Dear OTB,

In May 2013 the Victorian Government commissioned former
High Court Justice Ian Callinan to carry out a review
of the Victorian Parole Board. The report on the Victorian
Parole Board was commissioned after Adrian Bayley was
convicted of murdering Jill Meagher while on parole.

Justice Callinan was scathing in his report and found that
the Board released violent criminals into the community
far too easily. The Board of course reacted and hit back
against the Report. Their justification of an "intolerably
heavy" workload - is simply not good enough.

I'm with Justice Callinan on this one. I think he's extremely
fair in his assessment. He knows of what he speaks. And the
Victorian Government should pay attention to his advice.
Breaking parole should be an offence in itself and police
should be given greater powers. As Justice Callinan states.
"Potentially dangerous parolees
should only be granted parole via application if they satisfy
the Board to a very high degree of probability that the risk
of offending is negligible."

Justice Callinan's recommendation of a full time chair in
the form of a recently retired judge on the Board is also
a good one.

It's obvious from the Report that there should be a full
review of the entire parole system. This may prevent future
tragedy's like Jill Meagher from happening again.

Thanks OTB, I too read Callinan's report (from your earlier link I think), and it is illuminating; and I am sure it has been of interest to us, though of late we have gotten rather off-track and have inadvertently failed to address your earlier, and worthwhile, references to his findings. Sorry about that lapse.

I also think his recommendations for the treatment of serial offenders to be different to that of other, less egregious offenders (and for the composition of parole boards and the implementation of a 'review process') are totally valid and justified - as I find are all of his findings and recommendations.
It is to be hoped that his findings will be fully implemented, and also may have related impact on our court proceedings and sentencing provisions in the case of all serial offenders - basically to 'toughen up' on those who will ever represent a real and unacceptable danger to society at large.

I have to agree with you that even the toughest and most stringent of 'prevention' measures can never prevent all crime, and that in pursuit of all-encompassing preventions measures, such as stop and search, runaway phone/internet/media tapping, etc, may unreasonably compromise civil liberties and could end up verging on a 'police state'. However, some easing of what may be regarded as 'reasonable cause' would appear worthwhile.

I also agree that sex crimes can Not have any special dispensation regarding provision of evidential 'proof' (save only that some proceedings ought be held 'in camera', and some perhaps with the alleged victim only participating or monitoring via video link) - even though this means victims will still continue to suffer many stresses from the court process.
Maybe one day mandatory and reliable 'truth serum' and lie-detection measures could almost entirely obviate trial by jury?

No, Chris, vigilantes are not an acceptable answer in any circumstance.
Viz Zimmerman - who in my view was guilty at least of manslaughter, if not 2nd degree murder.
(US courts are a circus and almost a farce - if you have the money for top-draw representation, or if the case is of high public interest.)
Also, US gun laws definitely need to be strengthened. Ordinary citizens don't need semi-automatic weapons, and only screened applicants should be able to obtain a licence to 'bear arms' - and with strenuous restrictions on handgun licensing and ownership.
Their (US) 'libertarian' approach to gun ownership is directly complicit in many of their social problems resulting in firearms homicide - IMHO - and ought be overhauled even if the 'majority' squeals 'like a stuck pig'.
The majority (and even the minority) view is not always the 'right' view.

Saltpetre,
You obviously have a limited view of what democracy means.
Apart from having a free shot at the ballot box it also means that any member of that democracy has the right to take any action, walk any path or think any way they want to just so long as they also accept the consequences of their actions.
Thus blowing some thief's head off as he tries to rob you is a legitimate act under any democracy and if the consequence of that is a medal or prison then that is the democracies verdict of the behavior involved.
Australia does not operate as a democracy. It functions under a Westminster system of government where there are no written laws telling the people what they CAN do. The only laws tell the people what they CANNOT do.

We duck and dive from the threads subject to many others
And in truth we have done so in many thread just like this over the years.
Some truly good threads showing concerns about our very system of justice and how it is administered.
Over and again balanced thoughtful posters have said they do not trust or at least support our law givers.
This threads author put a good case for not letting its subject out of prison.
Then complained about just that, keeping him locked up.
If we could vote for what system we wanted in this country, take it out of the hands of PC blindness.
And the cash register hands of that part of the system that is more concerned about the costs than public safety, we would end most of our concerns.

Yesterday I watched *underbelly the golden mile in full*.
For us in NSW it was remembering just how bad we had become in those not too distant days.
It if you watched and too remembered the Royal Commission, did not uncover many honest police in Kings Cross.
For me current events and past focused my mind on a belief in truth many have.
This thread reminded me of the scales of justice, quite blind.
Yesterdays re living our past? maybe the three unwise monkeys best represent law in our country,s law givers and makers.
Not wise in any way but blind deaf, and dumb.