Kiwiblog

The Herald reports:

Nikki Roper strangled his ex-girlfriend Alexis Tovizi to death with a sleeper hold just days after being released from prison where he was serving a sentence for choking her, a court heard today.

The trial is ongoing so whether or not Roper is guilty is for the jury. So please don’t comment on him or his possible guilt or innocence.

I’m interested in whether or not he was released after his full sentence, or on parole? Anyone know?

Marty Sharpe at Stuff reports:

A Mongrel Mob leader with a long list of convictions for violence has been freed on parole after vowing to change his ways.

Sonny Charlton Kaori Smith, 48, was freed in January, two years after he was sentenced to eight years’ jail for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

One of our lawyers may be able to help, but I thought you had to serve at least a third of your sentence before you were eligible for parole. I’ve not previously heard of parole two years into an eight year sentence.

I’m not commenting per se on the decision of the Parole Board, as I don’t have enough info to comment on why they though such early release would lead to rehabilitation. But I am surprised that someone can gain parole at such an early stage.

Aaron Leaman at Stuff reports:

Some of the worst criminals sentenced to preventive detention are being freed after serving on average only 11 years in prison.

Corrections Department figures show preventive detention might not be as tough as the public perceives it to be.

A total of 22 inmates sentenced to the stiffest penalty the courts can provide have been freed on parole in the past seven years, 17 in the past three years.

The average time served was 11.7 years, despite the sentence enabling offenders to be kept locked up indefinitely.

Legislation introduced in 2002 lowered the minimum age for the imposition of preventive detention from 21 to 18.

However, it also reduced the minimum non-parole period from 10 to five years.

Thanks Labour!

However I don’t think we get enough data in this story to make conclusions. First of all the average release time of 11.7 years is just of those actually released – 22 people.

What we don’t know if how many people have not been released at all. There were 96 given preventive detention from 2006 to 2012. There may be 200 prisoners on PD in total, so the 22 released may be just 10% of the total.

I’d also be keen to see more than just the 11.7 years average. How many of the 22 were released in under 10 years?

But most of all what I really want to know is how many of those released on parole despite having PD have reoffended?

Those who get a finite sentence basically get automatic parole at two thirds of their sentence, so it is inevitable there will be a fairly high level of offending on parole for those prisoners.

However to get parole, if you have a PD sentence, is meant to be much harder – rather than a default assumption of release, there is a default assumption of no release. If not confident they will not reoffend, the Parole Board can keep them in for ever.

Hence I would expect a very very low reoffending rate for those given parole who have a preventive detention sentence. If the rate is not low, then it suggests the Parole Board is getting it wrong.

Does anyone have that data?

A very good article in the Herald on the impact on families of victims, having to go through annual parole hearings. Extracts:

Aynsley Harwood wakes up screaming. Her nightmares are vivid, relentless and painful. The daughter she lost 26 years ago is ripped away from her night after night by a monster named Peter Holdem.

The nightmares get worse around May when the monster usually appears in person.

Holdem murdered Harwood’s 6-year-old daughter, Louisa Damodran, in 1986. He became eligible for release about 10 years later. Like many crime victims and family members, Harwood has been fighting to keep him in prison since that day.

To do this she must endure a hearing by the Parole Board, which decides whether a prisoner eligible for parole is safe enough to re-enter society or is still a risk who must stay behind bars.

The system sounds simple enough. But the process, which is repeated regularly until the prisoner is freed or dies, is far more complicated for victims and their families.

Some killers can now be sentenced to life without parole, which will mean the families of their victims won’t have to relive their loss by having to argue why so and so should not be released.

In cases where there are multiple offenders, victims have to attend multiple hearings.

Leigh-Anne Mullins knows that all too well – and struggles with it.

Her father, Raymond Mullins, was murdered in 1999 by three teenage girls – Natalie and Katrina Fenton and their cousin Daniella Bowman.

They were sentenced to life in prison in 2000 for stabbing and beating the Papatoetoe engineer to death. The trio have had numerous parole hearings and been declined each time.

