Goodbye job applications, hello dream career
Seize control of your career and design the future you deserve with LW career

Australia must keep parole decisions impartial, legal experts warn

A team of legal academics has highlighted new research findings which show that an overwhelming majority of people in the Australian community believe parole boards make fair decisions and are better placed than courts to determine the right date of a prisoner’s release.

user iconMelissa Coade 16 April 2018 Politics
Australia must keep parole decisions impartial, legal experts warn
expand image

While political clamp downs on community safety policies may appear to be a sign that confidence towards the impartiality of parole boards has waned in Australia, new research findings show that most people in the community believe otherwise.

Political pressure over law and order issues and sustained criticism of parole boards have resulted to parole boards seeing a number of changes to their powers and composition in Australia over the years. They have also led to an operating environment where policy is made against a risk averse backdrop and one which has become extremely sensitive to the perception that the community has lost faith in the justice system.

Four legal researchers based in Queensland, Canberra and Victoria have analysed how those reforms affect public confidence in the system and various independent bodies such as courts and parole boards. Part of the study included a survey of 1,200 adult Australians.

Advertisement
Advertisement

In a piece written for The Conversation, the lawyers argue that while political interventions have undermined the effectiveness and independence of the Australian parole system, the prevailing sentiment among the community towards these institutions is one of confidence.

“Respondents indicated their confidence in parole boards in two ways.

“First, 71 per cent of respondents agreed that parole boards try to “be fair when making decisions”.

“Second, most respondents reported a preference for parole boards over courts in their ability to make parole release decisions; 61 per cent agreed parole boards are in a better position than judges to choose appropriate release dates," the researchers said.

While a multitude of recent inquiries into parole (three in Victoria, two in NSW and five in WA), have resulted in necessary changes which have improved the system, the researchers noted that some reforms have also diminished the powers of the parole board and their composition.

“In response to public pressure and recent reviews, governments have diminished or removed the powers of courts and parole boards, and restricted or explicitly guided their discretion,” the academics said.

“Examples of this include mandatory or presumptive non-parole periods, standard non-parole periods, and standard sentences with presumptive non-parole periods. Community safety is now legislatively declared as the paramount consideration in parole decision-making.”

The authors added that new parole board members and chairs have been on a full-time basis; however, boards are increasingly bypassed when it comes to making decisions about so-called high-risk offenders.

“Victoria has just established a Post-Sentence Authority to manage such cases. In some jurisdictions, enhanced panels, or two-tier reviews, are required to decide these cases.

“Some governments have passed laws directed at individual offenders, such as Julian Knight, or small groups of offenders, such as police killers, that have effectively prevented them from ever being released from prison,” they said.

The community survey conducted by Monash University’s Professor Arie Freiberg, Canberra University’s Professor Dr Lorana Bartels, and Dr Robin Fitzgerald and Shannon Dodd from the University of Queensland, also showed that 46 per cent of people agree that “prisoners should be released to serve the last part of their sentence in the community under supervision”.

A further 68 per cent reported that they agree society has an obligation to assist a person’s re-entry into the community after a prison sentence.

“Parole is an imperfect system and mistakes are inevitable. Nevertheless, like sentencing, it should remain in the hands of impartial and independent bodies,” the authors said.

“Parliaments should remember that an effective parole system provides the community with a valuable mechanism for promoting its safety.”

You need to be a member to post comments. Become a member for free today!

Tags