Parole Board Idiots

[donotcovertheradiator]

So, murderers such as John Worboys and David McGreavey-who murdered 3 children- are to be released because despite public outrage, the parole board judges them to no longer be a danger.

As people released on parole-are still a danger-discovered when they do more harm, I have a helpful suggestion for the Parole Board.

One of them should sign an undertaking-become a guarantor- giving their word that this person is being released early because they are no longer a danger and if they do commit another offence, the guarantor is obliged to serve the same amount of prison time.

I hazard a guess that not so many violent criminals would be released on parole.

Hazel: are you quite well?

@Pantene_I hesitate to criticise your comprehension skills but, alas, on this occasion, I must.

I am not saying that no-one should ever be released. I am saying, quite clearly, that if those who sign for them, should put their money where their mouths are and be their guarantor.

If they are correct and the violent thug is cured, then yes, release them and there guarantor will never be brought to book.

If they are incorrect and their, erroneous decision has to be paid for by someone who becomes a victim of them while they are on parole then the guarantor would have to answer for their foolish decision.

On your other ill thought out point, we cannot release violent thugs because there isn't enough room to house them.

What other solutions do you think that there might be? Your answer to let some go, is one suggestion, another might be to build more prisons.

Which one do you think most victims of violent crime would favour?

If their test is very rigorous, then they won't have any problems in being asked to account for it will they, as they have confidence the thug won't re-offend.

His crime may be 'no worse'-are we really having a sliding scale-but I use him as a symbol for all rapists, violent thugs and murderers.

Yes, release them on parole-on the word of a bunch of daft twats with rigorous testing-but they must be made to answer for their decision.

If the person who signed them off back on the streets, thought there would be a time when they would have to answer, not so many would be parolled-you would suddenly find these tests wouldn't be quite rigorous enough!

In short, parole boards should be accountable, not letting the rest of us wipe up the real blood that comes from their bleeding hearts.

The parole board can only operate within the law.

Longer sentences, or sentencing to whole life tariffs for things like the McGreavey triple murder is a whole other issue.

Should probably lock up any driving examiners who pass someone who goes on to cause an accident or commits a road traffic offence.

I just feel 'life' should mean just that unless new evidence comes to light. He should never have seen daylight without bars infront of it ever again and he should've been locked in a secure mental facility until his last intake of oxygen, whenever that may be.

I am saying, quite clearly, that if those who sign for them, should put their money where their mouths are and be their guarantor.

Maybe if the release goes well and they go on live out their lives without incident, you should be made to pay substantial compensation to the members of the parole board for unfairly criticising them. Are you prepared to do that? Seems only fair. If they have to face a penalty for getting it wrong under your system, then so should you.

@donotcovertheradiator

1. They they account for their reasons for release, this is done via the decision letter that is internal and the decision summary which is for the victim (and by extension the public as the victims usually publicise it). It is unreasonable to expect any party to be held to account unless something actually does go wrong. If it does, then the decision making of that Panel is reviewed. There is a wealth of evidence available to do this.

1. I said 'not terribly worse' not 'no worse'. You need to work on your reading comprehension.

1. "Rapists, violent thugs and murderers" are all assessed and dealt with differently as their areas of risk are not the same. They are not compatible and he is not a symbol for any of those.

1. While the Parole Board make the decision, it is on the evidence of at least 2 professionals (I imagine in McGreavys case at least 4 or 5). Its not plucked out of thin air. There is 45 years of evidence to rely on.

1. You clearly know absolutely nothing about the CJS or Parole Board system nor about reoffending rates other than what's in the news, I recommend a simple Google to temper your outrage a bit.

I just feel 'life' should mean just that unless new evidence comes to light. He should never have seen daylight without bars infront of it ever again

Brilliant. Are you going to volunteer to work as a prison guard with offenders who cannot obtain early release for good behaviour. Hence they have no incentive to behave well. Or are you just going to sit on your arse on the internet telling those who work in the prison service how it should be done!

The world is full of keyboard warriors, putting the planet to rights without leaving their armchair.

McGreavy should never be free. He’s a monster and I have no argument against capital punishment in cases like his. He should have been hanged years ago and spared the taxpayer the expense of his keep.

I am not saying that no-one should ever be released. I am saying, quite clearly, that if those who sign for them, should put their money where their mouths are and be their guarantor.

And I am saying, what parole officer would ever agree to be responsible for another person’s behaviour? They would never agree to another person’s release again. It would simply be too big a risk, even if they thought there was virtually no chance of the person reoffending.

