Marc My Words - 9 March 2007

The Graeme Burton case is a bungle from beginning to end. Even this weeks report on the Parole Board's and Corrections handling of the criminals release has failed to get at the core problems. In its stead we find nothing less than each department absolving the other of any negligence and responsibility. Even Helen Clark (not someone usually known for principled inscrutability), has slammed them for their failures saying their "approach has been rather legalistic."

But, of course that's what you get when the so-called academics and bureaucrats get involved with running these things. Commonsense takes a flying leap and gets replaced by thick wads of procedural clap-trap. The end result? Corrections chief executive Barry Matthews claimed that "nobody could have predicted that Burton would go on some crazy mission in the Lower Hutt and kill people." Oh no?

Well first off we know that 86% of released inmates re-offend within five years with 70% of them having more than ten offences. So, in general we can expect these criminals to re-offend. But more specifically regarding Burton, he was assessed in the reports as being "at "high risk" or "very high risk" or "moderate to high risk" of "re-offending in a violent manner". Not too difficult to understand I would have thought.

Then we have Burton's own words where he wrote to his probation officer that he wanted to kill his neighbor and asked to be returned to prison. Now, I'm no genius but when a convicted murderer says he feels like killing again, I would take some notice.

And to cap it off, there were reports of Burton assaulting three fellow inmates during February and March last year, sufficiently compelling enough to result in a prison transfer (apparently he broke one prisoner's arm). In other words Corrections tried to protect other prisoners from Burton but scarcely a year later didn't bother doing the same for the public. I guess we know whose side they're on, don't we?

Then there was Burton's 14 days segregation and move to higher security before his release.

Despite assurances from the Department of Corrections that Burton was 'appropriately managed' on parole, it is an utter disgrace that in spite the benefit of hindsight, the reports they authored persist in claiming a full exoneration of both the Parole Board and Corrections citing only that a bit more communication might have been helpful.

A number of things need to be changed.

The Parole Board must have access to all the facts. To base decisions on incomplete information is absurd when so much is riding on the determinations. Furthermore the Parole Act of 2002 must be scrapped. Prisoner eligibility for parole should not be that they are released at the first opportunity consistent with community safety; they should serve the full sentence unless there exists an overwhelming conviction that they are unlikely to re-offend. From my perspective, that would immediately disqualify any violent offender.

But while some have argued for getting rid of parole altogether, it would be perhaps a better option to change its function. The parole board currently focuses on 'risk', prison behavior, counseling session attendance, and remorse - none of which are particularly susceptible for accurate predictive value outside the highly structured life within the prison environment. Instead of unreasonably burdening the parole board with the impossible job of distinguishing genuine remorse from a self-serving desire to curtail continuing punishment, why not look at the criminal's track record? The overall re-offending rate of parolees should be considered as an over-arching indication of the general risk posed by a specific offender. Any offender who has a history of offences or who has returned to prison should be automatically disqualified from parole in the future. Why another chance?

The purpose of parole should be modified as well so that it becomes primarily a monitoring regime with conditions as opposed to a simple 'get out of jail early' card. In other words for low level non-violent offenders early release may be included (as a privilege not a right), while violent offenders do the full time, incurring an additional post sentence regime. A law change would be necessary to convert such sentences to preventative detention with a minimum incarceration period. The result would then reflect not only truth in sentencing but also continue to impose a framework of incentives to ensure released inmates were under continued scrutiny. Any breach should be a police and corrections matter resulting in immediate arrest. In contrast the present failure to punish breaches serves only to undermine the Parole Board's determinations.

The composition of the parole board should change and reflect more the victim's point of view. This is easily achieved with the additional appointment of a victim's advocate. Although parole boards have improved markedly since the introduction of the Victim's Rights Act 2002, and victim's are heard much more compassionately, the legalistic arguments often sideline genuine concerns. This is not the fault of the parole board but the restrictive legislative framework they work under. Over a number of personal experiences advocating or supporting victims before the board, it seemed like there was a constant recognition of what they couldn't do rather than what they could.

But ultimately we are not helped by reports that refuse to determine or apportion responsibility for failure. Hell, they couldn't even get Burton's murder conviction date right; citing it wrongly by ten years. Disregarding the abundant evidence of Burton's continuing predilection for violence was a choice; one that resulted in the tragic death of Karl Kuchenbecker. They even admitted that the "investigation did not focus on the advice provided by Community Probation Service relating to proposed release conditions".

Claiming the decision to let Burton out was reasonable is laughable. Unhappily some members of the legal fraternity confuse their role with that of spin merchants providing a litany of excuses as to their abysmal failures. In doing so they betray their real alignment with the criminals rather than the security of the public. Their provision of second, third and fourth chances to these criminals are at our expense. They are the self-appointed vanguard of our society's compassion squandering it on those least deserving.

Sadly there will be more Burton's to deal with in the future unless we start putting the interests of victims and the law-abiding first. Until then the failures will continue to be seen as infrequent - and therefore manageable. Of course the only people who argue such nonsense are those least likely to bear the brunt. The present obsession with treating criminals as if they are the victims of society with parole as a right must change. The obligation should be on them to prove that the privilege of parole is deserved beyond all reasonable doubt. That would, I'm sure, reduce those who qualify for early release down to a trickle, in keeping with the proportion of those who don't re-offend - for whom the idea was brought in in the first place.

ENDS

© Scoop Media