Maybe I'm not looking in the right place, but I haven't noticed anyone discussing the latest debate about the report put out by a review panel of former conservative party members to scrap statutory release. I can't post URL's yet but there's a few articles on it in the Financial Post. Many people, both offenders and community members, rely on SR for supervising higher risk guys before releasing them with nothing. This becomes the very issue, that this same population has a higher risk of screwing up while supervised, making everyone look bad.

So what's the PTO take on this?

Not familiar with it (still pretty new to this whole ballgame), could you PM me the links? I could post or at least read and comment.

Girlonwhyte,

Interesting question. I found this article at the National Post. I don't know if this is the article you had in mind.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/afghanistan/Story.html?id=211681&p=1
(why its in the Afghanistan section of the National Post is a mystery)

The article seems to take some liberties. It should be noted that the article appears to be an editorial so that explains the bias.

publicsafety.gc.ca/csc-scc/report-rapport/executive_summary-eng.aspx

If this works, add the www etc and cut n' paste the rest. It's a summary of the full review

Point #5 outlines the arguments for eliminating SR. As much as "Earned Parole" sounds reasonable and places the responsibility back to the offender, it could also
-place more political influence upon the NPB, swaying the number of granted parole according to elections and personal agendas
-increase the % of failures on parole by lowering standards to ease the stress on (already overcrowded) institutions, justifying further conservative policy changes
-reduce current efforts for community and police involvement for higher risk offenders, ones more likely to re-offend and have higher needs, costing more to incarcerate.

Don't get me wrong, I haven't made up my mind and really, something needs to change for this population.

Girlonwhyte,

Considering those released on day or full parole "earned" their parole, it stands to reason that earned parole already exists in the system. One possible suggestion would be to make eligibility for statutory release only possible after obtaining full parole. That way the offender would be assured of "earning" their parole. Also introduce flexibility into when statutory release may be granted. If an offender is doing well on full parole then they would be eligible for having the stat release date bumped up. This would also be a 2 way street where an offender can have their stat release date postponed.

Do you guys work in the parole system?
You both seem so knowledgable about these topics.
I am just curious, it's very helpful for someone like me who's trying to navigate this very complex issue.

LOL... even if we did, we couldn't say here...

If a guy is granted Full Parole, he doesn't have Statutory Release. Full Parole does not have an expiry date and is considered completed right to Warrant Expiry. Their idea of "earned" parole is what we already have, Day and Full, but the issue being the population that wouldn't be considered for either in the first place.

npb-cnlc.gc.ca/reports/pdf/pfo_2006-2007/profil-2006_2007-eng.htm

There's tons of evidence here to support that SR is a failure for releases (more stats on this site), but one could argue these stats neglect to show how the process allows for the disparity between success/failure rates. An example is how in the prairie region, 70% of Aboriginals are incarcerated. They have a higher rate of violence, lower education rate and as a result, they are higher security. If you are higher security, you are much less likely to be supported for parole (obviously), and by the same token, become a higher risk to re-offend once in the community. So good for the stats if they get rid of SR, but doesn't really make me feel safer knowing no one is keeping an eye out for the first bit while the guy is out. The good news (to me) is that it might improve sentencing, motivation and public safety, but there's a lot of potential problems that need to be resolved first.

sorry, let me clarify that stat: 70% of Aboriginals in the Federal system are incarcerated as opposed to being out on parole. That stat was from the site above, NPB as of 2006-2007

If full parole is maintained (and not morph into stat release with possibly less stringent conditions) to the sentence expiry then one solution is to simply eliminate SR and replace it with nothing. One of the real differences between SR and full parole is that the NPB does not have a large role in SR releases. (ie. there is no parole hearing). This could be one reason for the poor SR statistics you mention. So with no SR, then every one released would have had a parole hearing (or have waited to the end of their sentence). This would leave a void for people who are of higher risk/security. So instead of the "earned" parole that was suggested by the hearings, possibly enacting a release program solely targeting those who are unlikely to get full parole.

So instead of the "earned" parole that was suggested by the hearings, possibly enacting a release program solely targeting those who are unlikely to get full parole.

I like that idea and hope something like that gets considered.

As it stands, the NPB goes to lengths to remind people that they're not that involved. They are involved, but not by way of an application process. You made me think of another problem connected to this, the lack of community resources for these guys, leaving little recourse for po's, police, npb, csc, to supervise high risk offenders. As it stands, high risk guys are subject to npb decisions for conditions, residency hearings or detaining someone until the end of the sentence. That's right, it's something they can already do, they just don't do it often. Residency is another option, but halfway houses can get full quickly and not many people like having one in their neighbourhood.

I'm wondering if we would see the sudden plans to build community correctional centres to accommodate this policy, like part of the idea Quentin mentioned?

The funny part is that the idea is exactly what statutory release aready is.. just broken and needs to be fixed

Ok, lol, sorry for asking that.
There is so much to learn about the whole process, it seems very compicated and of course I guess every situation is a little different.