National Library of New Zealand
Harvested by the National Library of New Zealand on: Oct 8 2008 at 8:34:56 GMT
Search boxes and external links may not function. Having trouble viewing this page? Click here
Close Minimize Help
Wayback Machine
GayNZ Logo & Link
Wednesday 08 October 2008


Proclamations of the Red Queen

29th April 2008

Capillgate : What Happens at Parole Hearings

Posted by: Craig Young

For those who haven’t had a look at it, the Gaynz.Com forum thread on Capill’s parole is quite firmly on the side of the fence that any parole would be premature. Courtesy of Forum contributor jjw, I’ve decided to provide some light to the proceedings through spelling out what will happen next at Capill’s actual parole hearing, currently scheduled for June 2008:

The details below are taken from the Parole Board website, and read as follows:

Among the comprehensive range of information considered by the Board is:

    * information about the offender’s offence/s, sentence and any previous offending
    * reports from the Department of Corrections about the offender’s ’sentence plan’ (what they will do to address their offending while they are in prison) and what progress they have made in this
    * any special reports such as psychological assessments about the offender’s treatment and risk of re-offending
    * plans for how release would be managed including any special conditions recommended.

How does the Board make a decision?

The panel of the Board deciding the case considers all the material provided – both written and oral – and weighs it up.

The legislation states that victims’ submissions and any restorative justice outcomes are to be given due weight.

The most important consideration for the Board is community safety. By law, the Board must decide that the offender does not pose an undue risk to the safety of the community before he or she can be granted parole. In assessing ‘undue risk’ the Board must consider both the likelihood of further offending, and the nature and seriousness of any likely offending.
  With that in mind, should we support tougher penalties and harsh punishments as the best response to sexual assault? Not according to evidence-based studies on criminal recidivism in this context.”Myth: Tough Penalities and Harsh Punishments are the Best Response to Sexual Assault

Reality:

    * Studies show that comparing sex offenders sent to prison versus community sentences, the recidivism rate was 7% higher for prisoners compared to those offenders kept in the community.  Additionally, longer prison terms also increased risk upon release.  (Smith, Goffin & Gendreau, 2002)
    * When sex offenders are driven underground (without supervision) because of harsh penalties they are considerably more dangerous.
    * Contrarily, when offenders are connected to their communities, when they are allowed to work and intensely involved with a therapeutic community, (Circles of Support, Faith Community & Accountability) recidivism was significantly reduced. (Wilson, Picheca & Prinzo, 2005)

    * Since most individuals are offended by someone known to them, (often in their family) harsh penalties can further traumatize victims when others in the relationship realm of the victim & offender often turn against the person making the report.
    * Even though punishment makes communities, legislatures, and many in the media feel vindicated, that response is not always shared by victims.
    * Additionally, harsh penalties often make victims, or the caretakers of victims reluctant to report and subject the acquaintance or family member to punitive punishment—actually making the sexual assault problem worse.”

All right, then. So, the question is, has Capill been rehabilitated? Or does he still feel a sense of entitlement as one of the fundamentalist ‘elect’ as his fundamentalist Calvinist theological tradition teaches, which would have provided him with a sense of ‘entitlement’ for what he did, and reduce remorse?  Remember, some members of Capill’s entourage accepted his obscene argument that one of the children in question had ‘consented.’  We need to see this in context, and historically, fundamentalist churches have been horrifically backward when it comes to issues like domestic violence, spousal rape and incestuous child sexual abuse.  I could quote any one of a number of their texts from the eighties to substantiate this, and Capill may have imbibed these arguments.

I’d like to thank jj for her excellent  and informed contribution to this heated ongoing debate about religion, child sexual abuse and appropriate penalties for paedophiles.

Strongly Recommended:

New Zealand Parole Board webpage:

http://www.paroleboard.govt.nz

Oregon Sexual Abuse Task Force:
Myths About Sexual Offenders:

From http://www.oregonsatf.org/sexoffenders/so_myths.html

Tags: Politics · Religion

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments for this post...

Leave a Comment

(Required)

(Required but not displayed)