What is a manageable risk for a man who killed a young woman while on parole for luring another woman to a shed where he bound and gagged her, sexually assaulted her and hit her over the head with a ball peen hammer?
We, like the family of Angie Richards and her close friend, Ben Doyle, are shaking our heads over the parole board's decision to grant Wayne Alexander Perkin day parole. The decision now enables Perkin to leave prison and live at a half-way house.
The parole board believes the risk is manageable. Perkin has yet to admit he killed Richards and has, therefore, expressed no understanding or remorse for his actions. His parole requirements are that he cannot drink alcohol, takes no drugs and has no sex with females under 18 years of age. Given that he is clearly not in touch with his 'issues' since he denies killing Richards - we just don't see how in any context the parole board believes his behaviour can be predicted. It defies logic to suggest that such risk is therefore 'manageable'.
We agree with Richards' family and friends that it would be "wonderful to know he is a success story - you can murder and rehabilitate yourself." They, like us, hope he doesn't ever hurt anybody else. But as Doyle says, "I fear for people living in his vicinity."
We agree.
The parole board's two members who made this decision bear a huge responsibility. We hope nobody is harmed by Perkin ever again. But if he does hurt someone again, he will, of course be at fault, but what of the parole board members who believed the risk was manageable?
Their decisions are difficult ones, we are sure. They cannot lock offenders away forever and just throw away the key. But their decisions can literally mean life or death for innocent members of the public who may encounter a 'manageable risk' who failed.
That gamble is just too much for us, and the public.
