Conditional early release of convicts

This issue of the journal Otechestvennye Zapiski is entirely devoted to prison, which frees me from explaining why people end up in prison. However, we will begin this article precisely from the moment when a person crossed the threshold of a correctional institution and found himself behind barbed wire.

In the reader’s mind, of course, there are harsh conditions for keeping convicts in places of deprivation of liberty, cells, bars, handcuffs, rubber batons, armed guards, etc. All this is present in prison, used, or in any case should be used in accordance with the law However, it is difficult to ensure order in a correctional institution only with such harsh coercive measures. It is even more difficult to achieve the goal that stands before criminal punishment, and, please note, in the first place. This is the correction of convicts, that is, such a change in their consciousness that would ensure their law-abiding behavior upon release from prison. That is why the system of coercive measures cannot exist without a well-thought-out and effective system of measures to reward convicts while serving their sentences. The reader, of course, will remember the well-known theory of “carrot and stick” and will be right.

Conditional early release is the most effective incentive for a convicted person to behave lawfully in prison. Every convicted person, after being sentenced and arriving in prison, knows when he must be released from prison at the end of his sentence. Moreover, he knows not only the year, month and day, but even the hours of such release: the law stipulates that convicts are released in the first half of the last day of their sentence, but if the sentence ends on a weekend or holiday, the convict is released the day before, on pre-weekend or pre-holiday day.

Moreover, convicts know the procedure for parole, which allows them to be released much earlier than the end of the sentence established by the court. It must be said here that the incentive of parole is valuable for most prisoners, but not for all. There is such a small category of convicts who adhere to thieves' traditions, according to which they must serve the entire sentence without any reduction. As a rule, these are leaders of organized criminal groups, malicious violators of the regime of correctional institutions.

The grounds for parole and the circle of convicts to whom it applies are established in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and the procedure for a convicted person to apply for parole is regulated in the Criminal Executive Code of the Russian Federation. The decision on parole is made only by the court at the location of the correctional institution, therefore the procedure for consideration by the court of issues of parole is regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Legal theorists call parole an interdisciplinary legal institution. This is indeed true, just as it is true that the statement is that, as a rule, specialists can thoroughly understand this interdisciplinary legal institution.

An interesting question is about those categories of convicts who can count on parole. Currently, persons serving detention in a disciplinary military unit or imprisonment, including life imprisonment, can be released on parole. As we see, every convict who is sent to prison has the opportunity to be released on parole. Previously, such a “light at the end of the tunnel” did not loom for all convicts. Depending on the policy of the state, its orientation towards a punitive or humanistic component, the circle of people who could count on parole also changed. For example, in 1982 (during the times of the USSR), only 11% of those sentenced to imprisonment had the right to parole from serving imprisonment: especially dangerous repeat offenders, persons convicted of serious crimes, etc. were deprived of this right .

Currently, there is only one exception - persons serving life imprisonment are deprived of the right to parole if they committed a new serious or especially serious crime while serving it. There are currently no such persons in places serving life imprisonment. Perhaps they will appear in the future, although in the context of such careful and widespread supervision over the behavior of these individuals, it is difficult to imagine that the commission of crimes in places of life imprisonment will be widespread.

Why did the state grant almost all convicts the right to parole? There are several explanations for this, including the fact that the international standards adopted by the UN and the Council of Europe, which Russia must adhere to, contain a provision to provide convicts with such an opportunity. The main thing, in our opinion, is that due to changes in the social, economic, political, spiritual foundations of our society, the previous incentives for law-abiding behavior of convicts in places of deprivation of liberty have lost their significance. And without effective incentives, based only on punitive and coercive measures, law and order in places of deprivation of liberty and law-abiding behavior of convicts cannot be achieved. Moreover, it is impossible to achieve the goal of reforming convicts, since it is based on the formation of the internal conviction of the convicted person not to violate the criminal law, and, as teachers and psychologists note, this internal conviction cannot be formed under conditions of total coercion.

