynn in Philadelphia who was found responsible for another person’s offending.”

    Is this the same approach as seen in the father “F” case?….or the other Aussie priest who has been ‘punished for his sins’ by being sent to the Vatican?

    The last thing our authorities need to be doing is following any examples used by the Catholic church, an organisation that has systematically covered up and denied rampant child abuse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. big bruv (13,931 comments) says:

    “Castration, in the nicest possible way, would solve the problem.

    If it’s OK for your cat,why not a serial rapist?”

    And Priests?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    hmmo
    Completely different scenario, I’m afraid. I can’t really sum this up better than Scott Chris. We have laws; and that is generally a better approach than vigilante justice. It’s not about cuddling crims or childish examples like “would you welcome this man into your house”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Nostalgia-NZ (5,221 comments) says:

    UrbanNeoColonialist.

    If they changed the law in the way you say it could end up before the Privy Council, which was at the time of Wilson’s original sentence still our highest Court. Corrections have applied under existing law to restrict and supervise Wilson’s release. He’s appealing the decision which no doubt will be opposed so the case is in hand. He probably should be in a secure psychiatric facility but we are enduring a decades long crisis in determining the difference between mad and bad probably partly driven by a desire to imprison both categories together where possible to save costs. I’m in favour of supporting National’s bid to reduce an already falling crime and imprisonment rate, get some of the hysteria out of the subject and allow the few Wilson types that there are to be scrutinised and ‘assisted’ in a risk category. The last time this debate was going on a contributor noted that we only hear about the ‘Wilson’ type cases when in fact the far greater majority of his kind are dealt with effectively by Corrections and fall out of the re-offender category.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Yvette (2,824 comments) says:

    How Msgr. Lynn Endangered Children – Grand Jury Report
    As Secretary for Clergy under Cardinal Bevilacqua, Msgr. Lynn was responsible for protecting the welfare of children entrusted to the Archdiocese’s care by ensuring that no priest with a history of sexual abuse of minors was put in a position to prey on them. It was Msgr. Lynn’s job to investigate any allegations of sexual abuse by priests, and to
    review the Archdiocese’s secret archive files, where complaints were recorded. He was in a position to make sure that no priest with a history of sexual abuse of minors was recommended for assignments, much less for assignments with continued access to children.

    Yet, time after time, Msgr. Lynn abdicated this responsibility. He did so, moreover, not through negligence or simple incompetence, but purposefully. He did so, with Cardinal Bevilacqua’s knowledge and at the Cardinal’s direction, as part of a knowing practice – continued over decades – of placing sexual predators in positions where they would have easy access to trusting minors, just as long as the Archdiocese was spared public exposure or costly lawsuits.

    Msgr. Lynn did more than passively allow the molesters to remain in positions where they could continue to prey on children. When victims complained or scandal threatened, he recommended to the Cardinal that the abusers be transferred to new parishes, where the unsuspecting faithful would not know to be wary and vigilant, and where the abusive clergymen could go on exploiting their positions of trust and authority to pursue their criminal depravity. In this way, Msgr. Lynn effectively shielded the predator priests from accountability and ensured them a continuing supply of victims.

    The Secretary for Clergy could at any time have referred serious allegations to law enforcement officials, who could have conducted proper investigations. That is certainly what any of us, the Grand Jurors, would have done in Msgr. Lynn’s position. Protecting children was his duty. It just was not his priority.

    Based on the evidence before us, it is clear that the Secretary for Clergy was acutely interested in shielding abusive clergy from criminal detection, in shielding the Cardinal from scandal, and in shielding the Archdiocese from financial liability. He showed no interest at all in defending the Archdiocese’s children. On the contrary, he consistently endangered them.
    http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/PDFs/clergyAbuse2-finalReport.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    21 years is ok as a discrete sentence. The probably was that preventative detention was not available for first offenders at that time (I am pretty sure it is now but Graeme or FES will know) so despite the fact he had been offending over a number of years he could only get a discrete sentence.

    Yep. A “first time” offender would now be eligible for preventive detention.

    p.s. for all those claiming this is liberal society run amok, I encourage you to look at sentence lengths for this sort of offending in whatever golden age you are pining after. The reason Wilson is getting released is because he was convicted and sentenced so long ago, but still under what were then the harshest laws we had ever(?) had.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    Chuck
    Someone with legal knowledge may correct me, but my understanding is that consecutive sentences are not generally available in such cases, so even if a judge did go to town, an appeal would be successful.

    Cumulatative sentences are available in defined circumstances, where different offending is discrete (e.g. you rob a couple and are charged with robbing them both, the sentence will be concurrent; or you break into someone’e house to steal from them (a burglary), and then rape them, you won’t get your burglary added to your rape – although the overall sentence might go up; burgle 10 houses over a week, overall crime spree type thing, concurrent. However, steal a car and later beat up six months later beat up your girlfriend, probably cumulative, although the judge may instead increase the sentence for the more serious one to account for it.

    However, given that the maximum penalty for rape, after being increased since these offences were convicted, is still now only 20 years’ imprisonment, I think we can be pretty confident that Wilson did get a cumulative sentence, given he got 21 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Joe Blogs (1 comment) says:

    Stewart Murray Wilson is a lovely man with feelings. Stuff the home detention and parole. I would be happy for him to live right next door to me.*

    Of course, I would have to take certain measures to protect him from the public. Such as stealing any mobile communications devices in his house. Severing his land line. Welding and bolting steel plates over his windows. Barricading all the doors to his house with hardwood planks nailed in with a Ramset. Installing a security system e.g. rabid attack dogs around the house.

    In the interests of being neighborly, I would have to drill some 8mm holes in his walls, so I could wake him by a poking with sharpened welding rods at all hours of the night. If there was time in the weekends I guess I could get all fancy and pump gruel through the 8mm holes.

    Love, the beast of Auckland

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