Opposition calls for Parole Board to be independent

Opposition spokesman on justice José Herrera has called on the government to consider that the Parole Board would be an independent entity and not seen as part of the Home Affairs Ministry.

The government had to be careful when intervening in the courts’ work, but if it were cautious, the government could address certain situations.

The Bill was long overdue and it was time to introduce parole in Malta. A couple of years ago he himself and Parliamentary Secretary Jason Azzopardi had deeply analysed this issue and were going to present a Private Member’s Bill on the subject, but this did not materialise.

Although he agreed with the Bill, this was not being discussed at the best of times. During the past months there had been an increase in crimes and many people were expecting the government to take the necessary measures to act as a deterrent.

Dr Herrera said there was the wrong perception that parole was being introduced to help criminals. The aim of the Bill was to aid citizens in general. Statistics showed that criminals granted parole had a smaller chance of relapsing. This was because prisoners on parole were offered the help of a parole officer who helped them find a job and rehabilitate themselves.

This would benefit society as a whole because a large number of prisoners were convicted for relapsing. Both the opposition and the government agreed that the main aim of a sentence was reform.

Back in 1958, the then Labour government had taken the lead and started introducing new types of sentences. The PN had shown its agreement and voted in favour of the Bill. This had led to the introduction of suspended sentences and other more humane and reformative judgments which offered a balance between the rights of victims and those of offenders.

Malta had one of the best legal systems in the world.

As the name indicated, the Corradino Correctional Facility aimed to reform prisoners. The Bill was proposing the introduction of a board which would record points for prisoners who were reforming themselves. But he believed there was still a lot that could be done with regard to the issue of reform.

With regard to minors, he did not agree that persons under 16 should be mixed with adult prisoners who were much more experienced in crime. Minors were more receptive to reform.

He remarked that, with regard to the Offender Assessment Board, the Bill did not mention the qualifications needed for one to form part of this board. Parole would be more of an administrative than a judiciary assessment.

The granting of parole was being administered under a two-tier system. Dr Herrera said he preferred having one board which made its assessment and gave its advice on whether parole should be granted.

He proposed that the Bill include a clause specifying that the Parole Board was to function independently from the executive, because at present this was lacking in the Bill.

The government and opposition members had met already on the Bill and had agreed on its technicalities.

Dr Herrera spoke on recommendations by the Parole Board to the President of the Republic for granting pardon. Whenever he was petitioned to grant a pardon, the President ought to give reasons justifying the grant or refusal of the pardon.

He spoke on offenders who were not eligible for parole. These included persons serving a life sentence. These offenders had to be given the chance to reform and to show respect to the laws and citizens of Malta. If they underwent programmes of restorative justice and convinced the Parole Board that there was a good chance for their reintegration into society, the board could recommend the granting of a pardon to the President.

One good aspect of the Bill was that granting a reduction of the prison sentence by one third was no longer automatic. Offenders had to undergo a reformative process and convince the remissions board that they deserved such a reduction in their prison sentence.

He also spoke on the conversion of fines into imprisonment and called for the introduction of ceilings on such fines.

The debate continues.