Parole Reform
Stephen Franks, who has spent many months and years studying the parole system, blogs about misconceptions on parole, and how parole should be reformed. The status quo is unacceptable (something even the Govt and Law Commission now agree) and reforms must happen.
Stephen points out that only a small percentage of criminals who breach the trust that was once the key feature of parole are ever recalled, and even fewer serve much of the rest of their sentence. He points to President Clinton’s reforms as the way ahead, but also some changes to the current system while we have it:
* Restore its status as a privilege not a right;
* Board must be satisfied of genuine remorse;
* Board must take account of victim feelings, of community expectations of a price to be paid for crime, and of the effect of any release on judicial control of sentencing. The 2002 law prevents the Board from recognising these factors;
* No appeals against denial of parole – it is a privilege;
* No legal aid to support parole applications – it is a privilege;
* Police and Corrections should regain immediate power to return parolees to custody on discovery of any breach of terms;
* Court involvement on breach only to hear parolee challenges to the recall reasons, or claims that the breach is trivial, or should otherwise be excused;
* Parole offences should automatically be treated as serious of their class for sentencing purposes, because it is a breach of trust, and shows the absence of remorse;
* Publication of full and accurate statistics on parole offending.
I’m also working on some possible reform ideas which I will blog about in the near future.
January 18th, 2007 at 10:16 am
It astonishes me that:
Parole is a right not a privilege.
Breaches do not result in automatic return to custody
Legal Aid is available for parole applications
It needs new rules to ensure genuine remorse is a condition of release
Appeal against parole decisions are allowed (along with concomitant costs and resource allocation)
Parole breach is not automatically classified as serious.
What a truly bizarre and soft judicial system we have that gives prisoners such powerful rights when all they are due are basic human rights.
No wonder we have a pile of s**t to deal with!!
January 18th, 2007 at 10:28 am
I agree with Stephen Franks. However I would go further and abolish the parole system altogether. My ideas for an alternative are at:
http://www.passingphase.co.nz/eparty/page4-Justice.htm
January 18th, 2007 at 10:30 am
The system described would an offence against socialist dogma.
Hulun will never sign off on it…maybe if looks the part but is never intended to be implemented.
January 18th, 2007 at 10:46 am
i reckon feckin’ hang em..eh..?
the last decades of higher and higher sentences..and more and more prisoners/prisons obviously isn’t working eh..?
maybe you need to ‘rack it up’ a bit..eh..?
of course..the fact most prisoners are uneducated/illiterate/untrained for anything but crime…
and that nothing is done under our ‘just lockem up!’ policy to remedy that sorry state of affairs..eh..?
now..that wouldn’t have anything to do with recidivism rates..?
..would it..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 18th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Interesting, but some rather astounding misapprehensions.
1. You can’t appeal refusals of parole.
2. It’s near impossible to get legal aid for parole hearings – it’s only been within the last year that it’s been available, and the Legal Services Agency is doing everything it can to have the decision overturned (the LSA have acted as though it’s not available, but a decision of the Legal Aid Review Panel said it should be available, and the LSA are going to the High Court).
3. [From s 7(2) of the Parole Act] “principles that must guide the Board’s decisions [include] that the rights of victims … are upheld, and submissions by victims … and any restorative justice outcomes are given due weight.”
4. The Parole Board considers whether a prisoner is an undue risk – a massive part of the test is whether any remorse is genuine. If remorse is not genuine then likely there is a high risk.
I might come back to the others later…
January 18th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Stephen Franks displays again why he is the calibre of person that should be back in Parliament. One of the few with a brain that is not afraid to use it.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:34 am
The problem is that those who sit on the Parole Board and others who operate within the system become conditioned and are easily conned by the Burtons etc. The so called experts are anything but. What is needed is a jury like system to decide if a crim is ready to be let out.And the victim should be represented on the panel.