However, the above does not mean that all convicts are released before the expiration of their sentences. In order to be released early, it is necessary to meet the material and formal grounds for parole established by the legislator.

Material is the achievement of a certain degree of correction, allowing the court to conclude that the convicted person does not need to fully serve the sentence imposed by the court. Indicators of achieving this degree of correction are the positive behavior of the convicted person, his attitude to study and work while serving his sentence, repentance for the crime committed, as well as partial or full compensation for the damage caused as a result of the crime.

Formal means serving a certain sentence. Thus, parole can be applied only after the convicted person has actually served at least one third of the sentence imposed for a crime of minor or moderate gravity, at least half for a serious crime, and at least two thirds for a particularly serious crime. After the expiration of the same sentence, persons who were previously released on parole but violated the conditions of such release and were returned to prison may also be released on parole.

Establishing the fact whether there is a formal basis for early release is not difficult; you just need to be comfortable with jurisprudence and arithmetic. But to draw a conclusion about the existence of a material basis for parole, in the words of a famous classic of political thought, is “extremely difficult.” It is not easy to penetrate into the soul of a person and draw a conclusion about his correction based only on external signs, which is why psychological services are very actively developing in places of deprivation of liberty. With the advent of more advanced psychological methods for diagnosing personality and the development of the material base of psychological services, this problem will also be solved. In the meantime, unfortunately, there are facts of convicts committing crimes after their parole, by those convicts in respect of whom a conclusion was made about their correction.

For example, the public is currently aware of brutal crimes committed against minor children on sexual grounds. First, newspapers are full of reports about the disappearance of children in one region or another of Russia, then information appears about a captured maniac. Often he had already been convicted of similar crimes, served his sentence, and in some cases was released on parole from prison. Quite rightly, people ask the question: if he had served his sentence until the last day, would there not have been such brutal murders and rapes?

The decision on parole is made by the court, but materials about the personality of the convict, his behavior, and the degree of correction are presented to the court by the convict himself, his lawyer and the administration of the correctional institution. There are cases when the court made a decision to release a convict contrary to the opinion of the administration of a correctional institution; the more urgent is the task of introducing into the activities of places of deprivation of liberty such methods of diagnosing the behavior of convicts that the court could not dismiss. In the case of sex offenders, they should be tested on a polygraph or, as it is commonly called, a “lie detector” before considering an application for parole. If there were well-developed methods for assessing the information provided by a convicted person, it would be possible to identify individual positions in which the convicted person is either insincere or simply lying. Of course, a polygraph can only be used with the consent of the person who is applying for parole. If he refused to “communicate with the polygraph,” then this should be officially reported to the court. I think this fact will be assessed by the court clearly not in favor of the person applying for early release.

The procedure for resolving the issue of parole will also be of interest to the reader. Until 2003, the administration of the correctional institution applied to the court for parole. This appeal was preceded by consideration of the petition of the convicted person by a specially created commission of the correctional institution; if the commission did not support the petition of the convicted person, then such a petition was not sent to the court.

Currently, a convicted person or his lawyer (legal representative) has the right to independently apply to the court for parole. Thus, the intermediary between the convicted person and the state body competent to resolve the issue of early release has been eliminated. The interests of the administration of the correctional institution are ensured by the fact that it presents a profile of the convicted person, which indicates information about his behavior, attitude to study and work while serving his sentence, and the attitude of the convicted person to the committed act. The administration also makes a conclusion about the advisability or inexpediency of parole.

If the court refuses parole, the convicted person has the right to reapply to the court no earlier than six months from the date of the court's decision to refuse. This period guarantees against attempts to abuse the right to parole; petitions, if desired, can be written to the court every day, but only after the expiration of six months will it be considered. In addition, six months is the minimum period during which any changes in the behavior of the convicted person can be observed. It is impossible to do this in a shorter period of time.

