With the recent action by the premier to try to put in place laws to stop Julian Knight from being released from prison, one has to ask, is this fair.

Now before anyone shoots me down, I'm the first to say there is no way a person who committed such a crime should even be spared their life, let alone released after serving the min sentence, however, the fact is he was sentenced, and has served his minimum time and, if the laws are wrong, then fix them.

I can see this escalating into another taxpayer funded appeal hearing as no doubt some do-gooder lawyer will jump on the opportunity to make some serious bucks.

I think it is fair Rechtub, but understand your reasons for posting the thread.
What I think is unfair is the sentence handed down in his first trial.
Again and again we debate sentences given and the vast difference in time served.
We should ask, some have, and been rebuffed by law givers, why sentences do not take in the public's wants and concerns.
Too why victims are often hurt deeply by slack terms given to those who took loved ones life.
Such a man as this should never be released.

On principle I'd say it's an abuse of the legal system but it depends on how the bill is worded, I'm sure the attorney general's office is aware of the Victorian charter of human rights and responsiblities.
To you and I it does seem like retrospective conviction and sentencing but I'm not a lawyer.
I'd also be interested to hear what the parole board decides anyway, has he been rehabilitated? Has he taken any steps toward rehabilitation?
Then there's the question of whether self improvement equates to rehabilitation, Craig Minogue is by all accounts a completely different man compared to the person he was when convicted of the Russell St bombing but should he be paroled?

....Such a man as this should never be released.

I hear you loud and clear Belly, but, my question is, is it fair to change his sentence some twenty odd years down the track.

JOM, while a agree you, I was of the opinion that the premier intends to bypass the parole board and only allow release for health reasons.

Rechtub,
After posting I refreshed my memory on the Knight case, his sentence was life with the possibility of parole after 27 years, so I guess this move by the government is in the spirit of the original decision.

What did a sentence of "Life" mean when he was sentenced?

If it was an amount of time stipulated by law then he should not be held beyond that limit.

Hang on fellas.
Say they let him out right now on his early release date.
And in two weeks he murders ten more innocents!
We would clammer for the heads of his parole board.
Lets look again and turn the question inside out.
If it is thought he may offend again has anyone the right to say he should be set free.

My thoughts are a radical re-think. Life should be 40 years, minimum 25 years before parole can be considered. Judges and lawyers out of it. No pay for them. We can volunteer and the prisoner can be questioned by an jury who decide whether he stays or goes.
I think I would have a better idea that some sleazy legal. Oh yes life time licence and if you associate with crims then back for the balance of the 40 years.
One other proviso more than two murders it is life without parole. I do not care if it was the same moment murder off you go forever.

I don't know what Knight did but I point out that we imprison for life
the insane. It seems to me that there could be reasons as good as
insanity that would justify "At Her Majesty's Pleasure".

Knight received a 27 year non-parole period for
killing 7 people and injuring 19 in the "Hoddle
Street Massacre." As Denis Napthine, the Victorian
Premier pointed out - it is "extremely unlikely"
that Knight would have received consideration for parole,
but the Victorian Government wanted certainty.

The Premier admitted that the current legislation is
unusual, but warranted in the circumstances.

The Premier stated that Knight has been a difficult prisoner
and declared a vexatious litigant. "He has a history of issues in
prison. He shows no remorse for the health, safety and well
being of his fellow men."

So, in answer to the question - "Is it right to
change a prisoner's sentence?" Yes, depending on the
circumstances. And in this case it appears to be warranted.
Parole, should be a privilege that is earned, not a right.

I agree that if he is deemed to be a risk to society, then he should not be given early release. I just hope that is a provision of his sentence.

Australia has a few prisoners serveing never to be released sentences
Would any of us like to see the Corby rapists set free?
What about those involved in another Sydney rape/Murder.
We also have seen 56 year sentences for gang rapes.
I think we must retain the rights of the public before worrying about criminals

Hi there REHCTUB...

A very good (legal) question I believe. I understand Knight is not the first individual the government wish to keep in gaol and probably not the last ? There was another inmate down in Victoria, by the name of Garry David, where the government of the day introduced legislation to revoke all avenues of appeal, for his release ? Apparently, he soon died in gaol ?

From what I've read on Knight, he should remain in gaol for the rest of his natural life.

The state has no legal obligation to protect the people from predators, but it has a moral one. There are any amount of laws to protect predators from the people. The state’s obligation to protect the people needs to be enshrined in law. This means for example that if a paroled offender ever reoffends the parole board that sooled him on to the people should be jointly and severally liable for personal penalties (such as serious gaol time, commensurate with the damage, plus naming and shaming). Parliament has the power to create laws on the basis of fairness which means protecting decent people from damage and compensating them for it (at the expense of the offender). This would focus the do-good social engineers' minds on whether or not to grant parole to a proven enemy of the human rights of the people.

There was not a shadow of a doubt as to Knight's guilt, therefore he should have been executed; then the present problem would not exist.

I agree Is Mise, that if there are many independent witnesses to a multiple murder like this guy did, then he should have been executed.

As it stands, surely if he has not been 'good' in jail, then he should not be let out on parole, and should serve his whole sentence.

But no, I don't believe it should be up to the Government to change a prisoners sentence, as a general rule.

IS and Suze, I'm with you both on this one, cold hard murder, caught red handed should attract the death penalty, no if's, no buts, and if they muderer was intoxicated, or smashed off their face with drugs, so be it, because the world would be a much better place without grubs like this.

I think capital punishment should not be used but the point about the State having no legal responsibility for our safety is something else. Perhaps Judges and Magistrates have protection taken away? If they give freedom that results in harm they have to take some of the financial responsibility.
I am confident the average legal would rather someone was locked up until they died rather than they pop their well manicured hands into their own pockets.

Knight has not been a model prisoner but, it seems, only because he upset the Government by challenging them over prison conditions etc., so that should not be held against him.

"Is it right to change a prisoners sentence"
Of course it is not right. A sentence is a sentence and should be finite.
However having said that there is a quite legal existing way to change a prisoners sentence.
The sentencing judge can call the prisoner back to court and re-sentence him.
He could change the sentence to a period at the Queen's Pleasure which might see the prisoner die in prison.
Of course if you are going to keep someone in prison indefinitely then you may as well bring back the death penalty and save a lot of ongoing expense.
As far as Mr. Knight is concerned he will kill again because his hatred of police is no more ingrained though cleverly hidden but he will kill again.