Search

Do parolees really ‘walk free’? Busting common myths about parole

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/monique-moffa-1380936">Monique Moffa</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alyssa-sigamoney-1375881">Alyssa Sigamoney</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/greg-stratton-161122">Greg Stratton</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jarryd-bartle-441602">Jarryd Bartle</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michele-ruyters-18446">Michele Ruyters</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a> Parole is a hot topic in politics and in the media at the moment, fuelled by several high-profile parole applications. Recently, <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/no-parole-for-convicted-baby-killer-keli-lane/xoykrtvxe?cid=testtwitter">Keli Lane’s</a> attempt to be released on parole after years in jail for the murder of her baby daughter was unsuccessful. <a href="https://www.heraldsun.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-victoria/how-frankston-serial-killer-paul-denyer-will-apply-for-bail/news-story/4613d1b3fced1f4aeaa9c4e08e8b81e0">Paul Denyer</a>, known as the “Frankston Serial Killer” for murdering three women in the 90s was also denied parole. Meanwhile, Snowtown accomplice <a href="https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-sa/bodies-in-the-barrels-helper-mark-haydon-released-on-parole/news-story/fdfbbbe7b59267d8009c6910249de585">Mark Haydon</a> was granted parole with strict conditions, but is <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-01/snowtown-accomplice-mark-haydon-still-in-custody-after-parole/103653934">yet to be</a> released. Some media coverage of such well-known cases is littered with myths about what parole is, how it’s granted and what it looks like. Here’s what the evidence says about three of the most common misconceptions. <h2>Myth 1: people on parole walk free</h2> Parole is the conditional release of an incarcerated person (parolee) by a parole board authority, after they have served their non-parole period (minimum sentence) in jail. This isn’t always reflected in headlines. <a href="https://www.9news.com.au/national/snowtown-murders-bodies-in-barrels-murders-mark-haydon-release-south-australia/f4b62a72-ec3d-4238-94d2-64697fbcdef3">Some coverage</a> suggests people on parole are released early and “walk free” without conditions. This is not true. According to the <a href="https://www.adultparoleboard.vic.gov.au/what-parole/purpose-and-benefits">Adult Parole Board of Victoria</a>: "Parole provides incarcerated people with a structured, supported and supervised transition so that they can adjust from prison back into the community, rather than returning straight to the community at the end of their sentence without supervision or support." Parole comes with strict conditions and requirements, such as curfews, drug and alcohol testing, electronic monitoring, program participation, to name a few. People with experience of parole highlight its punitivism and continued extension of surveillance. <h2>Myth 2: most parolees reoffend</h2> Another myth is that the likelihood all parolees reoffend is high. Research over a number of years has consistently found parole reduces reoffending. For example, <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0004865815585393?journalCode=anja">a 2016 study in New South Wales</a> found at the 12 month mark, a group of parolees reoffended 22% less than an unsupervised cohort. A <a href="https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Publications/CJB/2022-Report-Effect-of-parole-supervision-on-recidivism-CJB245.pdf">2022 study</a> by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research found parole was especially successful in reducing serious recidivism rates among incarcerated people considered to be at a high risk of reoffending. More recently in Victoria, <a href="https://www.adultparoleboard.vic.gov.au/system/files/inline-files/Adult%20Parole%20Board%20Annual%20Report%202022-23_0.pdf">the Adult Parole Board</a> found over 2022–23, no parolees were convicted of committing serious offences while on parole. In contrast, unstructured and unconditional release increases the risk of returning to prison. <h2>Myth 3: parole is easy to get</h2> While the number of parolees reoffending has dropped, so too has the total number of people who are exiting prison on parole. Over a decade ago, Victoria underwent significant parole reforms, largely prompted by high-profile incidents and campaigns. In just five years following Jill Meagher’s tragic death in 2012, the Victorian government passed <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10345329.2018.1556285">13 laws reshaping parole</a>. The result is the number of people on parole in Victoria has halved since 2012, despite incarceration numbers remaining steady. <iframe id="maNRy" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/maNRy/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> These reforms have made it more difficult for people convicted of serious offences to get parole, as well as preventing individuals or specific groups from being eligible for parole (such as police killers, <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-body-no-parole-laws-could-be-disastrous-for-the-wrongfully-convicted-191083">“no body, no parole” prisoners</a>, and certain high-profile murderers). Similar laws can be found in other states. For example, no body, no parole was introduced in all other Australian states and territories, except for Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory. As a consequence, more people are being released at the end of their full sentence. This can be detrimental not only for the incarcerated person but the wider community, because they are not receiving the reintegration support parole provides. Aside from restricted access due to political intervention, parole is facing a new crisis, which has nothing to do with eligibility or suitability. Last year, 40% of Victorian parole applications were denied, often due to reasons <a href="https://www.adultparoleboard.vic.gov.au/system/files/inline-files/Adult%20Parole%20Board%20Annual%20Report%202022-23_0.pdf">unrelated to suitability</a>. Housing scarcity played a significant role, with 59% of rejections (or 235 applications) citing a lack of suitable accommodation as one of the reasons parole was denied. This is playing out <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-11/women-on-bail-parole-increased-risk-of-homelessness-qld/102717002">across the country</a>. Parole is vulnerable to community and media hype, and political knee-jerk reactions in response to high profile incidents involving a person on parole. Because of the actions of a few, parole as a process has been restricted for many. While the wider community are active in advocacy efforts to restrict parole from certain people or groups (for example, this petition for <a href="https://www.change.org/p/lyns-law-no-body-no-parole">Lyn’s Law in NSW</a>), public efforts to restrict parole seem at odds with its purposes. Despite this, research suggests when the public are educated about the purposes and intent of parole, they are more likely to be <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3125829">supportive of it</a>. The susceptibility of parole to media and community influence results in frequent, impactful changes affecting individuals inside and outside prisons. Headlines such as “walking free” have the potential to mislead the public on the purpose and structure of parole. Coverage should portray parole beyond mere early termination of a sentence by accurately reflecting its purpose and impact.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/226607/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/monique-moffa-1380936">Monique Moffa</a>, Lecturer, Criminology & Justice, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alyssa-sigamoney-1375881">Alyssa Sigamoney</a>, Associate Lecturer in Criminology and Justice Studies, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/greg-stratton-161122">Greg Stratton</a>, Lecturer - Criminology and Justice Studies, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jarryd-bartle-441602">Jarryd Bartle</a>, Associate Lecturer, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michele-ruyters-18446">Michele Ruyters</a>, Associate Dean, Criminology and Justice Studies, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/do-parolees-really-walk-free-busting-common-myths-about-parole-226607">original article</a>.

