In Victoria the murder of Jill Meagher by a man who had been granted parole while serving his sentence for a previous violent sexual crime aroused community concern about parole. It followed other similar violent incidents. The Government commissioned a report which has now been released. It identified faults in an under-resourced system.
Behind the discussion of parole lies a series of tensions within Australian society. The first tension is between different ways of relating punishment to crime. Some see punishment as primarily retribution for wrong done. The severity of the punishment is measured to the seriousness of the wrong committed. Others see it primarily as a measure to protect society from people whose attitudes and actions threaten public safety. The severity of the punishment is then measured by the extent to the threat to society.
Punishment can also be seen primarily as a means to the reform of the criminal. From the time when imprisonment became the preferred form of punishment for crime instead of a holding pen for those awaiting trial and punishment, the reform of the criminal has received more emphasis. The type and severity of punishment will be influenced by the likelihood of reform.
Parole fits into this framework of reform. Initially prisoners were offered opportunities for study and work. Cooperative behaviour could lead to an early release. Prisoners sometimes graduated from a more severe to a less harsh regime and were supervised after early release for good behaviour.
Within the Victorian penal system, most prisoners are eligible to seek parole. Their cases are examined to ensure that the person does not pose a serious risk of endangering the community, and their behaviour is monitored while on parole.
From the prisoner’s point of view, parole offers a respect for their human dignity that other aspects of prison life sap. It offers hope that if they work to build good social connections in prison they will see their sentence reduced. If they are released on parole, they will find some support in making the demanding transition to a life in a changed and often under-resourced community.
A second source of tension arises from financial considerations. Where a retributive view of punishment prevails and is reflected in longer sentences and less flexibility in sentencing, the heavier will be the costs incurred in building and staffing prisons. Parole then becomes attractive because it reduces the number of people imprisoned and the financial burden on society.
But if it is to be effective parole demands well-resourced and informed judgments on applications for parole, and people who can relate well to those who are paroled. This demands proportional funding from governments. If their dominant view of punishment is retributive, they will be tempted to reduce eligibility for parole without funding the forms of connection that could make it work.
A third source of tension lies between the trust and freedom that are the conditions of human growth and the reluctance to take risks that characterises contemporary culture.
Human beings begin to recognise their responsibility to others when through relationships they can recognise their own hope to live generously, and can see the conflict between their desire and the way in which they habitually act. If they are to nurture these generous desires they must be trusted.
But a society that is averse to risk will simply judge that criminals can never be trusted to reform, and so should always serve their full sentences. Indeed, they may even be held in indefinite detention if they are judged a threat. For prisoners, of course, this distrust by society is likely to be reciprocated and so increase risk.
When seen within this complex framework it is clear that no easy fix to the parole system will guarantee that the community will be completely safe. Certainly, providing greater resources and perhaps providing an extra layer of scrutiny before releasing violent sexual offenders on parole may be helpful. But paroled prisoners form only a small fraction of those who put society at risk.
The best way to protect the community is to encourage change in those found guilty of crimes. Punishment does not generally do this. People only discover that change is possible through supportive relationships, such as those with welfare officers in prisons, on parole and after release. But this work cannot be done without resources.
From this broad perspective the largest threat to the security of the community comes from a view that sees punishment entirely in retributive terms. Unless the human development of prisoners is seen as central, imprisonment simply begets further risk to the community and swallows all the resources that could build a safer society. Like suspended sentences the institution of parole is a candle that illuminates a better way.
Andrew Hamilton is consulting editor of Eureka Street.