The purpose for which a Parole is granted to a convict varies from country to country and the duration of it depends on the purpose it is applied for, but the only factor, I mean the only factor which qualifies the convict to be considered for a Parole, irrespective of the country he is convicted in, is his behaviour while serving his prison term, that convinces the authorities that the convict has been reformed or shows signs of being reformed. Now, the questions are: 1) Was Manu Sharma’s behaviour in prison certified as exemplary? 2) If so, were his reasons for asking for parole justifiable? 3) If so, did the authorities check if those reasons were genuine or not? 4) Whether genuine or not, did the concerned authorities keep a watch on the convict to check whether or not he was complying with the terms on which the Parole was granted to him? As far as what is currently known to the public (me included) the authorities FAILED on all counts. Bennet Paes Assolna, Goa 09881696343
The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/