Parole in Australia - Essay Example

Running head: Parole in Australia Parole in Australia Introduction Major criticism has been aired in relation to parole in Australia. While some commentators regard parole as an early release option that puts the public at unnecessary risk, others argue that parole allows the re-integration of offenders into the community and provides better prospects for rehabilitation. Parole, which most of the time is referred to as a type of sentence, which is rehabilitative, is a major cause of inconsistency and a lot of doubt. The reason as to why parole causes inconsistency and resulting to a lot of doubt is that it gives the tribunal the power to determine the amount of punishment that an offender is to be given. In addition to that, the tribunal does not give punishment depending on the fault of the offender but at times puts in to consideration things like the amendment to custody and the potential risks involved (Maller & Broadhurst 1989). Pros and cons of parole Parole has the tendency of offering same sentence to offenders who have committed different crimes of different level of seriousness. It must however be noted that the functionality of the parole is controlled. Parole can therefore be viewed as a positive approach towards the offender in that intervenes the imprisonment time and offers correction programs that enable the experts involved to adjust the offenders release (Hoffman & DeGostin 1974). In this way, it enables the expert to make most of the time given so that the offender might benefit from the intervention given. However, this practice has little or no significance to the offender in that an offender gains the benefits of parole from the additional control that is given to the offender after being released. The other benefit of parole is that it cuts down costs that were to occur because of resources of custodial. The people who were optimistic about the parole were told that no matter what kind of interventions they had whether it is medical or whatever would not make any significant difference or would result to total failure or no success for the rehabilitation process. As it was viewed through research performed earlier, it has concluded that nothing is working or rather the improvements, which are witnessed, are minimal. In addition to that, the Australian Law Reform Commission of the 1980 reported that in relation to the sentencing that was given, no treatment was ever reported successful and it proved that in fact prison remained to be a very harmful place and that it did not play any role in prevention of anything (Broadhurst et al., 1988). The report went ahead and recommended that parole should be scraped off and if this would be impossible, then the chances of parole not working should be minimized and instead increases the chances of parole working. Furthermore, a revised edition of the Australian Law Reform Commission views and recommendations did not vary that much from the original document. Instead, it took a different path and stated that there was a lot of resistance to abolish parole. It also recommended in favor of the community merit, which showed more results that are positive. The report actually criticized parole as a means of avoiding the maximum sentence an offender should be sentenced and that imprisonment statutorily was inadequate. The new suggestions that were offered as believed to deflect offenders and not actually widen the net. According to a report which was given by the government of Australia, it questioned the role that the administration played, if the performed their duties effectively without and bias and if parole was as effective as they claimed. The report went ahead to even suggest that the rate of high imprisonment was a result of parole. This is because the courts, which were responsible for sentencing usually, set very high unrealistic head sentence. This meant that if offenders who committed petty crimes would never complete their sentence since the periods of paroles were very lengthy (Dixon, 1981). It should be noted that if an offender were on any parole period, they would have to complete it regardless whether they had new sentences. In addition to that, the new sentences would also be completed thus making the parole period very lengthy. This also meant that if any offenders were to fail their parole, then they would serve the period for a very long time. However, none of the reports reported how parole was effective in relation to other measures, which were available. The public also raised concerns about the practices of sentencing and parole. In particular, they were more interested in the fact that offenders were at times released early, which contributed to crimes. The public concerns sparked politicians in that they become more concerned with the views that they initiated reviews on all the sentences in particular parole. This in turn contributed to major changes to the way parole operated in some states together with a significant renovation of the Western Australian Legislation (Department of Correctional Services & Office of Crime Statistics, South Australia, 1989). The murder of a taxi driver sparked a lot of controversy on the effectiveness of parole after the courts offered their sentence. This made the Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry in Western Australia to carry a wide based review in relation to parole. An analysis of the reviews, which were offered, insinuated that the committees involved recommended that both ways were effective in that approaches that were preventive and retributive were recommended. This kind of reviews offered a lot of difficulty in implementing them because either the results would at its worst or best increase the rate of imprisonment. The efficiency of parole Re-imprisonment can be used as a method to measure the efficiency of parole although the methods available of measurement are quite difficult. Whichever differences that are noted, cannot be accredited to the method that panel uses although the possibility of re-imprisonment can the attributed to the variable release methods used or the form of sentences used. However, this method provides a lot of difficulty in that if experimental research is not available which uses tests from randomly assignments, then comparisons, which are done, should use statistical methods that vary in utility to create this conditions (Gendreau & Ross, 1987). The most significant problem displayed is whether the dissimilarity shown can be as a result of the effects of the program or the methods used in selecting the cases. Parole itself contributes to its inefficiency since the judges who are responsible for sentencing choose the offenders who are to be involved in parole on the ground that the offender is suitable for the kind of sentences that they are given. Nevertheless, it is unclear the methods that the judges use