Does it pay to parole?

"Conditional release is one of the most effective and constructive means of preventing re-offending and promoting resettlement" - Council of Europe, Recommendation (2003) 22.

Should Malta introduce what has been in place for more than 150 years in several countries with deep-seated, well established and well respected judicial and legal traditions, like the USA and many European states, like the UK?

Parole is a conditional early release from incarceration by a professional, independent parole board. In the USA it was introduced in 1880 where a New York Reformatory came up with a system allowing points to be obtained on residents' merit. In this way, juvenile delinquents won back their release while modifying their behaviour and rendering it socially acceptable.

As early as the 18th century early release for prisoners was introduced in the UK. In 1853 the ticket of leave for good conduct was replaced by release on licence. By the year 1891 it was possible for male inmates to be released on licence for a maximum period of one-quarter of the sentence and females could be released on licence after one-third of the sentence. Reflecting the passage of time and backed by statistical data, radical changes continued to be made to the parole system along the years in the UK (as recently as in the 2003, the UK Criminal Justice Act).

As with probation, parole was incepted with the aim of rehabilitating offenders and reintegrating them into society. Parole is neither mercy nor a pardon. It is definitely not a mitigation of punishment, but is a continuation of the offender's penalty under different levels of supervision. The punishment is over only when the original sentence has been served. Parole is earned by the inmate and is granted at the discretion of a parole board that imposes severe conditions and restrictions on the parolee. Inmates have no constitutional right or guarantee to be paroled.

Historically, parole has shown to be a useful reintegration device and motivates inmates to comply with prison rules. More importantly for society is the scientifically proven downward effect on recidivism due to the strict supervision implemented.

Parole boards establish their own models, provided they are permitted by law, and have criteria that regulate each and every parole decision. These standards include the inmate's attitude toward the victim, family members and authority in general, the nature and circumstances of inmate offences, the inmate's prior record, participation or otherwise by the inmate in vocational-educational programmes while incarcerated, the inmate's employment history and the inmate's insight into the causes of his or her own criminal behaviour in the past.

It might be interesting to point out that following the June 1919 riots, Malta had a new Commissioner of Police and Director of Prisons, Lt Col Henry Bamford, who oversaw a radical reform of the then existing prisons, including introducing release on licence while, simultaneously, imposing conditions and/or limitations on the inmates' liberty.

Between 1919 and 1922, no fewer than 22 inmates earned such conditional release. None of them breached any of the conditions imposed. However, by 1928, the system was abandoned by Lt Col Bamford's successor.

While in Malta, the absolute majority of inmates benefit from a four-month annual remission from their incarceration for good behaviour, there is no structure to monitor and supervise inmates after serving time. Society will be much better off if it can oversee the reintegration of those that earn parole.

In Malta today, close to 61 per cent of inmates relapse after serving time. Such a high rate of recidivists, and, thus, of repeat offenders, should at least show the need for a new approach in making former inmates become better citizens. It is, after all, in society's interest and, in particular, that of crime victims, that former convicts do not relapse.

It is today statistically proven that community sentences benefit society more than imprisonment because they reduce crime.

Most certainly, legislation will be needed to provide strict guidelines for parole standards of practice. These guidelines, for instance, can show which offences a priori preclude the application of parole and the minimum jail term that enables eligibility or otherwise for parole. They should, in my opinion, also oblige offenders to financially compensate crime victims.

If effectively structured, rigorously monitored and judiciously applied, parole can provide the missing link in our justice system. Less recidivists means a lower crime rate.

Dr Azzopardi MP (PN) is chairman of the House Foreign and European Affairs Committee.

jason.azzopardi@gov.mt