Admit it - if you were a parole officer and these decisions were in your hands, however compelling the evidence was that a person was unlikely to reoffend, you would never sign for their release if you knew that them reoffending would put you in jail.

You’re also suggesting that making the best decision possible on the basis of the information available to you that someone won’t reoffend and then that decision subsequently being proven wrong is somehow on a par with actually committing murder. I presume you can see how stupid a viewpoint that is?

There are prisons in America for prisoners who have no possibility of parole, and they have to be astonishingly well protected because imprisoning people who have no incentive for good behaviour is wildly dangerous. These prisons are incredibly expensive, and very difficult to run.

I suggest you google ADX Florence - it will open your eyes.

Asking the parole board to act as some sort of guarantor is patently ridiculous. As @PanteneProV suggests, all this would mean is that no prisoner who needs to go before a parole board prior to release would ever leave prison. Where are we going to build the new prisons to house the huge numbers of additional prisoners serving full life terms? How are we going to pay for them?

I couldn't remember what either had done but Worboys was the 'black cab rapist', a horrible, violent man but not a murderer.

McGreavy was a murderer of three children. I suppose after 46 years in gaol he is deemed to be safe (well he hasn't been able to drink), but I don't know what to think.

At approximately 68 and 62 years of age, neither man is too old or infirm to offend again.

I'm glad I don't have to make such decisions.

While, in principle, I often disagree with some of the criminals who have been released........ our prisons are massively overpopulated....MASSIVELY!

The parole board are under huge pressure to balance the prison population and judges are under the same pressure to seek alternative punishments to imprisonment where possible/appropriate.

While "he has taken a life so should never be released" is a wonderful moral sentiment it is not as black and white as that.

What @lifecraft said

@ParkheadParadise I'm very sorry for your loss

The system needs to have feedback built in to it.

1. For any particular crime, we know statistically what the 'baseline' rate of criminality is - the probability that an ordinary member of the public, like you or I, will commit such an offence in the next 5 years, say.
2. Then, we should decide what the acceptable threshold is for the probability of the person being paroled committing that offence is. You could argue it should be no higher than the baseline, or maybe within 20%, something like that.
3. You track recidivism rates, and if the parole system is shown to be operating within targets, then fine. If not, then they have to get tougher.

At the moment, they basically just guess. Not a particularly informed guess, either. There won't be a statistician or probabilistic mathematician in the room. No one who could tell you what a conditional probability is, anyway.
And I'm pretty sure they are not pooling any feedback to check the UK wide system is operating as it should.

When you are releasing a murderer, you really do need to know the probability that that person will go on to kill another member of the public. Hand wavy nonsense from arts graduates just doesn't cut it.

@PanteneProV You clearly have a vested interest: what is it?
Prisoner
Ex prisoner
Connected to someone in prison
Parole Board member
Connected to Parole Board member
social worker
Bleeding heart.

My vested interest is that my sister was badly beaten up-lost hearing in one ear- by a man who had served time for a similar offence and had been released on parole. The daft fucker who granted him parole didn't pay for his mistake. My sister paid for his mistake.

As for suggesting that parole is the cheaper option....my flabbers are ghasted! Saving the public purse is more important than saving public safety....outrageous.

If there is the slightest doubt that they might reoffend, then no, they shouldn't be released. You seem to be agreeing with me there though!
After all, you point out that if these daft twats had to be guarantor, they wouldn't release them as they could never be 100% sure. They're happy to release them onto the rest of us though, happy to take that risk, if they don't have to answer for it.

They won't do it if it slightest chance it will backfire on them but will happily do it if it will backfire on an innocent member of the public.

Twats-and cowardly save my own skin-twats at that!

Well it's a hard one ..

I work with offenders daily and have past experience writing parole reports and being involved in recommendations regarding parole.

The parole board members do a brave and extremely difficult job within limits and constraints. I don't envy them and would not want to be involved in that side of things anymore. Please don't blame then for what's happened. They are tied by many rules.

With regards to McGreavy, I am sickened by his crime and feel he should have been given a whole life tariff. He wasn't, so the parole board now have to work with that.

Will he offend again? I very much expect so. He has been in custody' so long he will have no idea how to exist outside. The last time he was out he was drinking and he committed a horrendous crime. Unless he's been given skills to manage outside, has been tested on day release over a period of years, and has suitable daily and nightly support, it's more or less inevitable he'll be back in prison. He has coped in custody. He has lived a decent life in custody. He has never coped as an adult in the community.