If the decision on parole is made by the court, then the actual release from prison is made on the day the relevant documents are received, namely the court decision, and if the documents are received after the end of the working day - in the morning of the next day. Upon release, the convicted person is issued a passport, work book and pension card. Also, those released are issued a document confirming the completion of their sentence and their release from it, the famous certificate of release.

The state and society are not indifferent to how a person will live after parole. Therefore, the legislation establishes, on the one hand, measures of social and other assistance to those released, and, on the other hand, compulsory measures to control their behavior.

Measures of assistance to persons released from prison can be assessed differently. They often say that they are clearly not enough; others consider such guardianship of former convicts completely unnecessary. It should be borne in mind that the state provides this assistance within the framework of its economic capabilities. In addition, there are priority social groups that need to be helped to a greater extent than is currently being done (pensioners, large families, etc.). At the same time, society cannot be indifferent to the fate of persons released from prison, since this indifference will then result in new crimes, new victims of crime, new economic and moral losses that will need to be compensated. Judge for yourself whether the state provides sufficient assistance.

Upon release from places of deprivation of liberty, convicts are provided with free travel to their place of residence, as well as food or money for the duration of the journey. As a rule, this is travel in general rigid carriages or cabins of 3rd class ships. Persons in need of external care, minors, pregnant women and women traveling with children purchase tickets for reserved seat carriages or 2nd class cabins. If there is no rail or water transport, those released receive tickets for air or road transport.

There are cases when those released from prison do not have the clothing necessary for the season. For example, I was sent to prison in the summer, but need to be released in the winter, there is no money to buy winter clothes, and relatives are not able to help in this matter. In this case, those released from prison are provided with such clothing at the expense of the state. Of course, these clothes are not from Versace and the shoes are not from Martino Fabiane, but you can get to your place of residence in them.

Convicts may be given a one-time cash benefit upon release; since 2006, its amount has been 720 rubles. As a rule, this cash benefit is given to those released who do not have sufficient funds in their personal account and need cash for the period of travel to their place of residence.

When certain categories of convicts are released from serving their sentences, they may be accompanied by a correctional officer to their place of permanent residence. These are categories such as pregnant women and women with young children who need outside care, as well as released minors. Such accompaniment can take place only in the case when the relatives of the convicted person, notified in advance, did not arrive at the correctional institution at the time of his early release.

The provision of this assistance is entrusted to the administration of the correctional institution, but what do other government bodies do to ensure that the released person does not feel like an outcast and does not commit a new crime again?

The employment service has some responsibilities for providing assistance to those released from prison. Commissions on juvenile affairs and relevant departments of internal affairs bodies have such responsibilities in relation to minors. However, a comprehensive legislative act to provide assistance to persons released from prison has not yet been adopted, although several projects have been submitted to the State Duma since 1997. This act should have established guarantees for the employment of persons released from prison, their temporary residence, etc. In Germany, for example, issues of employment and residence after release begin to be resolved from the moment a person is behind bars. And until these issues are resolved, there is no talk of early release at all.

When releasing on parole, the state places trust in the convicts, and at the same time it assigns certain responsibilities to them. Thus, when applying conditional early release, the court may impose on the convicted person the following duties: not to change his permanent place of residence, work, or study without notifying the specialized state body that carries out the correction of convicted persons; do not visit certain places; undergo treatment for alcoholism, drug addiction, substance abuse or a sexually transmitted disease; provide financial support to the family. The court may impose on the conditionally released person the performance of other duties that contribute to his correction (for example, to acquire a specialty, to make amends for the harm caused by the crime, etc.). Control over the fulfillment of the duties assigned to the released person, as well as his behavior, is entrusted to specialized government bodies, and in relation to military personnel (remember, parole can also be applied to a serviceman serving a sentence in a disciplinary military unit) - by the command of military units and institutions.

