web analytics

Beneath the headlines – complete sentences

Written By: - Date published: 8:00 pm, March 3rd, 2009 - 34 comments
Categories: articles, law and "order" - Tags:

The issue of parole has long been controversial. We’ve also seen one of the core underpinings of our justice system become a manipulated by its political opponents, regardless of what the policy arguments are. In this article from the Listener at the begining of the year we gain some insight into parole – and why it is too important to dismiss:

A young woman in a crisp white shirt and tight ponytail rises nervously to her feet. She has come all the way from Northland to Christchurch Prison to say a few words to the Parole Board about her brother, who has spent 12 years inside for a brutal and premeditated murder and is today being considered for release.

She tells the board she wants him to come and live with her and her partner up north, in a household without drugs and alcohol, where he can better himself. She knows he has much to do before he is allowed out, but the invitation, she says tearfully, is there for life.

It’s a moving and unconditional expression of support. Judge David Carruthers, Parole Board chairman and one of the seven members who make up today’s ‘extended’ panel, thanks her. He tells the prisoner, ‘You are a lucky man.’

Lucky, but not yet free to leave.

The support of the prisoner’s sister is useful information for the board decent accommodation and companionship are essential elements in any successful prisoner release but not decisive. He has not done well in prison. By his own assessment, he is an alcoholic and a drug addict. He has twice been kicked off the prison’s drug treatment programme, and is onto his third go.

‘I don’t find things easy,’ he tells the board. ‘I am hopeful. I want to progress. I want better quality of life. I understand my victims.’

At this, board member June Jackson bores into him: ‘I don’t know that you do, because they suffer something terrible, and they are still hurting.’

The prisoner has made some progress, however. In the past, he has been ambivalent about his cultural identity, but a prison officer tells the board he has completed a tikanga programme, and recently delivered a presentation in te reo. ‘It was a great achievement. I didn’t ever think he would be able to do that,’ says the officer. ‘That’s a start to finding out who he is.’

‘That’s very good to hear,’ says Carruthers. ‘But we can’t possibly release you on parole today.’ There will be no release until the prisoner has kicked his drug and alcohol problem. He needs to reconnect with a psychologist, and there is talk of a violence prevention programme down the track. But the board is concerned about his motivation for change: he is warned that a relapse could mean he could face a postponement order where the right to appear annually before the board for consideration for release is frozen for up to three years. Postponement would, at least, relieve the victims of having to recycle their grief every year.

‘So, we will see you next year,’ says Carruthers. No one, least of all the prisoner, seems surprised that parole is declined.

This prisoner, like the eight other murderers who file through the Parole Board’s hearing room at Christchurch Prison on this November day, will in all likelihood have several appearances before a decision is made, if ever, to release him. It’s exceptionally rare for an offender to get out at the first hearing.

Parole is a journey, not an event, says Carruthers. Each time a prisoner appears, more information is gathered and further insight gained. Even if a prisoner is entitled to be considered for parole (currently, after serving a third of the sentence, or after 10 years of a life sentence, unless a longer non-parole period is set by the sentencing judge), the board can’t approve release until it is satisfied the prisoner does not present an ‘undue risk’ to public safety.

Conversely, if the evidence shows that, no matter how awful the crime or how traumatised the victims, the offender is no longer a risk, the board must not deny parole. General deterrence or a community desire for retribution doesn’t come into it.

Parole the discretionary release of offenders from prison, enabling them to serve the remainder of their sentence in the community under supervision has been around for a century in most Western jurisdictions. New Zealand’s first parole legislation was contained in the Crimes Amendment Act 1910, according to a potted history prepared by the Howard League for Penal Reform.

But it remains shrouded in mystery, in part because, in this country, at least, hearings are held in the bowels of the prisons, and are closed to the media. Carruthers wants to change that. Last year, the Listener and reporters from two newspapers were allowed to attend parole hearings, although the prisoners could not be named or identified.

It’s a small step towards what he hopes will be an open media policy, but not every-one agrees. ‘There are respectable arguments against it,’ says Carruthers. ‘One is that anything that dilutes honest and robust discussion is counterproductive But I would prefer on balance for everyone to see what we did and know what we did, than not. Because unless we have public support and the public are behind it, we are doomed to fail.’

In the information vacuum, law and order hardliners have open slather. Act MP David Garrett, who is pushing the party’s ‘three strikes and you’re out’ bill, says of the Parole Board’s decision-making process: ‘They toss a coin, don’t they?’ (Garrett immediately tried to retract that comment, telling the Listener he was joking.)