For Mullins the hearings have been too many and too often. Each time, she has to relive the horror of her father’s murder.

I never thought of a case like that. You’d face three parole hearings a year. Awful. This was a shocking crime. One of the girls was only 15, but did the murder while on bail for aggravated robbery. They stabbed Mullins 19 times and carved letters into his chest.

Changes to the parole system announced earlier this year by Justice Minister Judith Collins and aimed at making life easier for victims, could help.

Those changes include pre-screening inmates to postpone unnecessary parole hearings and extending the maximum interval between parole hearings from one to two years.

The maximum postponement period for offenders serving indeterminate sentences and fixed sentences of 10 or more years would be extended from three to five years.

“Victims of crime will no longer need to face the very stressful prospect of parole hearings year after year, when an offender is clearly not safe to release into the community, and has made little or no effort at rehabilitation,” Collins says.

It will be interesting to see if Labour and Greens vote against this.

On October 15, 1986, little Louisa Damodran, just days shy of her 7th birthday, was walking home from school and just 100m from home when Holdem – who was on parole after serving time for the 1982 attempted rape of a 10-year-old in a Christchurch park – kidnapped her. He drove her to the Waimakariri River, throttled her and drowned her. Her body was found downstream three weeks later.

Holdem was sentenced to life but became eligible for parole in 1996. He has been declined each time and Harwood has made a submission at each hearing.

He will appear again in April 2013 and she is already on tenterhooks.

“I have to emotionally bolster myself up for hearings. I want to be taken seriously, to get my message across.

“As Louisa’s mother, it’s my job to defend her and make sure no other child goes through what she went through.

“There is a lot of anxiety but I push myself to do it. It’s usually scheduled around May and it means the entire month’s kind of up-in-the-air. It’s miserable. I can’t sleep. In the middle of the night I started to feel guilty over him being kept in prison for 26 years. I’ve helped keep him from his own children … I feel guilty about that. But I shouldn’t.

“It’s all a bit dismal. I’m just stressed all the time, preparing myself in case he gets out, preparing myself for the board, wondering if I am doing the right thing keeping him in there. And then I have to rehash it all every year … It makes my life harder.”

I doubt she is unusual, in the pressure such parole hearings place on her.

John Hartevelt at Stuff reports:

Prisoners will get less regular parole hearings under changes announced by the Government.

Justice Minister Judith Collins and acting Corrections Minister Chester Borrows this morning announced the maximum gap between parole hearings for offenders would be extended from one to two years.

The maximum postponement period for offenders serving indeterminate sentences, and determinate sentences of 10 or more years, would also be extended from three to five years.

The changes would mean offenders with little chance of release would get fewer ”unnecessary parole hearings”, Collins said.

I think this is a humane thing to do. Victims and their families get retraumatised when they get notified of parole hearings and have to decide whether to submit, actually appear and/or will the offender get released.

Now these are maximum, not minimum, intervals. Those with a realistic chance of parole will still get their hearings, but there are a fair few prisoners for whom it is clear they are not going to get parole, and going through the formality of a hearing and submissions is needless torment for the victims and their family.

Have just heard that the Parole Board have given Rev Graham Capill parole, and released him.

From all the reports I have seen, he has never shown much remorse at all, and his sexual abuse of children makes him NZ’s worst hypocrite.

He has served six of nine year sentence. Sadly under the law that applied at the time, parole is near automatic at two thirds. I think the Parole Board have turned him down seven times before.,

Remember this is the man who claimed that the sex with one of his victims was consensual:

“The law, as it has been explained to me, seems so different to what the Biblical law and indeed common perceptions are of rape,” he wrote.

“The fact that [the victim] consented is irrelevant.”

If we are lucky he will leave NZ.

The Dom Post reports:

The man who kidnapped, tortured and brutally murdered Lower Hutt schoolgirl Karla Cardno will remain in jail for at least three more years.

