theForum is run by the charity Unlock. We do not actively moderate, monitor or edit contributions but we may intervene and take any action as we think necessary. Further details can be found in our terms of use. If you have any concerns over the contents on our site, please either register those concerns using the report-a-post button or email us at forum@unlock.org.uk.


Nick Hardwick suggests having parole board information online


Nick Hardwick suggests having parole board information online

Author
Message
AB2014
AB2014
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 605, Visits: 4K
I saw an article in the Evening Standard yesterday by Nick Hardwick, saying he wants the parole board to publish as much of their information as possible online, allowing for medical and victim confidentiality. The media have already decided that Rule 25 must go, because it stops them dredging up lurid details of old crimes. I can see the need for greater involvement of victims in the process, but the media? If people are reminded of someone's offences just before they are released, how will that help resettlement and rehabilitation? It's bad enough dealing with media reports without the MoJ joining in.... 

=========================================================
Grrr! Aaargh!

Yankee
Yankee
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (27K reputation)Supreme Being (27K reputation)Supreme Being (27K reputation)Supreme Being (27K reputation)Supreme Being (27K reputation)Supreme Being (27K reputation)Supreme Being (27K reputation)Supreme Being (27K reputation)Supreme Being (27K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 229, Visits: 956
AB2014 - 24 Apr 18 11:25 AM
I saw an article in the Evening Standard yesterday by Nick Hardwick, saying he wants the parole board to publish as much of their information as possible online, allowing for medical and victim confidentiality. The media have already decided that Rule 25 must go, because it stops them dredging up lurid details of old crimes. I can see the need for greater involvement of victims in the process, but the media? If people are reminded of someone's offences just before they are released, how will that help resettlement and rehabilitation? It's bad enough dealing with media reports without the MoJ joining in.... 

This smacks of 'when a system is broken, let's cover our backsides by publicising how we played by the rules'. Yet again, treating the symptom not the cause.
It's similar to a judge saying he/she/their (just in case) is very sorry for only being able to sentence a mass murderer to 200 hours community service....  If the sentencing guidelines are wrong, review and change the guidelines.
In the high profile recent parole board case, there were issues around original charging, original sentencing, victim input and weight given (or not) to expert opinion.  All lead to a flawed process with some human errors thrown in. Fix the process, remove the errors - publishing information online to show how the broken process contributed to the end result doesn't help.
Of course, on a much more fundamental basis - parole boards come generally towards the end of someone's sentence when they are preparing to re-enter society and move on. Extra publicity, more Google effect ... great way to start!


Derek Arnold
Derek Arnold
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 22, Visits: 49
Yankee - 26 Apr 18 2:38 PM
AB2014 - 24 Apr 18 11:25 AM
I saw an article in the Evening Standard yesterday by Nick Hardwick, saying he wants the parole board to publish as much of their information as possible online, allowing for medical and victim confidentiality. The media have already decided that Rule 25 must go, because it stops them dredging up lurid details of old crimes. I can see the need for greater involvement of victims in the process, but the media? If people are reminded of someone's offences just before they are released, how will that help resettlement and rehabilitation? It's bad enough dealing with media reports without the MoJ joining in.... 

This smacks of 'when a system is broken, let's cover our backsides by publicising how we played by the rules'. Yet again, treating the symptom not the cause.
It's similar to a judge saying he/she/their (just in case) is very sorry for only being able to sentence a mass murderer to 200 hours community service....  If the sentencing guidelines are wrong, review and change the guidelines.
In the high profile recent parole board case, there were issues around original charging, original sentencing, victim input and weight given (or not) to expert opinion.  All lead to a flawed process with some human errors thrown in. Fix the process, remove the errors - publishing information online to show how the broken process contributed to the end result doesn't help.
Of course, on a much more fundamental basis - parole boards come generally towards the end of someone's sentence when they are preparing to re-enter society and move on. Extra publicity, more Google effect ... great way to start!


You'd think that Nick Hardwick might have a more rounded view of the probation service, the government's track record on data safety and the problems faced by ex-offenders reaching their rehabilitation and resettlement goals. 
AB2014
AB2014
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 605, Visits: 4K
Diogenese - 1 May 18 8:38 AM
Yankee - 26 Apr 18 2:38 PM
AB2014 - 24 Apr 18 11:25 AM
I saw an article in the Evening Standard yesterday by Nick Hardwick, saying he wants the parole board to publish as much of their information as possible online, allowing for medical and victim confidentiality. The media have already decided that Rule 25 must go, because it stops them dredging up lurid details of old crimes. I can see the need for greater involvement of victims in the process, but the media? If people are reminded of someone's offences just before they are released, how will that help resettlement and rehabilitation? It's bad enough dealing with media reports without the MoJ joining in.... 

This smacks of 'when a system is broken, let's cover our backsides by publicising how we played by the rules'. Yet again, treating the symptom not the cause.
It's similar to a judge saying he/she/their (just in case) is very sorry for only being able to sentence a mass murderer to 200 hours community service....  If the sentencing guidelines are wrong, review and change the guidelines.
In the high profile recent parole board case, there were issues around original charging, original sentencing, victim input and weight given (or not) to expert opinion.  All lead to a flawed process with some human errors thrown in. Fix the process, remove the errors - publishing information online to show how the broken process contributed to the end result doesn't help.
Of course, on a much more fundamental basis - parole boards come generally towards the end of someone's sentence when they are preparing to re-enter society and move on. Extra publicity, more Google effect ... great way to start!


You'd think that Nick Hardwick might have a more rounded view of the probation service, the government's track record on data safety and the problems faced by ex-offenders reaching their rehabilitation and resettlement goals. 

Exactly. This is someone who used to inspect prisons, including their performance in rehabilitation and resettlement, and he was quite clear where their responsibility ended and the government's started. Thankfully, the MoJ seems to be suggesting something more measured, and only including people who need to be included. Decisions will be made public, and people can object, but only the reasons will be given, not the detailed evidence. When I heard him on Radio 4, I actually caught myself thinking he sounded reasonable, even though he is not only a politician and a cabinet minister, but also in charge of the MoJ. We really are living in strange times.... w00t

=========================================================
Grrr! Aaargh!

GO


Similar Topics


As a small but national charity, we rely on charitable grants and individual donations to continue running theForum. We do not deliver government services. By being independent, we are able to respond to the needs of the people with convictions. Help us keep theForum going.

Donate Online

Login
Existing Account
Email Address:


Password:


Select a Forum....
























































































































































































theForum


Search