Consider the expert police view
Anyone you speak to in the community will likely have a view
on parole. But that’s not surprising, given that parole essentially allows
prisoners back on the street before they have served their full sentences.
Most people take the concept of parole seriously, whether they
have been victims of crime or not. The two camps of opposing views on this
issue seem clearly divided. One loves the idea of parole while the other hates
it.
For many, the crux of the argument is the effectiveness of the
concept. And that effectiveness would most properly be judged by the frequency
with which the state issues parole warrants.
A parole warrant requires police to locate and arrest the
relevant parolee and bring him or her before the parole board. Without doubt,
police are intimately involved in the often convoluted process of finalizing
criminal matters. One would therefore expect them to have a certain interest in
cases of parole.
Yet their views are often conspicuously absent from public
debate on the issue. Just look at media reports on high-profile cases of
prisoners who are either granted or refused parole. Such reports are replete
with commentary from the parole board chief, politicians, criminologists,
victim groups, and even prisoner advocates.
Is it not obvious that one worthy, pertinent view is missing?
Where are the comments of serving police, particularly the investigators whose
skills and commitment ultimately brought about the potential parolee’s
conviction?
Not so well known to the public, of course, is that police
officers are not generally permitted to speak about their work. But that does
not explain why, on the issue of parole, police leaders fail – on behalf
of their members and the community they “serve and protect” – to
speak out publicly and vehemently.
Law Society of SA president, Andrew Goode, suggests that:
“…parole also can be refused when, for example, a person is
considered at risk of re-offending…” (The Advertiser, May 3,
2003).
This is a crucial area of enquiry for the parole board, given
that the recidivism rate in this state is already at an unacceptable level.
Many hours of a typical police workday are spent addressing the effects of
recidivism. So, again, why have police leaders failed to contribute to the
public debate?
Could it be the case that journalists are satisfied with
their presentation of the arguments of all except the police? Or, have they
indeed sought commentary from police leaders and come up with no responses?
In any case, the full scope of the debate on parole will
never be realized without the expression of the expert police view.
Andy Dunn is on leave