Like his ally Garth McVicar of the Sensible Sentencing Trust, he thinks the entire judge-given sentence should be served in prison. For instance, the eight-year sentence handed down to former policeman Bob Schollum for his part in the gang rape of a Mt Maunganui woman in 1989 ought to mean eight years behind bars, with supervision in the community at the end of that time. Instead, Schollum, like his co-offenders, was out after serving a fraction of his sentence in prison.

‘[Parole] is a disaster. It assumes that everyone is capable of rehabilitation,’ says Garrett.

McVicar: ‘It’s a corrupt ideology. There is no doubt in our opinion that parole has been solely implemented to unload the prison population.’
Ideology seems far from the minds of the seven Parole Board members as they address the perpetrator of one particularly terrible crime, which the Listener can’t describe without identifying the offender. The board is considering a postponement order, a move that the prisoner’s lawyer is opposing. The offender is handsome, lean and fit-looking, but seems stripped of emotion.

Board member Phil Brinded, a psychiatrist, tells him the victims continue to be ‘extraordinarily distressed’. The prisoner says he spends nights thinking of them, and of his crime. Then it is Jackson’s turn to speak: she says she is waiting for him to express sorrow and regret, that she is looking for him to reveal some humility: ‘I have to be honest with you. My vote for your release will never be. Never be.’

Another prisoner, who raped and murdered a woman, is up for parole for the first time. He tells the board how he has been helping with the Scared Straight programme, giving talks to youngsters who have had scrapes with the law and advising them ‘jail is no place for no one’. He has finished the drug treatment programme, but ‘to be honest, I have dealt with a lot of my drug issues I have addressed a lot of my stuff’.

Board member Richard Lewis, a former probation officer, pushes him to reflect on his crime. ‘I am embarrassed about it. It was a heinous act,’ says the prisoner. ‘I have remorse and empathy. I don’t like the person that did that crime.’

He was ‘angry and resentful’ when he first came to prison, but ‘one day the penny just dropped’.

Jackson, who is chief executive of Auckland’s Nga Whare Waatea marae and its prisoner reintegration programme, tells him she’s heard it all before from people who get out then revert to their old ways. ‘While you present well, I’m thinking, maybe deep down it’s still the same and maybe you are in the best place.’

Parole is declined. ‘There are slow, steady steps to be taken,’ says Carruthers. ‘We need to see that there is action, not just fine words.’
Fine words, or genuine change? The ability to judge the difference lies at the heart of a successful parole system. How does the Parole Board know when a prisoner is ready to be let out into the community?

Contrary to Garrett’s suggestion, no coins are tossed.

Instead, there are screeds of reports on each prisoner, held electronically by board members on a laptop that sits before them during the hearing. Among them is a statistical assessment of the prisoner’s risk of reoffending, as measured on the so-called RoC*RoI (Risk of re-Conviction, Risk of re-Imprisonment) scale. RoC*RoI is a population-based model developed by the Corrections Department in the 1990s and gives a risk classification derived from a raft of factors including age and gender, frequency of convictions, time spent in prison, maximum sentence and seriousness of offending. It has been validated against more than 133,000 offenders, and found to be 82% accurate.

The board sees every prisoner’s RoC*RoI rating, but it’s just a starting point in assessing suitability for release. In addition, there are reports from the prison about the offender’s behaviour and the programmes he or she has completed as well as psychological assessments and, where relevant, psychiatric and medical assessments.

There are reports on what support is available in the community for the prisoner, submissions from the prisoner and the victims and intelligence reports from the police and the Corrections Department. There is often information about educational programmes completed, and assessments from special units such as the Kia Marama or Te Piriti sex offender programmes. The judge’s sentencing notes and summary of facts from the original trial are reread.

And there is the information gleaned from the prisoner under questioning from the board.

Carruthers: ‘Sometimes questions are asked to which the answers are already known, just to see what the prisoner will say, because insight is a very important thing. How much do you understand about your own behaviour and how much has changed? Sometimes there are robust challenges to see how they handle that. ‘You are a liar and a thief and you should rot there.’ How do you take a bit of confrontation, because that’s what you will get in the community.

‘A lot of prisoners become Christians. Is it real or is it feigned, or does it mean they have real pro-social support? What sort of accommodation will they have? What will they live on? That’s an important question because a lot of prisoners come out with very few skills and just have a benefit to survive on. Prisons are places of no responsibility only for your own survival, and you don’t have to worry about budgeting or relationships.

‘What sort of company are you going to keep? Who are the significant people in your life and will they be a good influence or are they gangs or whatever? Do you have a serious drug and alcohol problem and 83% of prisoners do and, if so, what have you done about it? What will you do with your time? It’s ancient wisdom if you’re idle, are you going to get into trouble?’