The grand experiment of the past 3 decades has failed and its time to implement the new system. the one that protects the citizerns instead of rewarding the crims.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:46 am
I doubt that Stepen has had anything to do with the criminal justice system except sit there and be enraged at this or that newspaper report about some issue or other. It seems that he is advocating a system whereby people have very few legal rights on release on parole or even whether they should get it or not. It would be a wholly subjective arbitrary system and in case people try and get some due process into it he wants to prevent the poor from having access to a lawyer. I presume he will try and prevent lawyers from attending hearings altogether least there be any attempt to introduce fairness and due process into the decision making. Parole would become an arbitrary privilege and be wide open to corruption. I could say Steven should stick to comercial law but if he is serious about the criminal law he should spend a little bit of time off doing it and develop an understanding of legal process, and human rights.
January 18th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Okay, here’s some basic ideas on how parole works:
Someone commits a crime, and is covicted and sentenced. The judge thinks that the punishment should be 18 months in prison. So he sentences you to four years’ imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of 18 months.
Four years’ imprisonment is your sentence, and 18 months’ imprisonment is your punishment.
The Judge considered that 18 months’ imprisonment was sufficient punishment (taking into account the crime, the victims’ views, the criminal’s history, holding the offender accountable, denouncing the conduct, deterrence, protection of the community etc.) but gives the person four years so that the community would be better protected from them.
After 18 months has passed the offender is eligible for parole; they can’t get parole as of right, but do have right to have parole considered. The offender’s punishment is over, but the Parole Board can still decide to keep the criminal inside if he or she poses an undue risk to the community. The existence of a system of parole means we can keep certain criminals in prison even after their punishment is over, if their release would pose a risk to the community.
That said, at present we think that it ain’t right to keep someone inside forever for other than the most serious of crimes (or repeat offenders), so if the Parole Board isn’t satisfied at any point that the person isn’t an undue risk, we’d let this criminal out after four years.
In considering whether someone’s release will pose an undue risk, the Parole Board will also take into account what risk the community would face if the offender was released without the possibility of recall (paroled offenders can be recalled if they evidence that they pose an undue risk to the community). It is considered, probably reasonably, that released offenders are less likely to reoffend if they know they can not only be arrested, but also sent straight back to prison, whether convicted or not. People on parole have a greater deterrent than those merely released (who cannot be recalled).
Most people calling for parole reform, or the abolition of parole are calling for longer sentences, they should be honest about what they are doing. What I suspect Stephen Franks wants would be an increase in the above criminal’s punishment (cf. with the sentence) to four years’ imprisonment.
There are excellent arguments for this, but don’t confuse that issue with parole. Calling for truth in sentencing is a little dishonest – the hypothetical judge thought the person should go to prison for at least 18 months and that person did. Now I think that the above sentence should be called 18 months to four years imprisonment so that people have a better understanding of what’s really happening, but what has parole got to do with any of this?
January 18th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Graeme,
If, as you say, the judge awards a sentence of 4 years, because the appropriate punishment is 18 months…etc. then I can accept that…
The main issue for me, is the increadibly low incidence of people actually being recalled when they are out on parole.
You’ve explained nicely how the deterent to paroled offenders is supposed to work…. but it seems it isnt really working like that in practise.
Like many many issues that raise their head every now and then, that grab the public attention… if the current rules were actually enforced the way they were written, we wouldnt need to be considering new rules.
(parole, drinking age, gun control, driving offenses, what-ever).
January 18th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
I don’t know what the stats are, but in determining parole’s effectiveness the comparison may have to be between the reoffending rates of those who are paroled and those who are merely released.
Reoffending may be high with parolees, but if 20% of parolees don’t commit crime while on parole, and only 10% of non-paroled, recently released inmates stay straight then parole could be shown to be twice as effective as the alternative at deterence.
I don’t know what the numbers are, but abolishing parole will likely just mean that all the offences committed while on parole will now be committed after release.
