Victor Chang's killer released from prison

[Humodour]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...5006784,00.html

 

ONE of two men convicted of murdering heart transplant surgeon Victor Chang will be released from prison next month after serving an 18-year minimum sentence.

 

Phillip Choon Tee Lim is expected to be immediately deported to his home country of Malaysia after his release from Junee Correctional Centre in southwestern NSW on November 11.

 

A NSW Department of Corrections spokesman confirmed last night that the State Parole Authority had earlier this month made the decision to allow Lim's release from prison.

 

The Malaysian has served 18 years of his maximum 24-year sentence.

 

The murder of Chinese-born Chang stunned the nation and triggered an outpouring of public grief. The detective who led the case against Chang's killers, former inspector Dennis O'Toole, told the Seven Network last night that he was shocked Lim would be released after serving a minimum term. "It somehow just doesn't seem right," he said.

 

Chang, 54 and a father of three, was killed in Mosman on Sydney's north shore on July 4, 1991 following a bungled extortion attempt hatched by three men who had read a magazine article profiling "filthy rich" Chinese businessmen.

 

The murder robbed the nation of an extraordinary doctor who in 1984 had created a world-famous transplant unit at Sydney's St Vincent's Hospital. The surgeon performed a total of 260 heart transplants.

 

Lim, aged 33 at the time of the murder, and Chiew Seng Liew were convicted in 1992.

 

Liew, who shot Chang twice in the head at close range, pleaded guilty to the surgeon's murder and was sentenced to 26 years in prison with a minimum sentence of 20 years. Lim, a former chef of South Yarra, was convicted of Chang's murder following a jury trial. In his record of interview with police, he said he was "very sorry" that Chang had died.

 

Liew, Lim and a third man, Stanley Ng, had planned to abduct Chang and tie him up with his family at his home in Clontarf on Middle Harbour.

 

Ng, who pulled out of the extortion plan and later turned crown witness, said the three men planned to threaten to hang Chang's family unless he withdrew $3 million.

 

When judge John Slattery sentenced Lim in November 1993, he described him as a "follower, not a leader" and said the plan had been the brainchild of Liew.

 

It angers me that the bastard didn't serve the full 24 years.

 

For those who don't know, Victor Chang was a pioneer of heart transplants and artificial hearts whose murder was absolutely pointless and unfair to the world. Thankfully his research didn't end with his life.

[mkreku]

We have lots of these cases in Sweden. In 1994 Mattias Flink, a military officer, killed SEVEN people (and crippled three others) after his girlfriend broke up with him. He was deemed to have had a psychosis on the night of the murders, but he has recovered since and is now "normal" again.

 

The longest penalty we have in Sweden is 18-24 years (called lifetime). If you're deemed healthy and recovered, you only need to serve 2/3's of that. Yes, even for killing seven people. Since automatic weapons are very rare in Sweden (basically only military personnel have easy access to them), this kind of crime is unprecedented in Sweden so they don't know what to do with him. He's been an exemplary inmate since the day he was incarcerated and according to all laws, he should probably be released by now (or within the next couple of years). Noone really wants that. Will be fun to see what they eventually do with him.

[Walsingham]

We've discussed this sort of a thing a lot recently, and once again it comes down to what we want to achieve through the justice system. Is it punishment, protection for the remainder of society, deterrent? As you may have realised I'm firmly of the opinion that protecting society is the key, and release should always be contingent on an individual being of no further threat (a probabilistic statement, of course).

 

Having said that, mkreku puts forward an interesting test. It sounds as if the chap in question was genuinely unlikely to repeat the performance. On the other hand it seems grossly unfair that a spat of (heavily armed) petulance should be permitted to ruin so many lives. I think this may reflect upon a second question: when is a crime the product of disturbed basic mental functioning? It seems repeatedly that the courts cannot accept that the most vile crimes can be the product of a normal healthy brain, when I believe they can. For proof of this consider the behaviour of a mediaeval army. Soldiers in such armies routinely tortured, raped, pillaged etc, yet they cannot all have been clinically insane. At the same time the courts fail to adehere to simple logic in the treatment of people they find to be dangerous through mental illness. If the incident was unavoidable then the condition must be regarded as so deeply ingrained as to be effectively permanent, and if you plead mental illness you should be prepared to remain in mental hospitals for your lifetime.

