Damon Locantro has made a name for himself on the Sunshine Coast defending people charged with breaking the law. His practice, Locantro Lawyers, specialises in criminal defence but also offers services to those facing action by a government department. Damon has 15 years experience in criminal law and was formerly a NSW prosecutor and member of the NSW Police Service. Seizing paedophiles' assets
| Damon Locantro
I was reading the Australian on Monday and they reported that a new Western Australian law has been passed enabling the WA Government to seize and sell the assets of convicted pedophiles and rapists.
The “yield” so far was about $5million dollars and it seems it is proposed to give the money to victims support groups.
The WA Attorney General has called it “punishment” but he also said that a judge could not take the seizure into account when assessing penalty.
In Queensland, the confiscation laws apply to money that is the proceeds of crime or an asset that has been purchased with money that is the proceeds of crime.
There is no doubting the fairness in the law we have, as it is based on the principle that people should not be able to profit from their crime but what WA have, in my opinion, is ridiculous.
Sex offences are not offences that relate at all to a person acquiring money or property from their crime.
There is no profit.
In addition, sex offences are often committed because people are victims themselves.
Why should they have their houses and other assets stripped from them?
The end result will be people who go on probation, parole or to jail finishing their sentence and coming out with nothing.
People will be forced to revert to more crime just to survive.
They will have nothing to lose.
We should stay away from extending the confiscation proceedings. What do you think?
Have your say
Not Registered? Quick registration and comment.
Already Registered? Login and comment.
The path to economic recovery must be forged on the ... >>
Mark My Words : Carers for elderly need more support
Police Patrol : Last alcoholic drink was 10 hours prior?
Paul Munnings : It's elementary, pick Watson
Ashley Robinson : Stay clear of Roy
Through My Eyes : Crack open a beer
More RSS feeds
Install the news toolbar
Set up an email news alert 
Recent Comments
Sex offenders may state they are "victims" but in most cases this is likely to be a cover, in order to get a lighter sentence (victim mentality).
No-one is "forced to revert to crime"; there are other methods of survival. They may choose to revert to crime but are not forced.
People need to be accountable for their actions. If this means seizing their assets (which in most cases wouldn't be much unless through other criminal activities), then they might learn from it.
So, castration might be a suitable option.
Seizing assets reeks of a greedy grab by the State, and could inevitably end up harming people already suffering: Could the offender's spouse or children who could lose their home because daddy had it in his name and couldn't keep it in his pants?
Doesn't seem right. Stupid, in fact.
Sex offenders victims themselves? Damon, you've been in your job too long.
It's bad enough losing the family bread winner, but to also have the house and everything taken is cruel. I also think it's just another government money grab. Also don't forget, sometimes innocent people are found guilty and only proved innocent 20 years or so later.
I also think that Politicians should have to surrender all their assets to be a part of the government and if at the end of their terms and they actually came through with their promises then they get their assets back if not then......... this should keep them honest and on track when it comes to making these sorts of decisions.
Oh and Damon, as for 'be nice to sex offenders because they are victims too' - that is not a defense, that's not an excuse, that just makes their actions worse.
And the suggestion that persons will resort to crime if they have nothing after gaol is just ludicrous. In that case we would be seeing every ex inmate committing further crime to support themselves and that just aint happening.
If you want the real story on this go to:
http://www.thewest.com.au/
default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=75158
Those who are worried that the offender's family will be effected, say in the case of incest matters, will be exempt so that the victims are not penalised.
This is all about the victims. The money or assets are going to victim support groups etc. So whether it be murder, trafficking, rape or other sexual offences, isn't that a good thing?
After all, it is them who should be given first consideration...instead of the pansy lame excuses that are submitted to minimise the sentence on the defendants.
Maybe some of these confiscations will give those people a voice that currently is only a whisper as opposed to the screaming 'I did it because....' or 'It's not my fault because...' that inveriably spouts from the defence.
Now imagine that it's your teenage daughter who was raped...would you really give a rats about anyone but her?
If it was my daughter that got raped I would want the death sentence for the perpetrator - and even, that, I would want to be via the most painful death I can come up with. But I would still not want the perpetrator's family to end up on the streets. I'm no expert on the subject but I'd guess that rapists are probably not good husbands or fathers so the family is likely to be victims as well. I do agree the person should not have any entitlements after jail, but his family should not be punished for his crime.