THE PAROLE Board has the power to recommend the early release from prison of inmates serving long sentences for serious crimes.
It does so where it appears the prisoner has reflected on his crime (the vast majority of such prisoners are male), presents no threat to society and can be rehabilitated. In 90 per cent of cases, the Minister for Justice accepts the recommendation.
However, the board does more than simply review sentences. It made a number of recommendations last year relating to the provision of support for victims, most of which will result in legislation shortly. And in its latest annual report - published earlier this week - it drew attention to the plight of prisoners suffering from mental illness who have difficulty accessing appropriate treatment and assistance once they are released. The Minister has pledged to introduce amendments to the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act in response.
Yet the board has other concerns. It says that prisoners who suffer from an intellectual disability are at an even greater disadvantage as no services exist to address their needs. In this regard, it remains to be seen how the Minister will react, if at all. At a minimum, however, another recommendation - that prisoners released early should be supervised by the Probation Service - would provide a limited safety net.
Those who come before the Parole Board are serving at least eight years for violent or drug-related crimes and many have been jailed for life for murder. It is often argued that the actual period of incarceration of such prisoners is too short. On average, those released after serving a life sentence have spent just under 14 years in prison. But that statistic is skewed because it is based on those who are released rather than on all life-sentenced prisoners. At least three people sentenced to life are still in jail after more than 25 years.
The key strength of the operation of the Parole Board is its flexibility: it examines cases individually and considers the merits of each one. An alternative approach involving a tariff, or a minimum period of incarceration, would see prisoners in very different circumstances treated the same. It would not differentiate between those who have committed premeditated and callous acts, those engaged in a criminal lifestyle deliberately embarked upon, or disturbed individuals responsible for an isolated outburst. The correct balance between the need to protect society and the requirement for humane treatment of individuals is best achieved through flexibility. Calls for a harsher approach should be resisted.