I hope he's not living near me or near any children. I hate what he's done. But, it's not the parole boards fault. You can't hold individual people, working their hardest in a tough system, accountable for things like this. The problem is with the whole criminal justice system which is over stretched, under funded and a mess. The whole thing needs a cash injection and significant reform.

What a corrosive post. Trying to whip up a frenzy against people doing a difficult job. Calling them all daft twats. Just awful. These people do their best with the information they have. They won't always get it right. No one always gets things right. I would imagine they feel pretty shit when things do go wrong.

Suggesting incarceration for simply doing your job but not always getting the desired outcome, ridiculous and unworkable. As one other poster pointed out, no one would take the job on. Perhaps we could extend this rhetoric to all social workers, doctors, firemen, in fact all people in a position of responsibility. Let's just lock them all up if something goes wrong, even when they've done their best.

Oh and a disclaimer, no vested interest in the parole board and no bleeding heart. However I do believe unless someone is actually criminally negligent with regards to the duty of care\responsibility placed on them by their job the suggestion of taking away their liberty is really quite shocking.

A ridiculous OP. It's the same kind of rhetoric that's levelled against social workers when a child dies as a result of abuse within the family. They can only make decisions based on what they know. It's the criminals who commit the crimes, not the professionals working within the system who are doing a difficult job to the best of their ability.

If there has been negligence involved, then they should be held accountable. I don't think anyone who has posted on this thread would say otherwise.

The crimes committed by McGreavy were indeed heinous, but, as has been pointed out, he has served double his minimum tariff, so there probably weren't legal grounds for keeping him inside for longer. He wasn't given a whole life term.

We're also not privy to the reports the Parole Board have seen, we do need to bear that in mind.

Oh so many points, where to start...

Calling someone a daft twat makes you an Incredibly daft twat, you know

@MrsBethel - the psychologists on the panel will be more than capable of managing statistics, and are not ‘arts graduates’

Oohgossip
Some may be capable of basic stats, but no more so than a bright 15 year old, and they will not generally have the will or the tools to estimate the probability that the person they release will re-offend.

Which is the entire issue at stake!!!

MrsBethal

The decision on release is multidisciplinary. Information is gathered from probation, prison officers,security, the governor, mental health and forensic psychologists to name a few. The forensic psychology recommendations are among those given most weight. They use several validated tools to help them make recommendations including lengthy and detailed risk assessment tools.

Forensic psychologists possibly were very bright 15 year olds. They then went on to complete A-levels, a degree, a masters degree and in many cases a Doctorate. They usually have years of forensic experience before they qualify as well, and on a case like this, it is likely the most senior psychologists conducted the interviews and assessments which informed the psychologists recommendations.

That said, I do think it's likely he'll re-offend as stated in my previous post, but the decision to release will have been well thought out and made on the basis of the options the board had available to them at the time. It's a tough and thankless job being on the parole board, but the members of the board will all have got to know McGreavy very well and used tools from their own professions to help them make recommendations from their own professional perspectives. Please don't blame the parole board when things go wrong. It is the wider criminal justice system which needs an overhaul. No individual(s) is to blame unless found negligent in conducting their job

I have no vested interest of any kind. I don’t need one to recognise how stupid your argument is.

If you have a serious issue with people being paroled then instead of directing your ill-informed fury at parole officers (who are just the people making incredibly difficult decisions in order to execute public policy), why don’t you start campaigning the government to do away with parole completely? You won’t get anywhere with such an absurd idea, but at least it would be a logically consistent position. You can clearly appreciate how it would be much more sensible to simply disallow parole than to somehow insist that parole officers bear criminal responsibility for the actions of others.

I am sorry for what happened to your sister - in your shoes I would also feel furious and devastated. But strong emotion is a bad bedrock for public policy, particularly in respect of issues like justice. It’s why we don’t allow victims to decide what punishment the people who hurt them should receive. However sympathetic we are, we recognise that to do so wouldn’t be in the public interest. From a statistical perspective, parole works. In the vast majority of cases people on parole don’t reoffend in the same way, and that is especially true of violent crime. And parole is a good thing - it’s less expensive (and I know you scoffed at that, but it’s a serious consideration - we have finite resources and schools, hospitals, defence, policing etc are also hugely important) and it helps maintain order and security in prisons. It contributes to us being a fair society. That doesn’t detract from how awful it is when the wrong decision is made - for those affected it is terrible, and I wouldn’t expect them personally to be comforted by any argument about the greater good. But that doesn’t mean there is justification for undoing a policy which has, overall, huge societal benefits.