In America, does the victims families play a part in the parol-stuff? Can they have a say to make an impact of the parol board? (My freind said so) and I argued that they should have been disqualified as they can't have an objective point of view. My friend ment that it was brilliant in that the criminal first got the minimum punishment by law and then had to face a sort of "controlled revenge" of the family he had robbed of a loved one. And (although I didn't admit it then) that makes some sense really. So to get the perspective from those who knows better I take the question here: Is my freind correct - does it work this way? (If it is, does it apply to other crimes as well?) The most negative effects? (Hard to get a closure in the grief for the victims family, absurd long time in jail or things like that)? The most positive effects? (Maybe criminals subjected to this are less prone to commit crime again, due to reflection on the suffering they have caused?) And please do forgive me for the bad terminology-english.