Legal

"He should never be released": Ben Fordham speaks out against killer's parole

The heartbroken parents whose teenage daughter was brutally killed by a 16-year-old boy have spoken about her killer potentially being released on parole. Tania Burgess was on her way home from school on the Central Coast on July 19, 2005 when a 16-year-old boy followed and stabbed her 48 times before running off. The school girl named her killer in her dying moments, who was then found and sentenced to 22 years in prison, with a non-parole period of 17 years. The sentence was appealed and reduced by four years. The killer, known only as DL because he was a minor at the time of the murder, has been eligible for parole since 2018 and this is his last chance of it being granted. Tania’s parents Mandy and Chris spoke to 2GB’s Ben Fordham saying DL’s release would be a “shock”. “It’s hard to comprehend that, first of all, DL has never really admitted any kind of remorse. And yet his time is up. He may be set free,” Mandy said. “He will never own the crime that he did. He virtually is unnamed as DL. (He’ll) just wipe 17 years off and start a new life, yet we lost our daughter.” Fordham said the community would “be in danger from this person” as Mandy reflected on what her daughter’s life may have been. “You can only dream what kind of life she might have had,” she continued. “She was such a beautiful, caring, loving teenager. She could have maybe become a nurse, or some kind of health community worker. It’s hard to say. She loved her ballet. She might have been a ballerina. “You can only let your imagination run really wild. But she was taken away from us. She was just a girl. She was just starting to bloom at 15. She was stolen. “I try to block out those horrible images of what we saw that day, and remember Tania for who she was. Not what we saw, not what he did, but for what she was at the time. She was a beautiful, loving, caring girl, just starting her life.” “The reality is that he should never be released,” Fordham responded. DL’s case has two options - either he is granted supervised parole, or he can walk free at the end of his sentence without supervision. Mandy said it would probably be better that DL be monitored to see what he’s like in public saying it would be “frightening” to know if he was out there not being supervised. Images: Nine News

