Comments on: Minister Dunkley On Parole Board Report

By: Unjrust Realities

Unjrust Realities — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 02:28:11 +0000

A poor example to use if that was the purpose . . .when you read the content of his article, what other example could he use???

By: PLP 4 ever

PLP 4 ever — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 01:31:31 +0000

I saw you’re mother dress in one of the clown suits before she left the house.

By: enough

enough — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 22:12:46 +0000

I beg to differ. Plenty of clowns in there.

By: swing voter

swing voter — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 18:11:26 +0000

nothin to do with this story, but listening to Wayne Furbert speak in the house sounds like an audition for comedy central. only a big top, caged animals and clowns are missing

By: Winnie Dread

Winnie Dread — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 18:09:33 +0000

It was just an example sheesh, the whole system needs to be reviewed Police,Prosecutions,Judiciary,Corrections and the laws/rules they operate by.

By: Unjrust Realities

Unjrust Realities — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:44:03 +0000

I read the first few paragraphs of this story and got instantly irritated . . .First of all Mr. Dunkley, from a professional standpoint, any person who is incarcerated for an offence that requires treatment should never be sentenced so lightly as nine months. An offender who is in need of treatment for crimes committed, should be someone who has a significant emotional and/or mental health issues that their time of incarceration would be much more extensive than nine months.

Maybe if we stop locking up people for petty and foolishness then we wouldn’t have these issues from a parole standpoint.

By: enough

enough — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:09:34 +0000

Good. About time.