At the same time, it’s important not to waste time on factors that have been shown in research not to be relevant. Grief and low self-esteem, for instance, are not ‘criminogenic’, although they can lead to drug use, which is. ‘Everything is connected to everything else,’ says Carruthers.

All this information is weighed up using a ‘structured decision-making’ model, called the RPF15, which has been used by the board since it was established in its current form in 2002.
It looks and sounds like an exhaustive, risk-averse approach, which is reflected in the data of 4261 parole hearings in the 2007/08 year, 70% were declined.

Yet the infamous Graeme Burton case showed just how fraught with risk the process is. Burton was released on parole in July 2006 after serving 14 years of a life sentence for murder. He went on to relapse into methamphetamine use and assault, to extort money from drug dealers and to breach his parole terms, before eventually murdering Karl Kuchenbecker and injuring four mountain bikers in the Wainuiomata hills in January 2007.

In retrospect, it seems obvious Burton should not have been released. After his murderous rampage, the Parole Board appointed internationally renowned risk-assessment expert Jim Ogloff, professor of clinical forensic psychology at Melbourne’s Monash University, to review the release decision.

Ogloff’s report prepared in conjunction with Chief District Court Judge Russell Johnson shows Burton was described in prison reports as compliant, motivated and, in the years before his release, trouble-free. Yet his file also contained psychological reports assessing him as at high risk of violent reoffending. He also had a high score on a psycho-pathy screening test, and had a ‘pattern of grandiosity’ and lack of empathy and remorse.

There was also reference in a psychologist’s report to unsubstantiated allegations that Burton had assaulted other prisoners.

However, psychiatric reports said his risk of reoffending had moderated, and that by May 2006 there was a ‘window of opportunity’ to release him before the benefits of his time in the violence -prevention unit were ‘eroded by more prolonged incarceration’.

In March 2006, the board told Burton he would be released in July that year, subject to a satisfactory psychological report.

‘There was a sense over time that the board had an expectation that Mr Burton should be released,’ the Ogloff/Johnson report said. ‘The possible reasons for such expectations are unclear but may be linked to a sense that, with the passage of time and the rehabilitative efforts that Mr Burton was undertaking, he deserved to be released.’

Burton had a high rating on the RoC*RoI scale. ‘The higher the score, the higher the risk,’ Ogloff told the Listener from Melbourne. ‘If you have a high score, you need good evidence of sustained change over a long time before you think that is going to be reduced.’

Since the Ogloff/Johnson report, however, the report of Wellington coroner Garry Evans has revealed that the Parole Board unknowingly made its decision to release Burton based on incomplete information.

Rimutaka Prison’s glowing report on Burton said he was drug-free and had had no misconduct reports since his previous board appearance. It failed to mention he had been moved to a medium-high security unit because of the assault allegations, or that the allegations had been the subject of an internal inquiry. Internal reports recommended that a crime prevention officer appear at Burton’s June 2006 parole hearing to enable the board to gain an informed opinion about the allegations, but this did not happen.

The board was essentially left to make its own sense of a passing reference to the ‘unsubstantiated’ allegations, and decided they should not be taken into account.

Once he was released, failures in Burton’s management by the Probation Service and police meant he roamed ‘on a long lead’ until, eventually, he killed again.

Changes have since been made: the board has been given new powers to summons witnesses to give evidence to hearings, and police can apply for confidentiality orders covering information given to the board that it wants kept secret, ensuring that sources are not exposed.

Carruthers says the Burton tragedy has also reinforced to board members that they must not be ‘captured’ by the expectations of a prisoner who thinks he is on a path to release.

The board’s structured decision-making model, the RPF15, is also being updated by Ogloff, who says the new model under development establishes the RoC*RoI as baseline information and includes a wide range of other relevant factors affecting the likelihood of reoffending, such as how the prisoner has dealt with past releases.

‘Although it’s pretty simple, it just requires the board to really systematically look at the variables relevant to the -outcome, so they move away from the gut-instinct mentality,’ Ogloff says.

‘It’s just like if you went to the bank to get a loan they have a bunch of questions. They have a special formula to decide whether you get a loan.’

Flawed decision making can cut both ways. ‘In that case it went in [Burton’s] favour. I’ve never met the man in my life, but reading a lot about him now and hearing about him and looking at the reports, he was quite a psychopathic guy, quite manipulative, brighter than average, so there is little doubt he was able to manipulate a whole range of people.

