A Day in the Life of a Parole Board Member

This day is quite typical of those in which I travel to the federal institutions in our area to conduct hearings with inmates. Our office is in Moncton, NB, and our five federal penitentiaries are within driving distance. As we are going to Springhill Medium Security Institution today, we will leave the office at 7:00 a.m. and arrive at about 8:30 a.m.

I am normally up at 5:30 a.m. or so in order to comfortably prepare for departure ensuring I have my files with me as well as what seems to be my ever present companions, my policy manual and a copy of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Even though I have done this job for years, I still frequently consult the policy manual and the legislation, which authorize me to vote to release an offender from prison. The law has changed in recent years and each offender's case can be starkly different. Some can be very complicated especially if they have lengthy records or are serving time for violent offences or offences involving drugs or sexual abuse. I want to be absolutely sure I am following the rule of law in each and every case I handle.

We will be seeing six inmates today, five of whom are being seen for full parole and one who has applied for a day parole. These inmates will not be complete strangers to me when I meet them face to face. I spent all day yesterday in the office reading their parole files from cover to cover. Our timetables are arranged to allow for one full study day for each day of scheduled hearings.

Studying an inmate's file is always demanding, especially if there are three or four volumes of information on an offender, which can happen if that person has a lengthy record. In studying the files, I look for patterns and I check very closely to see if there is information missing which I will need before making a decision on a case. For example, it is vitally important to know: why an inmate is serving time (convicted for what specific crimes); what motivated him/her to commit the offences; whether there has been a history of similar offences; what impact the crimes have had on any victims; whether violence was involved in the commission of the offence(s); whether the offence was sexually motivated; whether the inmate has taken any steps to address his criminal behavior; and if his/her risk has been reduced to a point where it can be effectively and safely managed in the community.

Our files, which contain detailed information on each offender, are prepared by the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC). CSC is responsible for obtaining police reports on the crimes committed, criminal histories of previous crimes, and comments, or reasons for sentencing, from the presiding judge. They also provide community assessments, which assess reactions from many sources in the offender's home community - such as victims, family, friends and police. CSC also assesses each offender on admission to prison and produces an Offender Intake Assessment report which looks closely at the offender's criminogenic needs, such as alcohol or drug abuse, academic deficiencies (many of our offenders are illiterate), serious psychological or psychiatric problems, or problems with handling anger or emotional outbursts. Subsequently, Correctional Treatment Plans are formulated with the offender to point out what the individual must do to address his criminal behavior, turn his life around and return to the community as a law-abiding member of society. Programming is then made available for those who require it, programming like: educational upgrading; substance abuse treatment; sex offender treatment; anger management and cognitive or thinking skills - in other words, programs designed to help an individual realize the consequences of certain behavior (for themselves and others) before actually committing an act. Then reports are prepared outlining the inmates participation and progress in those programs.

The inmate's institutional progress is also reported along with psychiatric and psychological reports (where required) which provide critical information about an inmate's behavior and whether it is felt the person requires further professional help to deal with his/her problems. Professional opinions and assessments form a part of these reports and are good indicators of whether an individual is seen as a serious risk to re-offend.

It is easy to see that files can be extensive and that the information contained in them is critical to helping you paint a picture of each individual you are dealing with. Reviewing the files also allows you to formulate a plan for questioning the inmate when you see him at the hearing. It allows you to focus on what you really feel you need to know, questions in your mind, which may still be unanswered.

Today, I am driving to Springhill Institution with one of my fellow Board Members and a Hearing Assistant. It is a requirement that the majority of inmates in Federal institutions require two Parole Board Members to review their cases and vote on conditional release. In some instances, such as in the cases of lifers or those individuals who are being considered for detention (those to be kept in prison until the very last day of their sentence), three Parole Board Members must review and vote on the case.

We are legally required to share the reasons for our decisions with the inmates and must eventually provide them with a full written copy of the decision. In addition to this, should interested parties such as victims or representatives of the media request a copy of our decisions, we also provide them with a copy. It is very important to be clear and direct when rendering a decision because your name as the decision-maker is on the bottom line for the world, including your colleagues, neighbors, friends and family members to see.

Today, we have a full slate of hearings. We will see six inmates and spend approximately one hour with each one. They will be accompanied by an institutional Case Management Officer (CMO), a CSC employee who has been primarily responsible for preparing the inmate's case for the hearing. The CMO offers an opinion on the inmate's readiness for conditional release and makes a clear-cut recommendation for or against parole.

