With reform of victim input being proposed in the Parole Bill 2016, it is important to examine this aspect of sentence administration.
Unlike victim-impact statements, there is little by way of settled practice on victim input in parole decision-making. Victims’ rights can include the right to information, the right to be heard, and the right to be present at parole hearings.
The provision of information regarding release at the request of the victim is common practice in many countries. The right to be heard and the right to participate, however, are far more contentious.
Victim input, in the form of a written or oral statement presented to a parole authority is permitted in the United States, England and Wales, and Canada. Many European countries, such as Belgium, Finland and Sweden, do not allow victims to input into the process.
Research on the impact of written and oral submissions by victims on parole outcomes is limited, but evidence in the US indicates that there is a correlation between victim participation and parole denials.
Ministerial discretion
In Ireland, there are various mechanisms for releasing offenders back into the community, most of which do not afford the space for victim input, due to the procedure of release.
However, there is space for victims to have a role in the parole process, which deals with those serving lengthy determinate sentences, or sentences of life imprisonment.
A person eligible for this process may be released on parole (or full temporary release) at the discretion of the Minister for Justice following the advice of the Parole Board.
The Criminal Justice (Victims of Crime) Act 2017 provides that a victim may request to be informed on the release of an offender, as well as any conditions pertaining to the offender’s release.
Provision of information on release can be helpful and positive, but it can also cause undue concern regarding early release, particularly in relation to life-sentence prisoners.
Life-sentence prisoners, most of whom have been convicted of murder, are eligible for review and release having served seven years in prison.
But in reality, they will not be released until many years later. The average time served by life-sentence prisoners who were released back into the community over the last decade was 18.5 years.
Serious anxiety
The impact of being informed at the seven-year stage, when there is no realistic prospect of release, can cause serious anxiety and concern to a victim’s family members.
This was acknowledged by a member of the Parole Board who participated in a study that I conducted on parole decision-making: “Victims hear that Joe Bloggs is up for review after seven years, and they’ll say: ‘What? He just killed my daughter seven years ago, and now they’re reviewing him.’ That puts them through torture. Now, we know that the likelihood in that probable case is that person’s not going to get out for another seven years.”
In addition to the information from official agencies, the Parole Board receives letters from victims and victims’ families.
The Parole Board has stated that these letters are “seriously considered” when making a decision.
The board and various ministers, however, have also stated that their primary consideration is the risk of reoffending on release. They receive information on risk assessment from the Probation Service and the Prison Psychology Service.
Can a system primarily focused on risk assessment be reconciled with taking victim input into consideration in decision-making? For example, a victim may express a view that the offender should be released back into the community, but this view may be inconsistent with the information available to decision-makers that the offender is at a high risk of reoffending.
Alternatively, a victim may express the wish that the offender continue to be detained. This may be inconsistent with the information available that the offender is at a low risk of reoffending.
The Parole Bill proposes to place the Parole Board on a statutory footing, remove the minister from the decision-making process, and create criteria for the purpose of decision-making, which is to be focused primarily on considerations of public protection.
Significant role
The bill also provides for the board to receive written submissions from victims and, where a hearing is held and it is considered necessary, the victim may attend and make oral submissions.
The victim may also be permitted legal representation for the purpose of the hearing. Curiously, the bill does not refer to victim input from family members where the victim has died as a result of the offence.
The bill proposes to provide a significant role for victims in parole decision-making, but there are real concerns as to whether victims should be permitted to input to a sentence at its end-stage. Ultimately, victim input raises questions about what effect victims should have on parole outcomes.
Victim support and the provision of information is accepted practice in most jurisdictions, but verbal and written submissions are a cause for closer scrutiny.
States that permit victim input at parole hearings tend, also, to be characterised by punitive policies on criminal justice generally. It is important that the reforms adopted strike the balance between supporting victims and victims’ family members, with a system that provides a rational and clear basis for release or further detention, based on objective criteria.
Perhaps focusing on factors such as the risk of reoffending and public protection is the best way to ensure the protection of victims and the public at large.