Colin Pitchfork can be released

No maddy. A double child killer and rapist, he should stay where he is.

I think it would be safer Smileless.

NO NO and NO

I don't think so. He has proved he is still a danger to women
while released in 2021. In the absence of the death penalty (which I am glad we don't have) there surely has to be genuine life imprisonment for some.

Absolutely henetha life should mean life or what's the point in passing a life sentence?

Why is the Parole Board out of sync with the public I wonder?

maddyone Should he be released?

NO.

No.

It’s quite strange how, if you are imprisoned, it’s there for life on a DBS, All convictions resulting in a custodial sentence, whether or not suspended, will always be disclosed.
If you’re given a life sentence, even for murder, it doesn’t mean life.

The parole board made a mistake when he was released in 2021 and subsequently recalled for approaching young women. What’s changed in two years?

Very few prisoners are serving a whole life tariff - that is, life meaning life. The mandatory sentence for murder is life, but the judge can stipulate a minimum term which must be served before an application for parole may be made, I don’t agree that life should always mean life - that wouldn’t allow for any mitigating circumstances to be taken into account in sentencing. However, evidently 33 years hadn’t changed Pitchfork.

I sincerely hope that the parole board haven’t made another mistake but given the reasons for his recent recall I am very doubtful that he won’t attempt to reoffend. I hope I’m wrong.

Of course, that the Parole Board have decided that he can be released doesn’t mean he will be released. But I won’t bet more than 50 pence on that.

I'd like to know the reasons the Parole Board has for thinking he is no longer a danger to women and children.

No, on reflection, I don't think so.

He avoided detection and arrest in the first place by paying someone to take a DNA test in his place when there was mass testing of 4,000 men in the area.

He is manipulative and it wouldn't be the first time that Parole Boards have been manipulated and hoodwinked by those who were released and went on to offend again.
His behaviour last time was suspicious.

No, I really don’t think he should be released. He will always be a danger.

Absolutely, especially as he couldn't help himself 2 years ago - what on earth are they thinking for heaven's sake?

That should've read absolutely not!

Lord knows.

There's little point in creating a parole system and a Board to make informed decisions and then wanting to ignore it or reject their decisions when they prove controversial. Parolees can be monitored and returned to prison (as happened previously). The danger is that uninformed public opinion will be used by Braverman and other politicians to curry favour with the electorate and distract from other events embarrassing to the Tories.

Given Pitchfork’s early return to prison after his 2021 release, are we satisfied that these decisions are ‘informed’? As was said up thread, some prisoners are very clever and manipulative. I don’t have the faith in parole boards that you evidently do.

There's little point in creating a parole system and a Board to make informed decisions and then wanting to ignore it or reject their decisions when they prove controversial

Too late when someone has offended again.

Perhaps another review of sentencing is due.
I know it would make no difference retrospectively but in future perhaps life for the most heinous crimes should mean life.

The danger is that uninformed public opinion will be used

You are dismissing the populace as a whole as uninformed.

That is quite an astonishing assumption.

Should the parole board have to give reasons why they think there's been a material change in his behaviour and likely future behaviour in the short time since his last release, given that 33 years appeared not to have made a difference?
On balance I don't think he should even be considered for re-release for at least 5 years from the date of his last incarceration.

Most definitely not maddyone.

It’s unfortunate, in my view, that the PB’s decisions, with reasons, are not made public. Anyone can apply to attend a PB review but it’s entirely at the discretion of the chairman and I strongly suspect that non-disclosure conditions would be attached were a request to be granted. I appreciate the possible need to keep some details confidential but if a decision is taken that a violent offender no longer poses a risk to the public, or that such risk can be satisfactorily managed by the probation service, then I feel the public are entitled to know how that decision was reached so that an application for judicial review can be made if appropriate. I would need a great deal of evidence to convince me that this leopard has changed his spots in the last two years when he clearly hadn’t in the previous 33.

I agree with posters who have said that if this man hasn’t changed his behaviour in 33 years, it seems unlikely that he’s changed in the last two years. I would go so far as to say that I feel that since he hadn’t been able to change in 33 years, he really should have been a candidate for not being released at all.