A. It undermines the clarity and integrity of sentencing

• When a judge sentences someone to 12 years, the community expects that sentence to mean something.
• But with parole, the actual time served can be far less—sometimes half—depending on the opinion of an unelected parole board behind closed doors.

“Justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. Parole makes justice look like a mirage.”

B. It creates inconsistency and unfairness

• Two people can commit the same crime and receive the same sentence—yet one is released years earlier than the other based on vague assessments of “progress.”
• That’s not fairness. That’s legal roulette.

“A justice system that trades certainty for speculation has lost its way.”

C. It risks public safety

• We’ve all seen examples where parole has failed. A violent offender is released early and commits further crimes.
• This isn’t theory—it’s real harm, suffered by real people.
• No amount of supervision can fully prevent that risk. The safer option is to ensure the sentence is served.

D. It fails even by its own standards

• Data shows that reoffending rates among parolees remain high—often 40% or more within two years.
• If parole were a treatment, we’d call it ineffective. If it were a product, we’d recall it.

“Why persist with a system that doesn’t deliver the rehabilitation or safety it promises?”

2. What would I replace it with?

Abolishing parole doesn’t mean abandoning rehabilitation or community safety. On the contrary—it means building a system that does both, better.

A. Truth in sentencing

• Sentences should mean what they say. If a judge imposes a 10-year term, the public and the offender should know: that’s 10 years.
• This restores faith in the courts and respects the role of judges.

B. Structured, judge-imposed post-release conditions

• For certain offences, a judge could impose post-sentence supervision or behavioural conditions to begin after full time is served.
• These could include:
  • Mandatory programs
  • Regular check-ins
  • Alcohol and drug testing
  • Electronic monitoring, where necessary

C. Rehabilitation starts earlier and runs longer

• Rehabilitation should begin during the sentence—not dangle as an incentive for early release.
• Proper in-prison programs, education, and re-entry preparation can be intensified without tying them to parole.

“You don’t need a dangling carrot to teach someone how to walk again—you need consistent, structured support.”

D. Transparent and accountable community supervision

• Instead of secretive parole boards, post-release supervision could be managed transparently through community corrections under judicial oversight.
• Victims and the public would know exactly what to expect—and have a say where appropriate.

3. The bigger picture

This reform is about modernising our justice system:

• It makes sentencing honest.
• It makes the public safer.
• It treats offenders with clarity and structure—not uncertainty and gaming.

I don’t propose this lightly. I’ve worked in the criminal justice system for over 45 years—as a defence lawyer, a prosecutor, and a judge. I’ve seen how parole is meant to work. And I’ve seen how often it doesn’t.

“When the law stops serving the people, it’s time the people changed the law.”