Everyone's favourite criminal - Matthew Massey - Back in Custody.

Oh and they can smoke inside, setting of the smoke alarms, and not have any repercussions. Firemen must be getting pissed of having been called out 30 times!!!

Of course it would be against their human rights if their cigarettes were taken away. In some of the inmates cases you have to be human first.

aa said :

For a lot of criminals, being in prison is better than being in at home. They have a roof over their head, they get 3 meals a day, they get heating in winter, they get to do courses and study, etc etc. While the rest of us have to work 45 – 50 hours a week. People should fear going to gaol or prison.

Don’t forget the free gym and in some cases free pay T.V

For some criminals life is easier locked up then on the outside, outside some don’t know how to take care of them selfs, they have no one telling them what and when they can do things so they become repeat offenders, I’ve heard of some homeless committing small crimes just for the winter as living in a warm jail with food for 6 months is better stuggling on the street.

When prisons become more like prisons again rather than holiday camps we may see less criminals in our system.

Also, I know prison is supposed to “rehabilitate”, but how many people that go to prison end up being repeat offenders? Does anyone know a rough figure? Im curious, cause if it’s anything above 50% turn out to be repeat offenders, the system isn’t working.

For a lot of criminals, being in prison is better than being in at home. They have a roof over their head, they get 3 meals a day, they get heating in winter, they get to do courses and study, etc etc. While the rest of us have to work 45 – 50 hours a week. People should fear going to gaol or prison.

I also heard (not sure if its true or not) but in Canberra there hasn’t been anyone found guilty of murder in the past 10 years. If this is true, is it cause the courts are easy or because the police are over charging offenders? What I mean by over charging is imagine 2 people get in a fight, 1 person kills the other person. The police here charge the person with murder. So they go to court and the judge find them not guilty cause they could prove intent. Now if they charged them with manslaughter or something like that, the chances of finding them guilty would increase. But, I guess everyone wants to make a name for themselves by saying “we’re working on a murder case”

Have a look at the sentences passed on some of our finest citizens: http://www.courts.act.gov.au/supreme/search/sentences.asp?textonly=no

One person with three counts of burglary, one offence of manufacturing heroin and five other offences got a total of 18 months jail, suspended.

Another did a burglary, committed arson, three counts of theft and stole a car and got 27 months, most suspended and periodic detention.

The sentences are almost comedy. A scumbag who did an aggravated robbery gets an instant suspended sentence. All the guilty have to do is say they had a bad childhood and they get away with lenient punishments. Pathetic.

heard that he was peed off with not going to the new AMC prison to put his top dog stamp on it out there – so he decided he needed to get back there quick before someone stole his crown

2 observations.

(1) I’d have thought there should be a presumption against bail when the accused is on parole. It can’t be that hard for the court/police (whoever grants bail) to look at a computer and go “hey sport you’re on parole, no bail for you”. Clearly I’m wrong assuming this is the case.

(2) The fundamental flawed assumption in the court and corrections systems is that they consider criminal acts to be an aberration from the accused’s normal behaviour. However with many criminals crime is their normal behaviour. The justice system also starts with the premise that people are basically good and if they err, they can be corrected. Obviously in many cases, this is flawed logic and there are people who basically should just be locked up permanently and removed from the community for the net benefit of the community.

Indictable Pontius means that the accused has the right to opt for a Jury trail. (Which given the state of our system any crook would be mad to do).

I believe the law has two levels of seriousness of offence called “Summary” and “Indictable?” offences.

Summary offence equals any offence where the MAXIMUM penalty is 12 months goal or less.

Indictable offence equals any offence where the MAXIMUM penalty is more then 12 months.

So three strikes and your out should only apply to indictable offences? Seems logical and fair enough to me. Gets rid of the issued of being given a heavy offence for smoking pot or something along those lines.

Also define “out” as the maximum sentence for your next offence, not life imprisonment. i.e. 5 – 10 years for most serious crimes.

Or we could maybe not use a tally number on their wrist, PeterH.

I think peterh was suggesting the hardnuts might use their tally as a badge of honour, rather than tattooing them.

Or we could maybe not use a tally number on their wrist, PeterH.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

How about 3 violent crimes and you’re out?

Seems more than reasonable. Perhaps we could come up with a points system, kinda like for driving, eg
Major violent crime (rape, manslaughter, murder) – 9 points
Minor violent crime – 5 points
Property crime – 4 points
Drug dealing/trafficking – 5 points
Minor drug possession – 2 points

Anyway, you get the idea. Treat all crimes as we do now, but run a points tally. Once you get to say 10 points in a 5 year period, automatic 5 year gaol term on top of other sentences. Get another 10 points, 10 year gaol term.

This gives people 2 options, either clean up your act or spend your life in gaol. For those who make the occasional ‘mistake’, they will never reach the threshold, but the fear of being caught again should drag them into line.