‘But just as often, in fact more often, it works against them. They are usually inarticulate thugs who couldn’t make a case if their lives depended on it, and they are the ones often denied parole. They may be more in your face, or more likely to say things that are inappropriate. So, structure in decision-making protects society by alerting the board to factors that we sometimes neglect.’
But if we can’t predict with absolute certainty whether a prisoner released on parole will reoffend, why don’t we, as McVicar advocates, simply keep them in jail for their entire sentence? Why bother with parole at all?

Because the Burton tragedy notwithstanding the evidence is that it works.

Renée Collette, executive vice-chairwoman of Canada’s National Parole Board, which is regarded as world-leading, explains it this way: ‘Someone who is part of the community and commits a crime, and is convicted and sentenced, will at some point come back into society. So, can we bridge that release in a controlled way, by helping and controlling and at the same time supervising that person in order that they will not commit a new crime. It is about the safe, gradual reintegration of offenders.’

In Canada, which has a highly developed system of halfway houses to bridge the gap between prison and the community, 90% of releases on parole do not result in a new offence, and 99% do not result in a new violent offence, says Collette. In the past 10 years, annual convictions for violent offences by parolees have fallen 65%. And over the past decade, the crime rate in Canada, including violent crimes, has steadily declined.

Ogloff says the evidence is ‘crystal clear’ ‘people on parole are less likely to reoffend than those released from prison without the benefit of parole’. Offenders’ social and economic supports often unravel extremely rapidly when they are sent to prison, he says girlfriends disappear, landlords seize property to defray unpaid rents, families are often estranged. A good parole system helps re-establish social supports.

He says the international research also shows the benefits of supervised release on parole hold up over the long term, with lower rates of reoffending among those who have been through the system.

Carruthers says because sentencing and parole laws were changed in 2002, there is not yet a good long-term picture of the success of the New Zealand parole system. ‘But we think on fairly rough figures that we are between two and three times more effective in preventing reoffending than [if prisoners are automatically released]. That’s based on the number of releases we have, and the number of people we recall as a result of further offending during the term of parole.’

He says another strong argument for a parole system is that it provides an incentive for prisoners to engage in rehabilitation programmes. ‘I have been in countries were there is no parole for sex offenders, and they have set up these wonderful programmes and nobody does them. Why should they when there is no advantage?’

A further reason is cost: ‘If we are intelligent about our decisions so they are safe, we are saving the country $76,000 [per year] per prisoner, which can be spent in other areas. If we can save money sensibly and without any jeopardy to the safety of people, then that’s obviously a huge advantage.

‘A further reason that is important for New Zealand is 51% of our prisoners are Maori, and we know from very good research what the prognosis is for the children of prisoners. So, if we can make a contribution in a safe way to that awful statistic, we are also making a contribution to a safer New Zealand.’

And although he believes some people are incapable of rehabilitation, many are. Indeed, he notes that 241 ‘lifers’ are living successfully in the community.
from

NZ Listener

January 31-February 6 2009 Vol 217 No 3586

Complete sentences

by Rebecca Macfie


34 comments on “Beneath the headlines – complete sentences ”

  1. gingercrush 1

    Interesting article. There are certainly problems with parole. I know Greg Newbold, a criminologist doesn’t favour parole, but obviously for reasons different from Garret. Tome parole is a broken system. Its a pity there can’t be discussions around parole. Because right now it isn’t a good system. Doesn’t matter whether you want lighter sentences or tougher sentences. You favour rehabiltation or community schemes. Its about time this country had a proper debate concerning parole.

  2. IrishBill 2

    Good to read that. I stopped buying the listener a couple of years ago. It’s also raised my opinion of Macfie.

    Denying parole is insane. It offers a intermediary between incarceration and freedom that is essential to stopping reoffending. Especially violent reoffending.

  3. Snail 3

    One cannae help but notice how Act – Party MPs and likely also party members – hold firm US-like or enabled views on topics such as this. Such folks stateside would invoke curiosity insofar as what earmarks are they seeking from federal lawmakers. Earmarks being spending appendages to legislature bills..

    Is/are there pecuniary interests operating behind such views in enzed?

  4. Good post and a very good article. The problem with the debate is that it never gets past the “good” verses “evil” part. The really sad truth is that parole is there to make prisoners behave better, and that if you remove the chance of parole you may as well clap them in chains, feed them with a stick and hope without reasonable expectation that at the end of their sentence they will behave.

    It does not and will not happen this way.

    Either we should give up completely on people or we should have some system where rehabilitation ought to be rewarded. And we should remember that prisoners are the sons and daughters and husbands and wives and fathers and mothers of decent people who have witnessed their loved ones descend into hell and want to see them get out of there.

