Posted on by Stephen Tuck

The Thought Police are terrible bores

Book Review: John Douglas and Mark Olshaker, Mindhunter (Arrow Books: London 1997)

I finished ‘reading’ Mindhunter on the train from Euroa to Melbourne the other night.  I say ‘reading’ with caution.  It’s not a great read, thanks to Douglas’ monotone prose style.  It’s better treated as a catalogue of the more interesting serial murders of the late twentieth-century.

mindhunter
Image from here

You can largely skip most of the discussion of criminal profiling, given that the entire discipline seems to be based on some very wobbly science.  It’s also probably best to try and ignore the authorial voice as much as you can, since Mr Douglas largely impresses as an insufferable know-it-all.  At one stage he imagines himself as a Lone Ranger, riding into town to dispense justice beyond the capacity of the knuckle-draggers in the local police force (an attitude which must have made the FBI popular among law enforcement) [pp.279 and 361].  In one of the closing chapters he over-reaches when he describes himself furiously telling a psychiatrist how the latter ought to be conducting assessments.  The tale ends with him saying: “He [the psychiatrist] didn’t have an answer” [p.336].  Actually, he was probably too polite to say it: that he was significantly better qualified to assess criminals than the combination of cop and snake-oil salesman who was his interlocutor.

Shorn of its faults, then, this 375-page book would condense to a neat 40 pages or so giving the basics of some interesting true crime.  My recommendation?  Skim it in an afternoon and then look up the more interesting bits on Wikipedia.  Wikipedia’s editorial standards are higher.

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

Doing a line of … baby formula?

I don’t know how much heroin costs per ounce. I hope it’s more than baby formula. If it’s less, it’ll completely eff my sense of reality.

formula
Image from here

 

In December 2017 and April 2018 a man from Corio, Australia, stole 67 tins of baby formula from supermarkets in Portarlington, Drysdale and Eltham. The retail value of this much formula was A$2,345.00 (the value on the China-driven black market may be as much as A$13,500!)

The offender was charged with four counts of theft and one of obtaining property by deception, as well as certain bail offences. The Crimes Act 1958 (Vic.), §81(1) provides that –

A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains property belonging to another, with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to level 5 imprisonment (10 years maximum).

 

The offender was dealt with in the Geelong Magistrates’ Court. His lawyer submitted that he had committed the thefts to fund a heroin addiction. He had been gainfully employed from his release from prison for another offence in 2012 until he suffered a back injury in 2016.

Mellas M sentenced the offender to two months imprisonment.

Police v Wright (2018) Geelong Advertiser, 25 May 2018, p.7

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

The flames of revenge

The Black Saturday bushfires of 2009 have left a long shadow across Victoria, Australia.

bushfire
Image from here

A 53 year old woman lit 14 fires around the Tatura and Mooroopna areas between February 2014 and January 2015.  Mercifully each was reasonably small but required attendances from the all-volunteer Tatura and Mooroopna fire brigades.  The defendant was charged with intentionally or recklessly causing a bushfire.  The Crimes Act 1958 (Vic.) §201A(1)  provides that

A person who—
(a) intentionally or recklessly causes a fire; and
(b) is reckless as to the spread of the fire to vegetation on property belonging to another—
is guilty of an offence and liable to level 4 imprisonment (15 years maximum).

The defendant was dealt with in the County Court of Victoria.  Judge Carmody noted that some of the offences were promoted by a quarrel with a farm managers son.  His Honour considered that her mental impairment (mild intellectual disability and an IQ of 67) reduced her moral culpability.  However, he alos noted that dealing with the fires had placed additional pressures on volunteer emergency responders.  He sentenced the defendant to 88 days imprisonment, a four year community corrections order and 300 hours of volunteer work.

Director of Public Prosecutions v Thumpston (2018), Tatura Guardian, 17 April 2018, p.7

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

A dog’s death

Kindness and neglect can be surprisingly close companions. In a recent post we saw that this is true of how we treat humans. It’s also true of animals.

In late 2015 a resident of Canberra, Australia, found a stray dog entangled in his hedge. It was eventually found to be terminally sick, afflicted with lymphoma, underweight and flyblown . He brought the dog into his secure back yard but (as he later told the court) lacked sufficient funds to take it to a vet for care. In November 2015 a member of the public reported the dog’s predicament to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ACT) (RSPCA).

RSPCA
Image credit: RSPCA (ACT)

 

The RSPCA seized the dog and ultimately put it down (the Society’s press release is unsparing about how badly degraded was the dog’s condition). The man was charged with failing to seek veterinary treatment*.  The Australian Capital Territory’s Animal Welfare Act 1992 (ACT) §6B relevantly provides that

(1) A person in charge of an animal has a duty to care for the animal.
(2) A person in charge of an animal commits an offence if the person—
(a) fails to take reasonable steps to provide the animal with
appropriate—
…
(iv) treatment for illness, disease, and injury;  …
Maximum penalty: 100 penalty units, imprisonment for 1 year or
both.
(3) In this section:
appropriate means suitable for the needs of the animal having
regard to the species, environment and circumstances of the animal.
reasonable steps means the steps a reasonable person would be
expected to take having regard to all the circumstances.
treatment includes veterinary treatment if a reasonable person
would expect veterinary treatment to be sought in the circumstances.

