Law and order issues usually end up evolving into a political auction as each side of politics seeks to prove that they are tougher on protecting citizens. A proposal to release Victor Chang's killer on health grounds has revived this debate. There is now a proposal to extend the gaol term of those who refuse to take part in the prison rehabilitation programmes.
This seems to miss the point. When a convicted felon appears before a judge for sentencing that judge usually imposes a maximum sentence as prescribed by law for the offence committed, but the judge does not expect the prisoner to serve that time fully. For that reason, there is usually a nominated period that must be served before any prospect of release on parole.
Once that minimum sentence has expired, additional factors will be weighed up by the parole board. Has the prisoner shown remorse ? Has the prisoner been well behaved behind bars. ? Has the prisoner attended rehabilitation programmes ? What are the chances of the prisoner being successfully reintegrated into society ?
A prisoner who is defiant of authority and makes trouble in the prison fails one of those tests. A prisoner who shows no remorse and refuses all offers of rehabilitation fails another. That prisoner can not expect an early release when the fixed term of imprisonment has expired - and will usually remain behind bars for the full extent of the term awarded by the judge.
A reward for good conduct and cooperation is already built into the system by way of early remission. It also delivers a bonus to society. A prisoner released on parole is subjected to the rules and regulations imposed by the parole board - and supervised by parole officers. In contrast, a defiant prisoner who is refused parole and eventually serves his or her full sentence, walks out the prison gate with no further control measures in place. They are entirely free - and there is no restriction to stop them resuming a life of crime.
It is true that Victor Chang's killer has refused rehabilitation and has not expressed remorse for his actions, but he also has Parkinsons disease and is showing signs of Alzheimers disease. If he is denied early release and deportation to Malaysia, he will have to serve the few years remaining on his sentence, but he will probably be too ill to remain within the normal prison system and will need to be housed in some sort of prison hospital - at great public expense.
The prospect of a new law second guessing the sentence handed down by the legal system and imposing additional gaol time would overturn the concept under which our laws are based. We would be venturing into the area of holding people in prison without the offender having a day in court in respect to the additional time to be served - something we abhor in undemocratic regimes. It could invoke the concept of "double jeopardy ".
Tinkering with the law to gain political approval can have far reaching - and very unexpected - consequences !
No comments:
Post a Comment