Parole

[Trollheart]

Look, I get it: you serves your time, you keeps your noses cleans, you (where did all this pluralisation comes from? I mean, come froms? I mean...) get out early, and that's fine, as far as it goes. But surely it's happened too often that serious offenders get parole, and while out on parole go and do it again. How many murders have I read about where the second or third victim was killed after the killer was released early? Same with rape. Should there not be some cut-off, some level of crime at which you're not allowed parole? I know offenders can get a sentence "without the possibility of parole", but that seems to be reserved for the very worst ones.

Should it not be that if you commit a serious crime - say, one involving death or violation of another human being - parole is automatically denied? Are there any killers/rapists who have got out on parole and NOT re-offended?

Or am I, as usual, talking out of my arse?

Your comments are invited.

[SGR]

Should it not be that if you commit a serious crime - say, one involving death or violation of another human being - parole is automatically denied? Are there any killers/rapists who have got out on parole and NOT re-offended?

To the bold, surely there are.

This is an interesting topic to discuss. I think the idea to deny parole to violent offenders makes sense on a surface level, but I think there should be exceptions made. Example being violent crimes against close friends or family in a moment of heated passion or accidental manslaughter, etc. Not all violent crimes or homicides are the same.

This also brings up the conversation of whether or not criminals can be rehabilitated. It would be interesting to check the recidivism rates among criminals who commit violent crimes - but I don't think it's impossible for a criminal to be rehabilitated. If some guy killed someone in a burglarly gone wrong, then turned to religion in prison, and everyone around him, including the judge, thinks he's reformed himself and won't recommit, should we really keep him in prison for another few years to complete his sentence and instead of turning him out to (hopefully, in an ideal world) be a contributing member of society?

There's a lot of grey area with this. Striking the balance is obviously difficult, but I don't think it's worth abandoning.

[Trollheart]

Absolutely take your point, and it's valid. Not all killers kill again, not all rapists rape again, but (though I have no figures) I do hear about it happening a lot. This thread came up when I turned on the TV today and one of those true crime things was talking about a girl who was murdered, the scumbag who killed her got out on parole and raped and killed a young boy. So yeah, my thinking is skewed and biased here for sure. But it's not the only time I've heard of it happening, however like you say, one brush does not tar all, or should not.

The problem I have is that for serious crimes, if you're sentenced I believe you should have to complete the sentence. While, yes, someone can turn to god or whatever or study law and want to be a good person when they get out, leaving aside sociopaths who would do this to trick the authorities into granting parole, at least prisoners should be able to display proof that they intend to change, or have changed, in order to get out early. But too often, I believe (though correct me if I'm wrong), the phrase "good behaviour" - which of course figures prominently in any parole review or offer - loosely means things like didn't get into fights, didn't have to be put in solitary, wasn't caught dealing drugs etc. Almost a case of "lesser of two evils" maybe.

I'm not for the revocation of parole in all instances, but there must be a way to stop the ludicrous practice of allowing killers/rapists out early to let them go do it all over again. There should be tighter, stricter controls, a higher bar to reach than just "good behaviour" or even "time served". Life may not have to mean life, necessarily, but a sentence passed should not be able to be in some cases almost halved.

Perhaps if there were separate rules governing the sentencing of repeat or severe offenders, with an automatic denial of parole? I'm not sure: I don't know how it works in America and to be perfectly honest, I don't know how it works here or in the UK either, or anywhere else, but it seems to me the main objective is to decrease the population of the prisons and ease the pressure on the public/state/federal purse, and I think that's wrong. So you let a wild, untamed animal out into the general public because you can't afford, or don't want to feed it? And what consequences are suffered by the jail/government that lets this wild beast out? None that I can see. Some responsibility should be taken, surely?