The defendant was dealt with in the Australian Capital Territory Magistrates’ Court. He pleaded guilty to the charge but said that he had not been able to afford to get the dog treatment on a veteran’s pension.

Theakston M noted that by keeping the dog in his back yard, the defendant had prevented other people from helping it**. The offender “did the right thing, but in doing so failed to meet additional obligations” connected with taking charge of a dog.

His Honour imposed a 12 month good behaviour order. He did not order the defendant to cover the costs of caring for the dog, destroying it and holding a post-mortem, noting that the organisation would probably have incurred these costs regardless.

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Van Duren (2016) Canberra Times, 5 December 2016.

===========

* A charge of failing to provide shelter was withdrawn.

** cf Zelenko v Gimbel Bros Inc, 158 Misc. 904; 287 NYS 134. One might wonder who His Honour thought was likely to help the dog.

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

Oh Deer…

In August 2017 the Game Management Authority and Victoria Police conducted a crackdown on illegal hunting in northeast Victoria, Australia. One group of men was found to be in possession of two firearms and two high-powered torches. The second group was found to be in possession of a single firearm and four high-powered torches.

doris
Image from here

The Wildlife (Game) Regulations 2012 (Vic.) r.12 provide that –

(1) A person must not be in possession of a spotlight and a firearm in recognised deer habitat from 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise. Penalty: 20 penalty units.
(2) A person must not be in possession of a spotlight and be in company with a person in possession of a firearm in recognised deer habitat from 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise. Penalty: 20 penalty units.
(3) A person must not be in possession of a firearm and be in company with a person in possession of a spotlight in recognised deer habitat from 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise. Penalty: 20 penalty units.

Both groups were presented for trial in Myrtleford Magistrates Court. The court fined two men $1,000.00 without recording a conviction (both of these mens’ hunting equipment had been seized). The third man was placed on a diversion and ordered to pay $250.00 to charity and write a letter of apology (the matter will be struck out if he is of good behaviour for 12 months). The fourth man pleaded guilty and was fined $750.00. The fifth was placed ona good behaviour bond without conviction and ordered to donate $750.00 to charity

Game Management Authority v Flanders* (2018) Country News, 15 May 2018, p.8.

===========================

* No name is given in the report and I have arbitrarily assigned a name drawn from television.

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

How not to solve housemate issues

We’ve all had that housemate: the one who’s never adjusted to the fact that their mother isn’t there to clean up after them. It’s still not a good idea to go Jackie Chan on them.

dirty_dishes
Image from here

On 2 August 2017 a 32 year old man from Portland, Australia, locked a housemate out of their dwelling.  When the housemate arrived home at 3:30am, the offender began to berate them over uncompleted chores, finally pushing them onto a bed and slapping them.  He was charged with recklessly causing injury (Crimes Act 1958 (Vic.), §18):

A person who, without lawful excuse, … recklessly causes injury to another person is guilty of an indictable offence. Penalty: … If the injury was caused recklessly—level 6 imprisonment (5 years maximum).

The offender pleaded guilty in Portland Magistrates Court.  Toose M fined him $1,000.00.

Police v King (2018) Portland Observer & Guardian, 2 May 2018, p.5.

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

But the tree had to fall

Nobody asked the tree what it thought about the matter.

big-catalpa-tree
Catalpa tree (Image from here)

In about 1930 a catalpa tree began to grow in the Washington Park neighbourhood of Denver. Eighty years of subdivisions and land transfers later, the tree was on the boundary of blocks owned by the Loves and the Kloskys (sadly, the case does not disclose that the blocks were called Blackacre and Whiteacre, which would have been rather cool). Specifically, 74% of the trunk was on Klosky’s land and 26% on Love’s land. The tree dropped leaves, braches and seed pods on both properties. Klosky decided to cut the tree down. Love objected and obtained a restraining order pending an injunction preventing Klosky felling the tree.  The Loves’ application was dismissed by the Denver District Court, although in words many garden lovers would understand  Judge Hoffman said –

[T]he law often requires me [to] do things I don’t want to do. If I [were] the emperor of Washington Park, I would, I would order this tree not cut down. It’s a beautiful tree, it’s a great tree. But that’s not my role. I’m not the emperor of Washington Park. I have to follow what I think the law is, and my conclusion is that the Loves have not met their burden of proof.

The Loves appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals, which dismissed their application: Love v Klosky, 2016 COA 131. They appealed to the Supreme Court of Colorado.