Paul Joseph Dally has already served 20 years of a life sentence but the Parole Board considers him too dangerous to be freed.

In its latest decision, issued yesterday, the board took the extra step of making a three-year postponement order, meaning Dally will not be eligible for parole again until 2013 except in exceptional circumstances. He had not even begun to rehabilitate, the board said.

Dally kidnapped 13-year-old Karla in May 1989 as she cycled to her Lower Hutt home. He then raped and tortured her in his nearby home, watching from the window as her frantic family searched outside.

Later he drove to the Pencarrow Coast, near Eastbourne, where he smashed her skull with a piece of driftwood and buried her face-down, naked and still alive, with her hands bound. Her body was found several weeks later.

The decision quoted a “chilling” psychological assessment given to the board, saying Dally showed “a high degree of relationship to serious and violent recidivism”.

If life without parole had been available as a sentence back then, Dally would be a perfect fit for it. The Parole Board has correctly judged that Dally shows absolutely no sign of rehabilitation, and is not letting him out.

It is a pity that they have to go through the farce of a hearing every three years, when life without parole would have meant the victim’s family don’t have to put up with the case hitting the media again, every time he has a parole hearing.

I don’t advocate life without parole for all murders, but it would have been appropriate for Dally’s killing of Cardno.

The Herald reports:

A stabbing victim is leaving the country and fears for his life because his attacker is about to be released from prison without having done any rehabilitation programme.

The Corrections Department has classified his attacker as low risk and will release him next month, even though the Parole Board views the man as a risk to the community.

If I was the victim, I’d also be leaving the country – well that or making sure I had ready access to a firearm (yes I know that is illegal).

In July 2006, Frame, who is now in his 50s, sliced Mr McArtney’s face, cutting his mouth and tongue with a 15cm blade in what was described as an unprovoked and irrational attack.

Mr McArtney, a semi-retired IT consultant, says the corrections system is flawed because Frame has had no rehabilitation treatment, despite pleas from the Parole Board that without it he is a threat to the community.

Documents show the Parole Board and the Corrections Department had a conflicting view over the risk Frame poses.

The board repeatedly refused to release him because he had not done any rehabilitation programmes, and was thus a risk to the community.

But Corrections considered him a “maintenance” low-risk prisoner and not eligible for any programmes.

I am surprised the view of the Corrections Department trumps the view of the Parole Board.

Frame’s sentencing notes state he has a “a long and fairly well-documented history of depression and drug and alcohol abuse”, which was at the root of his offending.

Last October, the Parole Board report said: “[Since his last appearance in April] no steps had been taken to address his offending and none were likely to be taken. …

The Parole Board said in its November 2007 report that for Frame to get into a programme, his security classification would need to be readjusted.

It was not.

Mr McArtney is flabbergasted the department ignored the board’s pleas.

“It seems to me the Parole Board can say what they like and the department doesn’t pay any attention.”

Prison Services assistant regional manager Bronwyn Donaldson said Parole Board recommendations had been acted on where appropriate.

Where appropriate, means if we agree.

It has also been revealed that Frame had previously been charged with murder, in 1975 when he was 16. He was subsequently acquitted.

I would be most interested in the grounds on which he was acquitted.

He was convicted in 1990 for possession of a knife and in 1997 for aggravated burglary and possession of an offensive weapon.

The latter convictions relate to an incident, described as a “damage spree”, through the Raumati Village Shopping Centre. Afterwards he broke into a house armed with a knife, and then assaulted a member of the public who came to investigate.

And then the stabbing also. And this is what Corrections is calling low risk?

John Key, Rodney Hide and Judith Collins have just announced an agreement to implement a version of ACT’s three strikes policy.

They key difference is that the third strike is not life without parole (unless the strike is for a homicide), but for the maximum sentence (without parole) for that offence. So if the third strike is an indecent assault, they get seven years (the maximum), not life.

