After only a few hours of being released back into the community, a notorious 64 year old serial sex - Polidicks

[IMG]https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1382925_584188951628946_459279056_n.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]Notorious Queensland sex offender Robert Fardon is back in a Brisbane jail after a court battle to stop him from being released. The 64-year-old was driven out of Wacol jail on Friday afternoon after a Supreme Court judge upheld a ruling that he should be set free. But just a few hours later lawyers for the State Government were awarded a stay of proceedings in the Court of Appeal. Fardon, who had been taken to a nearby prison housing precinct, is now back in secure custody after just a few short hours of freedom. The matter will be back before the courts next week, where Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie is hoping his lawyers can keep Fardon behind bars.[/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-04/qld-attorney-general-to-appeal-against-fardon-release/4999552[/URL]

was expecting some crime to have been done, not courts arguing (it sounds like he was never even let out yet)

[QUOTE=Bletotum;42416258]was expecting some crime to have been done, not courts arguing (it sounds like he was never even let out yet)[/QUOTE] well he did leave and get arrested again

Well, if his risk of reoffending is high, I can't see why not. I'll call my uncle in Queensland about this in a few days, get his opinion on the matter and see if he can fill me in a bit better. I should try getting some sleep, though.

He was probably sat in a bar enjoying a drink and the cops showed up and were like "Sorry bro, we've gotta take you back to jail." Sounds like he got barred for life.

Is it even legal to release someone and then go "wait I changed my mind, get back in there" like that?

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;42416343]Is it even legal to release someone and then go "wait I changed my mind, get back in there" like that?[/QUOTE] In America, I believe it is. I guessing it's different from Australia.

Wow, let the dude go already, you put him in jail for like 30 years. I know he's been doing some shit, but you'd think 30 years of jail leaves you enough time to think about what you did and how you'll behave not to be sent back. It might be a small risk to take, but I think this man needs to go out.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;42416343]Is it even legal to release someone and then go "wait I changed my mind, get back in there" like that?[/QUOTE] if the prosecution want to extend someone's sentance they have to go through a whole range of shit, if they request it they are put under arrest and are supervised until the courts think its the right thing to do happens all the time with shit like this

The only good thing Jarrod Bleijie is actually doing.

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;42416751]if the prosecution want to extend someone's sentance they have to go through a whole range of shit, if they request it they are put under arrest and are supervised until the courts think its the right thing to do happens all the time with shit like this[/QUOTE] The prosecution cannot apply to extend their sentence once the original sentence has been served. And typically the courts have no capacity to extend a sentence unless appealed either. However, Paralimant can pass an Act to indefinitely keep someone in prison or extend the sentence of someone if they so choose (however they often refrain from doing this except in exceptional circumstances).

After reading the title I thought it meant he committed another offense again so soon :v:

From what I understand, this guy committed crimes and was released after serving his sentence, the usual procedure. Then, in 2003, Austria passed a new law allowing them to keep 'dangerous' criminals in prison indefinitely, no matter if their sentence was served. This guy was the first prisoner to be kept in prison under that new rule. So the constitutional question they are fighting over is "Is it lawful to keep someone in prison forever just because the state believes he is a high risk to reoffend?", can you keep someone in prison for crimes they haven't committed yet?

thats bullshit

What the heck

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;42419707]From what I understand, this guy committed crimes and was released after serving his sentence, the usual procedure. Then, in 2003, [b]Austria[/b] passed a new law allowing them to keep 'dangerous' criminals in prison indefinitely, no matter if their sentence was served. This guy was the first prisoner to be kept in prison under that new rule. So the constitutional question they are fighting over is "Is it lawful to keep someone in prison forever just because the state believes he is a high risk to reoffend?", can you keep someone in prison for crimes they haven't committed yet?[/QUOTE] Why does Australia have to follow Austrian rules?

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;42419707]From what I understand, this guy committed crimes and was released after serving his sentence, the usual procedure. Then, in 2003, Austria passed a new law allowing them to keep 'dangerous' criminals in prison indefinitely, no matter if their sentence was served. This guy was the first prisoner to be kept in prison under that new rule. So the constitutional question they are fighting over is "Is it lawful to keep someone in prison forever just because the state believes he is a high risk to reoffend?", can you keep someone in prison for crimes they haven't committed yet?[/QUOTE] I think thats bullshit, he served his sentence let him be. Keeping somebody in prison because they MIGHT commit a crime again is backwards as fuck.

[QUOTE=Gatsby;42421423]I think thats bullshit, he served his sentence let him be. Keeping somebody in prison because they MIGHT commit a crime again is backwards as fuck.[/QUOTE] The aussies have an extremely unusual justice system. In some ways it seems unfair, and (most) other ways it is really forgiving and forward thinking. I have learned to limit any passing of judgement on their system because it is so alien in many respects to our own.

[QUOTE=GunFox;42421677]The aussies have an extremely unusual justice system.[/QUOTE] One could say they have a very [I]upside down[/I] justice system compared to USA

[QUOTE=Limed00d;42421827]One could say they have a very [I]upside down[/I] justice system compared to USA[/QUOTE] Not if they wanted to continue breathing.

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;42419707] So the constitutional question they are fighting over is "Is it lawful to keep someone in prison forever just because the state believes he is a high risk to reoffend?", can you keep someone in prison for crimes they haven't committed yet?[/QUOTE] No it's not - this issue was sorted after Fardon appealed to the High Court of Australia relating to a claim that the State of Qld had overstepped their legislative capacity afforded by the Constitution. The HCA found that they had not, and thus had the capacity to hold prisoners for indefinite terms. [url]http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2004/46.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(kable%20)[/url] The question is relating to the recent determination. That being, the risk of him committing a sexual crime is small enough to justify the indefinite detention order (made under the dangerous offenders, sexual crimes legislation). Previously an order was made that he can be released back into the community as the risk is low, however the state government disagrees, and thus sought an order to delay his release while seeking a reevaluation by the court.