"Eligible" doesn't mean he'll actually be paroled, presumably some committee will have to decide if he can be released. It seems like a fine policy to allow the potential for parole while still keeping some convicts in jail if necessary.
> In 1967, Fritzl broke into the Linz home of a 24-year-old nurse while her husband was away and raped her while holding a knife to her throat, threatening to kill her if she screamed. According to an annual report for 1967 and a press release of the same year, he was also named as a suspect in a case of attempted rape of a 21-year-old woman, and was known for indecent exposure. Fritzl was arrested and served 12 months of an 18-month prison sentence. In accordance with Austrian law, his criminal record was expunged after 15 years. As a result, more than 25 years later, when he applied to adopt and/or foster Elisabeth's children, the local social service authorities did not discover his criminal history.
Similarly, I generally believe in giving people the opportunity to rehabilitate themselves and get on with their lives and don’t think that people should have to permanently live with the stigma of crimes they committed in the past. However, I don’t think that records of violent or similar criminal behaviour should be completely expunged; they should still be available in certain situations.
dybber|2 years ago
Even though I’m usually against moves towards longer sentences, reading this was actually quite disturbing.
burkaman|2 years ago
sva_|2 years ago
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11944009/Monster-...
Anthony-G|2 years ago
Similarly, I generally believe in giving people the opportunity to rehabilitate themselves and get on with their lives and don’t think that people should have to permanently live with the stigma of crimes they committed in the past. However, I don’t think that records of violent or similar criminal behaviour should be completely expunged; they should still be available in certain situations.
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]