Why do decisions of the parole board so often provoke grief, shock and disillusionment with our justice system in families of the victims?
All considerations are taken into account, such as remorse and rehabilitation.
The family of the school pupil slaughtered by the “Samurai killer” say he showed no remorse at all.
The parole board has all the facts before it. I imagine the question of remorse is one of the important factors they consider.
They supposedly consider rehabilitation as well, but the clinical psychologist who assessed him told the board his behaviour gave no indication of rehabilitation either.
The parole board would have to answer for that because if there is no remorse or rehabilitation he is likely to commit the same type of crime again.
Isn’t that exactly why the psychologist said his release would have dire consequences?
I wouldn’t know why the board that looks at all the factors surrounding the consideration of parole would overlook that. If they overlooked important factors the aggrieved can take the matter on review.
What is the success rate for those who do?
I wouldn’t know.
Do you find it concerning that your parole board ignores the advice of experts?
As the executive we allow the parole board to do their work without us questioning whether they’re doing the right thing.
Shouldn’t there some kind of ministerial oversight?
You could say we need to do more. But when we put people in positions of responsibility we expect them to do what they consider necessary both for the families of the victims and the offenders, who are expected to undergo rehabilitation programmes to make them better people.
The Samurai killer may have undergone a rehabilitation programme but according to the clinical psychologist who assessed him, he was still violent and aggressive.
Then the board must answer for that because it’s important that people successfully undergo these rehabilitation programmes so that they are no longer a danger to society and their release does not cause outrage on the part of the public.
Why are there no outside experts on the parole board?
Invitations are issued to people who qualify to sit on the boards. The people who sit on the boards are not only officials of the department.
Why would a top-rated clinical psychologist with extensive knowledge of this case say there were no psychologists or social workers on the board?
Has the board told you why? Obviously, as a journalist, you’d want to hear their side.
Does it bother you that the advice of the expert who assessed the Samurai killer over a long period was clearly ignored?
It could be there were other similarly qualified people within the board itself giving different advice.
The board referred the killer of Leigh Matthews for therapy for love of money. Does that sound like a board made up of similarly qualified people?
People who are in our correctional centre have committed all sorts of bizarre and heinous crimes because of an excessive love of money. Whatever motivates them to commit these crimes, it is our responsibility to attend to that.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.