 |
| Michael Crowley |
In theory, a special condition should only be imposed if it is both reasonable and necessary in order to manage risk (and to assist in reintegration). That meant, literally, that if every condition was critical, then any violation of any condition would automatically increase risk. The question for me, really, was whether that meant the risk was now unmanageable.
I sometimes felt that the parole officer (PO) in the community had made a mountain out of a molehill, and suspended someone on a somewhat flimsy rationale. But I gradually learned that this was never the case. In general, parole officers are patient and understanding and probably more tolerant than I would have been. A PO had to go through a number of steps before they could suspend an individual and their managers had to be in agreement. Further, if Correctional Service Canada (CSC) did suspend someone, it had 30 days in which to either cancel the suspension locally or refer it to the board. So there were a number of opportunities for the PO to meet with the individual, go through the circumstances that led to the suspension and see if some alternatives could be put in place rather than recommending a revocation.
A plausible alternative could be more frequent reporting, having a curfew or recommending that the board impose a new special condition that could better manage the risk.
Consequently, when CSC finally determined that it would refer the case, it almost always meant they were recommending that the board revoke the release. On occasion, it would recommend that the board cancel but add a formal reprimand.
At a post-suspension hearing, I believed that I first needed to ensure that the individual was aware of the condition that was violated and that they had done so in the knowledge that their release could be suspended and revoked. I had to assume that POs would spend their initial interview going over the conditions and the ramifications and entertain any questions the offender might have. This was the standard procedure and I simply decided that it had occurred in every instance. The exception would be if the individual never made it to the parole office when they were released or never reported to the halfway house they were supposed to be residing in.
I suppose a post-suspension hearing was a bit like a criminal trial and was different from a pre-release hearing. Rather than looking at an individual’s history and antecedents to criminal behaviour, I would focus on a set of allegations and have to determine whether the alleged behaviours had actually occurred, then determine the impact on the offender’s risk.
There were times when cases were pretty straightforward, and we could wrap things up in about an hour. That is, 45 minutes to conduct the hearing and another 15 minutes to dictate the decision.
Those were the negative cases, where the violation of the condition or the individual’s demonstrated behaviour was so egregious that revoking their release was the only viable option. The Incarcerated people knew, of course, that CSC was recommending a revocation and were prepared for a negative outcome. But other times, they wanted to dispute some of the information in the recommendation or engage in an argument with the PO who was presenting the case at the hearing. I would always cut off such arguments and remind everyone that the board asked the questions and that all answers or responses were to be directed to the members.
For example, while there could be some disputes about what was said or not said, positive drug tests (through urinalysis) were cold facts. Some individuals would try to explain a positive test by claiming that the drugs found in their urine had been taken the night before they were released. And while that might have happened — though I doubted it — each drug will remain in a person’s system for a set number of days, and CSC might accept that explanation for an initial test. But if a subsequent test, taken a number of days later, still tests as positive, then the drug use could only have occurred in the community.
I remember one young man who had been suspended for drug use, and while he was in temporary detention after a suspension, was urine-tested and tested positive. During his hearing, he denied using in the community but admitted using after his suspension. He told us that the positive test was irrelevant as it had not occurred while he had been released. And then I pointed out that the wording in the CCRA was behaviour “following release,” so that his use of drugs after his release, even though it occurred while back in custody, still represented a violation of his conditions and revoked his release.
Telling someone that their release was being revoked was sometimes difficult for me at times, especially if they had been doing well for a period of time or if they would face a lengthy period of incarceration before they could come before the Board again. There were often tears, especially if their families were present, but they had put themselves in jeopardy and could not blame anyone else. In giving a negative decision, I tried to not give false hope and just state whether we were revoking or not. Then, depending on how they received that news, I would provide a brief or lengthier verbal rationale.
Most of the time, we would give the decision and the individual would immediately leave the room with their parole officer and assistant. But if there were victims in the hearing room, they were supposed to leave first, primarily so that the inmate would not confront them while exiting. That was fine, but it meant that we were sitting a couple of feet away from an agitated or angry individual, without saying anything, for what sometimes seemed like an eternity.
On the other hand, if we cancelled a suspension the incarcerated individual might become almost giddy and want to shake hands or become profusely thankful. On those occasions, the parole officer might have been disgruntled but always remained respectful, at least when in front of us.
This is the first part of a two-part series.
Michael Crowley has a BA from Syracuse University. He spent more than 40 years in various positions within the criminal justice system in Canada. Before retiring, Crowley had been a member of the Parole Board of Canada for 21 years. Contact him via CrowleyMichael167@gmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.