> Could you explain the relevant complexity, particularly as it applies to this example?
Maybe it's simple if all a parolee has to do is to make sure he spends every single night in the halfway home. That might not make a lot of sense, but if that was the _only_ rule he had to follow, it might be simple.
My guess is there are many rules to follow, and a lot of them don't make sense to the individual parolee. A rule like having to spend every single night at the halfway home is there for a reason, but the reason (probably) is not to prevent parolees from seeing their girlfriends. So it's easy for someone to think that they aren't doing anything wrong when spending the night at their girlfriend's, even if they might be aware that they are -- technically -- breaking a rule. They might also (naïvely) expect to be met with some kind of reasonably response to said rule violation.
People have difficulty with rules that don't make sense to them. It's very easy to think: "This can't possibly apply to me in this situation".
Finally, one more thought: I know this is borderline Godwin, but this reminds me of rape and blaming the victim. Like in, it was her own fault for wearing a short dress. This is a case of someone who was the victim of an injustice. Does it really make a lot of sense to talk about what he, the victim, might have done differently?
People have difficulty with rules that don't make sense to them. It's very easy to think: "This can't possibly apply to me in this situation".
When a convicted criminal demonstrates an inability to follow rules they don't agree with, that's an indicator that they might commit additional crimes. For example, "this law against rape can't possibly apply to me in this situation where she was asking for it".
Parole is intended only for criminals with a low probability of committing additional crimes. The burden is on the convicted criminal to demonstrate that they are unlikely to commit new crimes.
Look, if he was convicted of nonviolent drug offenses, I agree he is a victim. But he's a victim of drug laws, not the parole system. The parole system is doing the right thing here.
>"When a convicted criminal demonstrates an inability to follow rules they don't agree with, that's an indicator that they might commit additional crimes."
Since you are so keep on empirical evidence, perhaps you can supply us with the academic articles and/or papers that prove your hypothesis.
This is simply my prior - an assertion I find plausible about the world.
I'm a bit curious, though - out of everyone using priors and reasoning to discuss this story, I'm the only one you've demanded academic articles from. Why is that?
Maybe it's simple if all a parolee has to do is to make sure he spends every single night in the halfway home. That might not make a lot of sense, but if that was the _only_ rule he had to follow, it might be simple.
My guess is there are many rules to follow, and a lot of them don't make sense to the individual parolee. A rule like having to spend every single night at the halfway home is there for a reason, but the reason (probably) is not to prevent parolees from seeing their girlfriends. So it's easy for someone to think that they aren't doing anything wrong when spending the night at their girlfriend's, even if they might be aware that they are -- technically -- breaking a rule. They might also (naïvely) expect to be met with some kind of reasonably response to said rule violation.
People have difficulty with rules that don't make sense to them. It's very easy to think: "This can't possibly apply to me in this situation".
Finally, one more thought: I know this is borderline Godwin, but this reminds me of rape and blaming the victim. Like in, it was her own fault for wearing a short dress. This is a case of someone who was the victim of an injustice. Does it really make a lot of sense to talk about what he, the victim, might have done differently?