Phaedrus 209521 Report post Posted April 20, 2011 This kind of thing really makes me angry. If the guy's considered a serious risk, *why* does someone have to get badly hurt to prove the point? It doesn't sound like he's shown much in the way of remorse, either, which simply increases the risk to those around him. *sigh*... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
qwertyaccount 15793 Report post Posted April 20, 2011 He was probably in protective custody during his stay, because if he was in with the general pupulation... well from what I understand they don't cotten well to his sort of schnanigans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
classydude 100 Report post Posted April 20, 2011 I think a lot of people would question the "serious harm" remark. If I was on the parole board there is no way he would have gotten parole. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SamanthaEvans 166767 Report post Posted April 20, 2011 Decisions like this make me feel ill. The case management team believes that he'll cause serious harm to or kill someone before his term is up, but the parole board granted parole anyway because he hadn't done anything they considered to be "serious" so far, despite having admitted that he repeatedly assaulted his wife. O-kay.... A friend of mine works in the prisons with violent offenders. He tells me that these guys have to report in to parole officers every month and that their activities are closely monitored. One step over the line and they're back in jail without passing Go or collecting $200, as they say. My friend says that a lot of these guys are so volatile that there's no way they can follow the conditions that are part of their parole and so they're back in jail within a couple of months and they won't be released on parole again after that. It seems to be the only sure way to guarantee that they guy stays in custody--by letting him break a few more rules. But sometimes, someone gets hurt..... I have to put these decisions next to the Toronto police officers' statements that women shouldn't dress like "sluts" if they want to avoid being raped and the statements made by the federal government in the appeal of Justice Himel's decision in Ontario that becaise sex workers work in high-risk situations that are often illegal, they're not entitled to protection. I wonder whether Messervey will be in any trouble if he assaults a sex worker whom someone decides is dressed like a slut? Just asking.... 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sandimoon 72517 Report post Posted April 20, 2011 I agree wholeheartedly Samantha. That is why I will be participating in Vancouver`s Slutwalk on May 15. This must end. Here is a link to their site to sign up. http://www.slutwalkvancouver.com Come on ladies AND gentlemen. Stand up and make our voices heard. Sandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SamanthaEvans 166767 Report post Posted April 21, 2011 Sandi, I'll be there, too! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
