The Parole Act should be reviewed

Oct 03, 2012 Letters

Dear Editor,
Based on reports I received from relatives of prison inmates and former inmates, there is every reason to suggest that the parole board is not functioning as mandated and as a result, applicants for parole are made to suffer psychologically by the board on every meeting – giving applicants the feeling they will be favorably considered only to be given further dates, and at the end of the day, only about 23% are released with three months remaining in their sentences.
The only three persons, from information I received, that were released with over 12 months remaining in their sentence are former employees of a popular entertainment establishment, and many former inmates strongly believe this was made possible thru political intervention. I make these statements against the background that.
The parole board was established on 12th September, 1991, under the Parole Act chapter 11:08 of the laws of Guyana. Which clearly spelt out the calibre and status of persons to be appointed to run the affairs of the parole board which includes the chairman, who shall be a person who has been or who is qualified to be a puisne judge of the High Court to be appointed by the Minister ( Section 3 (1) a ).
Also, a medical practitioner having special qualification or experience in psychiatry. Others include the Director of Prisons and a police rank no less than an assistant commissioner.
According to a GINA statement of Nov 6th , 2003, the parole board is an advisory body to the Minister of Home Affairs to help determine whether a prisoner is eligible to be released on license ( parole ) and what conditions should be attached to such a release.
According to the Parole Act, a prisoner serving a determinate sentence may apply for a parole once he/she has served one-third or 12 months of the sentence, whichever is longer; for an inmate serving an indeterminate sentence (life) he/ she may apply for parole after serving 10 years.
Upon receiving an application for parole, a detailed investigation is undertaken and a report compiled for parole board members, they would then study the case; if any clarification is required, they call the prisoner for an interview, and would then discuss and deliberate on the matter before arriving at a decision, which is then communicated to the prisoner thru the prison authority.
I have observed, having perused the Parole Act chap 11:08 with special reference to sections 5(1) 6(2) 6(5) 6(1) and other sections, the Hon. Minister of Home Affairs has tremendous influence in determining the fate of an inmate.
Based also on my investigative experience and the Parole Act section 14, the board should be in a position to consider an application based on available resources within 90 days.
1.) It is my humble opinion that the Parole Act of 1991, which was crafted by the former PNC government, gives too much power to the Minister of Home Affairs.
2.) There is enough evidence to suggest that in at least two cases there was some amount of political influence.
3.) Some persons selected to serve on the board are totally against persons being released on parole, in my view their decisions are not fair and impartial
4.) In arriving at decisions, the board places too much emphasis on the nature of crime, public perception, the inmates’ past, and their own private views.
There are factors too numerous to mention.
Whether society likes it or not, parole or no parole, inmates will one day be released back into society and the anger and frustration caused by the current parole system will no doubt be directed against society. As long as the resources are available, every inmate who completes 1/3 of his/her sentence should be released on parole, which would lawfully give the authorities power to monitor their activities and ease overcrowding and tax payers’ money to feed and clothe them.
By an act of parliament, the Parole Act should be reviewed, with emphasis of removing the powers vested in the Minister under the Act and transferring that authority to the chairman of parole board, who should be fair and impartial, and make all decisions without fear of favor malice or ill-will. And the chairman should be appointed by parliament.
Robert Gates

Latest News

The Parole Act should be reviewed

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | December, 2nd, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Semi-Finals line up set for Maid Marian Wheat Up Women’s Cup 2024

Young Warriors Cricket Club fulfills its annual...

Chase’s Academic lift 2024 KFC Goodwill Int’l...

Remaining teams in the inaugural K&S/One...

Capital FC, Hi Stars, Silver Shattas win as...

Renuka, Mandhana consign West Indies to record...

Features/Columnists

This is our city

Breaking the Chains of Poverty: A need for political will

Jagdeo de GOAT

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

The Parole Act should be reviewed

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | December, 2nd, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]