DPF’s Parole Changes

There is a debate about whether one should have parole at all, but for now while we have parole, I want to propose a number of steps which would improve the decision making of the Parole Board.

The first is to change the over-riding requirement on the Parole Board so it is “To keep prisoners in custody, unless the Parole Board is convinced they are unlikely to reoffend“.

At present the default is to let them out early unless they are convinced they are an undue risk to the community. This has the test the wrong way out. The default must be to keep them in. And the test should be propensity to reoffend, not the higher standard of danger to the community.

And noting around 75%+ of those release on parole reoffend, this suggest parole should only be granted to a small minority of prisoners.

The second is to set up an “Office of Public Safety” whose job is to advocate before the Parole Board for prisoners not to be given parole.

The original trails have a prosecution and a defence, with a Judge and/or Jury weighing up the evidence and making a decision. The Parole Board has no equivalent of a prosecutor. Sure sometimes a victim may appear, but often they only hear from counsel for the prisoner, plus the bureaucrats. No wonder the Board so often gets it wrong.

I want an Office of Public Safety who will argue against releasing violent prisoners early, who will point out the potential risks to the community, who will suggest the prisoner is faking their remorse if they think they are.

Without this, the Parole Board hears only a rose tinted view of the world and the prisoner.

The third change is for full prison records to be made available

Every single prison guard and prisoner knew Burton was a psychopathic violent thug. Yet this information was kept from or ruled out by the Parole Board because allegations were not proven.

Parole is a privilege not a right. I want the Parole Board to hear about every fight the prisoner got involved in, every threat he has made to guards. I want prison guards to be able to testify as to the prisoner’s general behaviour and co-operation.

I had more information on Burton from commenters on my blog (info which in every case proved to be correct) that the Parole Board officially considered.

Karl Kuchenbecker is dead because the Parole Board was more concerned about being fair to Burton and not taking into account unproven allegations, than it was about making sure violent psychopaths are not given parole.

At your original trial is when you get innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. And that is as it should be. But once you are a prisoner you do not have that luxury. You are guilty and have been sentenced to a jail term, which you should serve in full unless you are an exemplary prisoner who is deemed most unlikely to reoffend.

What other changes should be made? Or are you happy with the status quo and we have to accept the deaths of Karl Kuchenbecker as just bad luck?