Whatever Happened to Parole?

I see that NAPO have decided to highlight the issue of the automatic release of prisoners at the half way stage in their sentence, irrespective of any concerns about the risk they may pose. As a consequence, greater numbers are now having to be recalled within days of release. The full briefing document can be accessed from the NAPO page and it gives 'chapter and verse' on some very disturbing cases indeed. 

Of course the situation used to be very different before the introduction of that part of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 relating to the release of prisoners. On 4th April 2005, for offences committed after this date, all determinate prisoners became eligible for release at the half way point automatically. This very helpful article in the prisoners newspaper 'Inside Time' explains what the position was for offences committed prior to this date:



"The Criminal Justice Act 1991 provided that any person serving a sentence of four years or more would be deemed a ‘long term’ prisoner. Under these provisions a prisoner would serve half of his designated period in custody and would then become eligible to apply for early release on parole licence. If he were successful in that application he would remain on licence to the three quarter point of his sentence when his licence would expire. The final quarter of his sentence would be the ‘at risk’ period – a period that would only take effect if the prisoner were convicted of another offence."

As all probation officers at the time knew, this aspect of the 1991 Act was not only extremely useful in motivating prisoners to 'behave' during their sentence, it was also an inducement to participate constructively in courses and programmes designed to alter or improve their thinking and attitudes. The parole application process was taken very seriously by all concerned and necessitated full reports being prepared by probation, psychology and programme staff, to name but a few. The resulting parole dossier would duly be sent off for consideration by the Parole Board, along with the report prepared by the 'independent'. This refers to a personal visit and interview by an independent member of the Parole Board (ie not a member of the Reviewing Panel) in each case.

This system was well understood, worked well and if early release on Parole Licence was granted, considerably more licence conditions could be attached than is possible under the present system. So if it worked so well, why was it changed I hear you ask? The answer of course was connected to cost and the urgent need to reduce the bulging prison population at the time. I think something was said about the need for 'simplification' as a smokescreen and justification, but it yet again serves as a classic example of the perils of allowing politicians to meddle with the Criminal Justice System.

Undoubtedly we are now experiencing what the then Labour government would say was an unexpected consequence and what we would say was utterly predictable, but sadly there is no sign that the present government will admit there is any problem at all. The attempt at sponsoring a Private Members Bill in Parliament will get nowhere of course, but it will serve to get the subject on the agenda as we move towards an environment of privatisation. Should put the wind up prospective bidders I would have thought.