Opinion

The Role of Parole

Few issues raise the hackles of the public - in law and order terms - as much as the seemingly failed experiment of parole. Those who support the current practice of our probationary system are an endangered species.

Recently there have been numerous calls to either amend or abolish the provision of parole in our criminal justice system. Both views are predicated on two key points: namely the dismal enforcement of parole conditions and the inherent injustice of having sentences cut thereby implicitly diminishing the culpability of the offender by reducing the 'price' paid for the crime.

The first point can be addressed through beefing up monitoring regimes and imposing accountability procedures on both inmates (where they fail to meet parole provisions) and case managers (who fail to do their jobs adequately).

The second requires a more thorough consideration because there has been, I believe, confusion in the distinction between what 'sentencing' and 'parole' are supposed to achieve and what their relationship to each other is. 'Sentencing' is supposed to be a denunciation, a penalty administered by Court in response to the determined severity of the crime. It is, if you like, the cost of choosing to commit the crime expressed in terms of time to be incarcerated. 'Parole', by contrast, addresses the question of whether or not a criminal is fit to be returned to civil society. Although in the past parole has been given in lieu of unserved time, there is no reason why that should be so. When we reflect that 86% of criminals re-offend within five years of release, and that 70% of inmates have 10 or more convictions, it is clear that using parole as a means to reduce the sentence is an abject failure. Particularly so for incorrigible offenders. There is also abundant evidence to show that one of the key basis for gaining parole is the completion of so-called rehabilitation programs which typically are only undergone for the incentive of early release.

Nevertheless, rather than abandon parole altogether, I would advocate that it be strengthened and applied at the end of a completed sentence. In other words, criminals would do the full term of the sentence after which the supervisory aspects of parole would ensue if required. This would have the advantage of maintaining a certain sense of control over the potential for further re-offending as well as applying a more enforceable form of the old suspended sentencing option. Additionally, the public might well exhibit a greater confidence that just because the sentence has been completed, does not mean the justice system can do no more to restrain the released offender's threat to community safety. The Parole Board, with the addition of a victim's advocate, could then make a determination that might include specific provisions (such as curfews, use of chemical castrating mendicants where appropriate for pedophiles etc).

The last thing I would want is for violent criminals to do their full sentence, be let out, and, in the absence of any alternative, be free to wreak havoc on other victims. I am therefore convinced that parole should be retained (and possibly renamed), albeit changed in its application so that it benefits victims and the law-abiding rather than criminals.

This weeks opinion comes from Marc Alexander, author of 'Justice with Both Eyes Open"; former deputy chair of the Law & Order Select committee; and Crime prevention spokesperson for the Sensible Sentencing Trust.