I was interested in the event of John Barlow being denied parole as it made me think about the possible evidence that prevented him from gaining his parole. When I first began reading the article, I found out that he had convicted the double murder of Gene and Eugene Thomas. The event interested me because of the evidence and facts that lead to the Parole Board changing their decision to let him leave the Rimutaka Prison. My reaction to the Parole Boards decision was agreement because the evidence that was given in the article such as the way he acted and psychological reports told me that he wasn’t stable enough and that many of them believed that he wasn’t as of yet deemed to be low risk.

The News Feature was about ‘convicted double-murderer John Barlow’ and stated that ‘The board agreed Mrs Barlow had been “outstanding”, but worried the family was so supportive, they would fail to call authorities if Barlow went off-track. But given his history and his “completely inappropriate attitude to guns”, it denied him parole’. The Parole Board was ready to give him his parole after he spent 14 years in the Rimutaka Prison because ‘if offenders have served their minimum sentences and are deemed to be low risk, they must be freed. According to one of New Zealand’s leading psychologists, Barlow’s risk was low.’ But after a former gun collector declared that ‘Having a gun gives confidence. It’s very rare that they have to be produced and even rarer that they have to be fired.’ He also argued that ‘ lending weapons to others for their protection was a breach of the law on the same level as a speeding ticket, an opinion the board described as, “in the circumstances, breathtaking.”

A character I disliked was John Barlow because he convicted the double murder of Gene Thomas, 68, and his son Eugene, 30. After spending 14 years in the prison and becoming a model prisoner, my first impression when I read the description given of John Barlow was that he had grown old...