 |
| Michael Crowley |
I understand that his article was based on his personal experiences and perhaps from his discussions with others who were incarcerated with him at that time. I felt compelled to respond because my own experiences after working in the criminal justice system for more than 40 years is different. This is particularly relevant as 21 of those years was spent as a member of the Parole Board of Canada.
Having read his article, I respectfully disagree with his main premise, which seems to be that the “system does everything it can to slow the process down.” This is simply not my experience, either during the time I was on the board or subsequently during my experience as a volunteer at the local parole office.
It is true that individuals are generally eligible for day parole at approximately the one-third point in their sentence, but the review is not automatic. That is, an inmate must apply in advance of that eligibility date, and the reasons for not doing so in a timely manner are varied.
Each individual must go through an assessment process when they begin their sentences and a correctional plan is developed. This is based on a number of factors, of course, but the primary focus is on reducing the potential risk the individual poses for future offending. In view of this, their correctional plan may require that they participate in appropriate treatment or programs that address their criminogenic (risk) factors. Timelines are created that focus on the individual’s release eligibility dates. Sometimes necessary programs are not available within those timeframes, and those delays could well lead to the individual not being supported for a conditional release.
In spite of this, an individual still has the right to apply for parole, but without the support of his or her case management team it is unlikely that they will be successful. In addition, most offenders seeking day parole are expected to be released to a halfway house (community-based residential facility). But halfway houses are operated by non-profit organizations like the John Howard Society, Elizabeth Fry Society, St. Leonard’s Society and Salvation Army. As such they have the opportunity to accept or reject any applicants. If an inmate is still considered as posing a risk for reoffending and are not supported by Correctional Service Canada (CSC) for a conditional release, it is highly unlikely that they will be accepted by a halfway house.
In these circumstances, an institutional parole officer will almost certainly suggest to an inmate that they delay their application for a release until they have completed their correctional plan and then apply to halfway houses.
There are situations in which the board will grant a release without CSC’s positive recommendation, but that happens infrequently in my opinion.
I must also take issue with Mr. Dorson’s negative views of the parole board and its decision-making.
Parole board members are indeed appointed by the federal government, and it is a patronage appointment, but prospective members are thoroughly vetted and must undergo both written testing and oral interviews. I was appointed or reappointed six times, and I was appointed by both Liberal and Conservative governments. I worked with members who likely had some sort of affiliation with the party in power, but after they had gone through significant training and then their own experiences as members, I could no longer tell which party had supported them. Their focus was always on public safety, as well as the safe reintegration of offenders as law-abiding citizens.
Mr. Dorson’s description of parole hearings is simply not accurate, based on my experiences. Members spend countless hours reviewing an offender’s file information and have a good sense of the issues that need to be discussed. As a member one is aware of the risk an inmate potentially poses and has to determine by the end of the hearing whether that level and type of risk is manageable in the community.
It is entirely possible that his view of hearings is based on his personal experiences. Or those of others who were unsuccessful at gaining parole. I participated in thousands of hearings and since I retired, I occasionally observe hearings. In his view, expressing guilt and remorse were the sine qua non of the process, and he seems to suggest that there is a “penitence rite” to hearings.
That is simply not my experience. I think that what’s most important is the determination or understanding of why a particular individual had become involved in criminal activity, what they had done to mitigate the risk that they otherwise might pose and how they planned to avoid similar behaviour in the future. I agree that if an individual does not accept responsibility for their offending or denies their involvement then that makes it harder for the board to grant a conditional release. But that is because, in the absence of understanding why an individual acted as they did, it is much more difficult to predict how they might behave in the future if similar circumstances were to occur.
As examples, I can recall the case of someone convicted of murder and sentenced to life that we did grant a release to even though he denied committing the offence. But for the board, our view was that his risk factors (primarily substance use and criminal associates) would be so evident that a parole supervisor would immediately be aware of a change in his risk. In another case an individual had been convicted of killing his wife and two children and always denied his crimes. In his case I made a number of negative decisions, primarily because he was in a new relationship, and without knowing why he killed his wife, we found it difficult to conclude that his risk for future offending would not be undue.
My view is clearly different than Mr. Dorson’s. Over my many years of involvement with the system, I have found the vast majority of parole officers to be hard-working individuals who do their best in stressful situations. They believe in the benefits of conditional release and work to the individuals on the caseloads prepared to go through the parole process so that they can be released safely. But they are individuals who never lose sight of public safety as they make their recommendations. Parole Board members also believe in conditional release, or they would not be members. But, like parole officers, when they conduct hearings and consider releasing someone, public safety is their primary focus.
Michael Crowley has a BA from Syracuse University. He spent more than 40 years in various positions within the criminal justice system in Canada. Before retiring, Crowley was a member of the Parole Board of Canada for 21 years. Contact him at CrowleyMichael167@gmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.