Parole: Do criminals deserve a second chance?
Video: Paul Spiteri Lucas
Can victims of crime live with seeing the perpetrators released early on parole? Should inmates be given a second chance to reintegrate into society? Parole is one of the 44 proposals just published by the government-appointed Restorative Justice Task Force. Waylon Johnston took to the streets to gauge people's reactions.
Lawyer Edward Gatt, 38, said he was against the concept of parole because, at present, rehabilitation in prison was inadequate and relapsers kept showing up in court.
Pensioner George Cassar, 77, felt only prisoners who committed a crime, reformed and managed to stay out of trouble should be given a chance. Repeat offenders should remain locked up: "I would throw away the keys."
Student Renè Cilia, 24, agreed with the idea of parole and said everyone, including murderers, should be given a second chance. It was only fair society showed some trust in them. "If society does not take the initiative, then who will?"
Housewife Josette Xuereb, 62, said prisoners should serve their full term, pointing out that the victims of crime suffered all their lives. "Not even one day should be reduced from their term and, besides a jail term, they should also do community work."
Teacher Giselle Fiorini, 25, said she did not agree with parole as the person who had committed a crime should pay for what he had done. "He should do his time."
Pensioner Indri Sammut, 64, also said prisoners, even murderers, should be given a second chance. "After all, in the world everyone can make mistakes."
Civil servant Vince Tabone, 61, pointed out that everyone made mistakes in life but the most important was that prisoners followed a rehabilitation programme. "They should be forgiven."
Chauffeur Jane Camilleri, 50, does not completely agree with the concept because if prisoners obeyed and reformed then they should be given a chance. However, the people who really deserve to be punished should pay for what they have done.
PAROLE IS NOT THE GOLDEN SOLUTION
Parole is an important improvement to the penal system but it would only be a success if backed up by specialised professionals, a criminologist has warned.
Each person on parole would require a parole officer but also a full supporting team of professionals in different fields, said criminologist Saviour Formosa, from the University's Institute of Criminology.
However, he welcomed the proposal saying it was "definitely" an enhancement to the system in place where sentenced persons were not monitored once they left the prison.
"The current system allows offenders to leave prison early, having been awarded remission points, thus cutting the sentence time considerably. Parole will, however, serve as a tool where that person is monitored for a period of time once outside to ensure rehabilitation takes a step forward," Dr Formosa said.
The proposed team of professionals had to ensure the convict did not "fall out of the system" and returned to a life of crime, he said, insisting that letting someone off early without professional backup would only make the system "fail itself and society".
A task force set up by the Home Affairs Ministry last week published a report proposing the introduction of parole among other suggestions for prison reform.
Under the proposals, convicts would be eligible to apply with the Parole Board for early release from prison. Parole could be granted on certain conditions. The report also made it clear that parole was not a right but a concession and the offender granted early release would have to be monitored by an officer and other professional people, such as psychologists, social workers and educationalists.
The proposals were welcomed by the Parliamentary Secretary for Revenues and Land, Jason Azzopardi, who in the previous legislature had jointly campaigned with Labour MP Josè Herrera for the introduction of parole. Describing parole as a "historical step" in the evolution of the justice system, Dr Azzopardi said it had been implemented successfully in various countries.
"It was introduced more than 150 years ago and is statistically proven to help decrease recidivism and criminality. Since parole is a concession and not a right, it is up to the individual prisoner to show he deserves such a chance," he said.
Dr Formosa insisted parole on its own was not the "golden solution" to cut crime and had to be integrated with a number of disciplines.
It was important for prisoners on parole, he said, to have enhanced social cohesion so that contact with family and friends brought about a positive influence, not a negative one.
"These persons should have access to education, work and other lifelong opportunities. Parole will only work if the system is fully integrated with other initiatives," Dr Formosa said.
Another issue raised by the task force was the introduction of an electronic tagging system for people on parole and others still waiting to be sentenced.
"Tagging should be one of the prerequisites for parole because these persons would technically still be serving a sentence. One must ensure society feels safe," Dr Formosa said, pointing out that parole was more stressful on the offender.
Parole coupled with electronic tagging, he insisted, was equivalent to "freedom within incarceration" but it ensured an offender could pay back society on the "outside rather than within the prison walls".
Dr Azzopardi also saw the benefit of parole for victims of crime: "A prisoner's request to be considered eligible for parole will have to depend, among many other issues, on whether he has repented for his actions and on whether he has compensated the victim of his crime."
Dr Herrera preferred not to comment on the report because the Labour Party parliamentary group had not yet taken a common position.
