Only six out of 204 applications for a presidential pardon during the past 26 months were granted, opposition spokesman for justice Josè Herrera told Parliament yesterday.
Continuing his evaluation of the Restorative Justice Bill, Dr Herrera said that four presidential pardons out of 138 applications were granted in 2009, two out of 59 last year and none (out of seven applications) in the first seven weeks of this year. He claimed that the falling number of applications showed that prisoners were losing trust in this practice. Many cases could be easily eligible for presidential pardon.
Dr Herrera said he was in favour of the provisions allowing those under 16 years and prisoners who were terminally ill to be eligible for parole earlier than other adult prisoners. He believes the prisons were no place for these.
He said Clause 12 of the Bill should be re-worded because its wording could well give the impression that it was providing a positive discrimination to multiple offenders. The clause says that whenever a person, who had previously served a prison sentence and had been granted parole or remission, was convicted of a further offence committed before to his having served the previous sentence, and was certified to be presently free of any dependencies, that person should immediately be considered for parole upon the commencement of the subsequent prison sentence.
The victim support unit had all the resources to respond to the victim’s moral and psychological needs. It would also help the victims in tracking down the identity of the offender to claim damages from him. Mediation would also help victims overcome their trauma. Moreover, a register including all the names of victims would be introduced, which would also contain the relevant dates of the particular crime.
Dr Herrera said that, in future, he wanted to see the creation of a victims’ fund, similar to the insurance fund which helps victims of car accidents caused by non- insured drivers.
Concluding, he said the Bill’s main aim was to help the victim and restore the damage caused to society. The courts had all they needed to be strict and to provide sense of security.
Michael Falzon (PL) said that the Bill did not only address parole but also other aspects such as the concept of restorative justice, conciliation, and mediation.
The Bill was not moved in the House at the right time because the country had just witnessed a rise in crime also with violence and allegations of sex abuse, cruelty and lack of basic needs in the corrective facility had been made. These events and allegations surely ran contrary to the reform envisaged in the Bill.
Dr Falzon said that one would be wrong in thinking that the parole system would solve the problem of overcrowding in the corrective facility. The parole system should not be introduced for this reason. It should be granted if the offender showed that he really wanted to undergo reformation and also that restorative justice would be achieved. A balance should be struck between the interest of the offender and the victim before granting parole.
The reformation programmes should be drafted in such a way as to change the offender’s way of life.
He said that the clauses on the appointment of members on the Offenders Assessment Board ought to be reworded in a better way. He showed concern on the legal provision whereby offenders already granted parole would benefit from parole automatically on other pending cases. He said that one should be cautious not to give the wrong message to society.
One had to ensure that mediation benefitted the offender, the victim and also society at large.
Dr Falzon called for the necessary framework and structures to make a success of this legislation. He asked whether parole officers had already been appointed or whether probation officers were to perform this duty. He remarked that probation officers were already overloaded with a lot of work. It was important to have the necessary structures for the system to function efficiently.