|
PAROLE SYSTEM : ANALYSIS AND COMPARATIVE STUDY IN REFERENCE TO U.S.A AND U.K
1
Author(s):
DR. RAHUL TRIPATHI
Vol - 8, Issue- 6 ,
Page(s) : 227 - 232
(2017 )
DOI : https://doi.org/10.32804/IRJMSH
Abstract
The layman and most courts look upon parole as a gift to the convict, an act of leniency on the part of the executive, frequently given as a reward for good behavior in prison. Strictly speaking parole is a privilege and no prisoner is entitled to it as a matter of right. The significance of parole lies in the fact that it enables the prisoner a free social life, yet retaining some effective control over him.
- John Gillin, criminology and penology (3rd Edn.), p-399
- The eminent criminologist Sutherland considers parole as a libration of an inmate from prison or a correctional institution on condition with restoration of the original penalty if those conditions of liberation are violated. Sutherland and Cressy, Principles of Criminology (6th Edn.), p.575.
- Bhikhabhai devshi v state of Gujarat, AIR 1987Guj. 136.
- The prisoners rehabilitation act in U.S.A. authorises furlough, a system of work release, which allows an inmate to participate in unsupervised employment in the community while residing in the institution during his leisure hours.
- 370 U.S. 927
- 59 Am. Jur. (2nd) 79.
- Ibid.
- As an example, the system followed in one U.S. state is taken here. The parole review process in Pennesylvania consists of four formal stages. First, The correctional staff association with the inmates at the institution make a corrective recommendation about release. Second, a parole case analyst who works at the institution but is employed by the Parole Board reviews and summarizes case and make a recommendation. Third, a Parole interviewer who is either a board members or a specialized hearing examiner conducts an interview with the parole applicant at the institution and makes a recommendation. Finally, quorum of Board members must officially decide the case unanimously. See John S.carroll et.al. “evaluation” , “Diagnosis”, and “prediction in parole Decision-making” 17 (1982) Law and Society Review, p.199 at p.200.
- Id, p-2Ol
- Martin L. Forst : sentencing reform in reducing disparity (Lon. 1982) P. 91.
- The Board which is at present composed of forty four members ordinarily sits in panels of five members- See 37 Halsbury’s Laws 0f England (1982), P-783. The Members are appointed by the home Secretary, and are paid for sessions which they attend. The Chairman is also appointed by the Home Secretary, and received a part—time salary By statute the Board must include (l) A person who holds or has held judicial office (2) A registered medical practitioner who is also a psychiatrist,(3) A person with knowledge and experienced of the supervision or after care of discharged prisoners, (4) a person appearing to the Secretary of State to have made a study of the Causes of delinquency or the treatment of offenders. See Nigel Walker, sentencing theory , Law and practice (1985), p.203
- 37 Halsbury's Laws of England (1982), p.788
- Id, p.788.
- Id, p.789.
- [1981] IL W.L.R. 754.
- The plaintiff was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was behaved in prison; being described as a "model prisoner " and was in the lowest security category .He sought release on license ,which after periodic reviews according with the criminal justice act 1967 and the local review committee rules 1967 ,had been refused .With the object of being better able to prepare representation for the next review he sought declaration against the defendants, representatives of parole board and the local review committee of the prison where he was detained and the home secretary that, in the effect ,he was entitled to know the reasons for refusing the release on license for refusing the release on license.
- Id. P-759 per denning , M.R.
- Sutherland & cressey : Principle of criminology (6th Ed.) p.586.
|