 

Going back to Victor Chang's murderers I believe the sentencing was flawed from the start. The motivation appears to have been purely monetary. The use of lethal force was implicit in the entire plan, and thereby constitutes premeditation. There seems to be no reason in behaviour or circumstance to attribute to the criminals any finer feeling which might prompt mercy. They have therefore by virtue of a simple calculation and absence of conscience robbed the entire community of a great man, and robbed that man of his life. Sentencing to protect the community need not actually be any harsher than given, since they are unlikely to repeat the performance at this stage in their lives. However, there is a case that can be argued in favour of the importance of deterrent. These two committed the offence as a business enterprise, weighing risks against benefits. To deter like-minded persons these two should have received a far tougher sentence, or more effectively, should have had the Home Office propose an executive order to retain them behind bars.

[Kaftan Barlast]

18 years is still a veeeeeeery long time to spend in prison, it wouldnt have made much differance if he'd spent 6 more in there.

 

 

But maybe it depends on your views on what imprisonment is supposed to be. To me, its primarily locking dangerous people away where they cant hurt anyone and secondarily to try and 'rehabilitate' them so they'll be less dangerous when they're released. IMO, the idea of punishment is antiquated and doesnt really serve any other purpouse than to satisfy our vindictiveness, it certainly doesnt keep people from commiting more crime. Unless its something that renders them physicly unable, like amputation of limbs and so on

[Walsingham]

But Kaft, I'll put a case to you which someone else put to me. Take Josef Fritzl. He's clearly too old to do what he did again, and besides which he'd be watched like a hawk by any new neighbours. In terms of protecting the public from him incarceration is totally pointless. But I for one wouldn't want the evil bastard to just stroll right out the court room.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Josef Frietzl is far from harmless and belongs safely locked away in prison or a mental institution for the rest of his life. You cant take chances with psychopaths.

[Humodour]

I guess my anger at this case is mainly at the stupidity of the crime and the loss of a man who contributed so much to the community.

 

Kaftan is right - 18 years is a long time. I'm not sure 6 years more would change anything. 18 years is certainly deterrent enough and if he's rehabilitated now, another 6 years would likely help nothing. As far as I can tell, this guy didn't personally shoot Victor, he was just a goon.

 

But it still doesn't feel right to release him. Especially not to simply deport him back to Malaysia, where he will effectively be a free man (whereas here, his parole would be closely monitored).

 

It looks like the public outcry here has forced the state government to intervene to try and prevent the parole: http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsindex.php?id=450198

 

Walsingham, you believe in protecting society. Rehabilitation is one way to do that, but only if the rehabilitation is effective. Do you think it should be the main goal of gaol-time? And if so, how do you reconcile that with a desire to see a man like this serve a longer sentence if he appears to be rehabilitated? I ask because I'm torn myself.

[213374U]

18 years is still a veeeeeeery long time to spend in prison, it wouldnt have made much differance if he'd spent 6 more in there.

On the other hand, spending the rest of his miserable life digging holes might have. Or perhaps you're right and more time will do no good, but he'll be too tired to try anything funny, anyway.

 

 

[...] IMO, the idea of punishment is antiquated and doesnt really serve any other purpouse than to satisfy our vindictiveness, it certainly doesnt keep people from commiting more crime. Unless its something that renders them physicly unable, like amputation of limbs and so on

Yup. Punishment is antiquated. Accoutability is antiquated. Effort is antiquated. Good and evil are antiquated. War is antiquated. We are, after all, so much smarter than those barbarians who thought that threatening bodily harm to potential wrongdoers might *gasp* make them think twice - we invented Facebook!

 

Honestly, I'm scared ****less by the pervasion of this kind of neo-hippie-pseudo-intellectualoid discourse based essentially on blissful fantasies where all men respect the law and the thought of harming or killing others not only doesn't exist, but cannot exist - if it does, it's only in the alien mind of some freak of nature (which, perplexingly, isn't beyond "rehabilitation"). For, who would want to do that in this modern-day broadband Garden of Eden we've built?! Blasphemy! Madness.

 

You may be on to something, though. Chemical castration should be mandatory in rape cases, once they serve their time.

 

 

Rehabilitation is one way to do that, but only if the rehabilitation is effective.

What IS rehabilitation? How do you rehabilitate somebody whose mind, save for the fact that he has no compunctions against killing, cheating and raping, works just fine? How do you rehabilitate somebody who thinks the law isn't made for him simply because he's found a way around it? There is no cure for psychopaths, alas.

 

If anything, the penalty IS the rehabilitation. Further measures are redundant and undermine the intended effect.

