I’ve been in parole hearings (a victim can bring a non-participating supportive friend). Both times the person was denied parole, despite the victim’s urging release, the inmate’s exemplary, peaceful, productive life Inside, and a show of respect and remorse during the proceedings.
Then I watched the OJ Simpson hearing. He spent a lot of time doing something that isn’t supposed to happen in a parole hearing–re-litigating the case. The premise is that the case has been heard and judged and should not be re-tried during the parole hearing. That’s in the past. But the Board allowed it.
Also, he showed no remorse, accepted no guilt. In fact, he blamed everyone else for what happened. He lied about having led a non-violent life, forgetting all of the many cases of domestic abuse, which further showed his inability to accept responsibility (normally one of the criteria for release). And he became angry when answering one of the Board members. Yet, the Board somehow decided that his history of abuse against women was behind him and that he was now under control of his emotions, despite his outburst against the Board.
Some argue that his sentence was too severe, in light of the sentences (and non-sentence of one) of the other men involved. If so, that’s another reason our penal system needs to be reformed.
But so should how parole boards function–consistently, logically, and fairly for all.