This compromise is very sensible, and in fact near identical to what I proposed back in March 2009. Great minds think alike

The three strikes regime will only apply to serious offences, which generally are violent or sexual offences carrying a maximum sentence of at least seven years. The three strikes will be:

1. Judge decides term of imprisonment, and Parole Board can let out early on parole (near automatic at two thirds of a sentence)
2. Judge decides term of imprisonment, but no eligibility for parole
3. Judge has to sentence for maximum term for that offence, with no parole, unless doing so would be manifestly unjust

This will not affect a huge number of criminals, but it will mean the repeat serious violent and sexual offenders will not get released so quickly.

Also the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill (currently before the Law & Order Select Committee) allows a Judge (regardless of which strike) to impose a sentence of life without parole on the worst killers – so a Clayton Weatherston (for example) would never be eligible for parole until he was old and infirm. This won’t apply to all murderers – just the very worst ones – the Bells, the Burtons, the Weatherstons.

On a process matter, I’m pleased to see the Government is recommending to the Select Committee that they reopen submissions to allow submitters who previously submitted, to submit on these proposed additions to the Bill. All too often the Government introduces major changes after select committee hearings, and then the public have a limited opportunity to have their say.

As I said, I’m very pleased with the agreement. It is a good win for ACT, and a good policy for the Government. Apart from the fact it will be very popular with the public, it is also the right thing to do – repeat serious offenders should be locked away for longer.

The Dom Post reports:

One of New Zealand’s most notorious killers has died in prison, bringing relief to those who knew his victims.

Double murderer Rufus Junior Marsh, 53, died in Wanganui Prison last week, the Corrections Department said yesterday. The cause of death is unknown but is not thought to be suspicious.

A career criminal, Marsh was serving a life sentence for killing Justice Department clerk Diane Miller in 1986.

It was his second killing – 12 years earlier, Marsh, then 18, and 16-year-old accomplice Dennis Luke kicked Joseph “Taffy” Williamson to death in Hopper St, Wellington.

We have very few double killers. Marsh, if he was ever let out, would have been highly likely to offend again.

The families of his victims can npow relax and not have to go through the annual submission to the Parole Board asking for him to be kept locked up.

Mind you in this case, it looks like the Parole Board saw no release for him:

At a hearing in 2008, the board said he was unlikely to be freed until he was too old to pose a risk.

“It may be a more humane and realistic outcome to allow Mr Marsh to accept that he is very unlikely to be ready for release until he has been made frail with age.”

I wonder how many people are in this category – basically have had an indication they will never get parole while they are able bodied?

The Auditor General’s report into how the Corrections Department manages parole is a shocker:

My staff looked at how the Department managed offenders released on parole. We chose 100 offender case files in the four areas we visited to assess whether probation officers and other staff were managing offenders in keeping with the Department’s requirements. We deliberately included 52 offenders considered to pose a high risk to the public.

In most of those 100 case files, the Department had not followed one or more of its own sentence management requirements. Five of the requirements that my staff checked are the most important, in my view, for keeping the public safe, and one or more of these five requirements had not been followed in most of the 100 cases. There were several cases, some of which I have included in my report, where the Department had not completed important sentence management requirements at each stage of an offender’s parole, and we concluded that the Department was not managing these cases adequately.

They are damning words, coming from the Auditor-General. Equally damning was the response of Minister Judith Collins:

Corrections Minister Judith Collins today asked the State Services Commissioner to establish who is accountable for serious failings identified by the Auditor-General’s report into the management of offenders on parole. …

“I have today asked the State Services Commissioner to work with Corrections Chief Executive Barry Matthews to establish who is accountable for the deficiencies identified in the report and what should be done to restore public confidence.”

Ms Collins has asked the Commissioner to report back within 10 working days.

This is about as subtle as John Cleese. I mean you do not need to run a competition to guess who the State Services Commissioner will find is responsible for management failings in the Department. This must qualify as the most unsubtle ever request to SSC to remove a CEO. But not wihout considerable merit – the OAG report is damning, and the mistakes in this area do and have cost lives.

