Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional legal opinion.
Briefing Paper No. 20/1999 by Rachel Simpson
Page Content
- Parole refers to the conditional release of a prisoner from
custody after the expiration of the minimum term of the sentence (the
non-parole period) and is thus one form of early release. Other forms of
early release, discussed in pages 7 to 11, include release on license,
remission and pardon. The fundamental aim of parole is to provide the
prisoner with an incentive for rehabilitation through the prospect of early
release, and perceived benefits of parole stemming from this prospect include
increased likelihood of reform of prisoners and better overall prisoner
discipline. Other benefits of parole include easing the transition from
prison to the community through supervision, which reduces the risk of
recidivism (re-offending). There are also economic advantages to parole: a
reduction in recidivism will reduce the burden on the criminal justice system
at all levels, and the cost of community supervision is low compared to the
cost of incarceration. The justifications of parole are discussed in pages 3 to
4.
- Criticisms of parole include its perceived leniency on
offenders, particularly those convicted of violent crimes. It is argued that it
is unfair that an offender walk free while his or her victims must still
suffer. Additionally, it is believed by some that parole weakens the general
deterrent effect of incarceration by weakening the severity of imprisonment as
punishment. There is also a fear that an offender released into the community
on parole will pose a threat to public safety, and particularly former victims.
Some of the strongest criticisms of parole relate to a perceived lack of due
process in Parole Board hearings, a result of the discretionary nature of the
process. It is also argued that the parole process usurps the role of the
judiciary in sentencing offenders. Criticisms of parole are discussed in pages
4 to 5.
- It has been suggested that parole be restricted or abolished
for dangerous offenders, in the interests of community safety. This was
in fact the aim of the Sentencing Legislation Further Amendment Act
1997, which applies to all prisoners who were given life sentences prior to
1990 and makes it extremely difficult for an offender to be granted parole
where the original sentencing judge recommended the offender never be released.
The issue of parole and dangerousness is discussed in pages 5 to 6, and the
relationship between parole and life sentences in pages 6 to 7.
- Parole in NSW was established by the Parole of Prisoners Act
1966. Major amendments were introduced by the Probation and Parole Act
1983. These early Acts are discussed in pages 11 to 13. Following numerous
amendments, the Probation and Parole Act 1983 was replaced by the
Sentencing Act 1989. This new Act abolished remissions and introduced
the concept of truth in sentencing'. The presumption in favour of parole
previously enjoyed by certain prisoners was removed and the 75% rule', where
the minimum term (non-parole period) must equal at least 75% of the total
sentence imposed, became the universal rule for all sentences where a minimum
and additional term were imposed. The operation of the Sentencing Act
1989 is discussed in detail in pages 14 to 19.
- Statistics relating to parole in NSW are included in
pages 19-21 and a comparison between parole in NSW and other Australian
jurisdictions is summarised in pages 22 to 23 and Appendix 3.
- Changes to parole in NSW, introduced by the Minister for
Corrective Services in October 1999 in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Bill
1999 and the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Bill 1999 are canvassed in
pages 23 to 24.