January 18th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
“Restore its status as a privilege not a right”
- it *is* a right, it’s part of the right to a fair trial and a fair, proportionate sentence that recognises the circumstances at the time of release *and* the time of putative release
“Board must be satisfied of genuine remorse”
- which results in injustice where someone who sincerely believes they are wrongly convicted cannot be paroled.
“Board must take account of victim feelings, of community expectations of a price to be paid for crime, and of the effect of any release on judicial control of sentencing. The 2002 law prevents the Board from recognising these factors”
- so if I am was jailed for drug dealing, I should get earlier parole if I produce my customers saying that they appreciated my supplying them with drugs and wanted me back? I’d agree with this since I think drug dealing should be legal, but you authoritarians probably wouldn’t.
“No appeals against denial of parole – it is a privilege”
- wrong – that’s like saying no appeals against sentence or conviction
“No legal aid to support parole applications – it is a privilege”
ditto
“Police and Corrections should regain immediate power to return parolees to custody on discovery of any breach of terms;”
- on what evidence? this is summary justice!
“Publication of full and accurate statistics on parole offending.”
They are published. They don’t match your authoritarian agenda, so you ignore and rubbish them.
January 18th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
I believe a large part of the issue comes down to a conflict in jail as a place of punishment vs. a place for prisoner rehabilitation. Generally it seems that people take an either or approach to this where personally I think its time to stop and look at both of these issues collectively at the time of sentencing.
For example of a person committed an assault a Judge might sentence them to 18 months punishment and 6 months rehabilitation with a mandatory anger management course and reintroduction to society program. The 18 months would be totally non negotiable, however the 6 months rehabilitation would vary depending on the persons progress on becoming rehabilitated.
A murderer for example might be sentence to 20 years punishment and life rehabilitation meaning that they may remain imprisoned until it is felt they are truly rehabilitated.
One thing I would remove are concurrent sentences. These seem to have become more favourable in recent years as they assist in relieving the pressure of long term growing prison numbers however they devalue the overall sense of justice.
January 18th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Graham Edgeler has tried to engage the issues, but the drafting of the Parole Act has worked its cunning purpose and deluded even him.
The problem is the stated paramountcy of the sole criterion of “safety of the community”. It is intended to over-ride all other considerations. It looks like a safeguard. Instead it was meant to ensure that the other considerations must be disregarded if the Board can not be satisfied of an excessive risk to the community.
I know, I was on the Select Committee when the Bill went through.
We tried to change words to ensure that legally empty phrases like “the rights of victims” meant something. The law recognises no such rights other than to be notified of the hearing, and in serious cases to make a submission. No one knows what “due regard” to a victim submission should be.
Graham is on even more shaky ground with his claim that judges set sentencing intending the minimum non-parole period to be the actual sentence. If they do, it is unlawful. There is clear law denying judges the right to take that into account.
Indeed, the Bill as introduced eliminated the judges’ power even to specify a non-parole period.
It was grudgingly reinstated after I’d spent weeks in Parliament hounding the Minister. The reinstatement drafting was botched, and the Court of Appeal had to give it meaning not found in the words of the Act.
The current Parole Act was cold-bloodedly designed to take sentencing out of the hands of independent judges acting in open court. Instead sentencing was to move to a committee of patsies holding office at the pleasure of the Minister, but to leave the punters deceived by the severity of sentencing they heard in court, from judges forced to participate in a hollow charade.
January 18th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Graham Edgeler has tried to engage the issues, but the drafting of the Parole Act has worked its cunning purpose and deluded even him.
The problem is the stated paramountcy of the sole criterion of “safety of the community”. It is intended to over-ride all other considerations. It looks like a safeguard. Instead it was meant to ensure that the other considerations must be disregarded if the Board can not be satisfied of an excessive risk to the community.
I know, I was on the Select Committee when the Bill went through.
We tried to change words to ensure that legally empty phrases like “the rights of victims” meant something. The law recognises no such rights other than to be notified of the hearing, and in serious cases to make a submission. No one knows what “due regard” to a victim submission should be.
