Should the super accounts of convicted criminals be up for grabs?
This question has arisen over which assets can be seized by authorities when someone is convicted of a crime. The debate is based around Adrian Bailey, who is currently serving a prison sentence for the rape and murder of Jill Meaghar and raping there other women. Bailey, aged 43 has a non-parole period of 40 years, meaning he will be 83 years of age before he can apply for parole.
Bailey has never been order to pay compensation to any of his victims and his case cost the taxpayers in excess of $100,000 just for his legal fees. But with $15,000 sitting in superannuation, a sum that earned $1300 in returns in the first six months of the year, should the authorities be able to make a claim for that cash?
The complex rules surrounding early access to super and the fact that super is legislated by the Commonwealth and not the states, mean that there is no easy means of claiming this cash.
Bailey’s family members have been listed as beneficiaries but should the money be diverted elsewhere?
Why stop there, their entire family should be in gaol with them? If you commit a crime why shouldn't your family suffer too seems to be the cry? I am sure that every criminal that we lock up had a family that new exactly what they were up to, in fact I read somewhere that in 1503 it was proven that only women who had criminal tendancies married men who commited crimes, they in turn have children who are 100% likely to turn into career criminals.
We need to castrate or render infertile any man or woman who commits a crime, that way we can stop the spread of crime once and for all.
Do we really think that it is a good idea to punish otherwise guiltless people for the actions of someone who they can't control? Taking humanity out of the equation, if a spouse knows of a crime that was committed by their partner, how likely are they turn them in if it means the family will be left destitute as a result?