"Given that I am the shadow spokesman for justice I do not want to condition the debate but I am analysing the recommendations and preparing a report to be discussed by the parliamentary group. At this stage I prefer to reserve my opinion," he said, insisting the report had positive aspects and others that had to change.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
37 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
M. Galea
Sep 9th 2009, 13:09
I think that prior to introducing something like Parole we should review and update our penal system and relative laws.
The law in Malta is a joke. Pathetic at best. Heinous crimes have been committed and the perpetrator gets 10 years. Then you get someone caught smoking a joint and they make a whole issue about it, which in proportion sometimes equates to the same as having murdered someone, ruining their conduct record.
And then we want to introduce parole? No, people should be punished for their 'sins', irrespective if they have shown good behaviour in jail. Shouldn't the victims' families and relatives be given some degree of peace of mind???
CHarles Bianco
Sep 9th 2009, 12:14
Let him whi is not a sinner cast the first stone!!
Anybody who has not walked out of an office with somebody else's pen, or has not spoken up when injustice was done should think twice before condemning sinners of the law!!
Louis Gatt
Sep 9th 2009, 07:22
I agree perfectly well with the views expressed by Dr. E. Gatt. Parole is not an option for criminals. Our Courts of Justice have been known for too much leniency already and parole would certainly make matters worse. Punishment should indeed reflect the grievance of the crime, fair and square; no more no less! Parole would simple encourage criminals to persist in their 'business' and expose law abiding citizens to constant danger.
Joe Fenech
Sep 8th 2009, 21:57
NO WAY SHOULD ANYONE GIVE THEM PAROLE : I suggest that for relapsing criminals, paedophiles and murderers we should introduce the death penalty.
Joe Fenech
Sep 8th 2009, 21:55
Who needs parole when you can get a suspended sentence?!
edward bartolo
Sep 8th 2009, 19:43
Murdered victims cannot return from their graves. Why should murderers be given a second chance if the consequence of their actions is so serious?!
The law abiding citizens have the right to be protected from murder? Let us preserve that protection.
frans H Said
Sep 8th 2009, 19:13
Isn't there the remission for good conduct in prison (one third of the sentence). How will parole affect this. What is the minimum term (percentage) to be locked up? Will the culprit help in any way towards the victims? Will the culprit do any community work?
Perhaps there should be a half-way house, a minimum security prison, but I feel that outright release from prison might aggrevate matters. Will the prisoner be able to earn his keep? Will drug addicts give up their dependance. It is easy to pontificate but what are the repercussions?
c. camilleri
Sep 8th 2009, 19:08
Your question is: ' Do criminals deserve a second chance? Do those who agree mean yes to another chance to commit another crime?
Alexander Azzopardi
Sep 8th 2009, 19:05
il vitma anda tieni cans ??
il familji tal vitmi andom it tiieni cans ???
Rose Agius
Sep 8th 2009, 18:47
If the crime was a murder especially one done in cold blood I would not grant parole...the victim never stood a second chance and the family suffer their entire life...."Act in haste and repent at leisure"....if the crime was not pre-meditated and of course was not a murder, then yes I would grant parole.
T.gauci
Sep 8th 2009, 14:26
Parole for pedophiles and murderers ? one word: insanity
vincent magro
Sep 8th 2009, 13:40
Nahseb li fid-dinja kulhadd ghandu jkollu t-tieni cans, inkluz il-habsin. Izda fil-fehema tieghi il-mistoqsija qeda mpoggija fuq pjattaforma zbaljata b'mod li tizvija lil dak li jkun, ghax tassumi hwejjeg li fil-verita mhumiex hekk. Hawn xi hadd li jemmen li min qieghed il-habs ma kellux diga t-tieni cans? u t-tielet cans? Mela l-liberta kundizzjonata x'hini? U min skonta s-sentenza fil-habs u meta hareg irriforma ruhu dak x'nghidulu? Mhux li kellu cans iehor? L-idea li biex wiehed ikollu t-tieni cans irridu bilfors indahhlu l-Parole, hi zbaljata, ghax fir-realta mhuwiex hekk. U aghar minn hekk, il Parole qeda tigi prezentata ma proposti ohra li huma tajbin hafna u li kollha jistghu jitwettqu indipendentament minn jekk indahhlux il-parole jew le. Jien meta niehu loan mill Bank biex nixtri dari u kull xhar inhallas kemm suppost, qatt ma jghiduli "ara, talli int hallast dejjem kull xahar, se naqqtqwlek nofs is-somma li kellek taghti" imma l-procedura tahdem bil-maqlub, coe li jekk ma nhallasx li ghandi naghti, nehel penali ohra. Min jemmen li l- Parole hi xi haga tajba, jista jmexxiha l-quddiem anke wehidha, u m'ghandux ghalfejn jorbotha ma hwejjeg ohra li diga suppost li qieghdin hemm.
