Most Western judicial systems have problems with the parole system. Criminals, let out early, often re-offend. An Australian correspondent, for instance, recently complained about the state of the parole system in that country:
Unbelievably, across Australia there have been more than 20 people who’ve been killed by criminals on parole in the last five years. That is disgusting. More broadly, the Bureau of Crime Statistics has reported, 64 per cent of crooks on parole reoffend within two years of release. [Jason Morrison, The Daily Telegraph.]We have two suggestions.
The first is that the evidential basis for granting parole needs to be strengthened. Criminal conviction is on the basis of a standard of proof demonstrating guilt beyond reasonable doubt. We suggest that the same standard ought to be applied to Parole Board deliberations. Convicted criminals can be paroled only if the Board believes that it is beyond reasonable doubt the subject will remain crime free for the remainder of the sentence term.
Secondly, a close family member of the convict, or, failing that, a Parole Board member need to be held surety for the decision of the Board. If a parolee re-offends in the time period before the completion of his or her sentence, the close family member or, failing that, a Parole Board member (selected by random ballot) must be delivered to prison to serve out the remainder of the sentence, until the parolee is returned to prison to serve out the sentence.
Early release parole should be an exception, not a right. Either that, or the original sentence was unjust in principle from the beginning.
No comments:
Post a Comment