Legal

Man admits to wife’s murder after 13 YEARS of denial

Content warning: This story contains mentions of domestic violence and assault. A New Zealand man who has denied murdering his wife for almost 13 years has stunned the victim’s family and the Parole Board by admitting he deliberately shot her at close range. Helen Meads was working in the stables at the property she shared with her husband Greg on September 23, 2009, when she was shot by him. She had been chatting with a friend on the phone and had said goodbye just seconds before she died. It was also four days after she told Mr Meads she wanted to end their 12-year marriage that had been punctuated by acts of domestic violence. When he confronted her and took her life, their three children and her parents were left devastated. Mr Meads pleaded not guilty to murder, saying he had accidentally pulled the trigger and that a conviction of manslaughter would be more appropriate. The jury rejected his claim and convicted him of murder, for which he received a life sentence with a minimum of 11 years before he would be eligible for parole. When he came up for parole last year, the Board refused to release him early as they felt Mr Meads - who still claimed he wasn’t guilty - was still a risk to the public. Mr Meads appeared before the Parole Board again on Tuesday, as reported by the <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/it-was-a-deliberate-act-i-killed-helen-after-13-years-of-untruths-and-lies-matamata-horse-breeder-admits-murdering-wife/T2AJE2JUV5V76QHRODR2234MOA/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NZ Herald</a>. After talking in circles and being told to speak directly by board members, he finally had a clear answer. “I killed Helen, I was the person who pulled the trigger and I am fully responsible for her death,” he said. “Yes it was a deliberate act, I raised the gun and I pulled the trigger.” Mr Meads also admitted to physically assaulting Helen and being abusive during their marriage. He initially claimed that the change to his story came after he had “quite a lot of time to go through the incident” on his own and with his psychiatrist. “What brought about this change?” Parole Board chairman Sir Ron Young probed. “You’ve told untruths for 13 years, why should we rely on what you’re telling us now when for the past 13 years it’s been a lie? “You didn’t wake up this morning and go ‘oh, that’s right, I pulled the trigger’.” Mr Meads claimed he had “probably avoided” revisiting the moment until the night before the hearing. “I have come to terms with the fact that when I had my hand on the gun it was a voluntary act and I’ve pulled the trigger,” he suggested. “It’s not an accident, I admit that now. It is a change. “I think it was deliberate that I grabbed the trigger and that was the end of Helen’s life.” When pressed by the board, Mr Meads conceded he hadn’t discussed the matter in depth with his psychiatrist and that he had decided to take responsibility within the past 12-24 hours. Sir Ron said it was “worrying” that his admission was so sudden and “expressed concern about the genuineness” of it. “But if it is [genuine], good on you,” he said. “It is a very serious charge, but assuming it is genuine, it’s a positive change.” After speaking with Mr Mead for half an hour, during which time he shared his safety plan that failed to mention how he would cope around firearms, the board said it was clear he wasn’t ready to be released. Sir Ron said Mr Mead’s new admission signified that he had much more work to do with his psychiatrist and on his safety plan. He was refused parole and will not appear before the board again until April 2023. Image: New Zealand Herald

