Parole enthusiasts say that early release from prison of convicted criminals is essential to their rehabilitation.

 

Canadians have endured this experiment in rehabilitation for over a century knowing that parole doesn’t “cure” the criminal mind or curtail recidivism.

 

Here’s a thumbnail sketch of the history of parole and remission of penitentiary sentences.

 

In 1899, parliament enacted the Ticket of Leave Act, beginning Canada’s experiment with parole as a means to rehabilitate convicts.

 

Parole is not to be confused with earned remission of 6 days for each month of good behaviour established under Canada’s Penitentiary Act of 1868. Earned remission is an entitlement; parole is discretionary.

 

The Ticket of Leave was intended to give young first offenders an opportunity to be good citizens by freeing them from the effects of imprisonment. Tickets were granted with caution to avoid discredit to parole. Among 71 convicts released in 1899, five had their tickets revoked for non-compliance and seven were forfeited because of subsequent conviction.

 

Early on, the experiment with parole became practicable when the Salvation Army agreed to supervise parolees. In 1905, the Salvation Army’s Brigadier Walter Archibald was appointed to the newly created position of Dominion Parole Officer. The Army’s officers acted as Dominion Parole Officers until the position was abolished in 1931.

 

In 1913, a Remission Branch was established in the Department of Justice to determine matters of clemency, remission and parole. In 1925, the Chief of the Remission Branch, J. D. Clarke, who had taken a liberal approach to parole, was asked to resign. The new chief, Michael Gallagher, granted parole only in exceptional cases. Rehabilitation became irrelevant; and earned remission became crucially important to inmates.

 

When General D. M. Ormond became Superintendent of Penitentiaries in 1932, he introduced militaristic control over inmates. Ormond’s regressive and tyrannical handling of inmates, when combined with Gallagher’s parsimony in granting parole, negated any prospect of rehabilitation of inmates and broad use of parole.

 

While the federal penitentiary system and its handling of inmates was becoming a national disgrace, Agnes Campbell Macphail – the first woman elected to parliament – was hammering out a plan for reform in the House of Commons.

In 1935, Macphail’s indomitable spirit finally prevailed; the federal government appointed a three member commission, chaired by Mr. Justice Joseph Archambault, to study the federal penitentiary system.

 

The Archambault Report was tabled in January 1938, recommending most of the reforms proposed by Macphail: an adult probation system, classification and segregation of prisoners, proper reformative treatment, an independent parole board and well-organized schemes of rehabilitation on release. The looming Second World War precluded adoption of the bulk of the recommended reforms and the report was shelved.

 

In1953, the federal government appointed a committee chaired by Mr. Justice Gerald Fauteux to inquire into the Remission Service. Fauteux’s 1956 report recommended parole as an aid to rehabilitation; that the prospect of parole should motivate convicts to engage in rehabilitative programs; and that it was most important to create a quasi judicial National Parole Board. The government responded: the Ticket of Leave Act was repealed and the Remission Service was abolished. The Parole Act of 1959 created a National Parole Board; a completely independent authority with a broad mandate to release convicts when they had gained the maximum benefit from imprisonment, (whatever that means), at which time their reform and rehabilitation would be aided by parole without creating an undue risk to society.

 

The flood gates were opened: in its first ten years the Board granted over 9,000 applications for parole. The quality of supervision began to suffer. As the number of parolees increased, the failure rate went up, as did the risk to society.

 

In 1967, the government appointed the Ouimet Committee to study the problem created by inmates choosing unsupervised earned remission over supervised parole. The committee recommended that parole be expanded and mandatory supervision be imposed on earned or statutory remissions.

 

In 1987, The Sentencing Commission of Canada recommended conditional release for the remaining 25 percent of a penitentiary sentence, and abolition of parole. Parliament did not respond to this recommendation.

In 1992, the Penitentiary Act and the Parole Act were rescinded and replaced by the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

 

The parole board continues to muddle along with a mandate that requires a balancing of public safety and reintegration of criminals into the community: a game of risk assessment and risk management. Risk is the chance or possibility of danger, loss or injury to unsuspecting decent citizens.

 

The Nov. 6 edition of The Province reported the story of David Merle Haines who had committed a sexual assault, a violent rape, in January 1995. While on parole Haines committed a second sexual assault in 1997 and received a sentence of five years; (the maximum is ten years). Haines committed a third violent rape in April 2007. That bought him before B.C. Supreme Court Justice Catherine Bruce who declared him to be a dangerous offender and sent him to prison indefinitely. Bruce noted that Haines showed no empathy for his victims and no remorse over what he did to them; and that he posed a high risk to re-offend.

 

Maybe rehabilitation through parole is all smoke and mirrors.

 

wallace-gilby-craig@shaw.ca.