 |
| Michael Crowley |
I think it would be fair to say that for most Canadians, when (or if) they think about parole they envision parole hearings, conducted within the confines of a prison. They probably envision a room, not unlike a courtroom, with a large table in the middle of the room, much like the scene in the movie Shawshank Redemption. On one side of the table sits a panel of board members with a staff person utilizing a computer. And on the other side sits an inmate, as well as a parole officer. In addition, there would be another individual, a person who is there to assist the inmate. They might also see a correctional officer, ostensibly there for security. Finally, one would expect to see a number of seats for observers or supporters of the individual.
That vision, to some degree, was pretty close to reality, when I was first appointed to the board in 1996. At that time parole hearings were most often conducted by two members, one of whom would be the “lead” member who would ask the majority of questions. The lead member would also be responsible to writing the decision. While most hearings involved two members, there were exceptions, when three members were required. These were reserved for anyone serving a life or indeterminate sentence, or whenever a judge ordered that half of an offender’s sentence be served before they were eligible for parole. Detention hearings were held whenever the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) recommended that an inmate be detained in custody until their warrant expired.
Parole board members are either appointed on a full-time or part-time basis. Regardless of their status, or length of service, their votes have the same weight.
As noted, all parole hearings were conducted in prisons, with one exception. An individual serving a life sentence who had been in the community on day parole, and was asking for full parole, would be required to come to the board’s office in Kingston, Ont. for the hearing. This could mean that someone who was living in a halfway house in Windsor or Sudbury (for example) would have to come back to Kingston, generally in the company of their parole officer, who also came to the hearing to present the case.
This changed with the advent of improved internet capability, and a parole hearing could be conducted remotely. In 2006, I conducted the first such hearing in the Ontario region, using CSC equipment and sitting in the boardroom of CSC’s regional headquarters. It was unusual for a number of reasons, not the least was the number of individuals who were there to observe the process. From my perspective it was also different because the offender, his parole officer and an assistant were all in the boardroom of a minimum-security prison in Gravenhurst as it was closest to Sudbury, where he had been residing.
The consensus among the three of us members that day was that remote hearings could work, but that we preferred to be in the same room as the offender, so that we could better read body language and establish rapport much more easily.
Not immediately but eventually it became common practice to conduct remote hearings for all individuals who were serving life sentences and were seeking full parole. The number of such hearings gradually increased, as the board experienced budget cutbacks and it had been determined that remote hearings were less expensive to conduct than in-person hearings. When our office in Kingston went through various renovations, three rooms were set aside so that we could continue to increase the number of distant or video hearings.
My sense was that the cost factor was relevant when we were facing attending prisons that were distant from Kingston and required overnight accommodations, meals and other expenses. While I still preferred in-person hearings, it was difficult to continue to support them given our financial situation. What I did not understand was the reliance on video hearings when the prisons were within a few minutes’ drive from the office and required no additional costs to the board.
When the COVID pandemic struck, that ended all in-person hearings, which was understandable. Not only were the prisons closed to outsiders (like the board) but the regional office of the board was similarly, virtually closed. Board members remained at their own homes while they conducted hearings.
The pandemic has been over for a few years now, but the board has not, and probably will not, return to having the majority of hearings conducted in-person. In the most recent parole board annual statistics, approximately 80 per cent of hearings are conducted remotely.
I may be considered as a person who is mired in the past, but I firmly believe the members lose a lot by not holding hearings in person. Assessing an individual and the risk they pose is largely managed through file information and the various assessments that have taken place during their incarceration. But I believe that there is significant value in being able to observe an individual as they are asked and answer questions. That is, I believe it is valuable in being able to read an individual’s body language in those circumstances. The cameras utilized are simply not able to capture subtle movements, especially in critical moments during hearings. When one asks an offender how they feel about their history and how they envision residing in the community without resorting to their previous behaviours and associates, it is (I believe) important to gauge the sincerity of their responses. And in my view that is less likely unless the hearing is conducted in person.
In addition, I used to observe the non-verbal responses or cues that parole officers demonstrated while listening to their clients. If I saw an officer showing surprise at an answer I could ask that person why they reacted. I wanted to know whether they were they hearing a different version of events or whether they were hearing an individual respond in a less articulate manner than they normally did. If so, was that due to nerves? But now, the cameras do not include parole officers during hearings as they focus on the inmates and their assistants. I think that is a significant loss.
Another factor to consider or contrast with the previous system is that when we went into prisons we often met and had informal discussions with staff, including clinical staff. So we got to know those individuals as real people. We would not discuss cases, of course, but we (or maybe I am speaking primarily for myself) could talk about criminal justice issues or correctional philosophy in general. In turn, I think I learned which individuals had more credibility or whose judgment I could trust more completely.
Lastly, I think that if I were an individual who had to be judged by someone or a group of people, I would want to be in the same room, so that I could better perceive how they were reacting to my responses to their questions.
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 was a member of the Parole Board of Canada for 21 years. Contact him at 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.