Legal

Algorithms predicting parole outcomes

<div> <div class="copy"> The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, which results in overcrowded prisons and all the additional violence that implies. Funnelling felons back onto the street through granting parole is thus a critical safety mechanism and management tool – but assessing which inmates will likely not reoffend when granted liberty is a difficult and troubling task. For some years now, the people responsible for calculating the chances of someone reoffending have been assisted in their decision-making by computational frameworks known as risk-assessment instruments (RAIs). The validity of these algorithms was thrown into question in 2018 after a <a rel="noopener" href="https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/1/eaao5580" target="_blank">major study</a> tested their predictive power against that of untrained humans. The machines and the people were given brief information on 400 inmates, including sex, age, current charge and prior convictions, and asked to make a determination. Both cohorts made the correct call in 65% of cases, which was pretty perceptive on the part of the untrained humans, but rather ordinary for the algorithms, given what was at stake. Now a new <a rel="noopener" href="https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/7/eaaz0652" target="_blank">study</a>, led by Sharad Goel, a computational social scientist at Stanford University, US, has repeated and extended the earlier research, and finds in favour of the software. In the first phase of the research, Goel and colleagues replicated the previous work, and came up with similar results. They then repeated the exercise with several additional variables in play – a situation, they suggest, that much better resembles real-world conditions. With the extra information, the algorithms performed much better, correctly predicting recidivism in 90% of cases. The humans got it right only 60% of the time. “Risk assessment has long been a part of decision-making in the criminal justice system,” says co-author Jennifer Skeem. “Although recent debate has raised important questions about algorithm-based tools, our research shows that in contexts resembling real criminal justice settings, risk assessments are often more accurate than human judgment in predicting recidivism. That’s consistent with a long line of research comparing humans to statistical tools.” In their paper, published in the journal Science Advances, the researchers say the more accurate RAI results will be helpful in the management of the over-burdened US penal system. The algorithm will be useful not only in helping to decide which inmates can be safely released into the community but will also assist in allocating prisoners too low or high security facilities. Image credit: Shutterstock</div> <div id="contributors"> This article was originally published on <a rel="noopener" href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/algorithms-getting-better-at-predicting-parole-outcomes/" target="_blank">cosmosmagazine.com</a> and was written by Barry Keily. </div> </div>

Technology

Fury as OJ Simpson set for parole in October

The OJ Simpson saga has taken another dramatic turn on Thursday afternoon after the disgraced ex-football star was granted parole after nine years in prison. But it’s what the 70-year-old said during the hearing that shocked many Americans. Simpson was joined at the hearing by his lawyer Malcolm LaVergne, close friend Tom Scotto, sister Shirley Baker and daughter Arnelle, and according to reports was grinning ear-to-ear as the board announced their decision. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> David Smith of Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/OJSimpson?src=hash">#OJSimpson</a>: “He has stable release plans and community and family support.” <a href="https://t.co/HFblja3RAf">pic.twitter.com/HFblja3RAf</a> — Fox News (@FoxNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/888122874405412865">July 20, 2017</a></blockquote> He will remain incarcerated for two more months, before being released having served nine years of a 33-year jail sentence for kidnapping and armed robbery. Simpson’s statements have drawn considerable controversy, particularly when he stated, “I had basically spent a conflict-free life.” <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> OJ is giving this panel every reason to drop him back in prison. No remorse, just justifications--still a sociopath. Unreal. — Chris Mannix (@ChrisMannixYS) <a href="https://twitter.com/ChrisMannixYS/status/888089851429609473">July 20, 2017</a></blockquote> Simpson maintained the items he stole were his, “It’s kind of mind-boggling that (the state of California) turned over to me my property that I’m in jail for trying to retrieve it. “It was my property; I would never try to steal from anybody.” What’s your take? Do you think justice was served?

News

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Entertainment

Property

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Do parolees really ‘walk free’? Busting common myths about parole

"He should never be released": Ben Fordham speaks out against killer's parole

Man admits to wife’s murder after 13 YEARS of denial

Algorithms predicting parole outcomes

Fury as OJ Simpson set for parole in October