Another murder has shocked the nation because of its brutal ferocity, perpetrated on a young teen, allegedly by her step-father. For many, this will be just another statistic, but luckily the attacker has already been apprehended and is about to be charged. But there is a disturbing peculiarity about this dastardly act, that raises some questions about repeated offenders of serious criminal violence being charged, and placed before the courts.
The alleged murderer, a 63 year-old man, had served a 10-year sentence, some years ago, for attempted murder, the victim being a woman. Sometime after his release, he was again under the spotlight for two stabbing matters, related to brutal attacks on women, one of them being a policewoman. This is according to press reports. Further reports informed, that for both instances he had been remanded, but later freed.
From a layman’s point of view he could have been freed only if his alleged victims, in each instance, had opted not to give evidence against him; or, if the attacks were proven to be ones against which he had to defend himself which, from all circumstances, seems not to have been the case. So why was he freed, on both occasions?
It stands to reason, all things being equal, that this particular kind of offender, an assailant with a history of brutal violence against women, inclusive of being a suspect in the murder of a former common-law wife, ought to have been given a substantial sentence, condign enough, for the attack committed after his served custodial sentence. Had this occurred, he might not have ventured another such attempt, much less to be the alleged attacker in a case of murder.
There have been cases, somewhat akin to this nature, that involve habitual offenders.
Sometime ago, there was the case of a man charged for assaulting his aged mother. He was before the court for a third such offence, being released shortly before committing the latter. Why must such an offender be given consecutive, slap-on-the-wrist sentences, when it is proven that such have not been a deterrent? There is every possibility, that such an assailant may commit murder on another occasion. This is a commonality in numerous cases of domestic violence, and have mainly led to the inevitable, tragic consequence of murder.
Is there a weakness in our justice system with regard to dealing with recidivists, especially those of a pre-disposition to violent, physical assault? This latest tragedy highlights the need for the judiciary to re-examine its sentencing guidelines, once this type of offender is arraigned, and found guilty.
The alleged murderer, a 63 year-old man, had served a 10-year sentence, some years ago, for attempted murder, the victim being a woman. Sometime after his release, he was again under the spotlight for two stabbing matters, related to brutal attacks on women, one of them being a policewoman. This is according to press reports. Further reports informed, that for both instances he had been remanded, but later freed.
From a layman’s point of view he could have been freed only if his alleged victims, in each instance, had opted not to give evidence against him; or, if the attacks were proven to be ones against which he had to defend himself which, from all circumstances, seems not to have been the case. So why was he freed, on both occasions?
It stands to reason, all things being equal, that this particular kind of offender, an assailant with a history of brutal violence against women, inclusive of being a suspect in the murder of a former common-law wife, ought to have been given a substantial sentence, condign enough, for the attack committed after his served custodial sentence. Had this occurred, he might not have ventured another such attempt, much less to be the alleged attacker in a case of murder.
There have been cases, somewhat akin to this nature, that involve habitual offenders.
Sometime ago, there was the case of a man charged for assaulting his aged mother. He was before the court for a third such offence, being released shortly before committing the latter. Why must such an offender be given consecutive, slap-on-the-wrist sentences, when it is proven that such have not been a deterrent? There is every possibility, that such an assailant may commit murder on another occasion. This is a commonality in numerous cases of domestic violence, and have mainly led to the inevitable, tragic consequence of murder.
Is there a weakness in our justice system with regard to dealing with recidivists, especially those of a pre-disposition to violent, physical assault? This latest tragedy highlights the need for the judiciary to re-examine its sentencing guidelines, once this type of offender is arraigned, and found guilty.