Hi fellow writers and readers,
A quick thank you to About Time for the national paper. I really enjoy reading about the ins and outs of Australian jail life.
I’ve been around awhile. Presently I’m looking at the back end of a 21-year sentence and approaching 50 years old fast. Currently, the Crisafulli government (in Queensland) is asking for submissions into the latest review on how to improve the parole process for victims and community safety.
I strongly believe the last few Queensland governments’ hardline policies of being tough on crime started a community view of “lock them up and throw away the key”. Politically generated views, like these, lead to the victims and the community having misguided notions that the community would be better served if offenders did full time.
There has to be a time in an individual’s sentence when the punishment for crimes committed must stop and rehabilitation for community re-entry must start, regardless of sentence or crime.
I feel where previous governments have failed is by not informing victims and the community about the role that parole serves to protect the community.
The Queensland Ministerial Guidelines to the Parole Board (1.3), quote: “The only purpose of parole is to reintegrate a prisoner into the community before the end of a prison sentence to decrease the chance that the prisoner will ever reoffend. The only rationale for parole is to keep the community safe from crime.” So how does parole reduce reoffending and keep the community safe?
Parole is a supervised release with a truckload of conditions and some level of support – for accommodation, finances, psychological help, extra rehabilitative courses and employment. It’s different for everyone. Regardless of how many conditions and support an individual has, we all know occasionally they still make mistakes. This is why supervision is so important.
It’s easy for governments and corrective services to wipe their hands of an offender at full time. What happens after is not their fault – right! Far from it. An offender leaving custody at full time is a great risk to the community. Many have no support, no accommodation. They can be untreated. But, most of all, none are supervised.
The thing is, most of the time, it’s not the person who has failed; it’s the system who has failed the offender.
Here in Queensland, QCS regularly tells inmates it does not recognise parole dates, only full time dates. This is just one part of a larger system failure. By not ensuring inmates have completed rehabilitation courses, found accommodation and gained support, there can be no parole. Many inmates become so frustrated after years of requesting programs that full time is no longer their last option. It’s their only option.
If the government is serious about change, I would encourage them to be more open-minded. Use the procedures within the prison system for what they are designed for – e.g. allowing long-term offenders access to low-security farms to reduce the risks. I feel the prison system would benefit if it was more transparent so the victims and community could be better educated on how and why things happen.
Community safety depends on the seamless reintegration of released prisoners – the more the better if supervised.
This may not be the most popular vote. However, it is the best practice. I’m not sure a constructive change is possible but I hope that, maybe through education, the best practice will become the popular vote.
Hi fellow writers and readers,
A quick thank you to About Time for the national paper. I really enjoy reading about the ins and outs of Australian jail life.
I’ve been around awhile. Presently I’m looking at the back end of a 21-year sentence and approaching 50 years old fast. Currently, the Crisafulli government (in Queensland) is asking for submissions into the latest review on how to improve the parole process for victims and community safety.
I strongly believe the last few Queensland governments’ hardline policies of being tough on crime started a community view of “lock them up and throw away the key”. Politically generated views, like these, lead to the victims and the community having misguided notions that the community would be better served if offenders did full time.
There has to be a time in an individual’s sentence when the punishment for crimes committed must stop and rehabilitation for community re-entry must start, regardless of sentence or crime.
I feel where previous governments have failed is by not informing victims and the community about the role that parole serves to protect the community.
The Queensland Ministerial Guidelines to the Parole Board (1.3), quote: “The only purpose of parole is to reintegrate a prisoner into the community before the end of a prison sentence to decrease the chance that the prisoner will ever reoffend. The only rationale for parole is to keep the community safe from crime.” So how does parole reduce reoffending and keep the community safe?
Parole is a supervised release with a truckload of conditions and some level of support – for accommodation, finances, psychological help, extra rehabilitative courses and employment. It’s different for everyone. Regardless of how many conditions and support an individual has, we all know occasionally they still make mistakes. This is why supervision is so important.
It’s easy for governments and corrective services to wipe their hands of an offender at full time. What happens after is not their fault – right! Far from it. An offender leaving custody at full time is a great risk to the community. Many have no support, no accommodation. They can be untreated. But, most of all, none are supervised.
The thing is, most of the time, it’s not the person who has failed; it’s the system who has failed the offender.
Here in Queensland, QCS regularly tells inmates it does not recognise parole dates, only full time dates. This is just one part of a larger system failure. By not ensuring inmates have completed rehabilitation courses, found accommodation and gained support, there can be no parole. Many inmates become so frustrated after years of requesting programs that full time is no longer their last option. It’s their only option.
If the government is serious about change, I would encourage them to be more open-minded. Use the procedures within the prison system for what they are designed for – e.g. allowing long-term offenders access to low-security farms to reduce the risks. I feel the prison system would benefit if it was more transparent so the victims and community could be better educated on how and why things happen.
Community safety depends on the seamless reintegration of released prisoners – the more the better if supervised.
This may not be the most popular vote. However, it is the best practice. I’m not sure a constructive change is possible but I hope that, maybe through education, the best practice will become the popular vote.