Our approach at each hearing is to review the highlights of the inmate's criminal life to date and to question the inmate about his history and his plans for the future. It is critical to be able to determine if: change has occurred with the inmate; the change is sufficient to indicate that he is ready to serve the rest of his sentence in the community under the supervision of a parole officer; he no longer presents an undue risk to re-offend when he is back in the community.

Of course, when you are dealing with human behavior, there are neither guarantees nor foolproof ways of determining whether anyone will stick to the straight and narrow and continue to live a crime-free life. I believe, though, that it is safer to have individuals return to the community in a gradual and controlled way, with professional supervision and support, than it is to release them from prison at the end of a sentence without any safety net in place.

When the majority of the hearing is over and the facts are before us, we request the inmate and everyone else leave the room and we, two Board Members, deliberate and make our final decision on whether to grant or deny release.

It is quite a responsibility and quite sobering to realize you are dealing with another human being's freedom. It is equally sobering to be aware that you may have to live with the consequences of releasing someone who may re-offend. Weighing everything is not easy, and as I said before, there are no absolute guarantees nor safeguards when it comes to human behavior, but it's my job to make such decisions and I know that I must make many of them on a daily basis. And I do that always with public protection as the paramount concern.

The decisions we make and the reasons for them are immediately conveyed verbally to the inmate who is asked to return to the hearing room along with whomever else may have been present.

We decided to grant full parole to two of the six inmates we saw today and day parole to another. Three inmates were denied release and advised that we did not feel they were ready to go back to society yet.

The first inmate we paroled was a 32-year-old serving 4 years for a series of break and enters, which he perpetrated to get money to support his drug habit. Since coming to Springhill Institution, he upgraded his education getting his General Education Degree (GED), he followed an intensive substance abuse program and he had a job lined up for the future in his home community, where he plans to live with his common-law wife and two children who strongly support his return home. He will be required to abstain from the use of drugs and alcohol throughout his period of supervision.

The other inmate to be granted a full parole was a 25-year-old who is serving 3-1/2 years for selling drugs to an undercover RCMP officer. He had no previous criminal record and his crime was motivated by a way to make some quick money to live a lifestyle that he could not support from the income from his job as a laborer. The police in his home community were not opposed to his returning there provided he was closely supervised and aware of the fact that they would be keeping a close eye on him. He also had the support of his former employer who kept a job available for him, and a place to stay with his parents who have always been there for him.

Our day parole grant was to a 57-year-old sex offender who is serving 5-1/2 years for sex crimes committed against his daughter and one of her friends when they were in their early teen years. This individual readily admitted his guilt when confronted by the police and when he appeared in court. He demonstrated genuine remorse for his crimes and acknowledged the harm he caused his victims. He enrolled in a sex offender treatment program when it became available at the institution and reports from the program's provider were highly positive. A psychiatric report on file did not indicate any pedophilic tendencies, and the psychiatrist felt that this inmate was not a serious risk to re-offend if he continued to follow sex offender treatment programming in the community. A day parole release will allow us to more gradually return this offender to the community requiring him to stay in a half-way house for the next six months and to continue his program involvement with the local Sexual Behavior Clinic. He has also been strictly ordered not to have any contact with the victims of his crimes. If he breaches this parole condition, he risks being returned to the institution.

We denied parole to one twenty-year-old inmate who is only serving 2 years but who committed serious assault on two victims. This inmate had a history of assaultive behavior as a juvenile, and he had not demonstrated to us that he was willing to accept responsibility for his behavior or to take the steps required to help him with his anger problems. Our second denial involved a 27-year-old repeat offender who was serving time for a series of property-related offences, but who had failed on a previous parole release. He had done nothing to deal with his substance abuse problems and he had no support available in the community.

The third inmate we decided not to release was serving time for drug-related crimes and spousal abuse. He had also been charged and convicted of Assault Causing Bodily Harm. This was his second term in a federal penitentiary and although he had taken some programs to deal with his problems, we felt that a further period of incarceration and program involvement would be necessary before we would grant a conditional release in his case.

As we wrap up at the institution, I note that it is 5:15 p.m. and we have a drive of 90 minutes left before we're home. While reflecting on the day, I can say that I think I've been fair in my risk assessment of the inmates I have seen, and to the communities where they will return.

Even so, you always worry about those you release and when you hear a news report about a crime has been committed in some community, you hope and pray that nobody was hurt during the commission of the offence and that it wasn't committed by someone you released. But I know that is part of the job - even with the best risk assessment tools, nothing is guaranteed. However, I truly believe that parole is the best way to ensure public protection through the gradual reintegration of offenders at the most appropriate time in their sentence. Also, because I live in the community to which many of these offenders return, I know that my risk assessment of their potential for success is integral to the safety of my own community.