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]

????

Where did the death penalty come into this conversation???? 

Talk about steering a thread into a fence!

I am not going to divert from the op.... 

Does she deserve to know where the man that abused her is??? In my opinon yes. I think the law is flawed. I think no one should be hidden to get on with their life while the victim lives in fear. 

[izabsmiling]

don't those orders usually have  conditions for the protected person too ...one of them being that they aren't permitted to go near the other person named on the order ? 

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@catmad*2013 wrote:

????

Where did the death penalty come into this conversation???? 

Talk about steering a thread into a fence!

I am not going to divert from the op.... 

Does she deserve to know where the man that abused her is??? In my opinon yes. I think the law is flawed. I think no one should be hidden to get on with their life while the victim lives in fear. 

---

hey, you bought up pedophiles and how the American Law handles them.....

Thinkin it was you who steered the thread into the fence - I just followed the leader.

you bought up the need for research - I was encouraging you to do some beyond a TV show, maybe start with a semester or two of studying criminal law, or even google may surrender some information for an objective mind. But please recall that when it comes to the law, it is objectivity that you need, not emotional rhetoric, and until people understand that and learn to ask why is it so (sorry julius sumner miller) and are able to distinguish between the subjective and the objective, they will never be able to put forth a reasoned or rational argument to initiate the implementation of change.

oh, and I think we already covered the topic of cherry picking.

[twinkles**stars]

So how would YOU ( as in other posters) feel should this happen to you? Happy not to know your attackers where abouts?

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

don't those orders usually have  conditions for the protected person too ...one of them being that they aren't permitted to go near the other person named on the order ? 

---

If that is so, you have just presented the first objective pathway to go about initiating change, the basis for the formulation for an argument to have the laws changed.

The law needs to be applied without passion or prejudice. "It;s not fair" or "he did it first" just doesn't cut it, even if accompanied by a foot stomp and a pout.

[izabsmiling]

Crikey , It may depend on the reason ...there may be different categories of those orders ?

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

Crikey , It may depend on the reason ...there may be different categories of those orders ?

---

There may be, but it is an objective place to start. I have no idea about the feasibility of such, but if the victim has restrictions placed on them as your earlier question queried, then finding out if, when, why and/or why not and  how they are implemented may illuminate a pathway for the implementation of change.

[catsnknots]

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

---

hey, you bought up pedophiles and how the American Law handles them.....

Thinkin it was you who steered the thread into the fence - I just followed the leader.

---

That was in reply to your assumptions that vigilantes will prevail... 

I was pointing out that in ONE place in America they DO TELL everyone where the perpetrator lives and they don't go out and attack them. It was relevant to the discussion about the right to know where your perpetrator lives (or lack of rights). 

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@catmad*2013 wrote:

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

---

hey, you bought up pedophiles and how the American Law handles them.....

Thinkin it was you who steered the thread into the fence - I just followed the leader.

---

That was in reply to your assumptions that vigilantes will prevail... 

I was pointing out that in ONE place in America they DO TELL everyone where the perpetrator lives and they don't go out and attack them. It was relevant to the discussion about the right to know where your perpetrator lives (or lack of rights). 

---

I made no assumptions that vigilantes will prevail. This isn't one of your political threads where you can twist and turn the facts to suit your purpose. It would be good if you kept that in mind and stuck to the facts.

one place in America, eh? a whole one? hmmm - the information presented in that TV show must have been pretty convincing eh? I mean what did Mr Hinch acheive" (apart from the  subjective and selective regurgitation of irrelevant emotive rhetoric by people who are unable to think for themselves or prepared to do their own research)

I know this is hard, but think. Think and ask yourself why it appears that Mr Hinch's efforts were not successful in stimulating change.

When we understand what the purpose of the law is, how it works and the reasoning behind why it is as it is, it is then that we will know how to work with it, approach it in an objective manner and initiate change where practicable.

[catsnknots]

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

---

@*elizabeths-mum* wrote:

At least with him knowing where she is and her not knowing where he is, only one person, the original victim, can be destroyed. Wonderful justice system we have. 

---

EM, I understand that too.

Hypothetical - I am not saying that this woman or any of her associates would behave in this manner.

Lets say a victim of crime or one of their associates is so distraught that they decide to administer their own justice. Then what happens? What happens when they kill or maim the offender? What happens when they inturn break the law themselves? Then , where does that stop? How many chain reaction crimes does it take before everyone receives the justice to which they believe they are entitled?

The law cannot punish for crimes that have not yet been committed, but it can try to prevent them for the protection of everyone.

Have you seen the movie Minority Report?

---

hm.. vigilante behaviour that you raised.