A burglar who terrorised a woman has dodged jail, despite a previous conviction for attempted murder after stabbing a sleeping teenager in his bed.
There's the first problem. Some-one breaks into a house to kill some-one is not a burglar. Some-one who chases a women out of the house attempting to catch her was not looking to steal property - they could have made a grab for valuables and run off.
As for stabbing a sleeping teenager completely through the chest (after breaking into a house), it was only luck that enabled the teenager to survive. He should have been done for murder back then. He wasn't. He was sentenced to nine years jail, served only 5 years and tried the same thing again - break into a house and try and kill some-one.
And what's the sentence this time? Supervision! What a joke.
Judge Susan Thomas said she considered a jail sentence, but then thought otherwise. What was the thought process? "My own home security is pretty good, and the guy said he'll do some rehab. Sweet."
His lawyer, Mike Kilbride, said he was doing well before December's attack. "It shocked everyone." Oh really? Does being shocked mitigate guilt? What an interesting defence. "He tried to kill this women, but the police got there and rescued her. But hey, we are shocked."
"Shocked, you say" said Judge Thomas? "So this came as a surprise to you?"
"Oh, yes, yer honour. A complete surprise."
"Well, the court has no option but to find the defendant not particularly guilty."
Hang-on, it certainly shocked the victim (if they only thought to ask). Does the victim get a say? It seems only fair, in consideration that she managed to live through the attack.
There's the first problem. Some-one breaks into a house to kill some-one is not a burglar. Some-one who chases a women out of the house attempting to catch her was not looking to steal property - they could have made a grab for valuables and run off.
As for stabbing a sleeping teenager completely through the chest (after breaking into a house), it was only luck that enabled the teenager to survive. He should have been done for murder back then. He wasn't. He was sentenced to nine years jail, served only 5 years and tried the same thing again - break into a house and try and kill some-one.
And what's the sentence this time? Supervision! What a joke.
Judge Susan Thomas said she considered a jail sentence, but then thought otherwise. What was the thought process? "My own home security is pretty good, and the guy said he'll do some rehab. Sweet."
His lawyer, Mike Kilbride, said he was doing well before December's attack. "It shocked everyone." Oh really? Does being shocked mitigate guilt? What an interesting defence. "He tried to kill this women, but the police got there and rescued her. But hey, we are shocked."
"Shocked, you say" said Judge Thomas? "So this came as a surprise to you?"
"Oh, yes, yer honour. A complete surprise."
"Well, the court has no option but to find the defendant not particularly guilty."
Hang-on, it certainly shocked the victim (if they only thought to ask). Does the victim get a say? It seems only fair, in consideration that she managed to live through the attack.
Aha, and it gets worse ... how can CYFs function decisively under such an omniscient umbrella?
ReplyDeleteAnd at the same time take responsibility for when things go wrong .. when their 'hands are so bound' by those appointed for their 'decision making ability,' not for their understanding or knowledge of human behaviour.
... so many (too many) 'Oh dear' moments.
Judge's comment from the linked article:
ReplyDeleteRikihana was involved in the church and Salvation Army, but fell in with the wrong crowd.
Er, he fell in with the "break into people's houses and murder them" crowd? He, who'd never shown any inclination to break into people's houses and murder them before falling in with this "crowd?" Except for, like, that one time that nobody will just let go?
This isn't some schmuck with "drinking and anger problems," this is someone either evil or criminally insane. Either way, community service isn't really an appropriate method of dealing with it.
Careful there Milt; someone might label you a right winger ;)
ReplyDeletePerhaps the scumbag could stay at Judge Susan's house and she could do the supervising?
ReplyDeleteMojo, I think CYFS can function decisively, by having open and transparent processes, and well defined ROE.
ReplyDeleteThe winning factor for them is that the organisation rarely takes responsibility for when things go wrong, and rarely are held accountable for when they act improperly.
Furthermore, we do have to acknowledge that they cannot possibly get it right all the time, and that they will make bad calls. The key factors for making those bad calls have to be set in such a way that obvious incompetence, bias, or unprofessionalism were not the causes.
There also needs to be another organisation that can be appealed to and individual cases reviewed, because we need to prevent the approach that over-intervention is the only solution, because they are not held accountable for kidnapping - which is the technical definition of over-zealous and excessive intervention.