in selecting the offenders who are suitable for parole. Parole, in Australia is usually granted to offenders who are appropriate. Appropriate in this content means that they are serving a one year or more. However, the offender can be unsuitable if strong evidence has been presented concerning the unsuitability of the offender either by being dangerous or was on parole but had failed. In Western Australia, parole is further complicated in that as time goes by, the willingness of the jury to use parole and its suitability has changed. The assumption use in favor of giving away parole has been through three distinct stages (Hylton, 1982). When parole first began, in the 1960s, it was offered to offenders who showed some good hopes of rehabilitation thus viewed as a special kind of sentence. In the period between themed of 1970s until the mid 1980s paroles were given by courts less or more automatically and in some exceptions fixed sentences were given. In addition to that, the Parole Board had come up with some practices that the outcome was an over ninety percent release. After that, the courts developed a more flexible approach that parole was given as an individual sentence. Outcome of Parole and its utilization in Australia Different research that has been undertaken concerning parole has taken two distinctive forms of evaluating it. Firstly, the several research that has been undertaken is in regards to predicting whether parole has been successful or not and two, just like any other form of intervention, parole has been evaluated similar to any penal measure. Different degrees of accuracy are required when determining whether a group is likely to fail or not. This is especially in recognizing prisoners, which are prone to high or low level or risks (Vodanovich, 1987). This becomes very difficult at times because it becomes tricky in predicting which data is likely to succeed or not. However, it should be recognized that the effectiveness of parole is not based on the research from literature reviews. The main reason as to why prediction methods are rarely used is because the resolution to release the offender or not cannot be decided purely on the statistical estimation of succeeding behavior. This means that parole actually punishes people on crimes that they think they may commit in the future but not on crimes that they have already committed (Gendreau, 1989). The opinion of whether parole has been successful or not cannot be measured because it is caught up with the ability to predict or recognize the risks involved. This test has proved to be complex and impossible for any penal to meet. This is because if we entirely rely on this side of the parole the outcome would be biased since it will be like overlooking the local benefits that parole comes with: Cheap prisons and improved control. In addition to that, the numerous studies that have been undertaken that give false predictions of the numbers of the offenders who are likely to fail has proved to be overwhelming. It should be noted that most of this factors used are helpful in predicting in numbers like the whole population of a prison and not as an individual although studies of predictions and follow-up done in the prisons of the United States have displayed that some factors increase or decrease the chances of failing the parole test. Elementary opposition has been given in relation to how the parole decisions come about with (Cavendish, 1982). The method which they use include secret meetings and the prisoner is not given a chance to air their view give a reason for the reputation of parole to be harmed therefore its usefulness being questioned. Authorities in Australia concerned with parole have displayed disinterest in democratizing the decision making process of parole and airing the matter in public. The authorities involved have avoided the indulgence of the will of public and the rights of the prisoners although it should be noted that it would always be the concern of the public in the prevention of any dangerous crimes that have been committed. Conclusion Parole, which most of the time is referred to as a type of sentence, which is rehabilitative, is a major cause of inconsistency and a lot of doubt. This means that parole has its pros and cons. Parole has the tendency of offering same sentence to offenders who have committed different crimes of different level of seriousness. This practice has little or no significance to the offender in that an offender gains the benefits of parole from the additional control that is given to the offender after being released. The other benefit of parole is that it cuts down costs that were to occur because of resources of custodial. Elementary opposition has been given in relation to how the parole decisions come about with. The method which they use include secret meetings and the prisoner is not given a chance to air their view give a reason for the reputation of parole to be harmed therefore its usefulness being questioned. Authorities in Australia concerned with parole have displayed disinterest in democratizing the decision making process of parole and airing the matter in public. This implies that the whole process is a biased process. As much as parole has its advantages, it must be noted that parole has been questioned a number of times and is subject to a lot of scrutiny before it is declared a fair way of judgment. References Broadhurst, R., Maller, R., Maller, M. & Duffecy, J. (1988). Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Recidivism in Western Australia: A failure rate analysis, Journal of Research into Crime and Delinquency, vol. 25, pp. 83-108. Cavendish, G. (1982). Parole: A Critical Analysis, Kennikat, New York Department of Correctional Services & Office of Crime Statistics, South Australia (1989). The Impact of Parole Legislation Change in South Australia, Social Issues, No. 2. Dixon, R. (1981). Inquiry into the Rate of Imprisonment in Western Australia, WA Parliamentary Inquiry Committee, WAGP, Perth. Gendreau, P. & Ross, R. (1987). Revivification of rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980s, Justice Quarterly, vol. 4, pp. 349-407. Gendreau, P. (1989). Programs That Do Not Work: A Brief on Brodeur and Doob, Canadian Journal of Criminology, vol. 31, pp. 193-5. Hoffman, P. & DeGostin (1974). Parole Decision-making: Structuring discretion, Federal Probation, vol. 39, December. Hylton, J. (1982). Rhetoric and Realty: A Critical Appraisal of a Community Correctional Program, Crime and Delinquency, vol. 26, pp. 341-73. Maller, R. & Broadhurst, R. (1989). Careers of Institutionalised Chronic and Serious Offenders, Report to the Australian Criminology Research Council, Canberra. Vodanovich, I. (1987). Has Parole a Future?, in Sentencing in Australia, ed. I. Potas, Seminar Proceedings No. 13, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra, pp. 285-306. Read More