The Herald reports that Corrections CEO faces the axe:

Barry Matthews’ future as head of Corrections is in serious question, after his Minister Judith Collins pointedly refused to express confidence in him yesterday. …

Ms Collins would say only: “I have confidence Mr Matthews understands exactly just how seriously I am viewing this issue.”

Again, you don’t exactly need a PhD in Politics to read between the lines here.

John Armstrong comments:

Wielding a calculated, but ruthless combination of raw power and tactical guile, Corrections Minister Judith “Crusher” Collins has torn up the public service rulebook and effectively engineered the sacking of her departmental chief executive.

Technically, she cannot fire Barry Matthews, the long-suffering head of the problem-plagued Corrections Department. But “technically” is not a word in this Collins’ dictionary.

Indeed.

But regardless of this, Matthews’ resignation letter should have been on the desk of State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie yesterday, so damning was the Auditor-General’s report on Corrections’ management of its parole responsibilities. …

The report shows the department failing to follow its own procedures in monitoring potentially dangerous prisoners on parole – procedures tightened after the murder of Lower Hutt father-of-two Karl Kuchenbecker by Graeme Burton in January 2007.

This is the scary thing. The audit was done after the Burton fiasco, and was meant to measure the new improved processes in place.

I guess the Sunday papers tomorrow will have more details around Paula Bennett’s family relationship with Villami Halaholo as she has released today two letters she wrote in 2007 and mid 2008 to the Parole Board on his behalf.

John Key has also done a release, and sees nothing improper with her advocacy when she was an Opposition MP. However he has chided Bennett for not revealing the letters to him last week when this issue first went public.

So there are two issues here – the letters, and the revealing of them. Let’s quote from the letters:

My daughter is no fool and she started laying down the law pretty heavily on him. If he wanted to be with her then he needed to make some pretty major changes in his life – and he started to. For every couple of steps forward in the early days he would take the odd one back and the night of the incident (that he has since been convicted for) has been his biggest step back ever and has in retrospect been a positive turning point in his life. It would have been easy for us to turn our back on him at that stage and leave him to grow up in jail, but we can be pretty stubborn ourselves, and my daughter and I believed that it was a complete error of judgment on his behalf, he could move forward, but it was up to him. He moved into my residence at that time as a border and he committed himself to staying out of trouble, obeying the law and finding work.

And he has done that. For the last two years he has made significant and consistent changes in his life. Viliami got himself a job. At first he was temping and working in a factory, when this temporary job came to an end, he went out and found another one and has been working overtime and what ever hours he can to provide for his family.

If he has gone from breaking the law to being in employment and working hard, that is a good thing. And you would expect Paula as the baby’s grandmother to want the father in the family, if he has turned himself around. Of course we don’t know if he has behaved in prison, but imagine this will be known to the Parole Board.

So the issue is more the process one of not revealing the advocacy after the initial stories last weekend. And this can be a headache because there is nothing worse than deciding how to respond to an issue, if you do not know all the facts.

I’m a believer in taking a fairly harsh inquisitorial role when “issues” arise. The way I would handle it is to have a staffer sit down with the affected persons and ask them everything they can think of. When did you first meet him? What exactly has he done? Who as affected? How often have you had to help him out? What letters have you ever written about him? Who knows about X? etc etc. Such a session may take some hours, but in my experience it is better to know too much than not enough.

In this case, the existence of the letters doesn’t seem particularly significant. It is what you would expect from family members, and being an MP is not a reason not to advocate. However being a Minister is such a reason, as they have executiye authority within the Government.

It is disturbing that allegations you have breached your parole can be taken as fact, without an investigation.

I am no fan of Brad Shipton (and criticised the fact Labour’s law allowed him out after one third of his sentence) but why were moves taken to cancel his parole on the basis of an allegation he was seen meeting someone in breach of his parole conditions?

Luckily he had video proof he was in another city at the time.

Should Corrections and or the Police not investigate the person who falsely alleged he had broken his parole?

