How do you know that anyone won’t kill? You don’t. But you (psychologists, social workers, counselors etc.) can assess to a reasonable degree whether someone is likely or not to kill or kill again. Rehabilitation is about helping the person to be able to weigh actions and consequences in a desirable way as well as avoiding situations and circumstances where he or she will be forced to actually make that choice. In that sense rehabilitation should not be seen just as an exercise for the individual, but on a grander scale involving the whole of society and the trigger points existing there. I.e how do we structure and organise society as to avoid unwanted individual behaviour to occur in the first place. Thus we all need to “rehabilitate” as we are as guilty or not as the person actually doing the deed. Do we focus on rehabilitation today? Well a little, but the main focus is placed on punishment and containment which in most cases just makes things worse (A lot of people with unwanted behaviour mainly mixing with other people with unwanted behaviour is just plain stupid). Do we as a society try to rehabilitate and learn from our failings. Nope, and the only party that seems to have focus on that is the greens.

In some cases I agree that people should not be let loose in society again or be locked up before they cause harm to start with. We already have a system dealing with these individuals called mental hospitals.

How do you know he won’t? That is the problem - he’s *killed* once, and now demonstrated he can’t follow a few simple rules (i.e. weigh actions and consequences).

So how being a parole support person makes Kim Workman knowledgeable about Police intellegence regarding the Parolee’s situation at the time of his re-arrest?

Not.

How long you stay there depends on how naughty you were. If you convince those that put you there that you’re sorry, that you’ve learned your lesson / found God / found your culture, you may be allowed to leave the “naughty step” early.

If you’ve been telling fibs and you haven’t moved on from the behavioral patterns that landed you there in the first place, you’ll find yourself back on the “naughty step” in no time.

Yep, here.

“Let’s face it, society itself is as guilty or not, as the person committing the crime. No man is an island and every action has multiple external reference points, many of them rooted in the way we structure our communities.

It’s funny how we find it appalling that countries like Iran is run by faith based ayatollahs when the courts underpinning our society are based on what can only be called a theistic belief; that people have free will. A belief that has caused and will cause much more harm than any priest running a country can ever hope to achieve.

Instead of taking a good look at ourselves and try to find ways of living that do not cause unwanted behaviour we rather opt for the easy way out and point the finger at the individual when it occurs.”

Locking someone up can only be justified if it is the only mean of keeping that person from harming themselves or others. Punishment should never be the cause for locking someone up, only behavioural change and modification through rehabilitation can justify that.

If he breaks them, then he hasn’t paid that debt.

No sympathy.

My sympathy lies with the victims mother.

Ignoring the majority of it…

I wonder if there is any precedent for the Police using this amount of resources to pick someone up for an alleged minor breach of bail? Let’s just say it was only 20 police and one helicopter, taking into account the time taken to plan such an exercise we’re looking at least $10k of taxpayers dollars. That seems extraordinary to me. Who is to be held accountable for this if it turns out to be a bunch of bollocks?

I bet all the victims of domestic violence cases would love it if they could get that many officers out for a reported breach of a restraining order.

Thanks for the reply and the confirmation that you are indeed more worried about the rights of criminals than you are of the victims.

While it is nice to be able to talk to a MP in this fashion you could have commented without the arrogant superior attitude, but then I suppose thats what happens when you so divorced from reality.

I understand yuor point and am sympathetic to it. Hopefully you see my point as well.

I dont want him to fail but the picture you are painting is off an easily led young man. His bro’s came around and offered him pot. He cant let his bro’s down so he breaks his parole.

The parolee should have take personal responsibilty for his actions and got his minders (real brothers as opposed to bro’s, would have respected his wishes - but that is another story) to keep pot out of his place of residency.

Haz,

We dont want to kick this guy while he is rehabilitating. And no I dont want him locked up for life. But he has to show some responsibility for his actions. While pot smoking is not of serious consequence (I agree with weedeater here), he does need to show personal responsibilty to abide by his parole conditions.

He sadly failed this first test. His bro’s are more important then his freedom.

toad,

Any info on this guy Kim Workman?