Parole is a system in which the convict is released before their term of punishment to serve the remaining of their sentence in the society. Parole is not freedom from the sentence term but it is a conditional release of offenders to ensure their adaption back to the regular social life before completion of their term but under strict supervision for security of society. NSW State Parole Authority is governed by Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act, 1999. It determines the release of offenders on parole, terms and conditions of parole, intensive correction order, home detention order and reasons for granting parole and reasons for its refusal. In this report we will discuss on the one of the parole cases decide by the SPA and understand the structure and working of working of parole system through this case study.
The primary role of NSW State Parole Authority is to make well conceived, independent and appropriate decisions regarding release of offenders on parole into the community. The main purpose of parole system is to release the offenders as an incentive for good behavior and their re-establishment back into the society so that they do not need to remain in custody longer than the need for security of society while providing a continual measure for protection of community. Parole serves the interests of offenders as well as public interest by ensuring that the offenders are supervised and supported during rejuvenation. It provides a more effective way of protecting the public than would a sudden release of offenders at sentence expiry, without assistance and supervision. In this report we will focus on aspects of maximum three aspects of the deliberations of State Parole Authority though a case study of parole hearing in the court.
Case Study And Understanding Of Procedures Of SPA
When the task of writing a report on the operations of parole process by State Parole Authority of NSW was given to me, I decided to attend a hearing of parole process at the court for the better understanding of the whole system. I attended the hearing of parole process of Andrew Smith (offender) (imaginary name) on August 8, 2013. The offender of the present case was currently 48 years old and was in custody for the offences of aggravated sexual assault, escape from lawful custody, stealing of motor vehicle, robbery and detain for advantage. He was originally sentenced to a term of 21 years and then had a further sentence imposed in 2004. As his case was introduced, I came to the knowledge that he had completed Positive Lifestyles Program, Anger Management, Relapse Prevention Program, and Getting SMART. He had also completed a few sessions of CUBIT maintenance and had participated in significant number of 1:1 counseling sessions with a psychologist but further he declined to participate in any further programs or maintenance at the moment. It was also been told that he was a C1 classification and his last internal misconduct charges for possess/create prohibited goods. His most recent urinalysis in March 2013 was positive, but there had been a recent improvement in his custodial behavior. No pre release leave had been undertaken given his C1 classification and it was Moderate to High on Static 99. He had occasional contact with mother and brother on the phone and was suitable for placement at Nunyara COSP. Before attending the court proceedings I had studied and prepared on the subject of parole process of New South Wales State Parole Authority. According to Sec 135(1) of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 states that “the Parole Authority must not make a parole order of an offender unless it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities that the release of the offenders is appropriate in the public interest.” In the general procedures of the SPA it is decided in the private board meetings of SPA that whether or not an offender should be released. This decision is again based on the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document