Edited October 27, 2009 by 213374U

[mkreku]

Punishment is antiquated.

It is. The 'scare factor' of harsh punishment does not work, as has been proven time and time again (look it up).

 

But your ridiculous list of what you mockingly deem antiquated works the other way too, you know. Yeah, sure, punishment is the only way to go! Murder? DEATH PENALTY! Noone would murder again because they're all oh so afraid! Rape? Hell, why hesitate? DEATH PENALTY! That ought to scare people from raping ever again! Theft? DEATH PENALTY! Speeding? DEATH PENALTY. Jay-walking? DEATH PENALTY! We would have no crime at all! Just look at the perfect society USA has managed to carve out under the threat of DEATH PENALTY!

 

Does this make you realize how incredibly dumb your post is? Probably not. Continue on with your antiquated world view.

 

If anything, the penalty IS the rehabilitation. Further measures are redundant and undermine the intended effect.

You know, you're scary dumb. Scary.

[213374U]

Punishment is antiquated.

It is. The 'scare factor' of harsh punishment does not work, as has been proven time and time again (look it up).

No, it hasn't. For something to be deemed "proof", certain criteria must be met. The studies you probably refer to don't meet those. You'd need to understand the logic and semantics behind "proof" to realize this. Being the sad eurocommie tool you are, you can't be reasonably expected to do anything more complicated than regurgitate the prepared propaganda you're spoon-fed by your welfare gurus.

 

Sweet dreams.

 

 

But your ridiculous list of what you mockingly deem antiquated works the other way too, you know. Yeah, sure, punishment is the only way to go! Murder? DEATH PENALTY! Noone would murder again because they're all oh so afraid! Rape? Hell, why hesitate? DEATH PENALTY! That ought to scare people from raping ever again! Theft? DEATH PENALTY! Speeding? DEATH PENALTY. Jay-walking? DEATH PENALTY! We would have no crime at all! Just look at the perfect society USA has managed to carve out under the threat of DEATH PENALTY!

Slippery slope. Look it up.

[Kaftan Barlast]

You act like punishment is an effective deterrent, its not. It has been proven to be ineffective time and time again. Has the risk of being inrpisoned for life or even executed decreased crime in the past? Nope. And if its not an effective deterrent, then whats the use? Should we make criminals suffer just because some old teophilosophical notion declares that we should, or because we're angry and want to hurt the people who hurt us?

 

I have a purely practical point of view on the matter of crime and punishment. The legal system is there to stop crime from happening, and we must use whatever method works best (within ethical and moral limits) and not waste time and resources on something that doesnt work. And until we have something that we know works, all we can do is lock people away where they cant hurt anyone.

 

 

A fictional example on the effectiveness of punishment: A young man named Jim is caught shoplifting in a local store, the owner takes him out back and beats the hell out of him. Some weeks later, Jim is drunk and angry, returns to the store at night when its closed, pours gasoline over the back entrance and sets the building on fire. The owner tells the police he thinks its Jim, the police arrests jim and he gets sent to juvy for a couple of years. When he gets out, he is angry and goes to the storeowners house at night and sets it on fire, killing the sleeping storeowner and his family. Jim is arrested and sentenced to death for murder, years later he is executed.

 

kindof pointless, isnt it?

[213374U]

Seriously, you guys need to read up on what "proof" means.

[Gfted1]

kindof pointless, isnt it?

 

And the alternative to your fictional example is......he should have never gotten in trouble for the initial shoplifting? Or we should ust let him shoplift so he doesnt eventually escalate to murder? C'mon man, that cant be what youre saying here.

 

Is this the school of though, if we cant beat em, might as well throw open the floodgates?

[mkreku]

Seriously, you guys need to read up on what "proof" means.

"Help help, I have no counter argument so I must use the semantics escape again!". But sure, if it saves us from more of your thoroughly unintelligent posts, I'm all for it.

 

Wait, slippery slope? Are you sure you're not going to use the "straw man" argument for the billionth time instead? You know, that other expression you overuse a lot without any real grasp of its true meaning?

[213374U]

"Help help, I have no counter argument so I must use the semantics escape again!". But sure, if it saves us from more of your thoroughly unintelligent posts, I'm all for it.

Says the guy whose strongest rebuttal is "ZOMG ur dumb!". Pure comedy.

 

 

Wait, slippery slope? Are you sure you're not going to use the "straw man" argument for the billionth time instead? You know, that other expression you overuse a lot without any real grasp of its true meaning?

