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

New laws prompted by Chris Dawson murder trial

New South Wales is set to introduce new laws making it "impossible" for convicted murders to be released on parole if they refuse to reveal where the bodies of their victims are located. The proposed "no body, no parole" law comes as Chris Dawson was convicted of his wife's murder last month, which happened in 1982. The issue gained attention as soon as the high-profile case gained heavy media coverage – yet the body of Lynette Dawson was never found. NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet said the government's proposed bill would mean offenders must co-operate with investigators and disclose the location of remains for any chance of release on parole. "We will make it impossible for offenders who willfully and deliberately refuse to disclose information about their victim's remains, to be granted parole," Mr Perrottet said. "Being unable to locate a loved one's body is extremely distressing and traumatic for the families and friends of victims and it denies a victim the dignity of being laid to rest appropriately. "These laws are to stop inmates convicted of murder or homicide offences from getting parole unless they co-operate with police to end the torment of families and return to them the remains of their loved ones." "No body, no parole" laws are already in place in other states and territories including Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Under the proposed laws, the State Parole Authority (SPA) must not grant parole unless it decides the offender has cooperated in identifying the victim's location. Once the law has passed, it would apply to all current and future inmates in NSW. Image: Getty

Legal

Tania Burgess' teen killer granted parole

The teen who stabbed Tania Burgess to death while she walked home from school on the Central Coast has been granted parole. It has been nearly 17 years after her murder. The NSW State Parole Authority said intensive supervision of the convicted murderer known as DL, including around the clock electronic monitoring, is critical in keeping the community safe. DL has been in custody since he was 16. He is now 32, and with no period of maturing in the community he is likely "institutionalised", according to an expert report. Tania was only 15 when she hopped off a school bus and walked through the car park of Forresters Beach Resort on the 19th of July 2005. DL caught the same bus, followed her and stabbed her 48 times. As the offence occurred when DL was a minor he cannot be named for legal reasons. He was arrested that evening and was convicted by a jury at trial and jailed for at least 17 years serving a maximum term of 22 years. This was reduced on appeal by four years in 2018, meaning he has been eligible for parole since mid 2018. During a hearing, Justice James Wood extended the parole authority's deepest sympathies to Tania's parents who were present in court. Justice Wood accepted the expert advice from the Serious Offenders Review Council that strongly advised DL should be released with supervision before his full-time sentence expired. This decision to release DL with supervision comes despite vocal objections from the likes of 2GB's Ben Fordham, who <a href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/finance/legal/he-should-never-be-released-ben-fordham-speaks-out-against-killer-s-parole" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said that DL should "never be released"</a>. His release will also come as a shock to the local community. The Serious Offenders Review Council have shared: "The priority is now supervision to foster his reintegration and the protection of the public." DL must provide authorities daily notifications of all his movements and engage with forensic psychologist treatment along with other strict conditions. He is due to be released on August the 1st, 2022. Images: Nine Network