  5. burt 5

    The parole laws have been manipulated to control prison populations. This is seriously a recipe for disaster as has been seen again and again.

    One thing we as a country need to do is get our heads around the fact that our prison population is what it is. It’s a result of our society interacting with the criminal justice system. There is no validity in comparing our per capita incarcerated stats with per capita incarceration stats from another country. We have our own laws, our own culture and our own prison population. The actual numbers in prison are not a play thing for political popularity – govts need to stop treating them as such.

    • Akldnut 5.1

      Burt that sounds like like it came straight from an ACT campaign speech.
      Surely even you can see the greater advantages of having a parole board in play.
      Not every bit of fruit in the basket is rotten to the core at the same time, if you cut the mould off most at an early stage then they can useful. Unless you leave them in with the rotten ones forever then theres no going back. They’re fucked.

      Captcha – national convinced

      How appropriate

      • burt 5.1.1

        Akldnut

        IMHO parole is a good thing, a parole board is a good thing. The problem that I have with the process is the way it’s played with by either party. Parole law needs to be changed when genuine reforms are occurring, that’s a given. Changing it (the law regarding parole) and calling this a reform is another matter entirely. How can it be that the information about Burton’s in custody behaviour was not conveyed to his parole board. What modification to the definition of “what information the board may consider” forced that to occur?

        Each and every law that has imprisonment in it’s penalty clauses (perhaps excluding electoral or public finance laws) has an impact on prison populations. We either build enough prisons to store the numbers we lock up for full sentence OR we run an accountable early release process OR we reduce the lengths of the sentences being given out OR we juggle the margin where early release can be applied from year to year.

        Pick the easy option eh…. It’s so much more instantly gratifying to play with that one.

        • Akldnut 5.1.1.1

          I like your idea of running an accountable early release process and Aris’ tougher base sentences with more discretion and better access and eligibility to parole

  6. Pascal's bookie 6

    But it remains shrouded in mystery, in part because, in this country, at least, hearings are held in the bowels of the prisons, and are closed to the media. Carruthers wants to change that.

    I’m sympathetic to the goal of the idea, but suspect it would turn into yet another media screechfest.

    Perhaps we should have compulsory civics classes in school from age 8ish through 15 where we cover all these types of things. ‘Why does our society do the things it does’ type questions.

    Great article.

    • Felix 6.1

      Perhaps we should have compulsory civics classes in school from age 8ish through 15

      Would sure save a lot of time here.

  7. Ari 7

    Personally, I think tougher base sentences with more discretion and better access and eligibility to parole would be a good combination to prevent re-offending. I’d like to hear some good justification from the crowd that thinks parole is broken at the moment, and specifically what needs to be fixed other than scrapping it altogether- but ideally we should be locking up for life any violent criminal that can’t be rehabilitated, and letting every other criminal out as soon as they’re not at risk of re-offending. The only matter of concern is minimising the error ratio, as I’m pretty sure everyone who believes that even one criminal can be rehabilitated will agree that parole is more useful than harmful- it’s just a matter of finding the best formula, and funding enough supervision post-parole.

    The supervision part is probably where the NZ system is most “broken,” as it seems very light even in some violent cases. It would be nice if extra supervision could be added for less straight-cut cases directly from the parole board, too.

  8. Rex Widerstrom 8

    Thanks and congratulations again for bringing some sanity into this debate. And for once on a law & order issue I find myself in complete agreement with gingercrush. Parole is broken.

    I’m always highly suspicious of using a computer matrix to calculate risk. For instance, presumably race isn’t one of the factors input into the matrix because that would be seen to be discriminatory. But there’s no denying that (for a whole range of reasons I won’t go into here) dark skinned people make up a disproportionate number of our prison population.

    So if that isn’t input then how can the data be accurate?

    More importantly, of those found to have failed their parole in some way, what data is collected on the actual amount of support they received once released? Often the best intentions of friends and relatives don’t translate into action; or if they do, then they find it much harder than they thought to support an addict. And of course the various state agencies frequently fail.

    Is any allowance made for the person who might well have successfully completed parole but who was denied a benefit for so long they had no choice but to resort to theft? Or someone who falls off the wagon and then can’t get back on our woefully underfunded drug rehab programmes?

    If the stats aren’t adjusted for those sorts of failures then they’re not adequately reflecting innate likelihood of recidivism so much as the chance that things will go terribly wrong for the offender once released, through no fault of their own.

