My personal view is that the victim of the crime should determine if the offender gets parole or not runner,
The victim should most definitely have a say in that of course. Any village idiot can see that. It's our academic background morons who can't see. Then there is the question of compensation. I & many of my acquaintences are out of pocket to the tune of many thousands each & the offenders got a week in a luxury detention. I have not heard of any victim ever having received compensation of any kind. Why can't a victim of crime who gets no compensation be at least exempt from paying tax until such time that they have at least recovered their material losses ?
Simple & cheap !
I had my gear insured & when it came to claim it was replaced months after I already replaced it myself. I had the top model computer with expensive add-ons & programs but the insurance bought me the most basic model which was at least 8 times below what I paid for. The other electrons to the tune of 12 Grand didn't get replaced because I had no proof that I had them. Apparently invoices aren't sufficient proof. What proof should their be, registration plates for a GPs or a camera ?
Btw. the craphead who broke into my place was let out on bail. In the 18 months since he has honed his skills with other break-ins & he is still running free despite him being on security video footage.

Hi there...

RUNNER, you made a very interesting point, where you said that those who broke the conditions of their original parole should not be eligible again. I couldn't agree with you more !

Regrettably, it's a sort of revolving door policy where the Board will do everything possible to grant a parole. Actually, I think many such decisions are made more on economic grounds, rather than for rehabilitative reasons ? I don't wish to bog down discussing the many shortfalls of prisons, besides I'm not sufficiently appraised to make informed decisions in any event. But you also referred to Dr Anthony Vincent (now a Professor?), and the many anomalies that now exist as a consequence of his administration.

Though his heart may've been in the right place, he had absolutely no knowledge on 'real' hard edged criminality. What he did know, came from his many academic tomes ? I've heard he'd not take advice, nor seek counsel from senior prison officials, who daily toiled within the gaols themselves ? That in itself was a pity too ?

PRAXIDICE...

Along with the systemic corruption at the head of the QPS, weren't there a number of politicians with their collective snouts in the trough ? Emmm, that sort of behaviour gives the entire industry a filthy name. And that's patently wrong, moreover it's also very unfair, to the decent coppers !

Before my retirement, I heard of an individual at the station I was attached, had received some robust counselling, from two or three of his shift (GD's uniform). It would appear, post an organised (night) bust at a large store, our enterprising friend decided to avail himself to a few but quite expensive tools ? After all, one or two, more or less from the thieves overall cache, wouldn't matter, not even to the Insurance Assessors ? But, it did matter, because the overall integrity of the entire shift was compromised ? The member concerned was on sick report for several weeks, having received his counselling ? Justice can be both swift and savage, amongst coppers ?

The member concerned was on sick report for several weeks,
o sung wu,
I wish I could have gotten paid leave when I went through the stress of break-ins at home & having to deal with incompetent bureaucrats who cost me months of lack of sleep.
Apparently I couldn't get stressed because I'm only a worker. A couple of the bureaucrats however were so stressed they had to go on a cruise to Canada & the Caribean.
Ain't this democratic & equal society great ?

Sorry INDIVIDUAL, I don't think I made myself clear ? The police member concerned, who needed to go on sick report, it was caused by his own disgraceful actions, which brought disgrace upon other member's characters, members who were part of his own squad ! That's a real no no - It's all to do with squad dynamics.

From what I understand, a couple of squad members 'counselled' him 'vigorously' in the anonymity and darkness of the police station car park, at the conclusion of their shift ? I think you know exactly what I mean, INDIVIDUAL my friend ? :)

Parole must be retained for those individuals, who've made some serious mistakes in their lives. And as a consequence, have found themselves in gaol. But, during the course of their incarceration, have adequately demonstrated to the prison authorities, that they've learnt from those mistakes. Perhaps, one may well say '...there but for the grace of God, go I...'?

However, with respect to most of the other, more violent offenders currently in custody today. It's my opinion, access to the Parole Board should be denied permanently. For offences where any 'aggravation' is implicated, or extreme violence is occasioned against (as I stated earlier), certain classes of vulnerable individuals. That would indubitably include any offence occasioning violence, perpetrated against any child, or any female, regardless of age.

Moreover, the Bail Act in NSW is perhaps deserving of an award better suited to a comedy feature ! How A N Y NSW politician, can standby, if totally impotent, without immediately strengthening ALL Bail criteria, I just can't understand ? When police oppose Bail, well take their bloody advice ! After all it's the police who know the real character of an alleged offender, therefore the judiciary should heed their recommendation ! Police will NOT oppose Bail, if they're of the opinion, there's little or no risk to the community.

It beats me, it really does ?

o sung wu - weren't there a number of politicians with their collective snouts in the trough

You are 100% correct, in fact a number of them won their free holiday in the big house. Mind you they got paroled pretty quickly & managed to stumble into well paid jobs courtesy of friends on whom they hadn't ratted. One particular slimeball got a management level position in the Catholic Church .... hmmmmmm The Fitzgerald Inquiry was fine as far as it went, but unfortunately it didn't go nearly far enough as we saw a year or so back with the then head of Ethical Command who got nabbed by Customs. Turned out he had a nice little sideline importing military weapons for the mob. Shortly after that episode, a whistleblower 'disappeared' before he could spill his guts. Incumbent police minister Dempsey had while in opposition demanded many times a Royal Commission to clean up the corruption Fitzgerald had been prevented from attacking (too many politicians on both sides with skeletons in the wardrobe, including a certain Johannes Bjelke Petersen). Funnily enough, Dempsey has changed his tune since getting into the Ministership. as Colonel Klink was wont to say ..'veeerrryy interesting, but not very funny'

Recently the probity of the CMC has been brought into question as a result of the ostensibly 'Independent' Costello Inquiry, the appointment of various drones to high level positions for which they were neither qualified nor entitled & the 'interesting' doings of more than a few LNP ministers (inquiries that promptly get dropped by the CMC for 'lack of jurisdiction' or somesuch crap). The well publicized demands by Newman / Seeney / Nicholls for the CMC to keep its nose out of 'sensitive government business' haven't gone unnoticed.

In the end no one surely wants to flog prisoners.
But for far too many in my view parole has been given without thought to the victims, both those that saw the prison term, and those who are harmed by those on parole.
Again this morning ,surely with every right?
We are hearing the killer of Jill had 20 convictions for rape in23 years.
Who could support him walking our streets?
And the ever present question, what thought went in to his early release?