The prisoner who stabbed another inmate because he scared a cat was being prepared for release as he was in a standalone self-care unit.

The Dom Post reveals he was convicted of murder and rape in 1987 and been refused parole on eight occasions. Obviously someone in authority had thought 21 years was enough and signals had been sent he would get parole in the near future.

If the alleged stabbing is accurate, then he would have almost certainly offended once he released – maybe even killing again.

Most disturbing is this:

Corrections Association president Beven Hanlon said guards had raised concerns about McKinley for six months. The victim could have died if a third inmate had not intervened.

Corrections Department support service manager Karen Urwin said she was not aware of any staff concerns about inmates in the self-care unit. The department would investigate whether the inmates were “appropriately placed”.

It sounds like the Burton case all over again. The actual prison guards knew he was a bad sort likely to offend, yet this neer makes it way through to management or those who make the decisions.

If I was the Minister, I’d want an inquiry or at the minimum a report into how this happened.

Two disturbing things about this story.

1. How secure is the prison if cats can get in and out of it?
2. As the inmate accused of stabbing the other inmate because he scared the cat, was being prepared for release, doesn’t this indicate maybe he shouldn’t have been due to be released?

It is stated he is a convicted rapist and murderer near the end of his prison sentence. How? Murder is a life sentence. Maybe what they mean is the Parole Board had decided that someone who stabs a fellow inmate over scaring a cat, is no risk to society. Will they change their mind now?

Convicted pack rapist Brad Shipton is out of prison after serving just three years of an eight and a half year sentence.

Why is he out so early?

Because Phil Goff changed the law in 2001/02.

Prisoners who were rapists or other violent criminals were previously ineligible for parole until two thirds of their sentence. Labour changed the law in 2001/02 to allow rapists to be eligible for parole after one third of their sentence.

God knows why. Maybe someone could ask them.

TV3 reported tonight that the parole board is letting pack rapist Brad Shipton out of jail in a couple of weeks despite the fact he hasn’t served even three years of his eight and a half year sentence.

How is it possible a pack rapist gets out of jail so quickly?

The answer is that Labour changed the law in 2001. Before they changed the law Shipton would have served around a minimum of six years of his sentence. But Labour changed the law to allow rapists to be eligible for parole after just one third of their sentence instead of two thirds.

This is the same Government that has also just made it easier for repeat offenders to get bail.

National has now released its full sentencing, parole and bail policy. Key elements:

• No parole for the worst repeat violent offenders – those sentenced at least twice to prison terms of five years or more (already announced)
• Life without parole to be made available to Judges as a sentence for the worst murderers
• Substantially increase penalties for causing the death of a child when there is a history of neglect
• Makes the point that assault on a child currently has a maximum two year penalty – one year less than the maximum three years for wilfully ill-treating an animal!
• Review whether to maintain home detention as an option for violent and sexual offenders
• Reverse Labour’s changes to the bail laws that made it easier for people to get bail – even if they have broken bail conditions previously
• Increase from $7,500 to $50,000 the maximum amount that can be in dispute and heard by the Disputes Tribunal, allowing more time in District Courts for criminal cases

I imagine there would be only one or two murders a year which are so heinous that a Judge would sentence someone to life without parole. They may be people who might never have got parole anyway, but this means the family of the victims do not have the trauma of having to submit to the Parole Board every year on why so and so should remain in jail. It truly gives the victims’ family a life sentence also.

UPDATE: A useful example from the comments:

As much as Labour try to trumpet the Sentencing Act 2002 as ‘getting tough on crime’ they fail to mention the Sentencing amendment Act 2007 which is anything but.   3 defendants appearing on their 8th, 9th and 10th drink drive charges respectively. Under the new senting guidelines of the 2007 Act, home detention and community detention are to be considered for suitability in all drink drive cases before the imposition of imprisonment. Despite one defendant having been imprisoned on both prior occasions and despite blowing 2.5 times the legal limit (Twice the level he returned at the last time he received jail) and crashing into a parked car, none of the defendants received anything more than 6 months community detention (Essentially means they are curfewed at night). Another defendant received 16 months imprisonment for his 31st burglary conviction…

So previously these repeat drink drivers were sent to prison (totally appropriate for a 8th or greater offence) but now they just get community detention which means they can carry on drink driving until they kill someone. Remember to have been convicted eight times of drink driving, you have probably driven drunk on more than 1,000 occassions as most people get checked less than 1 in 100 times they are out.

