Parole System in Crime and Criminal Justice - Essay Example

Parole Parole Criminal justice system is made up of s and practices that seek to sanction individuals who violate laws through rehabilitation efforts and criminal penalties, as well as maintaining social control by putting in place measures that deter and mitigate crime. Over the years, incarceration has been considered as the most appropriate way of sanctioning individuals who violate laws and rehabilitating the same individuals. Also, incarceration has been viewed as the best way of keeping those who are threat to public safety and social order away from others. However, there has been a consensus among the players within the criminal justice system that incarceration is not the most appropriate measure to all offenders. It is in the light of this consensus that parole and probation systems were developed in order to provide alternative and appropriate ways of addressing specific types of offenders (Welsh and Harris, 2008). These systems have had remarkable impacts within the criminal justice system; but they have also had some shortcomings as well. Particularly, parole has been regarded as an early release option that puts the public at unnecessary risk. On the other hand, there are those who argue that it allows the re-integration of offenders into the community and provides better prospects for rehabilitation (Broadhurst, 2001). This paper will seek to understand the parole system by discussing its pros and cons. In addition, it will discuss whether parole is currently over-utilized or under-utilized in Australia, or whether proper balance has been struck. Yoshimura (2000) defines parole as a process that involves conditionally releasing an offender from prison so that he or she can serve the remaining sentence in the community according to the sentences terms that the court would impose. Often, offenders released under parole serve the remaining sentence in the community under community corrections officer supervision. Parole is considered as a conditional release from the prison because the release of the offenders is based on certain conditions such as prisoners agreeing to obey specific restrictions imposed by the court. It should be noted that the parole release decisions basis vary across jurisdiction and time (Proctor, 1999). For example, parole can be offered as an entitlement to offenders after they have served a specified minimum imprisonment term. Similarly, parole can be used as a reward for offender’s good behavior. Nonetheless, the bottom line is that granting of release on parole is based on the assessment of the offenders by authorized bodies such as the court or parole board. In Australia, the territory and state parole boards are the ones mandated to grant release on parole. These boards are usually chaired by a judicial officer and may include community representatives, medical experts, correctional officials, and police officers. Parole boards in Australia are created as authorities that are independent of the corrections departments and the courts, even though membership of such boards is usually dominated by correction officials and judicial officers (Sentencing Advisory Council, 2012). There are several factors that are considered when parole decisions are made. Hood and Shute (2000) list these factors as: the extent to which the behavior of the offender has been addressed, degree of adequacy of release on parole plans, and the risk of the offender to reoffend. Since the main consideration that the parole boards give is the possible consequence of the release of the offender on the victim, the victims are usually given direct representation in the board. This has increasingly become a common practice in Australia and other countries that have entrenched parole system in their criminal justice system. A victim can have a oral or written submission to the parole board expressing his or her views about the offender, the likely effect of parole release of the offender, and opinion on whether the offender should be granted parole or not. In an event that the offender is granted a release on parole, the offender is subject to certain conditions while on parole. The conditions are provided by the parole board and contained in the parole order. The conditions include the following: place of residence conditions, treatment programs, requirements for reporting, and supervision. The offender is required to undertake formally to comply with these conditions for the period of time stated in the order (Padfield, 2007). The parole board can cancel parole if the offender fails to comply with the conditions, thus making the offender to return to prison. The supervised and conditional release of offenders on parole purports to reduce the risk that such individuals will commit offences in the near future; this is done by ensuring that they transition “appropriately and smoothly” back into the community. It is important to point out that the court sentencing the offender usually determines whether the offender will be eligible for release on parole or not (Proctor, 1999). Also, the court fixes a non- parole period (a period that an offender cannot be eligible for release on parole). Once the offender has served the non-parole period, the parole board can invoke its power and release the offender. However, such a release is not automatic in Australia as the parole boards will first consider the circumstances of the offender before determining the appropriate time that the offender should be released on parole (Sentencing Advisory Council, 2012). Parole system has advantages as well as disadvantages. In regard to advantages, parole main advantage is that it helps in improving the long-term society protection through promoting the rehabilitation of offenders. Secondly, it promotes public safety by supporting and supervising the release and subsequent integration of prisoners into the community, thus reducing the reoffending risk both in terms of seriousness and frequency. Several studies have shown that offenders who undergo the parole process have a reduced likelihood of returning to criminal activities (Petersilia, 2003). This scenario has been attributed to the argument that parole programs are designed in such a way that it assists offenders to reintroduce themselves to the community. Successful parole activities have proved to decrease criminal behavior recurrence which is not only beneficial to the entire society but also to the parolee. Thirdly, parole gives offenders an incentive to behave well while in prison (during non-parole period) and provide them with an opportunity to take constructive action through engaging in prison-based activities that may improve their possibility of release at the earliest date of eligibility (Broadhurst, 2001). Fourthly, parole system is beneficial as