Discretionary Prison Release Mechanisms: Perennial Tensions and Dilemmas

• In Event: Judicial Discretion in the Sentencing Process 2

Abstract

This paper will consider some of perennial tensions and dilemmas that are embedded in all discretionary prisoner release mechanisms across the world, but particularly in parole. What are the core assumptions that underpin these processes? How judicial/quasi-judicial should they be? Should they be fully open and transparent? If not, why not? If based on oral hearings, what is the purpose of such hearings and how should they be conducted? Is it legitimate to interrogate prisoners strenuously at oral hearings? What, generally, should be the criteria for decision making? What is the relevance of prisoners’ previous offending and how much detail is needed to make an informed decision on their release? To what extent is a prisoner’s ‘remorse’, ‘insight into their offending behaviour’ and ‘appreciation’ of the effect of their offending on victims and society relevant? What weight should be given to prisoners’ behaviour in prison? What weight should be given to engagement/lack of engagement in rehabilitative programmes in custody? What restrictions should be placed on prisoners when they are released? What should happen if released prisoners then fail to comply with those restrictions? And what place, if any, should victims have in the decision-making process?

Author

• Stephen Cameron Shute, University of Sussex