KEY POINTS:
Parliament's justice committee is hearing some impassioned submissions from relatives of murdered people on the subject of prisoners' parole. It is hearing equally impassioned pleas from lawyers opposed to the bill before it which would, among other things, allow the Parole Board to consider information not available to the prisoner and allow police to apply for the recall of parolees considered an undue risk.
One lawyer said the changes reminded him of Guantanamo Bay. Inmates would be held on the basis of "secret evidence given by secret people", said Michael Bott. Prisoners would be unable to defend themselves if they did not know what was being said about them and could not challenge the motives of an accuser. "It goes against any notion of a fair hearing or natural justice," Mr Bott said.
Another lawyer, spokesman for the Council for Civil Liberties Tony Ellis, complained that the bill would allow people to be kept in prison on hearsay, and police would be able to make recall applications in camera.
The lawyers forget, perhaps, that parole is not a right in the ordinary meaning of the word; parole is a privilege, a concession. It is a decision to be made by weighing up the likely risk to the public; it is not a case to be proved or defended for the sake of civil rights.
If this had been remembered by the Parole Board that released Graeme Burton last year the board might have considered an uncorroborated complaint that he had punched a fellow inmate and threatened staff just months before his successful hearing. And the man he shot on his rampage six months after his release might still be alive.
Does a lawyer really need to be reminded of the difference between a prison parole hearing and Guantanamo Bay? Prisoners held in a civil jurisdiction have their rights properly safeguarded when charges are brought against them and proven beyond reasonable doubt. Their guilt must be established against all the defences available in law, not to mention the considerable advantages of the right to silence and a jury kept in ignorance of any previous offences.
When a charge is proven against those odds, the convicted person is given a sentence within bounds prescribed by law and judicial precedent. If the sentence is a prison term it normally allows the prisoner to apply for parole after a serving a third of the term. The bill proposes to extend the non-parole period to two-thirds of any term longer than a year. Some, such as the Sensible Sentencing Trust and the son of Lois Dear, the Tokoroa school teacher murdered last year, would like the bill to abolish parole altogether for serious and repeat offenders.
Lawyers may think of a good reason to retain a parole opportunity for most cases but the rights of the prisoner is not that reason. Public safety should be the only consideration and in some cases the interests of public safety will argue for early release. Since any prisoner eligible for parole is going to re-enter the community eventually, it is preferable that the system can release a person at the point he is likely to respond most favourably.
But that decision should be made by a Parole Board equipped with all the prison information and psychological advice available. It should be a professional decision, not a judicial one. Consider the worst that can happen. If a prisoner is denied parole on information that cannot be challenged he may have to serve the full term of a lawful sentence. If he is released because fellow inmates are afraid to provide information against him, innocent people could be killed. Which is the greater harm? It is no contest.