Jon Agius
Sep 8th 2009, 13:20
maybe the reason behind the "giving a second chance" is due to the lack of space in prison
C.Zarb
Sep 8th 2009, 13:06
@ Mr Micallef.
I don't know why you're mentioning Christianity here expecially since it says that anyone persisting in living in sin (for example two gays having a sexual relationship ) will end up rotting in hell for eternity. None of us is suggesting such cruelty.
What we are suggesting is that once a criminal is proved guilty then he should stay in prison for his entire sentence. Our country is already renowned for its record of suspended sentences. The last thing that we need is making our Judicatory system a bigger joke than they are.
joseph zammit
Sep 8th 2009, 12:52
But why do people bring christianity, God, Jesus into all this? In Malta we need to update our penal system and laws, to be harsher and more just.
To all those hard-headed fundamentalists with christian blindfolds, you better start asking for parole for those who are eternally punished in hell, and who sends them??
joseph zammit
Sep 8th 2009, 12:40
@Vince Tonna
I agree! We must first correct and update our penal system--and there is a lot!!!
M. Zammit
Sep 8th 2009, 12:24
Definetly no to parole and leniency with criminals. What we should be discussing is how the criminal should be made to compensate the victim. We should be discussing harsher sentences to make one think that crime does NOT pay!
Criminals should be made to work and their income given to the victims or their family in case of murder or manslaughter. In the case of persistent criminals what we should do is throw away the key! Otherwise certains sectors of society might see crime as a means to an end.
We must build our justice system on just that. JUSTICE or have we forgotten what it means to be just?
Paul micallef
Sep 8th 2009, 12:24
To all.
Jesus once said, may he be without sin cast the first stone.
Come on, we all have kids, cousins, brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, and so on, you get the picture.
I will not comment on what people said in this blog, but do you know how easy it is to commit a crime, in the eyes of the law?? Example, too the mothers,, if some one touches your kids, what do you say? Someone rapes your daughter?? Some one robs you?? And so on, they are all crimes, and according to the law we must not take matters in our own hands. So yes I do agree that a second chance be given,, are we not CHRISTIANS ??
But I must agree with you on one matter, IF YOU DO THE CRIME YOU MUST DO THE TIME.
Paul Micallef
martin saliba
Sep 8th 2009, 12:21
First of all I belive there is " A GOD " but i dont consider myself to be catholic or religious . To all you christians that think that they are holier than the pope i say to you one word , Barrabas. I hope i spelt i right.
C.ZARB
Sep 8th 2009, 12:18
The law should be simple. Crime doesn't pay. If someone doesn't want to end up 25 years in prison then he should not kill in the first place. If after 10 years he is out then it would be better for the victim's relatives to take justice in their hands rather then rely on court.
On the other hand we should build structures where a prisoner can find work and build a future once his time in prison is over. In that way we are giving a true second chance to these people.
J.Debono
Sep 8th 2009, 12:14
I do agree with the concept, but to a certain extent. One has to be very careful as to whom and in what cases parole is given.
Ronnie Gauci
Sep 8th 2009, 11:58
Why all this fuss about rehabilitation? Criminals must be punished and not rehabilitated. If they want to rehabiltate themselves the programmes must start after the punishment ends, that is from day one of their release from prison.
I am totally against parole, our system is already very generous with criminals, first of all we rarely hear about a conviction and now when they do make some time we want to send them home thanks to the parole?? No wonder we ended up living in a jungle where discipline is inexistent.
g. scerri
Sep 8th 2009, 11:43
There is a huge difference between justice and revenge. However understandable the latter may be in certain circumstances, one must not allow hate to destroy his life. Parole can work but as people have said, it all depends on how well it is introduced. It needs to be securely underpinned and I for one, believe that professionals with the required experience are thin on the ground. As for statistics, these are meaningless. Should a prisoner convicted of serious crimes like paedophilia, rape and murder be given parole and then reoffend, it would mean the death of the system. In a small country like ours, the first serious lapse in the system will be its last.
john muscat
Sep 8th 2009, 11:41
Before justifying parole it would be a great asset to put ourselves in the shoes of the victims of crimes, particularly grevious crimes. How can some people suggest that evfen murderers be given a second chances, that's incredible. Murders and Drug Traffickers should be totally excluded form being eligibile to parolse. The reason is plain and simple. Murder victims don't have and will not have a second chance and drug traffickers are ruining our society. Let them rot in prison and in in hell.
M.Bezzina
Sep 8th 2009, 11:35
@Lawrence Bonello
I happen to work with convicted prisoners and I must say that I have very rarely seen arrogance from them. Perhaps it is because I treat THEM with respect.
Respect breeds respect and arrogance breeds arrogance!!
