But that is taken into account when the sentencing is done, JD. If someone is a repeat violent offender, the sentencing will (should) reflect that and a minimum of time to be served is often stated.
You can’t ‘good-behave’ your way out of that. You can serve longer than the minimum with bad behaviour, but you can’t reduce your real sentence through good behaviour. It just doesn’t happen.
In such a case if the repeat violent offender behaves badly in prison, he’ll not get his first parole hearing after the minimum sentence is served … and that probably means a year before he ever gets in front of a parole board. Parole boards will rarely release a repeat violent offender on first hearing (is my understanding), so he’s probably already added 2 years to his minimum sentence already.
This ‘good behaviour’ nomenclature is confusing people (possibly me also, but I think I’m right up to a few years ago at least when I knew parole officers and prison wardens and discussed this with them). Politicians could help by just choosing to call things by less confusing names, and perhaps passing a law to prosecute media when they purposely misrepresent the facts for a headline.
It is as bad as saying we have a basic 20% tax rate when we all know its really 29% (or whatever it is now) with national insurance added. That is another confusing piece of out-of-date nomenclature that needs to be changed.