CONSULTATION: TRANSFORMING PAROLE IN SCOTLAND RESPONDENT INFORMATION FORM
Please Note this form must be completed and returned with your response.
To find out how we handle your personal data, please see our privacy policy:
https://beta.gov.scot/privacy/
Are you responding as an individual or an organisation?
Individual Organisation
Full name or organisation’s name
Phone number
Address
Postcode
The Scottish Government would like your permission to publish your consultation response. Please indicate your publishing preference:
Criminal Justice Voluntary Sector Forum
Norton Park, 57 Albion Road, Edinburgh 01314752676
EH7 5QY
Information for organisations:
The option 'Publish response only (without name)’ is available for individual respondents only. If this option is selected, the organisation name will still be published.
If you choose the option 'Do not publish response', your organisation name may still be listed as having responded to the consultation in, for example, the analysis report.
Publish response with name
Publish response only (without name) Do not publish response
We will share your response internally with other Scottish Government policy teams who may be addressing the issues you discuss. They may wish to contact you again in the future, but we require your permission to do so. Are you content for Scottish Government to contact you again in relation to this consultation exercise?
Yes No
The Criminal Justice Voluntary Sector Forum welcomes this opportunity to contribute to the Transforming Parole consultation. The following response has been developed through discussion sessions with CJVSF members. For more information on CJVSF and for a list of its members please visit our website.
Strengthening the Voice of Victims in the Parole Process
CJVSF members acknowledge that victims and their families are undoubtedly affected by parole decisions and that it is therefore essential that they understand the parole process and are kept informed about ongoing cases and decisions to release (including the reasons for granting parole), provided they wish to receive this information. It is also important that victims be given an opportunity to express the impact a crime has had on them in the justice system and that they should be able to access support throughout that process and beyond to help them deal with the impact crime has had upon them. CJVSF members consider that this is best achieved during the trial and sentencing stages of the criminal justice process.
CJVSF do not believe, however, that victims or their families should have a greater voice or a greater influence in the parole process, especially in relation to the decision to grant parole. Nor should they be allowed attend parole hearings in person.
CJVSF members held that the purpose of parole should be to consider the risk to the public posed by a prisoner and to consider whether serving the rest of a prison sentence in the community subject to supervision would be beneficial for the rehabilitation of that person. Parole decisions should not be about re-imposing punishment or exploring the harm done to a victim or about condemning an individual publicly – all of this will have already taken place through the trial,
sentencing, and imprisonment. The focus in parole discussions and hearings should therefore be on risk and rehabilitation and it is unlikely that impact statements or appearances by victims at parole hearings will have a bearing upon either of those issues.
Where victims do wish to present evidence relating to the risk of an individual
offending or their rehabilitation in future, CJVSF members suggested that this should be subject to scrutiny and challenge. The Parole Board functions in a quasi-judicial manner, making what are effectively sentencing decisions that may or may not have
a punitive dimension.1 Unlike a judicial process, however, the parole board does not maintain the same evidential burdens and procedural guarantees that are present in a criminal trial. Therefore any new evidence raised by a victim or their family would risk the allocation of further punishment whilst not being subject to the scrutiny and safeguards applied to evidence at other stages of the justice system.2 Consideration should therefore be given as to how best to ensure any relevant information
provided by victims is assessed and utilised by the parole board to ensure that it does not unduly restrictive decisions.
In addition to the above, placing a greater emphasis on victims and their families in the parole process risks reducing the effectiveness of parole and the number of people granted parole. It can be the case that, when included, victim impact
evidence has a considerably higher importance placed on it in parole decisions than an individual’s behaviour in prison or their engagement with rehabilitation related programmes whilst in prison.3 More fundamentally, research suggests that when victims are involved in the parole process decision makers are less likely to grant parole than would otherwise be the case.4 A greater role for victims in decision to grant parole could therefore lead an unintended shift in the nature of parole, making it more restrictive than it is presently and shifting its emphasis away from risk and rehabilitation.
CJVSF members considered, however, that victim input might be appropriate in relation to the imposition of non-standard licence conditions by the Parole Board on parolees. Where victims feel endangered by the release of a parolee, it may be appropriate for the Parole Board to take account of those concerns by imposing additional licence restrictions, having weighed the likely impact of this on the person being granted parole against the wishes of the victim and applying the current human rights based tests of lawfulness and proportionality.
CJVSF members also stressed the importance of considering the impact of the parole process and decisions to grant parole on prisoners’ families and would support the consultation submission made by CJVSF member Families Outside, which sets out the need for families to be included in and informed about the parole process.
