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...

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@the_hawk* wrote:

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.

---

I get that, I do.

But the law can't act on crimes that have not been committed, it can only act on crimes that have.

Criminal Law imposes restrictions on all of us, it tells us what we can't do. It is Civil Law that tells us what we can do.

I don't make the laws, but I do have to abide by them. I don't understand why I am being persecuted in this thread for stating the law. I don't make it, but if we can understand why it is as it is, then that is the key in initiating change.

They don't just sit around and make the laws by throwing darts at a dart board for kicks on a Friday night, they are made through a process of objective reasoning, so to instigate change, we need to be able to provide an objective reason for change, not ones based on emotions.

The laws weren't made to inconvenience this one lady, they are a one size fits all system to provide protection and guidance for the whole of society.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@lionrose.7 wrote:

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

---

Unfortunately, it;s not the law that is the only donkey, eh?

[*elizabeths-mum*]

I'm sorry you feel persecuted. Your posts are aggravating (to me at least) because stating the law over and over isn't a discussion.  We aren't disputing that that is what the law is, but are discussing whether it is a fair and just law to all involved, whether it could be amended and why we hold the views we express. 

[lionrose.7]

LOL Crikey you would know.

[catsnknots]

But the law can't act on crimes that have not been committed, it can only act on crimes that have

yes it can.. a person can be kept locked up after they do their time... sex offenders can get locked up for a long time... deemed not safe to return to society. 

[lionrose.7]

EM my view is I so agree with you, as I am sure most people here do

[the_hawk*]

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

---

@the_hawk* wrote:

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.

---

I get that, I do.

But the law can't act on crimes that have not been committed, it can only act on crimes that have.

Criminal Law imposes restrictions on all of us, it tells us what we can't do. It is Civil Law that tells us what we can do.

I don't make the laws, but I do have to abide by them. I don't understand why I am being persecuted in this thread for stating the law. I don't make it, but if we can understand why it is as it is, then that is the key in initiating change.

They don't just sit around and make the laws by throwing darts at a dart board for kicks on a Friday night, they are made through a process of objective reasoning, so to instigate change, we need to be able to provide an objective reason for change, not ones based on emotions.

The laws weren't made to inconvenience this one lady, they are a one size fits all system to provide protection and guidance for the whole of society.

---

Then why do they act on the asumption the victim may affend

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@catmad*2013 wrote:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/sunday-night/features/article/-/18781847/predators-under-protection/

CM.... Watch part one and part two... 

In America some states put signs in front of paedophiles homes so that everyone knows where they are...

There is zero vigilante behaviour. 

When people know where these people are they actually feel safer. They are able to monitor these men and help keep them in check. 

So if you want to sprout off about vigilantes then please do some research. 

____________

Well that is just ridiculous.

That's not vigilance, that's harrassment. That's not 'monitoring', that's giving them a green light to commit again just to get them back inside in the safety of gaol.

There is nothing uglier than a vigilante mob who think themselves so important that they can take the law into their own hands for revenge.

And seriously, given that most paedophilia occurs within families, do you honestly believe that putting a big placard outside the house of a possibly reformed convict is doing anything to protect your child? That's delusional.

[polksaladallie]

She can find out where he is if she wants to.   Unless someone goes to elaborate lengths to hide, they can be located.

I wonder why she is putting herself everywhere in the media, and perhaps taking the risk of angering him.  IMO taking a low profile would be best, and not letting him control her life any more.

[twinkles**stars]

---

@polksaladallie wrote:

She can find out where he is if she wants to.   Unless someone goes to elaborate lengths to hide, they can be located.

I wonder why she is putting herself everywhere in the media, and perhaps taking the risk of angering him.  IMO taking a low profile would be best, and not letting him control her life any more.

---

really? you have traced  a person who wishes not to be found? if you had you would not be making such senseless statements.

better we ALL know where she is, what he looks like so WE can help protect her and also protect ourselves from this man.