After a parole hearing, the prisoner is sent a detailed letter explaining its conclusion, but the board has a statutory duty to prevent its proceedings being disclosed publicly. Amid renewed public and political scrutiny of the Parole Board in the wake of its decision to block the release of the black-cab rapist John Worboys , there has been intense debate over its future. The Parole Board is an independent body that carries out risk assessments on prisoners to determine whether they can be safely released into the community.
It manages the early release of prisoners serving fixed-length sentences of four years or more; the release of prisoners who are serving life sentences or indeterminate sentences for public protection; and the re-release of prisoners who have been given life or indeterminate sentences and were then re-imprisoned.
Medical, psychiatric and psychological evidence can also be heard. As well as the prisoner, a solicitor, psychologist and witnesses could attend. The Parole Board has members who make the assessments and decisions and employs members of staff to support them.
As an initial step, members of the Parole Board have agreed to speak openly for the first time about their work amid renewed debate about its operations in interviews conducted before Hardwick resigned earlier this week.
Thomasina, independent forensic psychologist and university lecturer; psychologist parole member since The public seem to think the Parole Board lets out dangerous people without thinking about it. What we are not there to do is to make a moral judgment about how awful or not something was or someone is. At times this may be unpalatable and may seem incomprehensible, particularly from public perception, but that is our role.
If they can help me understand those three things, that might be persuasive in me deciding to release them. There will be some places in the country where resources are greater than others, and where different services are set up. But I also wonder how much it would alter what people would be prepared to say at the hearings if they knew it was going to be released to the public. Caution on their side might lead to evidence being withheld that would affect our ultimate decision.
That could lead to offenders getting released or staying in longer than they might need to. Has chaired board hearings for three years. That sort of public transparency is not allowed at the moment under the Parole Board rules. In a word, yes. Across jurisdictions, it is essential that parole boards craft statutory qualifications that affirm or reaffirm their commitment to securing properly credentialed and qualified individuals as board members. Consideration should be given to balancing the relevant competencies of board members, and the importance of including members with an expertise in victim awareness and the prison experience.
It is important to conclude by emphasizing the complexity of this issue and its nexus to the institutional structure of paroling authorities. By institutional structure, we are referring to the systemic features and practices that provide paroling authorities with a reasonable measure of independence and insulation as they engage in decision-making spanning the continuum of release to revocation.
The chapter by Rhine, Petersilia, and Reitz offers additional steps that may be taken to strengthen the larger institutional structure informing parole board operations.
We conclude with their proposal. Proposal 1. The institutional structure and composition of parole boards should be reconstituted to ensure members possess the requisite education, expertise, and independence relative to release decision making.
Such a system would include the following features, or others equally effective. Parole board members should be recommended for appointment by a special nonpartisan panel subject to gubernatorial approval. Their terms of appointment should be defined by law, with conditions for removal governed by a protocol administered by the special panel.
For a printable version of this article, download this PDF. View the discussion thread. Various links on the Robina Institute's blog, News and Views from Robina , may open to third party websites. We do not assume any responsibility for material located outside of this blog. Listing of material on this website does not serve as a contract between the University of Minnesota Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice and any other party and does not constitute an endorsement of any organization or its activities.
As such, the Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice is not liable for any content, advertising, products, or other materials on or available from such sites or resources. In the case of all blog posts, podcasts, or video blogs, the opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Minnesota, the University of Minnesota Law School, or the Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice.
None of the content on this blog or website represents legal advice. If you are seeking legal advice or representation, please contact an attorney. We welcome your feedback and participation. Comments are moderated. We review and approve comments during business hours, M-F. If you would like to submit proposals for blog topics or a proposal to write a guest post, please email robina umn. Date Posted Date Posted: March 1, Highest Educational Achievement of Board Members It is also beneficial to be more specific about the qualifications of the board members and the chairs by looking even further at their coursework in higher education and their past work experience.
Barrett, Katherine and Richard Greene. September Ruhland, Ebony L. Rhine, Jason P. Kaleena J. About the Parole Board. It was established in under the Criminal Justice Act and became an independent executive non-departmental public body on 1 July under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act We have Parole Board members who make the assessments and decisions.
We employ around members of staff to support them, based in 10 South Colonnade, London. Our job is to determine if someone is safe to release. We do that with great care, and public safety is our number one priority. We deal with 25, cases a year, which are referred to us by the Ministry of Justice once prisoners have served the punishment determined by the courts.
Parole Board decisions are solely focused on whether a prisoner would represent a significant risk to the public after release. The risk assessment is based on detailed evidence found in the dossier a collection of documents relating to the prisoner and evidence provided at the oral hearing.
Our primary role is to determine whether prisoners serving indeterminate sentences, and those serving certain determinate sentences for serious offences, continue to represent a significant risk to the public. Our Personal information charter explains how we treat your personal information.
0コメント