8:53 AM, Sunday 20 May, 2012

Your Say

Change font size: A A
  • In a Feb 16. editorial I wrote about a rapist who attacked a 14-year-old girl, was jailed, committed further offences after his release and was returned to jail. When finally freed he was restricted to a 10p.m. curfew among other conditions. He was in the news because of a successful appeal in which three judges ruled his curfew should be pushed back to 1a.m. to allow him to go to nightclubs. Through all this his name was suppressed because when he committed the original rape he was only 17 years and 8 months old. Shouldn’t that suppression be rescinded if a person re-offends as an adult?

    Have Your Say

    • Comments

    All Responses

    • irjdhyp

    • rdqVkG zxeyukfscwim, [url=http://bjecavvkzfaj.com/]bjecavvkzfaj[/url], [link=http://nkpmmfuaktun.com/]nkpmmfuaktun[/link], http://sqlbqofvoicy.com/
    • 04/05/2012 04:39 AM

    • corinne hall

    • Once this type of crime is committed, these people re-offend in the future, it is only a matter of time. Their minds are still the same, and the more they get away with, the worse the crimes will get.
      Suppression just helps the criminal behaviour.
      What about the victim?
    • 03/04/2012 03:38 PM

    • Jason Wedge

    • Hi there Derryn,

      Hope you are well. Really enjoy having you back on air and your work here on Human Headline which is fantastic.

      Would like to get your feedback on Policies that I have formulated as an alternative to the stale Labor/Liberal Parties whom are very much on the nose.

      Is it possible to shoot them through to your e-mail or Twitter to have a read when you have 2 mins spare? It only contains 2,000 words any feedback would be very much appreciated.

      Best Of Wishes

      Jason.
    • 20/02/2012 09:35 PM

    • Tony Wilson

    • Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions, John Chapman SC, claims this week that the prosecution of religious leaders over child abuse is "not in the public interest." On Tuesday morning, 21 February, in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria, Latrobe Valley, the DPP plans to discontinue the prosecution of 5 separate criminal cases involving 35 individual criminal offences against children committed by "ministers of religion" within the church of Jehovah's Witnesses. For more information google "JW NEWS" or "Traralgon Congregation".
    • 20/02/2012 09:24 PM

    • Michelle

    • I work in the criminal justice system. Definitely not. I am sick to death of the judiciary protecting them. What about the victim?

      In saying about the victim...victims of sex crimes use that as their number one excuse for committing crimes themselves. The judiciary prevails then and hands them out a 'slap on the wrist' irrespective of crimes they have committed.

      We need a solution for this absolute joke of a justice system, which makes a mockery of our lives.

      It's okay for the judges that sit in their ivory tower that do not deal with these mongrels face to face.

      The offenders behavior is different in court. They should consider this before they decide who walks our streets.
    • 18/02/2012 12:43 PM

    • Bree Advocate

    • Yes, their names should be made public Derryn. There have been far too many instances where such offenders have gone onto commit further horrendous crimes, whilst their identities are suppressed. The public has a right to know if they are residing near, employing or have some form of relationship with these offenders. The community has a right to be protected, and by keeping these names suppressed, only goes to protect the offender. We should be given all the chances & resources to be able to protect our innocent & vulnerable, and by keeping suppression orders on these young offenders, does not do that. Suppressions on such offenders are only a free reign for them to continue their offending, the whole time doing it under their name of (NOT ALLOWED TO KNOW).
    • 17/02/2012 03:04 PM

    • David Horrocks

    • What a ridiculous law. In my opinion criminals should be named after they turn 14 years of age.
    • 17/02/2012 02:08 PM