    Indeed we need a debate. What a pity Act haven’t taken the “liberal”, open-minded approach exemplified by gingercrush and sought a national debate round these issues. Instead they’ve taken a radical, punitive, closed-minded approach exemplified by David “Tosser” Garrett.

    Edit: In answer to Ari’s question above, yes aside from too much reliance on incomplete and thus flawed statistical bases, it’s the support provided once parole is granted that’s broken. By parole I don’t just mean the hearing, I mean the process from the first hearing to the successful completion of the parole period.

  9. Michael 9

    IrishBill/Mickey S, I don’t agree – A prison guard friend told me 95% prisoners say “I was wasted” – they don’t consider all the choices they make that got them to the situation first, or the way they didn’t back out of it, not even at the last moment. Afterwards they find a scapegoat – drugs, drink, poverty, anything.

    And as someone who has been involved in a murder from the victims side, I found it is very easy for an offender to say ‘sorry’ but hard to back it up and show that they truly understand what ‘sorry’ really is.

    I know we all find it hard to examine their own failings – but that statement we made that upset someone, or the time we behaved foolishly can’t compare with trying to examine your own motivations (a real example) for an 17 year old senior grade league player launching unprovoked punches on a 65 year old man followed by fatally kicking the unconcious man in the back of the head. (And driving off in his car, using the money in it to buy beer, crash the car while showing off, drive off again with a mate, and finally crash the car again when chased by the police.)

    Until a prisoner realises they are the only person cupable for the crime, they are not going to begin to be truly rehabilitated. Claiming that parole will make prisoners aim to achieve rehabilitation is wrong – too most prisoners parole is relevant to rehabilitation in a box ticking excercise. This is why so many criminals fail at the first step, and suceed later – they begin to realise that they just need to tick some different boxes and they can be released.

    Parole should only be a mechanism for those who can prove that they are truly sorry and then have and will take steps to make the right choices in life when released.

  10. There will be no release until the prisoner has kicked his drug and alcohol problem.

    And saying that when prison rehab programmes are systematically underfunded is simply an exercise in sadism.

  11. gingercrush 11

    Sorry but where is the evidence that giving people parole leads to less offending?Are you lot saying, that if prisoners were given parole it will greatly enhance the chances that they will not reoffend. So essentially, every prisoner should get parole because this will lead to a serious decline in offending, particularly violent offending? How does that stack up.

    On another note. Does anyone with Newbold’s book on prison, could you share what he says about parole. Because I’ve been trying to find things he’s said about parole online but haven’t been able to find it. From what I remember, he suggested that parole doesn’t work. And what it basically does, is give prisoners a guideline on what they have to do to be released early without actually coming to terms with the consequences of their actions. Indeed, I think I remember he offered an alternative to New Zealand’s current parole system.

    • Felix 11.1

      I seem to remember reading that too – a long time ago though.

      To your first point (and I’m not claiming any special expertise) it seems self-evident that a prisoner, especially a long-term prisoner, should have a carefully managed transition between being locked up and being free.

  12. Rex

    I do not disagree with much of what you say. I feel somewhat conflicted …

    Michael

    The victims of crime have the most pertinent things to add to the debate about parole but with the greatest of respect they are the worst people to talk to about how individual criminals should be treated. I hear your angst but the Criminal Justice system should be cold and should not have the emotion of the victims cloud its decision. Otherwise the system is about revenge rather than the appropriate treatment.

    Gingercrush

    Many academics have spent most of their professional lives over the past 40 years reporting on the issue of parole. The mainstream media mostly misses their conclusions.

    • Rex Widerstrom 12.1

      Most of the academics with whom I associate* are of the opinion that some form of restorative justice helps heal not only the primary victim(s) but also the secondary victims (offenders’ loved ones) and often goes someway toward repaying society.

      More importantly from the perspective of this debate, it truly makes offenders face up to the real effects of their actions on others.

      There’s a lot of research on this… the stuff I work with is here.

      * Admittedly a self-selecting sample, as I wouldn’t talk for long with any academic as ignorant as Garrett. Mind you, I’ve yet to encounter one, even amongst those who take a much tougher stance. The difference is, of course, they do so with an open mind.

  13. burt 13

    I can’t claim to have consumed and understood all of the information contained in this document, however it’s very interesting reading and quite informative in a debate like this one.

    • Rex Widerstrom 13.1

      Thanks burt, that is a useful document. None of the “what works”conclusions surprised me, but I admit some shock at the conclusion that “scared straight” interventions don’t work for younger offenders. Those that I’d looked at appeared effective, but then I didn’t track results over lengthy periods of time.