The Herald reports National is to has announce that a violent offender will not be eligible for parole, if they have previously been convicted of a violent crime and sentenced to five or more years in prison previously.

The “life means life” sentence would have applied to high-profile offenders such as prison-van basher George Charlie Baker, RSA triple-killer William Duane Bell and samurai sword assailant and killer Antonie Dixon.

Great.

It is understood National’s research shows that of the 144 offenders convicted of murder since 2002, 10 would be in this category.

This sounds about right. It is only the worst 5% to 10% of killers who will never be released.

The policy would have a big effect on the full spectrum of violent crime. Repeat robbers, repeat rapists and those who repeatedly commit violence within the home would not get parole.

Those denied parole under this category would also be monitored for a fixed term when they were released, “rather than being left to their own devices”.

It is understood National believes an additional 572 offenders could be in prison by late 2011 because of the policy.

And I think people would be surprised by how many crimes those 572 offenders commit by being let out early.

This would require a new jail, which the party has costed at $314 million, and an extra $43 million a year in prison operating costs.

That is a price I am happy to pay.

Prime Minister Helen Clark this morning described the National policy as vindictive. She said that under current law some prisoners were not released.

“It’s very easy to say lock the door and throw the key away,” she said on TV One’s Breakfast programme.

“A lot of these long-term prisoners, over time start to change their behaviour, some become very religious.

“The National Party’s attitude is they don’t care about that at all, they just want to be vindictive.”

Vindictive against repeat violent offenders. Well if you have to be vindictive, better to target rapists and killers than the Exclusive Brethren.

And I repeat – this only applies to the worst of the worst – those who have already been sentenced to five or more years in jail for a violent crime, and after being released have commited another violent crime.

In 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:

1. Sexual Violation (includes rape)
2. Manslaughter
3. Attempted Murder
4. Wounding on injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and wounding/injuring with intent to injure
5. Using a firearm against law enforcement officer
6. Commission of crime with firearm
7. 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.

The Herald reports that Bailey Kurariki has found God and Maori culture and has turned his life around in prison.

I sincerely hope so, but have a real dread that this is not the case. As the Herald reports:

This week, the Parole Board said Bailey Kurariki was an articulate, intelligent and mature young man who was determined to turn his life around.

That was in stark contrast to its report last year, when it said he was at “high risk” of reoffending.

I get nervous at such dramatic changes which just happen to occur between parole hearings. But despite that I don’t think you can ignore the very strong advice of those who have been working to rehabilitate him:

But three years ago he began going to church and was baptised around May last year, which “has really helped him to mature”.

He was then transferred to the Maori focus unit in Hawkes Bay prison where he took an interest in kapa haka and tikanga Maori, and older Maori men took him in hand “in a positive way”.

He learned skills in the forestry industry and over a period of about two years, Kurariki grew up.

“By the end of last year we were hearing from prison officers that they were extremely impressed with him, and they are not fooled easily.

“They observed him in unguarded as well as guarded moments. There’s a lot of support for Bailey – they’ve seen him change.”

Prison Fellowship director Kim Workman said Kurariki had been rated by the Corrections Department “at the lowest possible level of risk”.

“Those who are close to him in the prison, and those from outside the prison who have supported him, are unanimous in their view that he is very unlikely to reoffend on release.”

I think he should be given a second chance. But that second chance (which is denied his victim Michael Choy) should not become a third or a fourth chance if he does offend on parole.  He should be made very aware that his sentence is for life and parole is a privilege not a right.

I hope he takes advantage of this opportunity to live a worthwhile life.