It's not my fault that the only times you aren't setting up straw men is when you're using other types of fallacies to cover up your rather embarassing ignorance.

 

"The best defense is a good offense", right?

[Walsingham]

You're all acting as if there's one sort of human being. Punishment does deter some people. Others it does not deter, either because they miscalculate the odds of being punished or they simply can't control the urge to do the thing which will get them in trouble, or they are essentially self-destructive and want to get caught and punished.

 

Weirdly, I read in today's 'paper' that an accomplice in the beating to death and torture of a child has won their appeal against an indefinite sentence. The judge specifically mentions the fact that they saw no evidence to suggest the guy would pose a threat in and of himself. He will serve only three years.

[Blarghagh]

No offense guys, but there are enough personal attacks in this thread to call it a flame war and it's only a page long.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Weirdly, I read in today's 'paper' that an accomplice in the beating to death and torture of a child has won their appeal against an indefinite sentence. The judge specifically mentions the fact that they saw no evidence to suggest the guy would pose a threat in and of himself. He will serve only three years.

Bleeding heart liberalism gone insane.

[Gorgon]

The article says he didn't kill anyone, but allowed a baby to be killed and stood by without doing anything.

 

Completely lacking a sense of moral, sure, but a demonstrable threat in the future. That's not so certain, and that was the legal question regarding his sentence.

[Hurlshort]

3 years for watching someone beat a child to death seems about right. Emotionally I'd love to lock him up and throw away the key, but the judge is right that he doesn't pose a threat and it is a waste spending money locking him up for decades.

 

18 years for premeditated murder is completely foreign to me. In the US he'd have a good shot at death row in many states, and at least one life sentence would be guaranteed.

[Kaftan Barlast]

kindof pointless, isnt it?

 

And the alternative to your fictional example is......he should have never gotten in trouble for the initial shoplifting? Or we should ust let him shoplift so he doesnt eventually escalate to murder? C'mon man, that cant be what youre saying here.

 

Is this the school of though, if we cant beat em, might as well throw open the floodgates?

 

 

Im not actually saying anything, just showing how irrational people can be and how difficult it is to apply our regular rational solutions to such an irrational reality. Someone does something wrong, so you punish him and rightly so, but instead of admitting he was wrong and accepting the punishment, the criminal feels subjected to a great injustice and seeks revenge. Which is a very common reaction.

[Wrath of Dagon]

3 years for watching someone beat a child to death seems about right. Emotionally I'd love to lock him up and throw away the key, but the judge is right that he doesn't pose a threat and it is a waste spending money locking him up for decades.

 

18 years for premeditated murder is completely foreign to me. In the US he'd have a good shot at death row in many states, and at least one life sentence would be guaranteed.

Do you really think it's that different from doing it himself? Carrying out justice is not a waste of money, it's the most important function the government has.

[Walsingham]

Kaft makes a good point. It's the main reason why Sand's tinpot gunboat diplomacy doesn't work. Bombing the bejaysus out of people has little instructive effect on its own. They tend to just feel hard done by.

 

In general, again, I think this comes back to a point that Cameron has been making for a few years. Government can't be expected to act in accordance with the wishes of the people without the people clarifying what they want the government to achieve. That means stating clearly and witha degree of permanence what they want in terms of human rights, punishment, safety etc etc. The state we're in in the UK at the moment is one of flashbang, micromanagement by pressure groups on single issues. Which is surely the exact opposite of how things should be.

[Gfted1]

Kaft makes a good point. It's the main reason why Sand's tinpot gunboat diplomacy doesn't work. Bombing the bejaysus out of people has little instructive effect on its own. They tend to just feel hard done by.

 

Thats not the same at all. Bombing the bejaysus out of people has a high percentage chance of catching innocents in the explosion. Criminal punishment is a focused deterrent on an individual found guilty by his/her peers/court system. So, it seems to me that the idividual thats been hard done by is responsible for that state due to their direct actions and society has no reason to feel bad about it.

[Walsingham]

Kaft makes a good point. It's the main reason why Sand's tinpot gunboat diplomacy doesn't work. Bombing the bejaysus out of people has little instructive effect on its own. They tend to just feel hard done by.

 

Thats not the same at all. Bombing the bejaysus out of people has a high percentage chance of catching innocents in the explosion. Criminal punishment is a focused deterrent on an individual found guilty by his/her peers/court system. So, it seems to me that the idividual thats been hard done by is responsible for that state due to their direct actions and society has no reason to feel bad about it.

 

I find it hard to disagree.