Graham is on even more shaky ground with his claim that judges set sentencing intending the minimum non-parole period to be the actual sentence. If they do, it is unlawful. There is clear law denying judges the right to take that into account.
Indeed, the Bill as introduced eliminated the judges’ power even to specify a non-parole period.
It was grudgingly reinstated after I’d spent weeks in Parliament hounding the Minister. The reinstatement drafting was botched, and the Court of Appeal had to give it meaning not found in the words of the Act.
The current Parole Act was cold-bloodedly designed to take sentencing out of the hands of independent judges acting in open court. Instead sentencing was to move to a committee of patsies holding office at the pleasure of the Minister, but to leave the punters deceived by the severity of sentencing they heard in court, from judges forced to participate in a hollow charade.
January 18th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Graham Edgeler has tried to engage the issues, but the drafting of the Parole Act has worked its cunning purpose and deluded even him.
The problem is the stated paramountcy of the sole criterion of “safety of the community”. It is intended to over-ride all other considerations. It looks like a safeguard. Instead it was meant to ensure that the other considerations must be disregarded if the Board can not be satisfied of an excessive risk to the community.
I know, I was on the Select Committee when the Bill went through.
We tried to change words to ensure that legally empty phrases like “the rights of victims” meant something. The law recognises no such rights other than to be notified of the hearing, and in serious cases to make a submission. No one knows what “due regard” to a victim submission should be.
Graham is on even more shaky ground with his claim that judges set sentencing intending the minimum non-parole period to be the actual sentence. If they do, it is unlawful. There is clear law denying judges the right to take that in to account.
Indeed, the Bill as introduced eliminated the judges’ power even to specify a non-parole period.
It was grudgingly reinstated after I’d spent weeks in Parliament hounding the Minister. The reinstatement drafting was botched, and the Court of Appeal had to give it meaning not found in the words of the Act.
The current Parole Act was cold-bloodedly designed to take sentencing out of the hands of independent judges acting in open court. Instead sentencing was to move to a committee of patsies holding office at the pleasure of the Minister, but to leave the punters deceived by the severity of sentencing they heard in court, from judges forced to participate in a hollow charade.
January 18th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Graham Edgeler has tried to engage the issues, but the drafting of the Parole Act has worked its cunning purpose and deluded even him.
The problem is the stated paramountcy of the sole criterion of “safety of the community”. It is intended to over-ride all other considerations. It looks like a safeguard. Instead it was meant to ensure that the other considerations must be disregarded if the Board can not be satisfied of an excessive risk to the community.
I know, I was on the Select Committee when the Bill went through.
We tried to change words to ensure that legally empty phrases like “the rights of victims” meant something. The law recognises no such rights other than to be notified of the hearing, and in serious cases to make a submission. No one knows what “due regard” to a victim submission should be.
Graham is on even more shaky ground with his claim that judges set sentencing intending the minimum non-parole period to be the actual sentence. If they do, it is unlawful. There is clear law denying judges the right to take that in to account.
Indeed, the Bill as introduced eliminated the judges’ power even to specify a non-parole period.
It was grudgingly reinstated after I’d spent weeks in Parliament hounding the Minister. The reinstatement drafting was botched, and the Court of Appeal had to give it meaning not found in the words of the Act.
The current Parole Act was cold-bloodedly designed to take sentencing out of the hands of independent judges acting in open court. Instead sentencing was to move to a committee of patsies holding office at the pleasure of the Minister, but to leave the punters deceived by the severity of sentencing they heard in court, from judges forced to participate in a hollow charade.
January 18th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
The Court of Appeal, when setting tarrif sentences, and District and High Court judges, when imposing sentences, are aware that parole exists, and know how it works. The argument that the parole system somehow confounds the intention of judges is fallacious. They know that three years means prison for at least one year, followed by eligibility for parole.
