People have difficulty with rules that don't make sense to them. It's very easy to think: "This can't possibly apply to me in this situation".
When a convicted criminal demonstrates an inability to follow rules they don't agree with, that's an indicator that they might commit additional crimes. For example, "this law against rape can't possibly apply to me in this situation where she was asking for it".
Parole is intended only for criminals with a low probability of committing additional crimes. The burden is on the convicted criminal to demonstrate that they are unlikely to commit new crimes.
Look, if he was convicted of nonviolent drug offenses, I agree he is a victim. But he's a victim of drug laws, not the parole system. The parole system is doing the right thing here.
>"When a convicted criminal demonstrates an inability to follow rules they don't agree with, that's an indicator that they might commit additional crimes."
Since you are so keep on empirical evidence, perhaps you can supply us with the academic articles and/or papers that prove your hypothesis.
This is simply my prior - an assertion I find plausible about the world.
I'm a bit curious, though - out of everyone using priors and reasoning to discuss this story, I'm the only one you've demanded academic articles from. Why is that?
When a convicted criminal demonstrates an inability to follow rules they don't agree with, that's an indicator that they might commit additional crimes. For example, "this law against rape can't possibly apply to me in this situation where she was asking for it".
Parole is intended only for criminals with a low probability of committing additional crimes. The burden is on the convicted criminal to demonstrate that they are unlikely to commit new crimes.
Look, if he was convicted of nonviolent drug offenses, I agree he is a victim. But he's a victim of drug laws, not the parole system. The parole system is doing the right thing here.