NozzyNozzer said:asst_dep_to_dep_asst said:So the Attorney General is unhappy with the good doctor for getting involved in the case of the paedophile sentenced to life with a 5 year minimum? Good. Maybe you legal types can effect some reasonable changes. This perpetrator has had too many chances already and should go down for his life, with no possibility of remission. Then no group of do-gooders on the parole board will even have the opportunity to let him out to break other parents hearts.
Dr.Reid is a politician and as such is governed by the expedient need to be re-elected, thereby seeking the sort of sound bites the right-wing media just love to replacate. Mercifully the judiciary are not elected are free to be governed not by political expediency, popularism or their hearts but very firmly by their heads!
Let me elaborate. I agree that the minimum sentence appears to be too light, given the apparent gravity of the compound offences that appear to have arisen: a recidivist offender, as one might expect with this pathological condition, throwing the child from a vehicle moving at speed risked killing her, and the depraved assault he carried out on her in his home. I am of course well aware that some police, no doubt a small minority, have a persistent bad habit of misbriefing the local media as to the facts of cases like these, which upon closer inspection often turn out differ in significant material ways!
For the sake of argument however let us assume that the stated facts are correct. The defendent has been given a life sentence. He has already shown remorse for his crimes, which one should not forget, most sex odffenders are in denial about. What the judge has said is that should he exhibit exceptionally good behaviour and, assuming that he agrees to participate in a sex offenders' treatment programme (I am assuming here that he has not participated in one previously) and the the outcome of this is positive, then upon satisfying these conditions he should be considered for parole after serving a minimum of 5 years in what will be a vulnerable prisoners unit, used for prisoners at risk of harming themselves or being harmed, as in this case, by others. The purpose of prison is, rather oddly, both punitive and reformative. For the reformative element to work one must give an offender hope of release as the ultimate reward for cooperation. The question we need to ask perhaps, is whether a particular offender is exhibiting para-psychopathic traits, that is whether their behaviour resembles psychopathic behaviour and in consequence justifies protective custody? In this context however prison is inappropriate. What we would need would be to determine whether the client's behaviour warrants transfer to a closed-psychiatric facility.
Nozzy if you honestly believe that this man has shown true remorse for his crimes, you have led a more sheltered life than I first believed. His remorse is for himself for getting caught. Usually shown, somewhat transparently in Court in order to get a reduced sentance. He is a repeat offender, how many times would he have to offend against Children before you accept that some people have stepped so far out of society that they no longer deserve the right to walk free. Are you advocating that its fine for them to cause untold harm to innocent children just long as they show remorse afterwards?