it minimizes overcrowding in prisons and reduces the imprisonment costs. For instance, the report released by the Auditor General of Western Australia indicated that there is a remarkable reduction in the number of offenders released on parole from April 2009; this scenario has led to increase in the number of prisoners by 700 and annual cost by about $42 million (Office of the Auditor General (WA), 2011). New Zealand Parole Board (2012) notes that the main aim of parole is to help the offenders to re-integrate into the society thereby become resourceful and productive citizens. However, this goal is surrounded by a number of problems; these problems are what are considered as the disadvantages of parole system. So, what are the disadvantages of the parole system? The first disadvantage is that the parolees have few job prospects as they find it difficult to get gainful employment to meet their social and financial expectations. In most countries, including Australia, job-seekers are required to disclose their criminal record and parole status to their prospective employers. It is often unlikely for most employers to hire individuals with criminal record (Padfield, 2007). Therefore, most parolees are forced to find low-paying jobs that may not necessarily require criminal records. The second disadvantage is monitoring inconsistency associated with parole system. Parole officers are offered wide latitude of determining violation of rules hence resulting to inconsistency. For example, a parole officer may rule that absence amounts to violation of rules and recommend that the offender be returned to jail (Hood, and Shute, 2000). Besides, stigma in the community among the parolees is a major disadvantage of parole system. In most cases, offenders on parole face unkind reactions community members who believe that offenders should not be allowed back into the society because they may commit further crimes. As a result, offenders may find it difficult to adjust to life in the community. Furthermore, parole rules and restrictions are considered a disadvantage; parolees have difficulty to adjust to the restricted lifestyle that parole rules demand. Currently, parole is under-utilized; parole is not well utilized in the country’s criminal justice system. Unlike other countries like the United States, parole system is yet to be embraced and entrenched Australia’s criminal justice system. According to Australian Institute of Criminology (2011), there is a very high level of disparity between various jurisdictions in Australia; there are jurisdictions that have over-utilized parole, while there are others that have under-utilized it. Apparently, the jurisdictions that have under-utilized it are more than those that have over-utilized it. Statistics by the Australian Institute of Criminology indicate that only four jurisdictions have comprehensive parole arrangements: Tasmania, New South Wales, and Australian Capital Territory. On the other hand, some jurisdictions have inadequate parole arrangements while others have made no provision for it at all. These jurisdictions include: Commonwealth, Queensland, Northern Territory, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia (Sentencing Advisory Council, 2012). It is clear that most jurisdictions in Australia under-utilize parole. In addition, under-utilization of parole in the country is evidenced by the inconsistencies in utilizing parole in different jurisdictions. Offenders in different jurisdictions serve different period of incarceration and this may result to inconsistencies in utilizing parole in the country. As has been noted, utilization of parole depends, among other factors, on the period of incarceration including the non-parole period offered by the court. Besides, the under-utilization is evidenced by the fact that while some jurisdictions move ahead with parole process in regard to victim participation, there are variations in different jurisdictions (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2011). It is evident that currently parole is over-utilized in few jurisdictions and under-utilized in most jurisdictions; proper balance has not been struck in utilization of parole. Therefore, it is important that procedures and laws across jurisdictions be harmonized so as to ensure justice not only to the victims but also to the offenders. The process of harmonization might be difficult and slow, but approaches that were used in improving the national coordination of law enforcement in Australia can be used to harmonize procedures and laws relating to parole (Sentencing Advisory Council, 2012). In conclusion, it is agreeable that the parole system is critical aspect in criminal justice system especially in regard to rehabilitation of offenders and re-integration of offenders into the society. Parole system has numerous advantages that emphasize the need to entrench it in the criminal justice system and to utilize it effectively. However, as noted, the system has disadvantages that present problems to the system; these disadvantages calls for streamlining of the system to avoid or minimize the challenges associated with it. In regard to utilization of the system in Australia, the system has been under- utilized as evidenced by high number of prisoners, and it is important that the balance be struck in the utilization of parole in the country. References Australian Institute of Criminology. (2011). Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice. Retrieved on 10 April, 2011from http://www.aic.gov.au/en/publications/current%20series/tandi/241260/tandi251/view%20paper.aspx Broadhurst, R. (2001). Evaluating Imprisonment and Parole: Survival Rates or Failure Rates? Accessed on 10 April, 2011 from http://www.aic.gov.au Hood, R. and Shute, S. (2000). The Parole System at Work: A Study of Risk-Based Decision-Making. Research Study No. 202, Home Office, London. New Zealand Parole Board. (2012). Decisions of Public Interest Retrieved on 10 April, 2012 from . Office of the Auditor General (WA). (2011). The Management of Offenders on Parole, Report no. 11 (Office of the Auditor General, 2011). Padfield, N. (2007). Who to Release? Parole, Fairness and Criminal Justice. William Publishers. Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Proctor, L. (1999). The New Parole: An analysis of parole board decision making as a function of eligibility. Journal of Crime & Justice, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 193-217. Sentencing Advisory Council. (2012). Report: Review of the Victorian Adult Parole System. Retrieved on 10 April, 2012 from https://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/review_of_the_victorian_adult_parole_system_report.pdf Welsh, W and Harris, P. (2008). Criminal Justice Policy and Planning. Anderson. Yoshimura, A. (2000). On Parole. Mariner Books. Read More