Thoughts?

of course, for the real nutters out there, they would all be aiming for the big point scoring offences. what is to stop the points system being adopted afterwards in prison, as a way to ensure that the nuts that are really scary and dangerous can be identified by a tally number on their wrist, or by other members of general population? identifying the weak and new would be easier… wouldn’t be taken up by a human rights gaol system, would it?

You have got to give him credit for his work-ethic. I mean come-on, you go out to work in the morning in your chosen profession of a career criminal and you get arrested, spend a bit of time locked up and then get out. Surely most people would take the rest of the day off, maybe go to the pub or kick back with a video.

Not our Matthew though, a few hours later he is back at work, abducting people and threatening them. That is commitment.

If more people put as much effort into their own jobs as Matthew puts into his this country would be a much better place.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

DMD re post#24, that’s a really good idea. Giving people the chance to improve their position through meaningful assistance, rehabilitation and plain hard work would have to be the best idea for integrating people back into society I’ve heard in a while.

Well, it’s kind of what I’ve been in favor of for a while. Not really a ‘softie’ approach, just clear pathways out of a life of violence, addiction and crime, which I don’t think jail provides.

Your points system provides an opportunity for that, so it’s really half your idea. Thanks.

DMD re post#24, that’s a really good idea. Giving people the chance to improve their position through meaningful assistance, rehabilitation and plain hard work would have to be the best idea for integrating people back into society I’ve heard in a while.

I don’t think prison is rehabilitation. I don’t think it’ll be a five star hotel either. You’re still locked up with some nasty characters.

I personally don’t see the Masseys ever being rehabilitated. But stranger things have been known to happen. I wonder what’ll happen when one of them goes through a mid-life crisis and starts to think ‘what the f-k have I done with my life’?

A small chance, but it’s still there. I’m just not going to bank on it.

That american ‘Warden’ you quote aa doesn’t run a prison, he runs a county gaol. That caters for the bottom end of the scale (and in the US it’s amazing what you can be incarcerated for). In this country that end of the market is catered for with week-end detention, community service orders, bonds etc. You can’t run a large prison camp for people doing 25-life for murder, the escape/violence rate would be untenable. It’s easy to bully vagrants, prostitutes, shoplifters and fine defaulters. I’d like to see the good Sheriff taking post in a real gaol. THAT would make good TV.

Also, given this particular case, has anyone paused to consider the governments claim that its new prison will cut crime by allowing its occupants to maintain close contact with members of their family?

Hard to see prison as rehabilitative in the case of Massey! Some people are just habitual criminals and no amount of well-meaning “rehabilitation” is going to change their attitude. You have to want to change.

You could knock me over with a feather; until now I truly thought prison rehabilitated people. Please allow me to take a moment to compose myself while this revelation sinks-in.

if the gaol here wasn’t so easy, people would be scared to go. Look at the new 5 star hotel they build for them here in Canberra. Just like they took someones right away and ended up in there, they shouldn’t have any rights either.

There was a prison warden in America that made them sleep in tents in the heat and he justified it by saying the soldiers who are in Iraq and Afghanistan are sleeping in worse conditions, so why should the criminals have all these luxuries.

Appart from serial killers, how many people here actually spend the rest of their life in gaol?

Your points system is interesting VY. I actually think it could work, with some additions. I don’t think it should be life if you use up all your points, however. Perhaps a mandatory custodial sentence for the maximum you can get for the crime you committed that caused you to go over your points limit.

I was thinking, how about offering the chance to remove your points by completing stints in rehabilitation, or through community work where you work with the victims of violent crime/dui’s.

Perhaps, if you’ve worked off your points through rehabilitation activities, you could have a chance to have your convictions removed, provided a decent enough amount of time has passed since the offense.

The message to the offender could be simple: ‘If you’re willing to take a chance now and change your life, you can work towards eventually getting a clean slate. But if you keep going down this path, there’s only one place we can put you.’

That’s why when Gordon Wood was re-tired recently for throwing his girlfriend Caroline Byrne off the Gap there was no mention of his first trial in the media’s coverage of the second trial until after he was convicted.

Bit of a difference between relaying details of a case before court (especially a re-trail) and mentioning a conviction which stands.

At least I would hope so, I have no particular knowledge of how it works, or doesn’t.

Capital punishment is what we need for trash like this guy. It may not be perfect, but you win more than you lose. Even if I was wrongly accused of something and put on death row, I’d like to think that I’d take great solace in the fact that at least my death would be to maintain safety of society. Besides, in its most basic form, isn’t that why soldiers go to wars and risk their lives anyway?

It’s a fair cop.

But society is to blame.

that should read re-tried not retired.

p1 said :

try to be careful not to be in contempt of court, lest we prejudice his case and land johnboy in hot water

Since the person you are referring to simply mentioned something in the public record, I fail to see how it is a problem.

