No body No parole

I remember hearing "no body no crime", and today, we've got certain victims of crime in western Australia who are calling for part of the law to change. They want the law to make parole contingent upon the location of the body. As things stand right now, the persons convicted of murder may receive parole even though they refuse to disclose the whereabouts of the victim's body. It is hoped that by introducing such a measure to the law, some closure to the victim's family would be given, in addition to providing an incentive for prisoners to co-operate with police and other authorities. Of course, this law can also extend further to include convicted criminals who refuse to name their accomplices.

The other side of the argument goes like this: our system is not perfect, so how about if we convict the wrong person, how can they ever point to a body they've had nothing to do with? We've all heard of cases where convicted "criminals" were later acquitted of their crime.

Personally, the way I'd deal with this would be to eliminate the emotional factor from anything to do with the law. And as I ponder over the argument for the no body no parole, I can't help but feel the need for something more solid (devoid of emotional influences). And for that to work, I'd say yes, no body no parole but...only to criminals who actually admit to their crime. I know, this may lead to yet another argument whereby someone would argue, oh really, and since when do criminals admit to their crimes now! What are your thoughts on this matter?

Good stuff Fadi



[MENTION=6722]Bazza20[/MENTION]; [MENTION=13432]WoodyAllen[/MENTION]; [MENTION=17457]Repacked[/MENTION]; [MENTION=9251]Darkoz[/MENTION]; [MENTION=12011]vonfram88[/MENTION]; [MENTION=3627]Goosey[/MENTION]; [MENTION=6618]spartacus[/MENTION]; [MENTION=16903]Johnnie Walker[/MENTION]; [MENTION=17346]kramer1[/MENTION];

Yeah. No body, no parole. No arguments from me.
I'd go one step further and say if you are convicted of murder then you forfeit any right of parole.

Shrek said:

Yeah. No body, no parole. No arguments from me.
I'd go one step further and say if you are convicted of murder then you forfeit any right of parole.

Click to expand...

You're putting a lot of faith in the legal system to get it right Shrekky.

Our justice system doesn't always get it right. There are lots of cases of this, people being convicted and then convictions overturned.

Then if it overturned they will be released. No parole necessary.

Our justice system is certainly not a perfect one.

This is one argument you won't win. I'm a crime sleuth. I know all there is too know.
I'm eating Laksa now. I'll return later.

Shrek said:

This is one argument you won't win. I'm a crime sleuth. I know all there is too know.
I'm eating Laksa now. I'll return later.

Click to expand...

Can't have an absolute like "no body no parole". Judges need discretion kunce.


That being said, I believe in an eye for an eye in certain circumstances. I'd gladly kill a person if I knew they had done something worthy of it.

What's to stop murderers saying the body was disposed of in a manner such that it is never to be seen again e.g. at sea, dismembered etc? If no different can be proven it opens another can of worms.

Repacked said:

What's to stop murderers saying the body was disposed of in a manner such that it is never to be seen again e.g. at sea, dismembered etc? If no different can be proven it opens another can of worms.

Click to expand...

Good point Repacked. Back in the day some criminals used the acid bath/barrel to dispose of their victims, based on that very fact of no body no crime.

The fact that we're discussing this subject, may give the criminal mind ideas so as to make certain of really disposing of the body. Then when asked to locate it, admit (with a straight face) that yes I did kill, however I've done away with it via such and such method, a method whereby a body's whereabouts can never be disclosed.

Fadi said:

Good point Repacked. Back in the day some criminals used the acid bath/barrel to dispose of their victims, based on that very fact of no body no crime.

The fact that we're discussing this subject, may give the criminal mind ideas so as to make certain of really disposing of the body. Then when asked to locate it, admit (with a straight face) that yes I did kill, however I've done away with it via such and such method, a method whereby a body's whereabouts can never be disclosed.

Click to expand...

And if they admit this and are therefore not refusing to disclose the location of a the body, presumable they are eligible for parole?

Repacked said:

And if they admit this and are therefore not refusing to disclose the location of a the body, presumable they are eligible for parole?

Click to expand...

Yes. It's like a loophole that works in their favour in a way, wouldn't you agree?

Fadi said:

Yes. It's like a loophole that works in their favour in a way, wouldn't you agree?

Click to expand...

There are a lot of what ifs and buts that would need to be hammered out, that's for sure.

Repacked said:

There are a lot of what ifs and buts that would need to be hammered out, that's for sure.

Click to expand...

The majority of our Politicians are Lawyers. This in itself makes me wonder why the idea hasn't been introduced before.

The full squat won't work for everyone

There is a lot that can be eaten. A decent furnace will eliminate everything else, including teeth and prosthetics.

Parole bond.

Someone on the board plus one member of the public needs to guarantee the offender in order to be eligible for parole.

In the case of the offender committing offences punishable by prison time during the parole period, the board member is sacked with no further draw on the public coffers and the guarantor also serves the period of time allotted for the breach/secondary offence.

Lets see how rehabilitated people actually are by making those responsible for release and support actually invest something in its success.

onslaught said:

Parole bond.

Someone on the board plus one member of the public needs to guarantee the offender in order to be eligible for parole.

In the case of the offender committing offences punishable by prison time during the parole period, the board member is sacked with no further draw on the public coffers and the guarantor also serves the period of time allotted for the breach/secondary offence.

Lets see how rehabilitated people actually are by making those responsible for release and support actually invest something in its success.

Click to expand...

Fair is fair. Like your comment thank you. If someone can not be responsible for his or her action/s, then what good is all their promises (and guarantees) on behalf of a guilty party. Again, you've raised a good point sir, and your contribution is much appreciated.

Personally I have no regard for criminals, be they murderers or shop lifters.

Personally I think there should be no such thing as parole, as parole suggests that there is reward for acting normal and not committing crime ie The released prisoner is on parole for two years suggesting he is not allowed to commit further offences in those two years.....really?? Isn't that what everyone (most people) do every day, not commit crimes??

What a load of BS, I have gone through my whole life not committing crimes.

Why does someone who murdered someone EVER deserve parole??? They don't deserve to live let alone to be walking amongst us. And don't even get me started on Bail Laws, it's a ridiculous situation.

And yes the law sometimes does get it wrong, but that is another topic/issue all together.

How would you feel if your wife/daughter/sister/mother was raped by a convicted rapist let out on parole? Who would you blame if some member of your family got murdered by a convicted murderer out on parole?? Who is responsible then??

onslaught said:

Parole bond.

Someone on the board plus one member of the public needs to guarantee the offender in order to be eligible for parole.

In the case of the offender committing offences punishable by prison time during the parole period, the board member is sacked with no further draw on the public coffers and the guarantor also serves the period of time allotted for the breach/secondary offence.

Lets see how rehabilitated people actually are by making those responsible for release and support actually invest something in its success.

Click to expand...

That would solve the issue, problem is currently no one is responsible for their decision.

It's the same with bail laws, magistrates grant bail all the time and are not held accountable for their decision to grant bail if it all goes pear shaped.