Ask the SRTs, Drs and nurses and they will tell you!!
Not the 1st time they will tell you ''I want a dr now'' if you dont call a dr I scratch myself!! Many of these people treat them with respect and everytime a dr was needed every time he came .I spoke many times with staff working at CCF ...So why do prisoners scratch themselves? If you work at CCF you know what I am saying!!
Robert Mifsud
Sep 8th 2009, 11:25
Second chance? For killing some one? No way! It is not even discussable.
alex grech
Sep 8th 2009, 11:21
I do not agree on the parole system to certain known "offenders". As we stand today, there are even minor "offenders" who get supended jail sentence and yet we get to hear they have commited other crimes again and again, is this not enough proof that the parole system does not work? i think we should find a system where offenders do comunity work for free and i can assure you there is plenty to be done.
A. Mizzi
Sep 8th 2009, 11:18
No No and No. Their victims do not have a second chance.
We have enough relapsers and on probation with suspended sentences whop just never learn.
NO. Society should be guarded from criminals. It is enough that only a few are brought to justice and quite a lot of robberies and other criminal acts remain unsolved.
Giving parole is an added incentive to increase crime, and please do not give me statistics on parole, my immediate family members are victims of crime and never , never recover or forget the terrible experience of going through a holdup or returning home to find it ransacked with precious and sentimental items lost for ever without the hope of ever being replaced or found.
Vince Tonna
Sep 8th 2009, 11:17
Issa nistennew l-opinjoni tal-Partit Laburista fuq il-"Parole". Hemm bzonn li ma nistennewx is-snin sakemm niehdu decizjoni fuq il-'parole'. Ilna aktar minn 10 snin nitkellmu fuq dan is-suggett. Staqsu lil Onor Tonio Borg!! L-opinjoni tieghi li esprimejta f'laqgha dwar din ir-riforma kienet li qabel ma nintroducu l-'parole' nitroducu f'pajjizna is-"Sentencing Guidelines" biex il-Magistrati u l-Imhallfin jibdew jiddeliberaw sentenzi gusti skond il-gravita' tal-kaz li jkun. Ejjew nahsbu aktar minn xiex qed jghaddu l-vittmi ta' reati serji li jitwettqu minn kriminali bla kuxjenza.
Joanne Micallef
Sep 8th 2009, 11:07
From what Dr Formosa stated re parole officers for all those on parole and the fact that parole will only work if the system is fully integrated with other initiatives, it is very clear that we're still light years behind. So until we have ALL the resources required, parole should be ruled out.
s pace
Sep 8th 2009, 11:00
A second chance perhaps, but no third or fourth or fifth. And only for non-murder related crime. Most people are getting it all wrong about this. Sometimes there is nothing to rehabilitate with murderers.
They just get rid of who they want, spent sometime in prison, and get out after sometime with mission achieved. No way. Is that what they want? A life is invaluable, and a life taken should be punished by long years, not a mere 15 years. That is, if this administration respects life.
Our penal system is becoming lenient again, with no sense of punishment or deterrence. Dont continue to be a disservice to society. The only benefit of the doubt should be on the good side. You cannot make some mistakes, No.
A surge in crime after parole would spell disaster for the minister introducing it. It would mean a failure.
Jon Agius
Sep 8th 2009, 10:58
I'd give them their full sentences out in countries like Brazil, Albania, Africa to help poor people or people with causes.
Michael Neville Cassar
Sep 8th 2009, 10:57
Criminals who were on parole murdered again, and law enforcement officers took time and tax payers money to close them back behind bars. Now you will be experimenting with innocent lives to see if they can rehabilitate. It is easy for those who are not victims of crime to come up with ideas as such, well I am one that favours the death penalty and I believe that the only way that people are safe is to eliminate the cause once and for all.
Alexander Azzopardi
Sep 8th 2009, 10:53
No second chance .
No sorry .
Lawrence Bonello
Sep 8th 2009, 10:53
@M.Bezzina
I happen to work with convicted prisoners and I must say that I have very rarely seen arrogance from them. Perhaps it is because I treat THEM with respect.
Respect breeds respect and arrogance breeds arrogance!!
charmaine mangion
Sep 8th 2009, 10:50
tell it to the victim's families if they can have a 2nd chance with their beloved murdered son, brother or friend. no , not everyone can do mistakes and given a 2nd chance, a person has to stop think and then react. if not everyone can go around killing, stealing and do whatever they want.
M.Bezzina
Sep 8th 2009, 10:37
No I am sorry no 2nd chance is deserved.You have to work with them to see what the human rights have done to them!I cannot elaborate more but the arrogance towards all the staff working with them is incredible!!For them they want the whole cake not part of it!!