I am not saying that judges decide “I want you to go to prison for one year, so I’ll sentence you to three”, I’m saying that judges think “the appropriate sentence is three years’ imprisonment; such a sentence includes at least one year in prison, and up to two years more to protect the community.” The former would be unlawful, the latter is just common sense.
I certainly think there are arguments about parole eligibility (should it be as low as one-third for anyone? etc.), or longer sentences, but I would certainly prefer truth-in-sentencing like you see on American TV shows – you could leave the system the same and call a three year sentence one to three years’ imprisonment, for example (I’m not saying we should keep the present system, but if we do, a little more honesty/up-frontedness would be nice for all concerned).
Safety of the community is the paramount consideration; I was taking issue with the impication that the board could not presently take into account what victims think. They can and do take this into account. Especially in relation to the paramount issue. If a victim says “I think you should refuse X parole because X needs to be punished more” then it doesn’t really impact the question before the board, however, if the victim says “I think you should refuse X parole because X is not rehabilitated, is a danger to the community, is deceiving, lying about his remorse, and I think he’ll offend again” then that is important to the question before the board.
Stephen – I’d also note that you were on the select committee that considered the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act – and your membership didn’t stop you claiming that that bill made prisoners’ claims easier. It might not have made them as much harder as you wanted, or much harder at all, but it categorically didn’t make them easier.
I’d be very interested in an explanation from anyone, however, how one presently appeals a refusal to grant parole.
January 18th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
I agree with the comments Stephen Franks has made, but I also don’t see the need for a parole board. We are about to have a Sentencing guide Board inflicted upon us courtesy of Geoff Palmer, then we have the Judge telling lies when he sentences the prisoner, then we have the parole board corroborating the lie. Both committees and the system undermine the authority of the Judge leading to the type of disgraceful shambles whereby associates of the accused shout insults and encouragement in what passes for a court of law, and in the process intimidate the victim and any of her family present.. The sentence passed should be the sentenced served with extra added for bad behaviour during the term. If the Parole system is persevered with then at least get rid of the Social worker type makeup of it and replace them with representatives of Victim Support,Sensible Sentencing Trust, The Police who took part in the arrest, and Prison Warden who supervised his incarceration.
January 18th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
As the reoffending rates have proved we are dealing with a state sanctioned version of Russian roulette with the citizerns taking the bullet.
The reoffending rate must be the KPI If its not then what is the measure. And if you cant (or wont) measure then you cant manage.
This is all about dollars. Always follow the money as my old granddad said. Let them out and if they maim or kill then factor that cost against the cost of keeping them inside.
Of course the pollies and the civil servants will never own up to the truth Its all too hard for them.
What we need to set about demanding a reduction in the reoffending rate and if that means keeping more in for longer then tough shit.
Then we need to start on the causes of the problem and stop the hand wringing and mealy mouthed crapola.
Education Education and more education. Of the right sort by the right people to the right people.It aint rocket science and it never was. Its a case of shutting down the gooses who have spent 30 years creating the problem we now face.
Common sense a whole new experience for these people needs to prevail.
January 18th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
What a load of cock and bull – the problem is simple -the department of corrections and the ministry of justice are both just a shambolic, confused, unworkable bureaucratic inertia’s run by incompetent fools .That’s the bloody truth just ask anybody that works within the dysfunctional systems . What a disgrace !!
January 18th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
The system of parole is a fully intergrated part of the sentencing process. It provides for a managed release back into the community. Eventually people do come back into the community. When a Judge sentences a prisoner there is nothing known what happens to a prisoner when he/she is in custody nor any changes in personal circumstances while in prison. At least parole is a process that can fine tune things as a sentence gets served. The logical conclusion from Stephen Franks system is to simply lock people up and never ever release them. Who says setting a long sentence is the whole answer. I just wish Stephen would properly engagage himself in the criminal law process (and he has the opportunity to do so as a lawyer). I am staggered he has not done so. I bet for instance he has never attended a parole hearing, I bet he has never spoken with judge least one that does parole hearings, never done a sentencing. He could do all these things if he wanted to seriously tackle this subject.
