Yes, of course. Genuine repentance means that the system has worked exactly as it should.
Keeping someone in jail a second longer is an act of cruelty.
Not opposed to this in principle, but this would be near impossible to implement in real life. I mean there's already an incentive to fake changes when a parole board hearing comes up, and this would exacerbate the problem.
I'm OK with having a very strict standard for what constitutes evidence of genuine repentance. Obviously, if you committed a crime, it makes sense that you lose the benefit of doubt. However, when this standard is met, the person should always be released.
What would this standard of evidence be though? I mean, you can hardly look inside their mind to see whether the repentance is genuine or not, the only real evidence you have either way is a person's word. I mean, you could attempt to implement various 'lie detector' tests, but then I'm not sure how that would work with what is essentially a mentally internal matter like repentance.
Poll
