Parole: Safety first
LETTERS
From Lord Hunt, Enid Lake►nan, R. H. Grier- son, T. C. Skeffington-Lodge, Richard B. Hoff- man, Patrick Brogan, Michael Kennedy, Maurice Smelt, Howard Sergeant, F. R. Cum- berbirch, Ronald Vincent Smith, David Lampe.
Sir: I have read the contribution on Parole by Giles Playfair in the edition of 5 April of your journal and I would appreciate the privilege of commenting, through the same medium, on some of his observations and opinions; the Parole Board is most anxious to correct mis- apprehensions as to its status, policy and func- tion such as are contained in the article.
In general, I am surprised that Mr Playfair who, I am to infer from his reference to myself, is purporting to make a contribution to peno- logical thought from a background of his own experience, should have so singularly failed to give credit for any enlightened thinking on this subject either to those who initiated the idea or to those of us who are charged with the task of making-it work.
I recently wrote a letter for publication in the Blundeston prison magazine New Leaf indi- cating the board's general approach to their task, showing that. by visiting as many prisons as possible, we intend •. to establish close links with the local review committees and meet prisoners and, in these and other ways, we intend to demonstrate our independent status. Follow- ing this latter point, I would like to take up a few of Mr Playfair's points: 1. An Independent Board. Mr Playfair implies that the board cannot be independent, as its very able secretary is a Home Office official. It is true that the machinery for processing docu- mentation is manncd,.both in the prisons and in the Home Office, by civil, servants; also that the essential link between the board and the Home Secretary is a civil servant who is familiar with departmental organisation and practice. If neither of those two facts obtained, how would Mr Playfair suggest .that a board, presumably staffed by personnel 'recruited independently, would fail to be more cumbersome than he claims that we are? .
But Mr Playfair is not presumably also implying that through the presence of a Home Office official as our secretary, the complete independence of advice given to the Home Secretary by a highly expert body of men and women (in deference to Mr Playfair I exclude myself in this reference) is somehow impaired?
2. The Purpose of Parole. The long-term pur- pose is to create a new climate of hope in prison administration and to enhance the prospects of many prisoners. The easing of overcrowding in prisons may be a by-product; it is, however, another issue entirely. For the simple reasons given in my letter to Blundeston prisoners, we think it necessary first to establish the system as acceptable to the public who, we believe, in general are not yet minded for this important social reform. This means a slow and cautious beginning for two reasons: first, because public anxiety needs to be allayed and, second, because the assessments at local and national levels will Only improve in the light of experience.
3. Caution. Mr Playfair suggests that parole is restricted to harmless or recidivist-proof priso- ners; he goes on to say that this begs the question of why such prisoners were ever locked up in the
first place. While agreeing, as the figures indicate and for reasons I have given, that the board firmly intends to be careful in its selections for parole, I would assure him that we have by no means been as timid as he implies. If he were to have access to the details of the crimes for which any of the parolees were sentenced to two or more years imprisonment, even Mr Playfair pre- -sumably would agree that there was some point in locking up the offenders in the first instance. But as a student of penology Mr Playfair will be aware that changes in circumstances and attitude commonly occur during the course of prison treatment.
4. Interviews. The Local Review Committee Rules, 1967, require that before the committee reviews a prisoner's case a member of that committee, other than the governor of the prison, shall interview the prisoner if he is will- ing to be so interviewed. The prisoner is also entitled to make written representations. Ex- perience elsewhere, e.g. in the United States of America, tends to show that an interview with a full committee is neither helpful to the com- mittee nor to the man and is apt to make him tense and ill at ease. The notion that each of the 6,000 or so prisoners eligible to be con- sidered for parole annually should be inter- viewed by individual members of the Parole Board, let alone the whole board, is to say the least of it ill-considered. The Criminal Justice Act, 1967, does empower us to depute one of our members to interview particular prisoners, and we are exercising this power with discretion.
1 am glad to conclude this letter on a happier note of whole-hearted agreement with Mr Play- fair on the shortcomings of our penal system; in particular the limitations of depressing con- ditions- of many of our prisons. The recently published report by the Advisory Council on the Penal System would, if fully implemented, go some way towards improving them. But so long as it is deemed inevitable to spend so large a percentage of the national income on defence, a major programme of reform in this vitally important sector of our national life is necessarily circumscribed.
John Hunt Chairman, Parole Board, Romney House, Marsttam Street, London SWI
Previous page
