It was really disturbing to read the opening paragraph of this story on the murder of Juliana Bonilla Herrera. Truly frightening. It reads that high risk offenders are regularly being paroled from prison and into the community. It came from a senior Corrections staff member who was speaking at the coronial inquest into the murder of the Columbian woman. There is a shortage of suitable rehabilitation and accommodation options for high-risk offenders coming out of prison, and accordingly, other high-risk offenders, those with an even greater risk profile, are regularly being released into the community. And the public is not allowed to know who these high-risk offenders are.  

At the coronial inquest, Miss Bonilla Herrera's sister asked whether officials considered it necessary to warn neighbours of any possible danger when a high-risk offender comes out of prison and into the neighbourhood? The coroner said this was beyond the scope of the witnesses to answer. But it begs the question, and it's been asked before, and we're asking it again, when does an offender's privacy trump the public safety?  

I'm sure there are plenty of people who come out of prison who realise that they have committed a grievous wrong against an individual and against society, they have paid the price, and they are ready to assimilate into the community, having learned their lesson. But there are so many examples of individuals who come out of prison who have learnt nothing, who are perhaps incapable of learning any lessons.  

An example, and there are many, for more than a decade, Elliot Cameron had been a familiar sight for a small group of Mt Pleasant neighbours who had him do their gardens. Unbeknown to them, he was actually a mental health patient who had been living at Hillmorton Hospital for many years. Last year Elliot Cameron murdered 83-year-old Faye Phelps, who was one of those who employed him to do the garden in her own home.  

Another example: a man has been found not guilty of murder by way of insanity two decades after being found not guilty of murder by way of insanity. Another example, a 501 deportee who murdered a woman had a string of convictions in Australia, but police were unable to monitor him because the crimes had happened in Australia and he'd served his time for them, and therefore to all intents and purposes he was just another human. But he isn't and wasn't.  

I really do get that when people serve their time they should be given the opportunity to get on with their lives. Not everybody who comes out of prison needs to be monitored, needs to have a layer of security around them to protect the public from them. But when you have Corrections staff and probation officers and psychologists who know the individual, who know the calibre of the person and they deem them to be high risk, and they say that there are very grave concerns about the releasing this person back into society, there needs to be all sorts of monitoring around them, they need to be in a special rehabilitation centre before they can feel comfortable about releasing them back into the community.  

When they deem them to be high risk, how can they be allowed back into society? We know that the support measures simply are not there. Once they're released from prison, it's ‘Jesus, take the wheel’. Will they gert the bed at the rehabilitation centre, who knows? Probably not. It'll be full. Will they get the strict monitoring that's necessary? Chances are not really. In this particular case at the coronial inquest, the probation officer found that the probation arrangements hadn't been entered into the computer properly. Oops. Soz.  

You can have no faith in the system that when there's high risk individuals come out of prison that the protections will be there for them and for the public. I don't have any faith they'll be there at all, and anybody who works in the system doesn't have any faith they'll be there. And yet, the public can't be warned because they have a right to privacy. And again, I asked the question: why did their rights to privacy trump the public's right to safety? If there are no guarantees, if they are still considered high risk then unfortunately, they're going to have to stay in prison because their rights should not trump ours. 

It was really disturbing to read the opening paragraph of this story on the murder of Juliana Bonilla Herrera. Truly frightening. It reads that high risk offenders are regularly being paroled from prison and into the community. It came from a senior Corrections staff member who was speaking at the coronial inquest into the murder of the Columbian woman. There is a shortage of suitable rehabilitation and accommodation options for high-risk offenders coming out of prison, and accordingly, other high-risk offenders, those with an even greater risk profile, are regularly being released into the community. And the public is not allowed to know who these high-risk offenders are. &nbsp;
At the coronial inquest, Miss Bonilla Herrera's sister asked whether officials considered it necessary to warn neighbours of any possible danger when a high-risk offender comes out of prison and into the neighbourhood? The coroner said this was beyond the scope of the witnesses to answer. But it begs the question, and it's been asked before, and we're asking it again, when does an offender's privacy trump the public safety? &nbsp;
I'm sure there are plenty of people who come out of prison who realise that they have committed a grievous wrong against an individual and against society, they have paid the price, and they are ready to assimilate into the community, having learned their lesson. But there are so many examples of individuals who come out of prison who have learnt nothing, who are perhaps incapable of learning any lessons. &nbsp;
An example, and there are many, for more than a decade, Elliot Cameron had been a familiar sight for a small group of Mt Pleasant neighbours who had him do their gardens. Unbeknown to them, he was actually a mental health patient who had been living at Hillmorton Hospital for many years. Last year Elliot Cameron murdered 83-year-old Faye Phelps, who was one of those who employed him to do the garden in her own home. &nbsp;
Another example: a man has been found not guilty of murder by way of insanity two decades after being found not guilty of murder by way of insanity. Another example, a 501 deportee who murdered a woman had a string of convictions in Australia, but police were unable to monitor him because the crimes had happened in Australia and he'd served his time for them, and therefore to all intents and purposes he was just another human. But he isn't and wasn't. &nbsp;
I really do get that when people serve their time they should be given the opportunity to get on with their lives. Not everybody who comes out of prison needs to be monitored, needs to have a layer of security around them to protect the public from them. But when you have Corrections staff and probation officers and psychologists who know the individual, who know the calibre of the person and they deem them to be high risk, and they say that there are very grave concerns about the releasing this person back into society, there needs to be all sorts of monitoring around them, they need to be in a special rehabilitation centre before they can feel comfortable about releasing them back into the community. &nbsp;
When they deem them to be high risk, how can they be allowed back into society? We know that the support measures simply are not there. Once they're released from prison, it's ‘Jesus, take the wheel’. Will they gert the bed at the rehabilitation centre, who knows? Probably not. It'll be full. Will they get the strict monitoring that's necessary? Chances are not really. In this particular case at the coronial inquest, the probation officer found that the probation arrangements hadn't been entered into the computer properly. Oops. Soz. &nbsp;
You can have no faith in the system that when there's high risk individuals come out of prison that the protections will be there for them and for the public. I don't have any faith they'll be there at all, and anybody who works in the system doesn't have any faith they'll be there. And yet, the public can't be warned because they have a right to privacy. And again, I asked the question: why did their rights to privacy trump the public's right to safety? If there are no guarantees, if they are still considered high risk then unfortunately, they're going to have to stay in prison because their rights should not trump ours.&nbsp;

Join Kerre Woodham one of New Zealand’s best loved personalities as she dishes up a bold, sharp and energetic show Monday to Friday 9am-12md on Newstalk ZB. News, opinion, analysis, lifestyle and entertainment – we’ve got your morning listening covered.

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Kerre Woodham: Does a right to privacy trump the right to safety?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/5758009a-e1b9-4402-82ea-b2cf000e37a1/transcript

Advertisement