Victim not allowed to know where paroled attacker lives to protect his privacy :(

[twinkles**stars]

http://www.news.com.au/national-news/victoria/victim-not-allowed-to-know-where-paroled-attacker-live...

inShare

Domestic vioence victim Jeannie Blackburn is lobbying the government to release information regarding the whereabouts of violent criminals who have been released on parole.

A VICTIM of terrifying domestic violence has been told she is not allowed to know the area where her paroled attacker is living because of HIS right to privacy.

Jeannie Blackburn suffered 18-months of unprovoked violent abuse at the hands of Paul Francis McCuskey, culminating in her losing sight in one eye after he dragged her from her bed and stomped on her head.

Medical experts said her injuries were similar to that of a high impact car crash.

McCuskey was released from prison in April - with two and a half years to serve on parole - but pleas to the Adult Parole Board and Victims of Crime Register to know the area where he is living have been denied.

In a bizarre twist, McCuskey has been informed of where Ms Blackburn lives, as he is not allowed to go near her address.

"I don't want to know what street or even what suburb he is in, but just a general area to avoid for my own protection." Ms Blackburn said.

"I am being made to feel like a prisoner in my own home while he is free to walk the streets as he pleases.

"Why does he have more rights than I do, when I have done nothing wrong?"

Paul Francis McCuskey who is on parole for domestic violence against his ex-partner Jeannine Blackburn, who is fighting to know where her attacker is now living.

The woman beater also caused Ms Blackburn to miscarry after kicking her in the stomach in another sickening attack.

McCuskey, who received a bravery award for being one of several CFA volunteers who rescued an elderly woman at Cambarville during the 2009 Black Saturday bush fires, later had the honour stripped after intervention from the Governor General of Australia, Quentin Bryce.

He was sentenced to five years and six months in prison, with a minimum of three years, in April 2010.

Ms Blackburn said she contacted the Adult Parole Board to find out the general area of where he was living after his release on April 27 this year.

She claims she was told they could not tell her due to his right to privacy. The allegation is denied by the Adult Parole Board.

Ms Blackburn said she then contacted the Victims of Crime Register and wrote a letter requesting the information early last month without reply.

Domestic vioence victim Jeannie Blackburn is lobbying the government to release information regarding the whereabouts of violent criminals who have been released on parole.

Its website states: "Inclusion on the Register does not entitle you to information about… Where the prisoner / offender lives or intends

to live upon release from prison."

Ms Blackburn now intends to lobby the State Government to change the law.

"He lost his privacy rights when he pleaded guilty to intentionally, recklessly and seriously injuring me, at least while on parole" she said.

"Laws should be in place to protect the innocent, not the guilty."

A spokesman for the Adult Parole Board said McCuskey is subject to a "strict supervision regime."

"If Mr McCuskey fails to comply with any condition of his order, he will be immediately reported to the Board," he said.

jon.kaila@news.com.au

Read more: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/national-news/victoria/victim-not-allowed-to-know-where-paroled-attacker...

[catsnknots]

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

the problem is the vigilantes.

He has limited chances of rehabilitation whilst being harrassed by vigilantes. Whether it be now or in 10 years time, he is going to be released back into society, so it's desirable that he be given the best chance at rehabilitation possible.

just because a person knows his address, doesn't mean they know his location. Maybe he travels to another town for work, shopping,  to visit relatives etc?

So, really, I can't see how knowing his address is going to help the victim avoid being in his proximity.

---

Here is  good one... 

you even say that the problem is vigilantes 

[catsnknots]

 But lets not worry about the facts hey?? 

[*elizabeths-mum*]

I don't understand why 'the law' (and those defending it) considers the 'what ifs' when referring to what the victim may do but ignore the 'what ifs' in regard to the perpetrator who has already established that he/she is capable of acts outside the law.

[the_hawk*]

---

@*elizabeths-mum* wrote:
I don't understand why 'the law' (and those defending it) considers the 'what ifs' when referring to what the victim may do but ignore the 'what ifs' in regard to the perpetrator who has already established that he/she is capable of acts outside the law.

---

yes a very good point

[j*oono]

It's really not worth bashing your head against that brick wall Catmad.  She's an expert.

[*crikey*mate*]

vigilantes were not my assumption, they are a consideration of the law. I was stating a fact.

At no time did I assume or say that this lady's motivation was one of revenge or to act as a vigilante. I simply stated one of the reasons for why the law is as it is regarding this matter.

.....................................................

EM - the law takes the what ifs into consideration for both parties - for the offender this is done by the restrictions placed on him both during incarceration and whilst on parole. In this case it appears that the law has decreed that the offender is not to go near the victim. If the offender breaches this law and is caught, then he will face repercussions.

Criminal law tells us what we can't do.

[the_hawk*]

crikey thaking in to account the risks is a great idea, my thoughts are the person who has already had a complete disregard for the law is more likely to continue to have the same disregard and more likely to take action than a victim and most normal thinking people would have the same concerns.

[*elizabeths-mum*]

It would be more just if she were given his address as well and agreed to some sort of bond not to act upon the knowledge.

[catsnknots]

---

@j*oono wrote:

It's really not worth bashing your head against that brick wall Catmad.  She's an expert.

---

[lionrose.7]

Yes if he is a naughty boy he will go back to jail, By them the victim could be attacked again or dead.

We all know that these orders mean nothing to some people and many have been killed with a order in place against the attacker.

Any normal person would be in sympathy with this woman's  fears.

As the saying goes the law in a Donkey.