Progress: Implementation of Correctional Supervision and Parole Board - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

Progress: Implementation of Correctional Supervision and Parole Board

Description:

Studied at University of Fort Hare, Unisa and Ohio (USA) ... governor (St Peter Claver), director (Sebokeng Clinix & Louis Pasteur Hospitals) ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:132
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 18
Provided by: cherylde4
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Progress: Implementation of Correctional Supervision and Parole Board


1
Progress Implementation of Correctional
Supervision and Parole Board The Groenpunt
Management Area
Building a caring correctional system that truly
belongs to all
Presentation to Port Folio Committee 5 September
2006
2
Introduction
Hlaoli Litsoane
  • My Background
  • Studied at University of Fort Hare, Unisa and
    Ohio (USA)
  • Formerly a lecturer and acting vice-rector at a
    college of education Mphohadi, Kroonstad Free
    State
  • Professional Officer at Vista University,
    lecturer at University
  • of Fort Hare

3
Introduction
  • Worked with several educational NGOs (OLSET,
    TOPS, TSP ELET), served in several boards
    as a
  • governor (St Peter Claver),
  • director (Sebokeng Clinix Louis Pasteur
    Hospitals),
  • trustee (Bonitas Medical Fund) and
  • member hospital board Free State Psychiatric
    Complex former Oranje Hospital.

4
Groenpunt Parole Board servesFrankfort
86Heilbron 99Parys 143Sasolburg 213Vereen
iging 1195Groenpunt Maximum Corr.
Centre 2301 Medium Corr. Centre 893 Youth
Corr. Centre 194 Total Sentenced Offenders
5121 (Aug 2006)
5
Composition of the Board
  • H Litsoane Chairperson
  • LM Kau Vice-chairperson (DCS)
  • MJ Dhladhla Secretary(DCS)
  • ME Monare Community Member
  • ME Makiri (Ms) Community Member
  • CM de Lange (Ms) Board Clerk
  • TE Tekane Board Clerk
  • Sen. Sup. Ntshinga SAPS
  • Cpt Mofokeng SAPS
  • Currently advertised for community person
  • Alternating

6
Composition of the Board (cont.)Presently the
representation of Justiceand SAPS are generally
as yet unstable.
7
METHODOLOGY
  • Board Procedure
  • The process is led by appearance at CMCs
  • Quorum is established in terms of the Act.
  • The cases are discussed individually
  • Reports are interrogated
  • Decision is taken by voting
  • Information that is relevant/ needed for
    decisions
  • Form G326 Offender Profile
  • Report from SAP 62 Crime description
  • SAP 69 Crime History
  • Social worker
  • Psychologist
  • Religious care
  • Unit manager
  • Sentencing remarks
  • Legal representation (in writing or in
    person)

8
CMC Prepares the profile Interviews
the offender Reviews reports Evaluates
mitigating factors against aggravating
factors Makes parole or further profile
recommendations parties e.g. Offender
Presents his case to prove state of
rehabilitation and readiness to meet the
communityVictim Presents his/her view of the
event.
9
Community Member Represent the view
and values of the broader community
Interviews the offender Reviews reports
Evaluates mitigating factors against
aggravating factors Decide the outcome by
majority vote IN THE EVENT OF DISPUTE The
Chairperson uses either or both of his votes,
namely deliberative vote casting vote
10
Operation Statistics
July 2005 Aug 2005 Sept 2005 Oct 2005 Nov 2005 Dec 2005 Jan 2006
Conditional Placement 125 98 114 47 98 74 38
Further Profile 4 32 51 63 17 48 21
Correctional Supervision 2 7 3 0 5 1 0
Day Parole 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Medical Parole 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sentence Expiry Date 9 4 12 0 7 0 0
TOTAL SEEN THIS MONTH 140 141 180 110 127 123 59
11
Operation Statistics (cont.)
Feb 2006 Mar 2006 Apr 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 Aug 2006
Conditional Placement 48 55 34 66 70 61 83
Further Profile 19 38 23 34 39 51 53
Correctional Supervision 4 5 7 8 2 3 11
Day Parole 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Medical Parole 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sentence Expiry Date 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL SEEN THIS MONTH 72 98 64 108 111 115 150
12
OPERATIONS
  • Number of cases special remissions of sentences
    approved
  • Groenpunt has not had special remission cases to
    date.

13
LESSONS LEARNED
  • That there are differences in how the old DCS
    release policies worked as against how parole
    boards now work Individualizing vs policy
    directives on crime classification and release.
  • Not all people inside our jails are criminals
    Not all offenders are condemnable.
  • Human beings are capable of change, and that
    change needs to be understood by the community.
  • Courts are not necessarily applying common rules
    if one looks at sentencing patterns and this
    poses a challenge to parole boards.

14
LESSONS LEARNED (Cont.)
  • Rehabilitation of offenders is an all-involving
    exercise families and communities need to play a
    more active role, and the institution of new
    parole boards are a step in the right direction.
  • Treating offenders as individuals makes each
    offender accountable to his own actions, and to
    gain or lose from the parole system on his own
    accord.
  • One can arguably attribute the prison gang
    culture to DCSs crime grouping policy, eg. All
    violent crimes to be considered for dates at 2/3
    of sentence, instead of evaluating all factors
    surrounding the occurance. Previously it would be
    easy for some offenders to only turn into real
    criminals while already inside because they are
    treated the same in any case.

15
CHALLENGES
  • The new parole board system is not that well
    understood, even by officials themselves. These
    perceptions affect even delivery in that some
    where parole boards even have powers of certain
    officials.
  • There is need to constantly give a briefing on
    especially legal frameworks of how parole boards
    work to the general staff, over and above
    professional workers. This kind of knowledge will
    assist officials to align themselves more with
    the White Paper on Corrections.
  • Parole boards are still viewed as being on an
    experimental phase in that they are staffed with
    contact staff.
  • Changing to permanent staffing will not only
    change this view, but will call for greater
    commitment on the side persons on parole boards.
    It will also ensure continuity and increasing
    levels of efficiency.

16
CHALLENGES (Cont.)
  • With the changes to the new parole boards, the
    identity and allegiance of the parole boards have
    become dubious
  • Presently DCS representation is a minority, old
    release policies of DCS are largely not
    functional, technically that removes the Parole
    Board from DCS. Practically some officials do not
    relate to some cases as dealt with by Parole
    Boards.

17
Thank you Building a caring correctional
system that truly belongs to all
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com