Parole...what a joke!

This man should not have been given parole!  Drug fuelled and within 7 hours of release he killed an 81 year old woman. Prior to this he had stabbled a man and a women before going to this elderly woman's home.

Of course there is no accountability for the person/s who gave him parole.

http://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/suspected-townsville-killer-paroled-seven-hours-before-stabbing-death-of-woman-81/news-story/a2de2bed30056ad311b4c5f228cbb91d

5 comments

Pepe, who appointed you judge and jury? Rupert Murdoch?

Even Rupert's typically shallow article says "suspected", yet you convict the guy. Wow.

Yes I agree with you Pepe

The people who give out paroles to prisoners should be held accountable.

Too often we read about repeat offenders that are out on parole.

What makes you think the suspect was a repeat offender?

Even Murdoch didn't say that!

Jeez, I hop none of you bigots ever end up on a jury for a case I'm invovled in. 

 

 

Ha! Haah Barak .....It would be fun... you would be

in  a slammer for sure :)

But why did you read the Murdoch paper and not the ABC ???

Are you really as thick as your comments here this morning indicate?

Pepe's reference to support his original, but unsupported, claim of guilt was to an article from news.com.au. In case you are ignorant of these matters, that is Rupert Murdoch's tabloid Australian website.

THAT is why I looked at a Murdoch article. 

Understand yet?

 

 

Huh! What do you want of a chicken ???

"Understand yet?"

 

Abby, talk to most people and they are sick and tired of parolees getting out of jail and within a short time commit heinous crimes.  7 hours must be some sort of record I would think.

The Townsville Bulletinreported he had been released three times on parole in the past two years, only to reoffend and return to jail within days.

Ms Palaszczuk said she had requested an urgent briefing on the matter.

“This is a tragedy. My heart goes to the friends and family of the woman who has died,” she said.

“This is now subject to police investigations.

“I will not say anything to jeopardise the investigation or legal process.

“I have asked for a full briefing from Corrective Services Commissioner on the operation of parole in Queensland.

Pepe, Ms Palaszczuk said “I will not say anything to jeopardise the investigation or legal process."

But you don't seem to care.

He has not yet been found guilty of any heinous crime on this occasion.

 

Here's the Fairfax version (released from prison on the afternoon of the attacks) and the ABC version (facing 18 charges, accused refuses legal representation) ... for those who don't like Murdock media reports.

I wasn't actually objecting to the article on this occasion. It seemed OK. (While still, naturally, quite shallow.)

I was objecting to two of our conributors reading things into the story that simply weren't there.

Barak

Can you not read the comment Pepe made ???

"Of course there is no accountability for the person/s who gave him parole."

That is what the crux of this topic is ...not what the papers have to say.

Barak

Can you not read the comment Pepe made ???

"Of course there is no accountability for the person/s who gave him parole."

That is what the crux of this topic is ...not what the papers have to say.

Exactly Abby...that was the whole purpose of my post...even the Premier of Qld has called for a full briefing on the parole system.

But Pepe and Abby, between you you managed to wrongly declare this guy both guilty and a repeat offender. 

I care about the law, and truth, a little bit more than that.

R-nR  some people are paranoid about which news sources people quote....it is an easy matter for anyone to do a google search and find other sources which may be more palatable to them even though the article reads the same...

"Superintendent Ray Rohweder said the man assaulted several police officers, kicking one in the chest, and was eventually tasered.

"We certainly believe the male person was affected by drugs," he said.

So what?

Can you read?

I said the Murdoch article was accurate, just shallow. But both you and Abby managed to read things into it that it didn't say.

So it seems you have now misread my posts as well as the article. Incompetence abounds.

.... maybe you shoulda been a lawyer Barak?   :-)

Maybe I can simply read.

No Kiddin'! 

This forum is for peoples' own opinions...it is not a court of law....

No, but there's not much point arguing a case based on a complete misreading of an article. That just makes you look silly.

Any chance you could say "OK, I was wrong"?

5 comments



To make a comment, please register or login

Preview your comment