The Star: March 14, 2024

The Star Thursday March 14 2024
22
LETTERS
Latest Canterbury news at starnews.co.nz
Debate over parole stirs up strong
Readers respond to
last week’s question
if a convicted killer
should be eventually
paroled if they refuse
to say where the body
is. It related to the life
sentence with a non
parole period of 17
years handed down to
David Benbow, who
was found guilty of
murdering his long
time friend Michael
McGrath. Grath’s body
has never been found
I support a ‘no body, no parole’
law.
David Benbow has been found
guilty of murder.
The gun is ‘missing’ as of the
time of Michael’s death. If David
is innocent he would be able
to produce his gun. Michael’s
body and the gun have not been
located.
If a person convicted of murder
will not disclose the location
of the body and the weapon, to
provide closure for the family
and the police, then the murderer
is not safe or deserving of
parole and possible release.
– Linda Mears
I read with interest your front
page prompt, inviting people to
GUILTY: David Benbow in the High Court at Christchurch.
provide their opinion on a ‘no
body, no parole’ discussion.
While I have not followed the
case that has triggered the current
discussion, I do have some
general thoughts on the idea.
My immediate thought is that
a convicted murderer who does
not disclose the whereabouts
of their victims body is failing
to show any remorse for their
actions.
Remorse is one of the many
things a judge takes into account
in sentencing.
Remorse is also an indication
of risk of re-offending.
I would suggest that a convicted
murderer who has a strong
sense of entitlement to murder
people, would be a risk to the
general public if released earlier
than the end of their sentence in
its entirety.
I believe there should
be allowances made for
rehabilitation, which may be
evidenced in having completed
a number of psychologist
designed programmes run in the
prisons, leading to the revelation
of the whereabouts of the
victim’s body.
Given the above information,
I agree with the ‘no body, no parole’
position on the discussion.
– Maria Cavanagh
No body, no parole presupposes
Mr Benbow actually
knows where the body is.
Seems to me has was convicted
largely on circumstantial
evidence.
He might be innocent.
In a case with no body, no
weapon and based on circumstantial
evidence, 17 years feels
unduly harsh.
– Mel Bonner
Should convicted murderers
be paroled if they refuse to say
where they hid the body?”
That is a flawed question.
Convicted does not always
equate to guilt.
If Benbow is innocent, he cannot
say where the body is and is
kept locked up.
He was found guilty on
circumstantial evidence which
pretty much means the police/
prosecution did not prove their
case and a (dumb) jury brought
into it.
I strongly suspect Benbow is
innocent.
How did the jury get it wrong?
– Brian Johnston
The first obvious question is
why would David Benbow confess
to where the body of Michael
McGrath is, when he has consistently
denied he killed him.
Isn’t that blatantly obvious?
Additionally the Sam
Sherwood texts raise even
more questions as when the
prosecution tries to string
tenuous circumstantial points
together.
LIVE ON SENZ RADIO 1260 AM
Want to GROW your business?
Exhibit to
thousands of
potential customers
across three days!
Your business or services
may also fit into one of
our unique zones
WE HAVE STANDS
AVAILABLE TO SUIT
MOST BUDGETS!
Exhibit in Canterbury’s most highly marketed Home and
Leisure show. This is the perfect opportunity to reach
new customers, generate ongoing leads and boost your
brand’s awareness.
Have that important face-to-face with thousands of
targeted consumers. No other sales or marketing medium
can offer the same impact in such a short space of time.
Contact Juliet now on 021 688 159 or email
juliet.dickson@starmedia.kiwi for a no obligation
quote. Payment options available.
5-7 July
Wolfbrook Arena
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
2024
be in to
$10,000
of
homeware
products
www.starhomeshow.kiwi