mhaze,

Your suggestions make so much sense and
I think it would definitely help towards
alleviating the problem.

Once again Thank You.

ScoMo [MiniMe] has called the Victorian election a great victory, and told those who lost they should have let him help

There is a difference between the bar-tender, the building inspector and a magistrate, or a parole board member. In the first two, negligence before the fact can be determined. In the other two cases you are asking for crystal ball gazing. No one can give a categorical undertaking that a person at the end of their sentence or on parole are not going to re-offend. How do you prove they were negligent in the first place.

The suggestion that "charge magistrates & parole board members with any crime committed by someone they have released" is ridiculous in the extreme. If a bank robber commits murder after their release, then some legal person should be charged with murder. If a person sells a car to another who has a bad driving record, and the buyer through their stupidity runs down and kills a pedestrian, then the seller of the car should also be charged?

Paul1405,

"you are asking for crystal ball gazing"

No,we are saying that they, claiming professional expertise, be held accountable when their expertise is shown to have failed. None of it is or should be "crystal ball gazing". It is about applying their claimed professional knowledge to assess whether there is a danger to others. The bar-keep who assesses that someone can have another drink and still won't be a danger is legally negligent if they turn out to be wrong. Those who assess someone can have early release based on their professional assessment that the person won't be a danger to others, should be open to being found legally negligent if they turn out to be wrong.

"How do you prove they were negligent in the first place."

In court. Just as the barkeep or building inspector would still have a chance to defend themselves in court.

" No one can give a categorical undertaking that a person at the end of their sentence or on parole are not going to re-offend. "

I'm not talking about people at the end of their sentence. They get out no matter what. Done their time - end of story. But if you can't be certain, absolutely certain, that they won't re-offend, then don't give them early release. Just hoping it'll all work out is putting the community under undue danger.

A person who has been found guilty and imprisoned, shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt - the community should get the benefit of the doubt.

Hi mhaze,

I understand your point,

//if you can't be certain, absolutely certain, that they won't re-offend, then don't give them early release//

No one can be absolutely certain, they can only have a degree of certainty, for argument sake that could be 99% but its not 100%. Then who would want to be on a parole board given your own freedom is based on the future actions of an ex-con. Parole boards should take into account the probability of re-offending before a person is released.

BTW, I have done the RSA certificate and one point made was trying to determine if someone is intoxicated, even down to where a person with a physical impairment whose not drunk, and if refused, has a case to sue, that is a fact. Things are okay where there are measurable standards, like in the case of a building inspector, but when it more or less subjective its hard to apply guilt. To say you have to meet "community expectations" in this parole board job or else, is again a hard thing to enforce, what are "community expectations".

I can see both sides Paul's view suffers in some minds only because he votes green
Silly reason but true, I hold my hands up, my emotions get in the way on this subject.
I think the communities do too
Fair enough tougher sentencing has not stopped the crime, but it did stop that offender
How are our justice givers trained, what must they know, can many/any of them say the understand what the community expects
How do we handle pederphiles, sex offenders,domestic violence re offenders?
Is there merit in making prisons a true place of re-education?
Do we all understand what ever yesterdays Victorian election was it was a rejection of law and order fear and loathing