Fewer prisoners on parole isn’t making us safer

We are wasting money on prisons in Canada. Not that we should remove them, but they are certainly being overused.
Prior to the mid-1990s it was widely accepted that imprisonment is a necessary evil that should be used sparingly.

Today, imprisonment is viewed as the number one way to deal with criminals. Any methods other than imprisonment are typically considered “too lenient.” What has changed?
In recent years, we have been told that a “tough-on-crime” approach is the only way to deal with crime effectively, and that prisons can keep our streets safe because they keep criminals off them. However, this so called “safety” is temporary.
In 2013-14, of all the guilty findings that resulted in a prison sentence only 3.4 per cent of them were sentenced to a federal prison (a sentence longer than two years). The remaining 96.6 per cent have received sentences shorter than two years, with most getting sentences of six months or less (87.7 per cent). Further, of the inmates in federal prisons in 2014-15, 50.4 per cent were serving sentences shorter than five years and 70 per cent shorter than 10 years. Most prisoners will be released at some point, many of who will be released in a relatively short period of time.
Ideally, criminals will serve their sentences, be released from prison and live a productive, crime-free life. Unfortunately, this is not always the way it works. There is no evidence to show that prisons have a rehabilitative effect (in fact, there is some evidence that suggests the opposite), and the transition from prison back into society is not an easy one.
This is the role of parole — or at least its original role. After serving one-third of their sentence, a prisoner becomes eligible for parole (released from prison with a list of conditions that must be followed for the remainder of their sentence). The purpose is to facilitate the peaceful reintegration of prisoners back into society. When it works, it is a win-win scenario for both the prisoner and the community.
However, parole is on the decline. Fifty years ago, around 1 out of 5.4 federal prisoners were released on parole and 1 out of 3.6 provincial prisoners. Comparatively, in 2012-13, 1 out of 14.7 federal prisoners were released on parole, and 1 out of 35.9 provincial prisoners. Further, it is uncommon for those who are released on parole to actually be released at the one-third mark. Rather, on average, parolees are released at the 46 per cent mark of their sentence. The parole system is merely a shell of what it once was.
What is happening? The purpose of parole has shifted from the gradual reintegration of prisoners into society to a merit based system that “rewards” those who are judged to pose no risk to society. This is in complete contrast to the original purpose of parole.
Today, those who (in theory) need the most time and help to reintegrate back into society are given the least amount of time and help to do so. Parole boards are not allowed to grant parole to anyone who they think might reoffend. It is said that this enhances public safety. Given that many of the prisoners who are “too dangerous” to be granted parole will eventually be released, it can be argued that this actually reduces public safety.
It is understandable why parole boards would be hesitant to release prisoners. They are held accountable for any parolee who reoffends while on parole. When considering public safety, it may be better to release some prisoners too early, than release a lot of prisoners too late.
It was mentioned earlier that we are wasting money on prisons. Here is why. On average, it costs $115,310 per year to keep an offender in a federal prison. Conversely, it would cost only $34,432 to maintain that same offender in the community. The misuse of parole is both a public safety and economic issue.
The argument here is not that all prisoners should automatically be granted parole. Rather, parole needs to be used more, scrutinized less, and used for the right reasons. The current parole system is a waste of tax dollars, and if it remains in its current state we are better off abolishing parole altogether. Without the appropriate use of parole, imprisonment serves the sole purpose of punishment, without any consideration for rehabilitation and prevention.

Nathaniel Schutten
Toronto Star - Opinion
Apr 17, 2017