NCJ Number
185881
Journal
Justice Report Volume: 15 Issue: 2 Dated: 2000 Pages: 10-12
Editor(s)
Gaston St-Jean
Date Published
2000
Length
3 pages
Annotation
Canada's National Parole Board (NPB) was conceived as a completely independent parole decision-making authority, with considerable discretionary authority and a much broader mandate than the previous Remission Service.
Abstract
The Parole Act established new criteria for the NPB. The board could release an inmate when he or she derived the maximum benefit of imprisonment, when the reform and rehabilitation of the inmate would be aided by parole, and when release would not be an undue risk to society. The board had freedom to deal with each case on its own merits. In 1959, during its first year of operation, the board granted 994 paroles, the greatest number to date. Parole candidates were assessed on the basis of factors that might affect their behavior after release. When parole was granted, the offender had to abide by certain conditions that were spelled out in the parole certificate, such as keeping reasonable hours, working, supporting dependents, abstaining from alcohol, and staying away from criminal associates. In the 1960's, parole was seen as the final stage of a treatment program. Day parole was implemented to allow offenders to leave a correctional institution for short periods to work or to attend school. Between 1959 and 1967, the NPB granted more than 9,000 paroles from Federal penitentiaries, a grant rate of 36 percent of the more than 25,000 applications received. In the late 1960's, the Parole Act was revised to stipulate an inmate who had accumulated more than 60 days of remission and was eligible for release had to be released to serve his remitted time under community supervision, subject to the same conditions as any parolee. In the early 1970's, a riot at Kingston Penitentiary emphasized the theme of inmate rights, and the NPB realized it would have to change its rules and regulations to ensure it did not act or appear to act unfairly or capriciously. Several procedural safeguards were adopted that dealt with the inmate's right to a hearing at his or her parole eligibility date, the inmate's right to reasons in writing when parole was denied, internal review of negative decisions, and a hearing at the inmate's request when his or her parole was suspended and revocation was considered. These changes made a significant difference to the morale of inmates who had previously been cynical about the parole process.