http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-28644799
Interesting discussion on this. This article relates to victim's statments in parole hearings. The argument that assessment of the risk is the key factor whe determining parole seems reasonable to me. The "victims" likely have no knowledge of this risk. They're almost certainly not objective on this in any case.
Personally, I have always had a big issue with "victim's statments" in the courtroom. Is it less of a crime to kill someone with no family/friends (and therefore no "victims" to articulate the effects of the crime) than it is to kill the member of a family who can seemingly influence sentencing by making an impassioned statement? I don't think so, but others may disagree.
Posted on: 12 August 2014 by Lionel
Agree completely.
Parole is about the likelihood to re-offend in the same or broadly similar way. What the victim thinks is totally irrelevant.
Same with victim statements in Court.
And just for good measure, I am heartily sick of the Police or CPS spokesmen pontificating on the actions, motivations, or general character of convicted felons.
Posted on: 12 August 2014 by Don Atkinson
+1 to both the above.
However, I would want the experts who make these parole assessments to be exceptionally close to 100% that the criminal will not re-offend when released back into society. And second offenders wouldn't given any second chance at all.
Posted on: 17 August 2014 by Bart
The consideration whether to parole in my state is described in this official state document:
http://www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/pb/paroledecision.pdf
Victims' statements are indeed listed among information to be considered.
Here, there is more to the decision than merely the likelihood of the offender committing further crimes. But as others have pointed out, the precise relevance of victims' statements can be hard to discern.
