Parole: Comparative Legal Aspects
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
The research topic was of the article selected intentionally. Despite the fact Lithuania adopted new Penal code in 2003, the effective model of parole system wasn’t established. Additionally, rate of parolee’s recidivism is quite high. Analyzing the content and quality of the parole system developed in Lithuania, we observe that our country is facing many problems of the conditional release implementation. Thus, parole remains one of the chief topics in an ongoing and lively discussion of the purposes and practices of the criminal justice system in our country.
The author highlights existent advantages and imperfections of the Penal Code regarding parole and proposes appropriate amendments of the Code. The main aims of the research are: firstly, to disclose the content of western parole system by analyzing it in the context of legal criteria and to define the definition of parole. Secondly, to evaluate the quality of the parole system existing in Lithuania and to disclose the range off issues associated with the parole process, and, thirdly, to propose concrete efficient ways of solving parole procedure and supervision problems in Lithuania.
The article analyses legal regulation of parole (conditional release) in the Republic of Lithuania and in the foreign countries (United States of America, Canada, United Kingdom, and Sweden). The author reviews the variety of parole definitions in the various legal systems. Parole systems differ in various legal systems, also country to country. Thus, parole definition, decision making, supervision and revocation process in Lithuania and mentioned foreign countries, the similarities and differences thereof, are compared in this article. Regarding to this analysis the new theoretic definition of parole is proposed. Also the main features of parole and differences between similar legal institutes – parole and early discharge from punishment – are highlighted in the article.
Despite the Penal Code presumes legal assumptions to apply conditional release to a wider range of prisoners, incarceration rate in Lithuania is very high comparing with other European Union countries (237 convicted prisoner’s per 100 000 inhabitants in 2006). The author proposes to widen the implementation of parole: the limits of the application of conditional release must be widened by shortening the term of the custodial penalty and by decreasing the number of prisoners to whom parole is not applied. Also the classification of parole is not appropriate in Lithuania, so the several parole types must be ordained in Lithuanian legal system. The author offers to establish discretionary and mandatory release system.
Also the legal status of parolees (obligations and rights), the violations of discipline and legal responsibility of parolees are discussed in the article. The system of obligations imposed to parolees should be improved in Lithuania. In order to reduce the risk of recidivism of conditionally released prisoners, it should be possible to impose on them individualised conditions. Additionally, in order to warrant the discipline of parolees and to avoid application of inadequate punishments, the article proposes the parolee conduct constituting a disciplinary offence shall be determined by the law or by the regulation of the competent authority. Also the implementation of early discharge from active supervision of parolees is proposed in the research.
Attention to parole assessment of the offender is paid in the research. The use and development of reliable risk and needs assessment instruments which would, in conjunction with other methods, assist parole decision-making should be encouraged. The criteria that prisoners have to fulfill in order to be conditionally released should be clear and explicit. They should also be realistic in the sense that they should take into account the prisoners personalities and social and economic circumstances as well as the availability of resettlement programmes.
The criteria for granting conditional release should be applied so as to grant conditional release to all prisoners who are considered as meeting the minimum level of safeguards for becoming law-abiding citizens. It should be incumbent on the authorities to show that a prisoner has not fulfilled the criteria. Additionally the author discuses about the institution enabled to evaluate these criterions and to make the conditional release decisions and necessity to change the authority (court) competent to impose parole in Lithuania.
The author highlights existent advantages and imperfections of the Penal Code regarding parole and proposes appropriate amendments of the Code. The main aims of the research are: firstly, to disclose the content of western parole system by analyzing it in the context of legal criteria and to define the definition of parole. Secondly, to evaluate the quality of the parole system existing in Lithuania and to disclose the range off issues associated with the parole process, and, thirdly, to propose concrete efficient ways of solving parole procedure and supervision problems in Lithuania.
The article analyses legal regulation of parole (conditional release) in the Republic of Lithuania and in the foreign countries (United States of America, Canada, United Kingdom, and Sweden). The author reviews the variety of parole definitions in the various legal systems. Parole systems differ in various legal systems, also country to country. Thus, parole definition, decision making, supervision and revocation process in Lithuania and mentioned foreign countries, the similarities and differences thereof, are compared in this article. Regarding to this analysis the new theoretic definition of parole is proposed. Also the main features of parole and differences between similar legal institutes – parole and early discharge from punishment – are highlighted in the article.
Despite the Penal Code presumes legal assumptions to apply conditional release to a wider range of prisoners, incarceration rate in Lithuania is very high comparing with other European Union countries (237 convicted prisoner’s per 100 000 inhabitants in 2006). The author proposes to widen the implementation of parole: the limits of the application of conditional release must be widened by shortening the term of the custodial penalty and by decreasing the number of prisoners to whom parole is not applied. Also the classification of parole is not appropriate in Lithuania, so the several parole types must be ordained in Lithuanian legal system. The author offers to establish discretionary and mandatory release system.
Also the legal status of parolees (obligations and rights), the violations of discipline and legal responsibility of parolees are discussed in the article. The system of obligations imposed to parolees should be improved in Lithuania. In order to reduce the risk of recidivism of conditionally released prisoners, it should be possible to impose on them individualised conditions. Additionally, in order to warrant the discipline of parolees and to avoid application of inadequate punishments, the article proposes the parolee conduct constituting a disciplinary offence shall be determined by the law or by the regulation of the competent authority. Also the implementation of early discharge from active supervision of parolees is proposed in the research.
Attention to parole assessment of the offender is paid in the research. The use and development of reliable risk and needs assessment instruments which would, in conjunction with other methods, assist parole decision-making should be encouraged. The criteria that prisoners have to fulfill in order to be conditionally released should be clear and explicit. They should also be realistic in the sense that they should take into account the prisoners personalities and social and economic circumstances as well as the availability of resettlement programmes.
The criteria for granting conditional release should be applied so as to grant conditional release to all prisoners who are considered as meeting the minimum level of safeguards for becoming law-abiding citizens. It should be incumbent on the authorities to show that a prisoner has not fulfilled the criteria. Additionally the author discuses about the institution enabled to evaluate these criterions and to make the conditional release decisions and necessity to change the authority (court) competent to impose parole in Lithuania.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Section
Articles
Authors contributing to Jurisprudence agree to publish their articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public (CC BY-NC-ND) License, allowing third parties to share their work (copy, distribute, transmit) and to adapt it, under the condition that the authors are given credit, and that in the event of reuse or distribution, the terms of this licence are made clear.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