ENSURING TRANSPARENCY
CJVSF members did not think that anyone beyond the person being considered for parole and those people required to consider that decision should be allowed to attend a parole hearing. CJVSF members accept that the parole process needs to be
1 Tata, C. (2010) ‘Sentencing and Penal Decision-Making: Is Scotland Losing its Distinctiveness? In H.
Croall, G. Mooney and M. Munro (Eds) Criminal Justice in Scotland (pp 195-215) Willan/Routledge 2Roberts, J., Listening to the Crime Victim: Evaluating Victim Input at Sentencing and Parole, 38 Crime
& Just. 347 (2009)
3Morgan, Kathryn, and Brent Smith. 2005. "Victims, Punishment, and Parole: The Effect of Victim Participation on Parole Hearings." Crime and Public Policy 4:333-60.
4Parsonage, William, Frances Bernat, and Jacqueline Helfgott. 1992. "Victim Impact Testimony and Pennsylvania's Parole Decision-Making Process: A Pilot Study." Criminal Justice Policy Review 6:187-206.
transparent and accountable but did not see what purpose opening up parole hearings or sharing parole decisions with the public or press would serve.
CJVSF members stressed the importance of parolees’ rights to privacy and drew an important distinction between a justified interruption of that right in court and the parole process, which comes after sentencing and the allocation of punishment and looks towards rehabilitation and people moving on with their lives.
CJVSF members also considered that while it is important to foster a public
understanding of the parole process and to ensure accountability in decision making, this does not require the disclosure of every parole decision or the attendance of the public or the media at parole hearings. Improving public understanding could be better achieved through information and engagement campaigns and would not require opening up parolees or the parole board to the public or media.
As stated above, CJVSF members agreed that victims should be informed about how the Parole Board works and should be kept informed about the processes and
decisions that relate to them. CJVSF members therefore felt that it would be
appropriate for the Parole Board to communicate their reasons for granting parole to victims.
INFORMATION FOR PRISONERS ON THE PAROLE PROCESS
CJVSF members felt that more could be done to inform people coming up for parole about the process in order to ensure that they can participate effectively. Members suggested that at present there is considerable confusion about when people are eligible for parole and that misinformation is widespread, indicating that more could be done to inform people about the process and to dispel myths around parole.
CJVSF members also suggested that a lack of access to programmes within prison was affecting people’s opportunities to be granted parole, something previously observed by Audit Scotland in 2011,5 and suggested that more could be done to engage prisoners in opportunities for rehabilitation and development effectively prior to their being eligible for parole.
CJVSF members were supportive of more being done to communicate the effect and meaning of licence conditions to parolees and welcomed proposals for the Parole Board to communicate this to them.
SUPERVISION, REVIEW AND RECALL
CJVSF members were supportive of any steps that introduce support that helps individuals on their release from prison. CJVSF members stressed the importance of a holistic approach to dealing with individuals and highlighted the fundamental
5 http://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/docs/central/2011/nr_110906_justice_overview.pdf
importance of there being appropriate support services available for individuals upon release from prison. Currently members are concerned that those being released on parole are often not receiving the comprehensive and joined up support that they require and that more needs to be done to ensure that those receiving parole get the help they need. In light of this, CJVSF members suggested that a review process could potentially be beneficial.
The argument has been made, however, that the proliferation of licence conditions alongside an increased capacity for the monitoring of parolees and the shift towards risked based approach to parole has fuelled a steep increase in the rate of recall to prison for people on parole.6 This is a trend that has also been observed in Scotland and if left unchecked it may lead to a diminishing of public trust and acceptance of parole as a legitimate process.7 In light of these concerns, any additional review process needs to be carefully considered and evaluated before being adopted to ensure it does not inadvertently lead to a further increase in recall rates but is rather focused on supporting those leaving prison.
A review process focused on supporting people out of prison would also require additional training for Parole Board members, given that their present focus is on the assessment of risk.
INDEPENDENCE AND GOVERNANCE
CJVSF members had mixed views on the future independence and governance of the Parole Board, with some members advocating for maintaining a separate Parole Board away from the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service and other members advocating for moving the Parole Board to within the tribunal system.
6 Padfield, N. and S. Maruna (2006) ‘The Revolving Door at the Prison Gate: exploring the dramatic increase in recalls to prison’ Theoretical Criminology 6(3): 329-352
7Weaver, Tata, Munro and Barry (2012) ‘The Failure of Recall to Prison: Early Release, Front-Door and Back-Door Sentencing and the Revolving Prison Door in Scotland’, European Journal of Probation 4(1) 85-98
