Why does the Mushroom killer deserve parole ?

If prisoners don't have even a chance of parole there is no incentive for them to behave well, so the only means of control is further punishment. Ultimately, that can only end badly.

She won't be even eligible for release until she is in her 80s, and there is no guarantee that she will get it if she is still alive to apply.

She will not be released after 33 years. She has a life sentence. The 33 years is how long she must wait before she can apply for parole, and there is no guarentee that she would get it even then.

When people are released on parole they are released under strict conditions that they must obey to the letter. If they do not, and even if they do, but other aspects of their behaviour causes concern they will be recalled.

John Venables, one of the children who killed James Bulger has been recalled to prison several times since his release and is in prison as I write, for breaches of parole. On the other hand the other child involved, Robert Thompson has had no further involvement with the police as he has obeyed the rules governing his parole, which will, for the rest of his life, govern everything he does.

The 33 year life sentence for Erin Patterson is a non-parole period during which she may well be kept in solitary confinement, such is her notoriety.

She could apply for parole after the 33 years but it would not necessarily be granted.

It remains a mystery what her motives were. The deaths were tortuous and horrendous.

The laws on parole and sentencing are simply wrong.

It should be pointed out that this took place in Australia, not the UK, for clarification, so Australian laws apply and can vary from state to state.

She is obviously a sociopath incapable of showing remorse and only capable of feeling sorrow at having been caught.

She will be 83 when her first chance at parole comes around. Anything could happen to her during the next 33 years.

Sarnia

She will be 83 when her first chance at parole comes around. Anything could happen to her during the next 33 years.

Especially if she is kept in solitary confinement

I don't understand this post or OP's point.

I'm glad someone else has shown this woman will most likely never be released.

Being "considered for parole" is exactly that. First you must choose to apply and make a case. Then there's all the reports and then the parole board, and then, because of the length and seriousness of the offence (if you are serving 15 years or more) the decision on release is taken by the Home Secretary. Obviously they take into consideration the views of the Board’s recommendation but release at 33 years is by no means a done deal.

She won’t survive that long in an Australian jail.

I agree with everyone who has pointed out that "parole" in this case is more or less academic.
Presumably the possibility of parole is part of the process in this type of case according to the Australian legal system.

What utterley baffles me in this case is her motive. Why on earth has she murdered people that she supposedly liked and who at the least had done her no harm??

The only survivor had forgiven her the attempt on his life.

She will have to wait 33 years first. And I believe parole is only granted if it is felt she no longer poses a threat to society. Presumably by that time she will be at least in her late 70's.

I am surprised she didn't receive a whole life order, but I doubt she would get parole anyway.

I too am puzzled about her motive as she was obviously on reasonably friendly terms with her ex in-laws and their friends, for them to accept her invitation to lunch.

I did read though that she had inherited a fairly large sum of money at some point in the past, but I’m not sure if that is in any way relevant.

This has been such a fascinating case, hasn’t it?

I have given info about parole herd in the UK by the way - buy o doubt it's very different.

Parole board - not herd!

The judge accepted in his sentencing that there was no identifiable motive for what she did, and she had offered none. So speculating about what it might have been is fruitless.

It sounds like a story from Midsomer Murders.

Speculation about something like this might be fruitless, but it is natural, I think.

I am always surprised when people see a minimum prison term as a total sentence. Anyone with even a basic understanding of the system should know that being eligible for parole is not a guarantee of release, and that the parole system is in place for a reason.

It couldn't be reported at the trial, but she had been poisoning her ex husband over a few years, once so severely he was put into an induced coma and nearly died. It was linked to food she had prepared for him, but no proof. He didn't tell anyone else about it which is now a source of regret as she has killed others.

I think she must be mentally ill - and if deemed to be so when it comes to parole I think it is very unlikely it will be granted.

No- you do a disservice to people who are mentally ill. Maybe she has some sort of personailty disorder, but mental illness?

There is no evidence.

Eloethan

I think she must be mentally ill - and if deemed to be so when it comes to parole I think it is very unlikely it will be granted.

You do not have to be mentally ill to commit crimes like this, otherwise everyone who committed any sort of crime would have some level of mental health problem.

I agree- it also suggests that mentally ill people are more likely to commit murder, but there is no evidence for this.

Sometimes very sane people do very bad things and we shouldn't make excuses for them.