LEGAL OPINION:IN MANY COUNTRIES, the release of life-sentenced prisoners on parole has transitioned from a process that was political and somewhat opaque to one that is independent, highly structured and well understood. This transition has not occurred in Ireland.
The Minister for Justice continues to make the release decision in every case, having received a recommendation from a parole board that he appoints and whose view he is under no obligation to accept. Life-sentenced prisoners are eligible for review after seven years, a strikingly low minimum compared with other countries. But there is a gulf between what the policy permits and what occurs in practice, and the minimum term has ceased to act as a meaningful threshold.
Public statements by the parole board and various ministers indicate that anything above 12 to 14 years is the least a life-sentenced prisoner can expect to serve prior to being considered for release. The rationale for this increase has not been clearly articulated but its consequences are apparent. Lifers released from prison today will have spent a decade longer in custody than their counterparts who were released in the early 1980s.
It is not the increase in time served that puts Ireland out of step internationally. Rather, it is the lack of certainty surrounding the process here. When considering release on parole, the minister is required to have regard to criteria set out in the Criminal Justice (Temporary Release of Prisoners) Act, 2003. These include the seriousness of the offence and previous convictions; the length of time served; the potential threat to public safety; the conduct of the person while in custody and during previous occasions of release; the reports and recommendations of various criminal justice agencies; the risk of reoffending or failing to comply with the conditions attaching to release; and the likelihood that any release period may accelerate social reintegration or improve employment prospects.
These criteria allow wide discretion in their application, but it would appear that they are supplemented by other considerations that are external to those contained in the legislation and extraneous to the offender’s status and circumstances. The murder rate, the prevalence of knife- and gun-related crimes, public abhorrence of the crime, and the importance of general deterrence have all been cited as relevant factors. There seems to be a parallel agenda at work that is somewhat at odds with legislative intent, introducing a great deal of confusion into the process.
As it stands, life-sentenced prisoners being considered for parole are not entitled to an oral hearing with a legal representative. There are limited means of contesting the contents of the review dossier when conflicts of information, assessment, or decision-making arise. Surprisingly little is known about a process that has such profound implications for individual liberty.
During a recent visit, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture received complaints from lifers regarding the lack of a structured sentence plan, making it difficult to know what the parole board required of them when they became eligible for release. The great majority of lifers are murderers. As a group they are unlikely to attract much sympathy from any quarter. All the more reason to ensure their treatment is fair, dignified, and in accordance with official policy and international best practice.
There are financial considerations also. The latest figures indicate that there are close to 300 lifers in prison. Each extra year they are confined costs more than €20 million. Unless there is good evidence that this money is achieving a return in terms of public protection, it is difficult to justify. The onus is on those responsible for creating this situation to demonstrate its effectiveness.
The scrutiny of parole in other jurisdictions has facilitated greater levels of transparency and accountability, produced research to assist in restructuring the process and improving decision-making, and fostered a more open approach to the provision of information to life sentence prisoners, the public and victims. Such scrutiny is long overdue in Ireland.
Ian ODonnell is professor of criminology at University College Dublin