      What jumped out at me in the present environment was this:

      The most certain finding about what does not work is that approaches that focus on deterrence through a harsh, punitive experience are largely ineffective. [my emphasis]

      Considering untreated offenders create more victims, Garrett and McVicar are not only stupid, they’re dangerous.

  14. Akldnut 14

    Can anyone tell me how the South Auckland Rapist would have done under the Three Strikes Bill – would it be 3 rapes = 25 years
    47 victims

  15. burt 15

    Akldnut

    I think the most important person(s) to consider here are his 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th … victims.

  16. Akldnut 16

    Absolutely I agree – just making a comparison.
    South Auckland serial rapist Joseph Stephenson Thompson, is serving a 25-year non-parole sentence on 129 sex charges, involving 47 victims.

  17. burt 17

    Akldnut

    I think 25 years non-parole is fine for such an offender. I might not agree to a 25 year non-parole period for a rapist caught on his first victim, but in some circumstances I might.

    You could also argue that if a person was only caught once that having 47 or 1 victims shouldn’t make any difference with regard to eligibility for parole. There has been the same chance for rehabilitation in both cases.

  18. Just a few quick thoughts for now.

    It always troubles me when people run around the blogsphere or talk back radio claiming they know better than the judge or parole officer, especially when they dont provide any reason as to why they know better.

    David Garrett is looking increasing like a clown, I mean seriously, if someone makes a comment like that, there’s no way i would take them seriously in any position of power any more.

    Did any one else find it kinda sinister Garth McVtictim on the late ]news tonight was suggesting that boy should be treated as guilty before sentanced?

  19. Simon-1 19

    Labour Propaganda: “Legitimate acts of resistance against the bourgeois class enemies and colonial oppressors by the heroes of the oppressed proletariat, yearning to break free.”

    Translation: “Violent Crime.”

    The revolving-door parole board is an accessory before the fact of recidivist offending. Another reason to preclude Labour Party members from public positions.

  20. Akldnut 20

    Fuck Simon. Dont be a “hater” mate. The parole baord has been around a long time and successive govts have have had their 5 cents worth as to its operations, not just labour so cool down pal.

  21. Simon-1 21

    not just labour so cool down pal.

    Wake. the. fuck. up. The Labour politburo’s single goal is to foster a socialist revolution in New Zealand. They’re dogmatically following the 1-2-3 of Trotsky 101 to do it; disestablish the mechanisms of state and disenfranchise the middle class.

    Labour and it’s sycophants at the substandard want as many violent criminals on the streets as possible, as many welfare beneficiaries guzzling our scarce resources as possible, as many productive Kiwis emigrating away from our shores as possible, as many HIV-positive illiterate immigrants as possible. It’s all a precursor to their vision of a socialist revolution.

    Their utopia is our Cambodia.

    [Tane: Banned for life. I don’t have time for this shit.]

    • Pascal's bookie 21.1

      “The Labour politburo’s single goal is to foster a socialist revolution in New Zealand. They’re dogmatically following the 1-2-3 of Trotsky 101 to do it; disestablish the mechanisms of state and disenfranchise the middle class.”

      All I can say is that they are being fncking slack about it then.

  22. [Tane: Banned for life. I don’t have time for this shit.]

    On you Tane. This has been, apart from Simon’s contribution, one of the more sane and civilised discussions I have seen on a blog. It is a shame that many postings tend to develop into slanging matches.

    I just heard Kim Workman on Morning Report. He made the very good point that if we had a “three strikes” law and a person had just committed their third strike then they would become extremely dangerous and would in all likelihood kill to avoid being caught. After all, what do they have to lose?

  23. Matthew Pilott 23

    Gingercrush – I gather that people released on parole are much less likely to reoffend. There’s a fairly obvious flaw in the following:

    Are you lot saying, that if prisoners were given parole it will greatly enhance the chances that they will not reoffend. So essentially, every prisoner should get parole because this will lead to a serious decline in offending, particularly violent offending? How does that stack up.

    Umm, to get parole, you must be unlikely (or at least less likely) to reoffend. Obviously if you gave parole to people who are likely to reoffend, then…they’d be likely to reoffend.

    Look at it this way – if you are sentenced to 15 years in prison, but can get out in 10 on parole, there’s a good chance you will try and do what is required to get out in 10. What the parole board needs, to do, essentially, is determine whether it’s an act for freedom, or whether you’ve genuinely reformed.

    Given the significantly lower rates of reoffending under parole (one figure I heard was 80%), they are obviously doing their job fairly well.