January 18th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Tim are you ever capable of reading another persons post and replying to what they actually said without making up some ridiculous exageration of your own ?
January 18th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Fyi Tim B :
I know of a dishonest well paid psychologist who is on the parole board, and in his spare time, he writes bias psychological reports for the feminazi influenced judicial gravy train that destroys paternal families. He is always extremely busy with referrals from lawyers.
This man-helped let out a paedophile in the early release parole scheme .The sicko prisoner was so pleased he got a job in a local school and started his tricky business with the kids.
Oh yes… The twisted psychologist is a well-known liberal leftie employed by the Ministry of Justice, and he help set up the dysfunctional department of child snatchers they call CYFS. He has helped many a man to prison on false domestic violence and sexual abuse allegations. He has a big flash house down town .
His state funded job gives him plenty of scope to practice his loony left social engineering experiment, which is not restricted by any terms of reference.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
d4j – you state he is dishonest, but from your post I cannot tell what it is about his behaviour that is dishonest. He works for the govt, he helped set up CYF, he provides evidence in court cases. I am presuming from your tone that he is telling lies in the court cases, but your description makes it sound like he is giving his opinion – it is reasonably rare for an opinion to be a lie.
January 19th, 2007 at 7:52 am
Sorry for the confusion Paul. Lets just say this psychologist comes to your home and you get to trust his opinion after a few visits on a complex legal case where he states that he has never known such a vindictive and vengeful maternal family in his 30 years of experience in the judicial world.He always calls into your house after attending parole board hearings at the local lock -up which is not far away . Anyway he enjoys a coffee and cake and states he will address the matter fairly in his report for the court, and he assures you that he will keep your chronically ill mother out of any further proceedings. You feel some confidence and a certain amount of relief this man is going to finally sort out the nightmare that has been meandering on for several years and you are desperate for closure.
Then the big lie as you are horrified to learn that he does contact your seriously ill mother, even though you have had an assurance from a judge that your mum would be excluded from any future proceedings. His callous actions prove fatal for her. And you are further heartbroken when you read blatant lies he has written contained in a court report that effectively shuts the door on ever bonding with your estranged children.
If this conduct is typical of the normal behaviour of psycho court report writers and parole board members, then it is my opinion that consummate liars are doing an extremely good job of destroying families under the powerful feminazi regime. It is reasonable for me to say that this lefty nutbar’s unfair /bias opinion is protected by a gender hateful system that never gives a respondent the chance to challenge his blatant and malicious lies. Just the type of cretin you want on a parole board!
January 19th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
“Put it away” I suggest you read my post carefully before making exaggerated comments of your own. I do have enormous respect for Stephen Franks enormous respect and I hope my tart comments have not detracted from that. But I do feel in the criminal justice area Stephen is batting well off field. He does not seem to appreciate due process, and human rights. That arbitrary systems that claim to be adminstering a privilege are open for corruption and unfairness and uncertainty.
January 19th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
DPF, most of your suggestions are good ones but having been on the wrong end of the “justice” system several times, I’m wary of anything that might detract from an innocent person’s ability to prove that innocence (and yes, innocent people do get found guilty, and thus sentenced and then considered for parole, just as the guilty sometimes go free).
So, while I agree the Board ought to take account of “community expectations” it would be hoped that it would be somehow immunised from the hysteria that’s fed by some sections of the media.
But most importantly, I disagree strongly that applications for parole, and appeals against denial of parole, not be eligible for Legal Aid.
Other than in rare instances most prisoners will have no income and negligible, if any, assets. So how are they to seek parole? Are prisoners’ families – themselves victims, whether of a miscarriage of justice or of the prisoner’s offending – to be asked to pay?
I’ve been the victim of crimes ranging from burglary to serious assault. But I’d also rather pay taxes to support the right of every prisoner to seek parole (with the important proviso that the system work properly, which I agree it is not) than see one innocent man or woman incarecerated for even longer.