The Parole System Essay Example for Free

The Parole System Essay Parole is a grant given to prisoners who has performed well inside the correctional system.   To understand the laws involve, words used must be first understand.   Chapter one, Article III, of the book â€Å"Know Your Constitution†, says that act and omissions punishable by law are felonies.   There may be two types of felonies; it may arise from dolus (criminal intent) or from culpa (negligence). This paper will on the study of two countries, so that, one must be able to compare and contrast on those.    That would be in Canada and Philippines.   This will show, how much differences and their economic stability affects the system. In pardoning power, the president has the right to grant parole to any of the inmates that performs well.   Pardons may be granted only after conviction. They may be granted even pending appeal by the offender to a higher court; and even after he has served out his sentence. Congress may not control the pardoning power of the President. It has no power to limit the effect of a pardon; neither to exclude any class of offenses from its exercise. Pardons may be granted for all offenses, except in cases of impeachment.   Accordingly, the President may not pardon the Vice-President, a Justice of the Supreme Court, the Auditor-General, or any member of the Commission on Elections (nor a Justice of the Court of Appeals who may now be removed by impeachment, according to the Judiciary Act, nor a Judge of the Court of Tax Appeals, likewise removable by impeachment under Republic Act No. 1125), when convicted of a culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, or other high crimes, in impeachment proceedings.   Thy may be granted for offenses against municipal ordinances and regulations. They may be granted for criminal contempt. They may not be granted for contempts against Congress.   By criminal contempt is one that is punishable by our penal law.   Thus, a civil contempt is one committed against the courts consisting in misbehavior in the presence of or so near a judge as to obstruct him in the administration of justice, or in a willful disobedience of a lawful process of the courts, as a refusal to obey a subpoena. Under the Constitution, the President may impose the conditions, restrictions, and limitations. The pardon granted by the President may be plenary or partial.   It may be conditional or absolute. Before it takes effect, the pardon must be delivered to and accepted by the offender.   If the offender refuses the offer of pardon, the court cannot force it on him.   Neither can the executive.   Before it is accepted by him, it may be cancelled; but once accepted by him, it can be revoked.   Such acceptance is, however, necessary only in the case of a conditional pardon.   It is not necessary to the validity of an absolute pardon or of the commutation of a sentence. The pardon granted may be subjected to a condition.   If the condition is violated, the pardon becomes void.   The person may be arrested and compelled to serve so much of the original sentence remaining at the time of his release, except when the said sentence was less than six years in which case he shall suffer prision correccional from six months and one day to two years and four months.   This is true even if the period of the sentence has already expired. A pardon secured through fraud upon the pardoning power is void.   The fraud may be misinterpretation, suppression of the truth, or suggestion of falsehood. The effect of a full pardon is not only to release the punishment but also to blot the existence of the guilt.   It restores the convict to all his civil rights.   It makes him, as it were, a new man, with a new credit and capacity.   It does not, however, restore offices forfeited, or property or interests vested in others as a result of the conviction and judgement. Canada’s Parole System Under the Canada’s parole system, states that the offenders or the accused are ought to bring back on the community under â€Å"conditional† release, which means requires observation, before the end of their sentence.   With this approach, offenders are given the chance to interact again in the community.   But considering all the opportunities given with offenders, there are still lot of controversial concerning the parole system.   This parole system failed to deliver a fair system. As a proof, number of complains were reported.   In the Penitentiary Act of 1868, the offenders or inmates are allowed to have five days every month of sentence â€Å"remission†, or sentence reduction, for their chance to see their behavioral character within the span of their sentence.   Those who earned time are deducted to their sentence.   When the deducted time is equal to the remaining sentence, inmate is released without supervision. Parole, is in consideration with the inmates who were performing well under supervision. The National Board, 1964, offered them grant that were able to approach release under remission.   This indicates that there will be a month advance of release each year they have served.   But, this pertain the condition that they should be under supervision and have done well upon supervision The evolution of the Parole Act in 1970 formally applied the practice of mandatory supervision, even the Penintentiary Act is applied to inmates who have earned remissions in this act.   The Parole Act of 1970 states that the prisoners who have suffered two thirds of their sentence will be release, in condition that they will follow the parole conditions.   If not, they will be immediately be back in prison no matter what kind of release, they must not violate the conditions.   All of them will be conditional, regardless of the type of violation. More likely to the Philippine Constitution, in Canada, with Bills C-67 and C-68, the board has the right to refuse for the parole and if he feels the inmate going to be release would cause a serious harm to any person.   But as always, before release, prisoners must have undergone programs or social reintegration processes.   Bills C-67 and C-68 has been that objective.   Prisoners who are seemed to be dangerous and harmful, (though they just look like) would not benefit their earned remission regardless of how they behave while they are in sentence. Canada’s parole system is currently governed by the National Parole Board.   This parole aims the inmates to have the opportunity to return in their community, without discriminations and to protect the people in the community from harmful acts from the offender. The NBP is the one responsible for making decisions on parole if they will grant or deny it.   But the thing is how the NBP chooses the inmates that will be given the parole.   In this case, lots of things are unpreventable.   There might have some problems regarding with the decision making of the case. There is this sample case when inmates are ready and excited to go out.   There’s this sample case that when you live in the city, you’ll be release, but there is another inmate that were not release because they just simply live in far North for the reason that there are no enough organizations that will help the inmate.   The other thing is that, because the decision depends on the board of the President, they have the right to choose on whom to release or not.   But unfortunately, as early mentioned, there are some cases that they only choose the one the one they want.   Parole system has not yet developed a fair system that will choose the right persons. In addition, many inmates do not understand the parole system.   The board failed to educate their inmates to educate and to make them understand on how the system was applied.   Other problem was that the prisoners feels that they are alien with their own country due to way of treatment they receive from the institution and they have give the control of their lives and losing hope. They even heard inmates who were given parole were brought back in jail when the board seen that the inmate didn’t perform well under supervision.   With this case, they lose the urge of getting out of prison if they will be just returned in jail.   As said, parole system is subjective, that the board may decide whatever they want even the inmate is performing well.   The Aboriginal parole board does a big role of of influencing the National Parole Board so they are the one that should clean the parole system,   Inmates should have receive   fair justice according   with the human rights. Parole system was that good enough because inmates who have loss their chance of living with their family will be given the chance to change their lives.   But, the system must furnished first before doing such, because the failure to do so might cause a bigger damage with inmate, as well as the family of the person involve.   This will greatly help for the person to change his destiny and life. References Know Your Constitution: Aruego, J.M:Manila, Philippines published 1947 Criminal Law: Ambrosio, J.: Manila Philippines,August 31,1947 Philippines: The Correccional Sytem:http://www.photius.com/countries/philippines/national_security/philippines_national_security_the_correctional_sys~10373.html Data as of June 1991    The Beginning of Parole in Canada: http://www.npb-cnlc.gc.ca/about/part1_e.htm: August 14, 2007 Textbook in the Philippine Constitution: Delcon, Hector: Rex Book Store 199: Agugust 2007 Newsroom: http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2005/doc_31456.html: October 10,2005