What does a life sentence entail? An exposition of parole

I have some serious problems with the article. Not for what it covers, but the omissions - which to a considerable extent relates to the omissions in the criminal system.

The major problem is that the issue of retribution is not touched on at all.

Retribution is important as it determines the maximum length a person may be incarcerated for (I limit my comments to imprisonment, but retribution obviously governs other types of sentences as well). Without considering retribution as a overarching principle, an offender can be incarcerated indefinitely for the most trivial offence as long as he or she is not considered rehabilitated. In fact, this is what is happening with this insistence on remorse. It would appear that remorse is considered an essential requirement for determining the length of the sentence. Remorse, so it seems, is also considered a determinant of whether a convict remains a danger to society and can be released. I would suggest that whether a person is likely to commit further crimes cannot be guided by a display of remorse (or at least not to the extent it seems to be used in practice). Remorse or its appearance can be manipulated as well. The only objective criterion is whether a person has repaid his debt to society. If in the process he can be rehabilitated, fair and well, but even rehabilitation cannot serve a touchstone for sentencing purposes. If that is not accepted, a person can be incarcerated indefinitely for the most minor transgression - until he is rehabilitated - or the absence of an adequate display of remorse

I am not even examining the issues relating to the decision mechanism involved here, where an obscure body of sorts has the say over issues such as remorse or sufficient remorse, likelihood  of recidivism, adequacy of rehabilitation etc.

This is Criminology 101 - not rocket science.