I can think of a range of different possibilities.
We have to remember, to begin with, that where a 25-year minimum sentence has been imposed, there's a quarter of a century since the trial, never mind when the offence was committed. I can't say for any individual family what's going to feel right to them. Some families won't have a problem with parole hearings starting a quarter century later and for others it will be re-traumatizing; there's no question about it.
It's really hard to prescribe an alternative solution. We know that these parole hearings perform an important function. Even though the chances of people, for example, who are designated as dangerous offenders will be very unlikely to be granted parole, that's actually a functioning of the system.
That's the system working in those cases, when they come to that kind of a decision. It is a necessary thing for government to have to go through and for the community to have to go through, in our justice system where we've given up the approach of a century ago of simply throwing away the key.
That would be my answer to that. I recognize that that won't be satisfying, necessarily, to some families who have gone through trauma and who would like to avoid having these parole hearings.