Releasing Lifers

It looks as if Sir David Latham, the chairman of the Parole Board, has decided to start the New Year by kicking off a debate about lifers and if the right ones are being released. In this interview with the BBC he raises the issue of accurate re-offending statistics for this group and whether they are 'robust' enough. Basically he seems to be accusing the Ministry of Justice of not knowing exactly how many released lifers go on to commit serious further offences. I'm really surprised by this and wonder if some sort of silly game is going on here? Is this a response to internal criticism from the MoJ about their poor performance in releasing prisoners?

In the scheme of things the numbers can't be that large and the information is all there. As every PO knows only too well, any offences committed by someone on Life Licence is the subject of lengthy reports to the Parole Board. Is this what he means by 'anecdotal' information? Surely someone can just count the reports up and prepare a spreadsheet? Anyway, he goes on to justify this query over statistics by saying that the Parole Board might be releasing the wrong people. I must say I have difficulty with that particular piece of logic, especially the implication that the Board might make different decisions if based on more accurate re-offending data. Surely you concentrate on each individual case, or am I missing something?

What is clear and I have mentioned this before, is that the number of lifers in the system is enormous and the Parole Board are releasing at a slower than ever rate. Sir David makes mention of the danger in Board members becoming even more 'risk-averse' and open to influence by adverse public comment, for example in relation to high profile cases such as Jon Venables. But I think there are other issues involved that are making life difficult for the Board. I really hate to be repetitive but it really does boil down to OASys. The problem is that Parole Board panel members, especially those that are ex SPO's, have been completely blinded by the supposed scientific basis of this magic system that in theory is able to assess risk. In contrast I have written extensively about its many failings that can be basically summed up by that old phrase from the dawn of the computer age 'Rubbish in, rubbish out'.

Unfortunately at the very time the Parole Board have succumbed to the hype from NOMS about the effectiveness of OASys, they have been mostly robbed of the invaluable input of experienced probation officers through retirement and changes in working patterns. PO's used to keep the same lifers for years and this was regarded as excellent practice. Typically a 'pair' was assigned as well to ensure continuity, but sadly none of this happens anymore. As a consequence the quality of knowledge, assessments and crucially recommendations to the Board has deteriorated. Added to this, the vital contribution of an Independent Report from a Panel member who used to visit and interview each lifer was stopped for cost reasons.

When all this is taken into account, I think you can begin to see why Panel members must seem like frightened rabbits staring at the headlights when faced with extraordinary decisions about releasing people. They simply don't feel confident in the information they are getting and as a result endlessly defer decisions. The situation is so bad in relation to IPP prisoners that the recent Green Paper has indicated that the Parole Board will have to apply a new test of 'dangerousness', a lower threshold than at present when considering this group for release. I think that says to me that OASys just might be sidelined for IPP cases. Well it's a start I suppose.