It would be unfair if the legislator did not provide for legal liability for failure to fulfill duties or other unlawful behavior of a parolee released from prison. Such liability may only apply during the period for which the person was released early.

Thus, if during the remaining unserved part of the sentence the released person committed a violation of public order, for which an administrative penalty was imposed on him, or maliciously evaded the fulfillment of the above duties (provided that they were imposed on him by the court upon release), the court, upon presentation a specialized government body can cancel parole and return the convicted person to prison. In practice, such a return is extremely rare, although not all parolees are distinguished by exemplary behavior. The point is the weakness of state structures that are called upon to monitor the behavior of those released. No specialized government bodies have been created for this; control responsibilities are assigned to the police, who pay attention to those released only in cases where they have already committed repeated crimes. Recently, proposals have increasingly been made to create a specialized federal probation service, which, along with other functions, would take on the responsibility of recording those released on parole and monitoring their behavior. I think this proposal deserves support, since the level of crime in the country, and therefore the peace and well-being of our citizens, depends on it.

Very interesting features have been established during the parole of convicts serving life imprisonment. This type of punishment is used in Russia for committing murders with aggravating circumstances and terrorism. It can also be used when replacing the death penalty through a pardon exercised by the President of the Russian Federation.

The minimum period after which parole is possible is 25 years. Life imprisonment appeared in Russia in 1992 as a replacement for the death penalty with a more lenient punishment, so not a single person sentenced to this type of punishment has ever been released on parole: the required 25-year term simply has not expired.

By the way, in Korea and Japan the minimum term of mandatory life imprisonment is 10 years, in Germany - 15 years, in Greece - 16 years, in Australia - 20 years, in Poland, Canada and New Zealand - 25 years. The most severe conditions for the early release of persons serving life imprisonment are established in the United States, as a result of which in the country as a whole, every eleventh of those held in prisons is serving life imprisonment. In Russia there are significantly fewer of these persons: as of January 1, 2007, 1,646 convicts serving life imprisonment were serving their sentences in Russian correctional institutions.

The law establishes that conditional early release from life imprisonment is applied only if the convicted person has not committed malicious violations of the established procedure for serving the sentence during the previous three years. Convicts who commit a new serious or especially serious crime while serving their sentence lose the right to parole.

Parole is the most effective incentive for those serving life imprisonment; it is truly a ray of light in an endlessly dark tunnel. Despite such a harsh sentence, the majority of those convicted do not consider themselves forever isolated from society; they hope to return to it. Thus, according to the results of a survey conducted in one of the colonies for those sentenced to life imprisonment, 46.9% of convicts hope to live until parole, 24.3% have not yet thought about it, and only 28.8% no longer hope for grant of parole. Therefore, the majority of convicts behave positively, do not violate the regime, and upon expiration of the 25-year term will apply for parole. They are ready to return to society, but is society ready to accept them? The answer to this question is very complex.

Among professionals, the prevailing opinion is that after serving 25 years there should be a certain stage that would allow, on the one hand, the convict to adapt to living conditions in society, and on the other hand, to once again check the seriousness of the released person’s intentions to live according to established laws and standards of behavior. Therefore, it is proposed that those released on parole from life imprisonment for three to five years be sent to correctional centers where they could live freely, but under the constant supervision of the same probation service. In our opinion, this is a good proposal, especially if it is possible to introduce systemic electronic monitoring of the behavior of such persons. Currently, the Russian Federation has purchased over 200 electronic devices (electronic bracelets), and the European Union has allocated a grant for their experimental testing in relation to those sentenced to alternative forms of imprisonment. If the experiment is successful, its results could be used to monitor the behavior of persons on parole, including those sentenced to life imprisonment.

This article only schematically highlights certain problems of parole. It will be nice if this issue is of interest to the reader. It will be doubly pleasant if the reader understands all the difficulties of resolving issues in such a difficult sphere of public life, which takes place “behind barbed wire.”