escalating violence in our community Become a member of the Sensible Sentencing Trust

Mouseover links or blue arrows above for full page descriptions

Why Parole?

We examine the pros and cons of parole and the reasoning behind it - and end up asking why we even need parole

The rationale behind parole is that it is something that can be held out to the offender as a reward for good behaviour while they are in prison. This assumes that all offenders are rational agents, that is, they can weigh up the pros and cons of various courses of action and make a logical decision as a result. This in many cases is actually a sound assumption - in which case it also can be inferred that longer sentences will act as a strong deterrent, something that many politically correct liberals would deny. They can't have it both ways. Those that cannot be deterred are going to be too irrational and dangerous to release on parole or otherwise.

Another underlying assumption is that all of us are basically good, and that it is possible to rehabilitate offenders. This assumption has been made on rather shakier ground, as anyone familiar with Robert D. Hare's work on psychopathy will realise. A considerable proportion of offenders (as many as 50% of violent offenders) are psychopathic, and their behaviour cannot be significantly altered in the long or even short term by anything, let alone the promise of parole.

Some offenders may be rational - but also psychopathic. Examples include Paul Dally and Jules Mikus. We should never offer such offenders parole - as they WILL reoffend. Others may not be rational, and although we may not be able to deter them, there is no sense in trying to change their behaviour by offering the opportunity of parole either. There is an extremely good reason for keeping such offenders imprisoned along with the rational psychopaths - it prevents them reoffending. This leaves those offenders that are rational but not psychopathic - likely to be a minority of violent offenders.

Rather than paroling such offenders, we believe it would be more honest for all sentences passed to be minimums, i.e. starting points to which further time can be added if the offender seriously misbehaves while in prison. It is true that there are a small percentage of such offenders whose offences are a "one-off", and for these perhaps parole might still be a useful option. But for those with a history of violent offending, we believe that parole is not a helpful tool, and that it can also place the public at unnecessary risk for little tangible gain.

There is another reason that we believe that parole is undesirable, and that is that it undermines the authority of judges. The length of a sentence served should be set by the judge in the case - not by the parole board, some years after the event. This would also have the advantage that the length of a sentence will be far clearer to the public, and it will be easier for us all to make an assessment of what sort of sentences are being handed down. Only where the case involves a "one-off" type offence, and the offenders' behaviour while inside has been exemplary, is there reasonable grounds for the use of parole in our view.

You may like to read this in conjunction with our stance on Bail