2 area felons denied parole

I don't know the DA. These two are felons. I may not have all the facts I'll admit, but from what I have read about the two, they are where they need to be. First a man (drug dealer) intentionally sets a fire that severely injures a 14 year old kid, and after just six years he thinks he should be out of prison? What says he wouldn't do it again? I'm sure that for the person he burned, once was enough. IMO, even if he does the 25 years that isn't enough.

The habitual offender? That doesn't mean someone with a drug "habit", It means someone that continuously commits crimes. I'm pretty sure the people he robbed or stole from aren't interested in why he did it, and his being a drug user certainly isn't an excuse. And, by his being labeled a habitual offender it's clear he wasn't showing any signs of being able to be "treated with a positive result". He wasn't interested in changing or getting help while he was victimizing people, I doubt he'd be interested in that now.

Again, I don't know connolly, not sure if he even had a part in the two men being denied parole. The ABOPP denied them. Too, the victims are allowed to speak against parole. Did that happen? 

What kind of syndrome do these two felons have?

____

The arsonist might not commit arson again, since--if I recall correctly--the act of arson he committed was an act of vengefulness in which he was apparently unaware that the injured victim was present in the residence he set on fire.  That is a different thing from arson committed by a chronic, pathologically criminal arsonist.  Nevertheless, an innocent teen was badly burned as a consequence of his illegal and malicious actions and since he did indeed do the crime, he needs to do the time.and 7 years just does not seem adequate.

What about the victims?  And if the habitual offender was a dopehead, or the politically correct term addict, he has stolen from family and friends long before he took his crimes public.