The Supreme Court considered its earlier decision in Rhodig v Keck, 421 P.2d 729 (Colo., 1966). Rhodig was found to have embraced the very old English case of Masters v Pollie, 2 Rolle 141; 81 ER 712 (Kings Bench, 1620). That case had found that in a case like the present, where the tree encroached on anothers property, the tree belonged to the owner of the land where the tree was planted. Rhodig had added a gloss that where such a tree had been jointly planted, jointly cared for, or treated as a boundary between properties, it could become joint property between the neighbours. This was not the case here. There being no case for overturning Rhodig, Klosky was entitled to remove the tree.

Love v Klosky, 2018 CO 20

 

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

… and a sack marked ‘swag’!

Sometimes offenders go the whole hog on their brand of crime.

swag
Image from here

From August 2016 to September 2017 a woman from Corio, Australia engaged in a series of property crimes against four elderly men.  The crimes spanned theft, aggravated burglary, robbery and obtaining property by deception.  One of the crimes included stealing a credit card from a disability pensioner; another victim was an 80 year old.  The circumstances might be inferred from the definition of “robbery” in §75 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic.):

A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear that he or another person will be then and there subjected to force. … A person guilty of robbery … is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to level 4 imprisonment (15 years maximum).

The defendant pleaded guilty in Geelong Magistrates Court.  McGarvie M imposed a sentence of four years imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years.

The defendant has lodged an appeal against her sentence in the County Court of Victoria.

Police v Elston (2018) Geelong Advertiser, 16 April 2018, p.7.

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

Taxidermy: not always a good idea

In June 2017 staff from the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning raided the home of a man in Kilmore, Australia.  They located a stuffed koala mounted as a wall decoration.  The man admitted to shooting the koala with a .22 rifle, stuffing and mounting it.  His only explanation was that it was “something to do”.

if-you-look-up-bad-taxidermy-in-google-images-i-8591450
Image from here

It appears he was charged with breaching the Wildlife Act 1975 (Vic.), §§ 43 and 47D.  Section 43(1) provides that –

A person must not hunt, take or destroy other protected wildlife.  Penalty: 50 penalty units or 6 months imprisonment or both the fine and imprisonment and an additional penalty of 5 penalty units for every head of wildlife in respect of which an offence has been committed.

Section 47D(1) states that –

A person must not have wildlife in his or her possession or control if that wildlife has been taken, destroyed, acquired, received, bought, sold, disposed of, kept, possessed, controlled, bred, processed or displayed in contravention of this Act or any corresponding law of another State or a Territory of the Commonwealth.  Penalty: 240 penalty units or 24 months imprisonment or both.

The offender was dealt with in Seymour Magistrates Court in April 2018.  He was found guilty of the offences charged.  He was placed on a good behaviour bond and ordered to pay $1,000.00 to the Court Fund.

Dep’t of Environment, Land, Water and Planning v Simpson* (2018) Seymour Telegraph, 16 May 2018, p.12

==================================

* The offender is not identified in the report; I have taken the liberty of drawing a name from The Simpsons.

Posted on by Stephen Tuck

And punish the sick

There’s been quite the brouhaha here over the last few days over the non-custodial sentences given to two women who attacked and injured a paramedic.  The case, if you’re interested, was Director of Public Prosecutions v Warren & Underwood [2018] VCC 689.  The public response has been predictably savage, and remarkably unforgiving when one considers that both women were (and are) apparently remarkably damaged after lifetimes of physical and sexual abuse.  Attempts by me to defend the decision were not well received –

It’s a bit of a surprise to be called a “bleeding heart socialist” after a lifetime as an old-school right winger!

More troubling are the proposed reforms reported in yesterday’s Age, and in particular this one –

Ambulance Employees state secretary Steve McGhie said he was given an undertaking from the Premier that he would change laws to jail people who injure emergency services workers, even if they are suffering from mental illnesses including schizophrenic episodes.

I have a stake in this: I am an “emergency services worker” when I’m not being a lawyer (State Emergency Service, Coast Guard and Red Cross).  But I can’t stomach the idea that protecting me warrants effectively re-criminalizing mental illness.  It is too close to punishing for the sake of punishing.

Image from here

I have to agree with Pope Francis: punishments which are imposed in the hope of frightening people into compliance – public punishments – are a hammer that makes every problem look like a nail:

a widespread conviction has taken root in recent decades that public punishment can resolve the most disparate social problems, as if completely different diseases could be treated with the same medicine. This is not so much about trust in some social function traditionally attributed to public punishment, as about the belief that it is possible that such punishment can obtain those benefits that would demand the application of a different type of social and economic policy as well as social inclusion.

A politician grubbing for votes by coming down hard on criminals is merely acting in a tawdry and predictable manner.  One who does so by coming down hard on the ill is repulsive.