The reduction of up to a third of a prison sentence for good conduct would stop being an automatic right but would be pegged to conditions and targets for each inmate, a spokesman for the Justice Ministry said.
He said that according to the Restorative Justice Act, which is due for its third reading in Parliament, every inmate admitted to prison would be examined by an Offender Assessment Board.
The board will chart a tailor-made programme of work that can include studying, work or any activity felt to be beneficial to the inmate and this will then be used as part of the assessment undertaken by one of two boards, which will decide on applications filed by prisoners who choose between parole and remission. The new Parole Board and the Remissions Board, chaired by the prisons director, will decide on the applications.
The Remission Board would be responsible for deciding on the award or forfeiture of remission, the ministry spokesman ex-plained. However, decisions by this board can also be pegged to behaviour outside the prison walls.
If an offender opts for remission after serving two-thirds of his prison sentence, the inmate would be assessed and, in granting remission, the board may impose certain conditions, which, if broken, would result in re-incarceration for the remaining period of the original sentence.
He said the proposed changes to the remission system would mean that it would no longer be an automatic right.
This point was raised by the Labour Party’s security spokes-man, Michael Falzon, who insisted on Wednesday that remission should not be an automatic right and that the present system should be reviewed.
As operated at present, the remission system almost automatically translates a year in jail into nine months.
The system came under the spotlight last week when Labour leader Joseph Muscat questioned how convicted double murderer Charles Muscat, known as Il-Pips, benefitted from remission for good behaviour despite testing positive for drugs and awaiting trial for allegedly being one of the masterminds of a plan to import a large haul of drugs while in prison.
The Justice Ministry said the opposition needed to decide on its position on remission and quoted PL deputy leader Anġlu Farrugia as saying in Parliament the opposition wanted remission to remain automatic. He had argued that prisoners should be brought before the board only if they broke regulations.
But when contacted, Dr Farrugia said that what he and Dr Falzon were saying was identical because he had said that remission should be granted to every prisoner but not if they breached prison regulations.
Dr Farrugia also agreed that remission should not be available for prisoners serving a life sentence.
Sandra Scicluna, a senior lecturer at the University’s Institute of Criminology, also believes in a revamp of the present remission system, insisting on the importance of this returning to what it was before: a reward system.
She said years ago inmates were assessed once a month and during this review it was decided whether the 10 days remission they could earn were to be granted. This assessment was based on their performance in prison and what they would have achieved rather than simply their good behaviour.
As time went by, “without a conscious decision”, the system became automatic whereby any prisoners who goes to prison for three years knows he will only serve two of them.
“Most of the time, people behave well in prison. Any decision to reduce a number of days in someone’s prison sentence has to be backed by reports. A person’s liberty is the most important thing, so you have to be careful when dealing with this,” she said, adding that “there should be a system whereby someone meets the prisoners”.
Referring to the introduction of parole once this passes through Parliament, Dr Scicluna said parole and remission should both remain as one did not exclude the other.
She believes that any changes to the present remission system should be done gradually.