    It’s an incentive system to reform, and a fairly sophisticated one at that. It also ties in with post-release support/monitoring – though like others above in this thread, I think that needs to be revised. Well it has been post-Burton.

    Obviously, that’s not to say ‘every prisoner should get parole because this will lead to a serious decline in offending’. That makes as much sense as saying ‘no one should go to jail because if you’ve been to jail you’re more likely to commit a crime’. There’s no logic there at all, GC.

    • higherstandard 23.1

      Is parole an option for all prisoners or only those on their first jail-able offense ?

      Just asking I have no idea.

  24. Ianmac 24

    What a great discussion. Riveting.
    The major need with parole is the staffing/resources. One parole officer who was very successful with young offenders, considered that the most valuable tool was in his abilty to listen. However if he had a very heavy caseload, there is no way he can do that and attend to the support for work and family. I believe that 50% of the Parole Officers have less than 2 years experience and the turn-over rate is huge. Needs a huge increase in the people/resources to make parole work better.

  25. Higherstandard

    It is available for all prisoners. Check out the Parole Act 2002 and the Sentencing Act 2002 for details.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Government's response to preliminary referendums' results
    Minister of Justice Andrew Little has acknowledged the provisional results of the two referendums voted on in the 2020 General Election. New Zealanders were asked whether they supported the proposed Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill, and whether they supported the End of Life Choice Act 2019 coming into force. On ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • New testing requirements for international maritime crew arriving in NZ
    The Government is moving to provide further protection against the chance of COVID-19 entering New Zealand through the maritime border.  “Yesterday I instructed officials to consult with the maritime sector around tightening of the requirements for international maritime crew entering the country,” Health Minister Chris Hipkins said.  “Ultimately, this will ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Fast-tracked Northland water project will accelerate economic recovery
    The Government has welcomed the decision to approve a new water storage reservoir in Northland, the first of a number of infrastructure projects earmarked for a speedy consenting process that aims to accelerate New Zealand’s economic recovery from Covid-19.  The Matawii Water Storage Reservoir will provide drinking water for Kaikohe, ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Tokelau Language Week reminds us to stay united and strong
    Staying strong in the face of challenges and being true to our heritage and languages are key to preserving our cultural identity and wellbeing, is the focus of the 2020 Tokelau Language Week. Minister for Pacific Peoples, Aupito William Sio, says this year’s theme, ‘Apoapo tau foe, i nā tāfea ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • NZ announces a third P-3 deployment in support of UN sanctions
    The Government has deployed a Royal New Zealand Air Force P-3K2 Orion (P-3) maritime patrol aircraft to support the implementation of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions imposing sanctions against North Korea, announced Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters and Minister of Defence Ron Mark. “New Zealand has long supported ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Pacific trade and development agreement a reality
    Pacific regional trade and development agreement PACER Plus will enter into force in 60 days now that the required eight countries have ratified it. Trade and Export Growth Minister David Parker welcomed the announcement that the Cook Islands is the eighth nation to ratify this landmark agreement. “The agreement represents ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Securing a pipeline of teachers
    The Government is changing its approach to teacher recruitment as COVID-19 travel restrictions continue, by boosting a range of initiatives to get more Kiwis into teaching. “When we came into Government, we were faced with a teacher supply crisis,” Education Minister Chris Hipkins said. “Over the past three years, we ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Border exceptions for a small number of international students with visas
    The Government has established a new category that will allow 250 international PhD and postgraduate students to enter New Zealand and continue their studies, in the latest set of border exceptions. “The health, safety and wellbeing of people in New Zealand remains the Government’s top priority. Tight border restrictions remain ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • First COVID-19 vaccine purchase agreement signed
    The Government has signed an agreement to purchase 1.5 million COVID-19 vaccines – enough for 750,000 people – from Pfizer and BioNTech, subject to the vaccine successfully completing all clinical trials and passing regulatory approvals in New Zealand, say Research, Science and Innovation Minister Megan Woods and Health Minister Chris Hipkins. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • International statement – End-to-end encryption and public safety
    We, the undersigned, support strong encryption, which plays a crucial role in protecting personal data, privacy, intellectual property, trade secrets and cyber security.  It also serves a vital purpose in repressive states to protect journalists, human rights defenders and other vulnerable people, as stated in the 2017 resolution of the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Ministry of Defence Biodefence Assessment released
    The Ministry of Defence has today released a Defence Assessment examining Defence’s role across the spectrum of biological hazards and threats facing New Zealand. Biodefence: Preparing for a New Era of Biological Hazards and Threats looks at how the NZDF supports other agencies’ biodefence activities, and considers the context of ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago