A modern system needed to improve work of local parole board

A modern system needed to improve work of local parole board – Prison COI

Jun 16, 2016 News

A modern system should be adopted to improve the work of the local Parole Board. This recommendation was made by the Commission of Inquiry, (COI) into the recent disturbance at the Camp Street Prison.

According to the data presented following COI into the deadly fire, which claimed the lives of 17 prisoners, in a modern setting applications for parole would trigger the evaluation of the prisoner’s performance in detention against a set of criteria.
The report said that a modern parole system would be developed and made widely available a clear set of criteria by which parole decisions would be guided.
“The COI is not concerning itself with the details of such a system, so much as suggesting the level of reform required to produce the required degree of modernization. In a modern system “a point system would be awarded.”
“Those prisoners who scored sufficient points would be eligible for parole. Prisoners would be informed of the results of the assessment. Prisoners who score high but insufficient would have an incentive to work on the defective areas and apply the next year.”
The Commission also pinpointed a number of shortcomings in the current system. The document said that “In practice, the parole system appears capricious.”
“Whether applications reach the Board promptly is unpredictable; being considered in a timely fashion or becoming part of a back-log is determined by availability of staff, whether and how interviews are conducted is also at the mercy of unpredictable factors.”
“The lack of Parole Board staff also increases the dependency on other agencies, particularly the Prison service itself, both for investigation and in determination of cases.”
Additionally, statistics presented in the report suggested that the numbers of parole cases which take longer than a year to process point to deficiencies in either the parole procedures or in the support system available to the Parole Board.
According to the statistics of the 69 applications received in 2013, only 27 were completed.
“Of the 12 persons granted parole in 2013, eleven were women. Annual breakdown by gender for earlier years were not available. Figures for 2013 also suggest that a high percentage of the women recommended for parole were serving sentences for narcotics-related offences nine of the 11 granted parole. Only one of the male applications of the 69 received in 2013 was paroled.”
In this regard, Commissioners believe that based on the stimulus towards good behaviour on the part of offenders and an encouragement for rehabilitation, the numbers released on parole are ineffective. The above conclusion is reinforced by a breakdown by gender of parole figures provided by the Board.
“Figures for 2013 suggested that a high percentage of the women recommended for parole were serving sentences for narcotics-related offences (9 of the 11 granted parole). Only one male of the sixty-nine applications received in 2013 was paroled.”
According to the information, the concern of the COI is not with the dedication or efforts of the members of the Parole Board but with the institutional mechanism and its fitness for purpose.
“The last statistic suggests the influence of a policy decision to give priority to narcotics offenders rather than granting parole solely on the merits of each individual case. In this respect, parole is employed as a counter-balance to the injustice flowing from mandatory custodial sentences attracted by narcotics offences.
This conclusion is reinforced by the contrast with the high number of manslaughter offenders (29) attracting only one positive recommendation for parole, eight being denied and 20 unresolved. In 2013, manslaughter (29), murder (13) and narcotics (20) comprised the overwhelming number (62) of the 69 applications received.”
Figures over the past ten years show an average of seven offenders per year granted parole, approximately one quarter of the average number of applications received per year.
The document also highlighted the 2009 Parole Board Report which listed the operational cost for the Parole Board (excluding any costs of monitoring of parolees) was G$3.8 million.
The Guyana Prison Service Strategic Plan 2010-2013 nonetheless noted that the average per capita figure for maintenance of a prisoner in 2009 was G$359,301.
“The difference between maintaining a person in prison and the process of recommending parole is less than $15,000 per year, prompting serious questions with respect to the parole programme.”

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News