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

High-profile crimes: The problem with electronic monitoring bracelets

The man arrested after a <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-04/darwin-shooting-people-police-arrest-gunman/11179136">deadly gun attack in Darwin</a> recently is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/04/police-say-they-have-reports-of-up-to-four-people-dead-in-darwin-shooting">reported</a> to have been on parole and wearing an electronic monitoring bracelet. This leads to the same reaction we see following any high-profile crime. How could such a thing happen? People may speculate that the criminal justice agencies involved have somehow dropped the ball. The offender was on their radar, after all. While this finger-pointing may serve a cathartic function, it is important we also question our expectations before assuming a failure occurred. We need to understand what electronic monitoring intends to achieve, how it works, and what are its capabilities and limitations. Electronic tagging In the context of the corrections system, electronic monitoring refers to the tagging of a person as a form of surveillance, usually in the form of a GPS-enabled ankle bracelet. <a href="https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi254">In Australia</a>, each state and territory uses electronic monitoring differently, guided by their own legislative frameworks. Practices vary considerably between jurisdictions. For example, in some places, certain offenders are targeted (high-risk recidivists, those who repeatedly reoffend, for example). In others, specific types of offences are the focus (such as child sex offences). The application of electronic monitoring even differs between offenders, as the supervising agency uses it for reasons specific to each person. A police department might use electronic monitoring to ensure a domestic violence perpetrator does not visit the victim before a trial. A probation officer might require an offender to wear a bracelet for 12 months to ensure they are attending treatment and meeting their curfew. A parole officer could place the GPS tracking condition on an offender for the first three months following release from prison to better understand how the parolee spends his or her time. Each of these experiences will be quite different, as each is intended to fulfil a unique aim. Ordinarily, electronic monitoring is used as a tool of incapacitation and deterrence. In the first instance, an offender may be told to follow a particular rule – for example, to be home by 8pm, to stay away from the victim, to attend a treatment program, or not to go within 1km of a school. Electronic monitoring allows authorities to monitor the person’s compliance with such a condition. In the latter instance, an offender may be deterred from certain behaviour if they believe their actions are likely to be detected through electronic monitoring. Monitoring actions When an offender is subject to electronic monitoring, a computer database is updated with information about the rules he or she has been instructed to follow. Each jurisdiction and each agency may have their own database, so where the offender appears in the database will depend on who is supervising the electronic monitoring order. The database is then monitored by enforcement authorities, although this is sometimes outsourced to private providers or overseas companies. While the data is generally sent from the offender’s GPS device to the monitoring agency in real time, there can be delays in how long it takes for that information to be passed to police or corrective services. What occurs when an offender breaches one of the rules and a computer alert is generated depends on factors such as legislation and the priority of a case influencing the response. The database includes information about what to do in the event of specific kinds of breaches with specific offenders. In some cases, an alarm on the device may go off or, very rarely, the police may be immediately notified. Most often, for routine cases and ordinary breaches, the monitoring agency will notify the offender’s supervisor (such as a parole officer or a local police department), who will then determine how to proceed. There may be a lag of several days during this process. For example, if a low-risk offender misses their home curfew on Friday night (as determined by the GPS bracelet), the parole officer will not receive notification of this breach until Monday morning. The pros and cons of tagging There are a range of <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2066220317697658" title="Electronic monitoring: The experience in Australia">benefits and disadvantages</a> to the electronic monitoring of offenders. It can be effective in holding offenders accountable, protecting victims and enhancing community safety and preventing crimes. These come with important cost savings, particularly when offenders can be safety monitored in the community in lieu of imprisonment or as a mechanism of early release from prison. But some of the downfalls are that offenders can tamper with their devices, and there can be GPS dead zones – particularly in a geographically vast country such as Australia. There may also be human error in using the systems, such as improper monitoring or unreasonable decision-making after an alert. Yet collectively, the research evidence highlights that electronic monitoring can be an effective tool for discouraging recidivism. But it is only that: a tool. The most effective practices for <a href="https://au.sagepub.com/en-gb/oce/environmental-corrections/book248663" title="Environmental Corrections: A New Paradigm for Supervising Offenders in the Community">supervising offenders in the community</a> include those that identify and reduce a person’s risks for continued criminal behaviour. Electronic monitoring will be most effective when it is used to support supervision that limits a person’s access to chances to commit crime. Such supervision should help them redesign their routines so that any risky settings are avoided and are replaced with more positive influences. Thus, rather than simply giving offenders a long list of rules for what not to do, effective probation and parole strategies help offenders lead productive lives. More broadly, it is imperative that correctional authorities provide rehabilitative interventions that address the underlying factors that contribute toward a person’s criminal behaviour. The <a href="https://nicic.gov/implementing-evidence-based-practice-community-corrections-principles-effective-intervention">most effective approaches</a> use cognitive-behavioural techniques to give offenders skills that encourage good decision-making. Yet electronic monitoring cannot “fix” an offender’s impulsivity, lack of empathy, or any other underlying crime-conducive traits. Thus we should not confuse a technological aid with meaningful treatment. Written by Lacey Schaefer. Republished with permission of <a href="https://theconversation.com/electronic-monitoring-bracelets-are-only-crime-deterrence-tools-they-cant-fix-offenders-118335">The Conversation.</a>

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

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

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

New laws prompted by Chris Dawson murder trial

Tania Burgess' teen killer granted 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

High-profile crimes: The problem with electronic monitoring bracelets

Fury as OJ Simpson set for parole in October

Our Partners