Not how it works unfortunately. Just because something has been on the public record does not protect you from contempt of court. That’s why when Gordon Wood was re-tired recently for throwing his girlfriend Caroline Byrne off the Gap there was no mention of his first trial in the media’s coverage of the second trial until after he was convicted. That’s why the CT and ABC’s stories on Massey made no mention of his past except for what was said in court.

Even as a 10 yo he was showing the potential he has unfortunately lived up to. And sadly he’s not the only one in that family.

I’m surprised he could be on good behaviour long enough to be paroled. I don’t understand why an 11 year sentence can’t be just that – 11 years. 5 years served is hugely different. I’m with VYB. Can someone expain how this works?

How does it work? Not facetious, just curious…

Doesn’t work that way mate. Unfortunately.

I have come to realise that. At least if I ever screw up and get arrested I know I’ll be home for tea.

It would have to be based on crimes for which the individual was actually convicted.

p1 said :

try to be careful not to be in contempt of court, lest we prejudice his case and land johnboy in hot water

Since the person you are referring to simply mentioned something in the public record, I fail to see how it is a problem.

I am totally against “three strikes” or “mandatory sentencing”. But I do think that judges should take previous history into account when sentencing.

That would be a non-parole period of about 5 or so years.

So how come when he got picked up the first time that day, he didn’t go back inside to serve the rest of his 11 years? Or does parole not require you to obey the law?

Doesn’t work that way mate. Unfortunately.

Perhaps we could come up with a points system…

Interesting concept. Can you blame it all on a dead friend so they take the points?

try to be careful not to be in contempt of court, lest we prejudice his case and land johnboy in hot water

Since the person you are referring to simply mentioned something in the public record, I fail to see how it is a problem.

I am totally against “three strikes” or “mandatory sentencing”. But I do think that judges should take previous history into account when sentencing.

That would be a non-parole period of about 5 or so years.

So how come when he got picked up the first time that day, he didn’t go back inside to serve the rest of his 11 years? Or does parole not require you to obey the law?

How about 3 violent crimes and you’re out?

Seems more than reasonable. Perhaps we could come up with a points system, kinda like for driving, eg
Major violent crime (rape, manslaughter, murder) – 9 points
Minor violent crime – 5 points
Property crime – 4 points
Drug dealing/trafficking – 5 points
Minor drug possession – 2 points

Anyway, you get the idea. Treat all crimes as we do now, but run a points tally. Once you get to say 10 points in a 5 year period, automatic 5 year gaol term on top of other sentences. Get another 10 points, 10 year gaol term.

This gives people 2 options, either clean up your act or spend your life in gaol. For those who make the occasional ‘mistake’, they will never reach the threshold, but the fear of being caught again should drag them into line.

Thoughts?

Three strikes doesn’t work. California is a great example, given that on the third go your getting life inside if your caught anyways it’s a really good incentive to kill the witnesses so they won’t talk.

I personally believe there should be no second chances with bail, if you get arrested and bailed out fair enough, technically you haven’t broken any laws given innocent until proven guilty, however breach your bail conditions and that should be it for life, you’ll never be given bail again.

Surprised? You shouldn’t be… oh, but I was on drugs… show some pity. No.

Even Barack Obama has copped to smoking dope.

How about 3 violent crimes and you’re out?

grundy said :

According to one of the previous articles, he was sentanced to jail for 11 years in 2002.

Why was he out?

try to be careful not to be in contempt of court, lest we prejudice his case and land johnboy in hot water.

Careful. It may work in this example, but how about someone who…

Strike 1: As a stupid teenager, gets busted with a mate or two in a stolen car
Strike 2: Gets into a fight (not his fault) in a bar, gets arrested
Strike 3: Gets busted with a few of grams of pot, gets arrested

Don’t steal cars and don’t smoke pot. Not that hard from where I’m sitting.

Alternatively, ‘tune’ the law such that juvenile offences aren’t considered.

I think putting regular crims away is a top idea. Why should I share society with those who persistently break the rules?

What an idiot. He shouldnt have been out to start with. Maybe he wanted to visit the new lets be kind to crims gaol.

> Another example of why a 3 strikes law or something similar is required.

Careful. It may work in this example, but how about someone who…

Strike 1: As a stupid teenager, gets busted with a mate or two in a stolen car
Strike 2: Gets into a fight (not his fault) in a bar, gets arrested
Strike 3: Gets busted with a few of grams of pot, gets arrested

Should he be jailed for life?

grundy said :

According to one of the previous articles, he was sentanced to jail for 11 years in 2002.

Why was he out?

That would be a non-parole period of about 5 or so years.

Another example of why a 3 strikes law or something similar is required.

According to one of the previous articles, he was sentanced to jail for 11 years in 2002.

Why was he out?