Trust calls tougher parole plan 'a con'

A justice lobby group says a Law Commission proposal to make prisoners eligible for parole after serving two-thirds of their sentence instead of one-third is an attempt to con the public.

The Sensible Sentencing Trust said the proposed change would have no beneficial effect on crime or prison levels.

Trust spokesman Garth McVicar said the so-called shake-up was actually a shake-down and the public was being conned.

"This is more of the same old claptrap that has led this country to the brink of social disaster. Under these proposals our crime and imprisonment rates will continue to escalate."

On Monday the commission said prisoners should not be eligible for parole until they had served two-thirds of their sentence - twice the present threshold of one-third.

But the commission's new president, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, said it might also recommend that the nominal sentences handed out be reduced proportionately so that prisoners would not actually spend extra time in prison.

"If you wished to keep sentencing severity as it is now, you would need to reduce court-imposed sentences in order to compensate," said the commission's deputy president, Dr Warren Young.

He emphasised the commission was still considering just what recommendations it would make.

Sir Geoffrey said the present sentencing system was based on something that bordered on "deception"- it said a high nominal sentence would be imposed but that would be mitigated "very, very greatly" by parole.

"We think that probably there needs to be a closer relationship between a nominal sentence which is imposed by a judge, and the actual time served by a prisoner," said Sir Geoffrey.

The purpose of parole was to manage the risk of reoffending, "and we think the Parole Board's activities need to be narrowed".

The parole system had lost credibility in recent years: The reasons for parole were not sufficiently clear, and the portion of the sentence for which an inmate was eligible for release was too large.

Sir Geoffrey said the commission was also looking at providing judges with greater guidance on the exercise of their discretion in sentencing, and possibly even setting up a local version of the sentencing guidelines council used in Britain.

But Mr McVicar said that if the commission was serious about fixing problems with the system, it should abolish parole and ensure criminals served the full sentence in jail that the judge handed down.

- NZPA