Monday, May 25, 2015

Electronic monitoring of criminals a sham

Sean Plunket conducted an interview with Corrections Association president Bevan Hanlon who was scathing about the monitoring process in general (obviously unable to be specific but the Blessie Gotingco case was the spur for the interview - see photo used at link). Hanlon claims that Corrections simply does not have the resources to carry out the required monitoring. Monitoring is a "fiscal" measure to keep the prison population down apparently.

If you think electronic surveillance of known and potentially dangerous criminals keeps you safe, better listen to this interview:

(Now I know the background of the convicted murderer I am utterly gobsmacked. The link in yesterday's comments, revealing the name, has been removed as the legal implications are unknown to me and I blog under my own name. Sorry.)


Brendan McNeill said...

Lindsay the first step is having criminals complete their full sentence, and end the idea of Parole.

How many innocent people have been killed by violent men who had been released back into the community by parole boards? Does anyone have ready access to that information?

If that means doubling the number of prisons, and cutting spending elsewhere, then so be it. I'd have thought protecting citizens was the first duty of government.

Anonymous said...

I'd have thought protecting citizens was the first duty of government.

Well ACT think so and say so but no other party does.

Vote ACT next election.

Hamish West said...

Brendon I'd agree only with very violent crime. Places with super high incarceration rates don't tend to have lower rates of crime at all, but there's a much greater cost to imprisoning heaps more people.
Any one size fits all system is going to be flawed, but rehabilitation and early intervention seem to work a lot better when used.