 |
| Michael Crowley |
At the same time, though I probably never admitted it, I actually took satisfaction in revoking the release of some individuals, primarily because their actions, as well as their uncaring, argumentative attitude, made it easy to dislike them.
I am not saying that I would make a decision based on whether I liked a person or not; it’s just that verbalizing a negative decision was easier on me as a person.
As I said earlier, most individuals we saw were respectful; in fact, I was constantly amazed by their ability to absorb a negative decision, thank us for our time and then leave the hearing room. It was really quite different from my experiences on the provincial parole board. I think that was because the incarcerated person’s institutional parole officers (IPO) were with them and likely had given advice about how to act or react and counselled them that, if the decision was negative, there would almost always be further opportunities. And that their behaviour during or after a hearing would be noted and might impact future recommendations or decisions.
In general, IPOs, while they might be nervous, were unfailingly polite and showed great restraint and respect. Restraint because I felt certain that there were times when an individual, in trying to respond to a question or series of questions, would get confused or tongue-tied, and the IPO would want to jump in and correct the misstatement or response.
I could sometimes observe when an IPO was feeling uncomfortable for that type of reason and would invite them to assist if they felt the inmate needed a moment to collect their thoughts.
Over the years, as I often saw the same parole officers (PO) rather continuously, I felt that I got to know them and viewed some (certainly) as friends.
But not in every case.
I recall a day parole hearing in which new information had been provided at the outset by the parole officer. This was a positive case, but the new information was concerning because the incarcerated person had been kicked out of school because of his behaviour and had had some issues at work. It was unclear that the community that had accepted him was aware of these issues as there was nothing in writing about that. So I asked the parole officer, and she said that she had not advised the community as she didn’t think it was relevant. I was surprised and said so. Then adjourned the hearing so that she would be able to advise the parole office and the halfway house of this new information and ask whether they were still prepared to accept this person.
The parole officer was clearly upset as it meant the hearing would take place in a few weeks and the incarcerated individual would likely be upset, plus her manager might well express concern by her lack of professionalism.
I heard from a number of her colleagues that after she returned to her unit, she cursed me in any number of colourful ways for making her do this “extra” work. She, of course, did not know that a number of her colleagues had become friends as the years went by and that I had a direct pipeline to them. Needless to say, my relationship with this PO remained rather icy.
There were very few officers who either did not like the people on their caseloads, did not like the concept of parole or perhaps didn’t like me because of something I said in the past or because I did not agree with a recommendation. Those individuals were limited in number but doing hearings with them was always an unnecessary struggle. They often just read their presentations rather than acknowledging that, as a board member, I had read their assessments and recommendations and wanted to know more than what was in the paperwork. Those officers did not budge and only offered single-word responses to questions or even misleading information.
In one instance, we were seeing a young man in a medium-security institution. He was serving a federal sentence for violent offences, had not completed programs and had no support for release. In other words, a negative case with a negative recommendation. The IPO did not say much at the outset of the hearing, but at the end, when I asked her if she had anything to add, she got quite visibly excited and said “Yes — I want the board to know that he came on to me in a sexual manner in my office last week!”
I was stunned. There was nothing in the file or her earlier presentation about this allegation. The board’s hearing officer always asks the IPO before the hearing starts whether they have any new information not previously shared that they want the board to be aware of. That then allowed us to discuss it with the IPO but also provided the opportunity for the incarcerated person (and their assistant) to respond. Sometimes the information was so critical and so related to risk that we would have to postpone the hearing in order to obtain further details. In this case, the IPO deliberately chose not to say anything but to spring it on everyone at the end of the hearing.
In my opinion, we had completed the hearing and had all the information we needed to make an informed decision. I did not want to put the case over to another day, so I told the IPO that she had had the opportunity at the outset, as she well knew, and that the board would not consider anything that she had said about these allegations.
I was really angry but tried to keep calm, at least outwardly.
This is the second part of a two-part series. Part one: Post-suspension parole hearings.
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.