Correspondence
| Date | 01 December 1970 |
| Author | S. Kerr |
| Published date | 01 December 1970 |
| DOI | 10.1177/000486587000300409 |
| Subject Matter | Correspondence |
246 AUST. &N.Z. JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY (Dec., 1970): 3, 4
Correspondence
SIR, I
read
with
interest
the
article A
Proposal
for
Work
Release of Prisoners in
Victoria, in
the
Journal (September, 1970)
and whilst Iagree in many respects,
there
are
a
number
of instances
where
I do
not
agree
and
offer my comments as an
explanation of
what
is going on in Queens-
land,
and
where
I feel
that
the
information
in the
article
in some cases would neither
be practicable
nor
wise.
Iagree
that
it is essential to have a
separate hostel to house this
group
of
prisoners, although we
are
keeping
them
in a
separate
section of
the
prison
apart
from
other
prisoners until we
get
our
hostel built. Iregard a
separate
hostel
as an absolute necessity. We
apply
our
release to
work
scheme from
our
main
prisons only in the main centres of Bris-
bane, Rockhampton and Townsville for a
number of reasons including:
1.
Work
is more readily available in the
capital cities and most of
the
prisoners
are
going to
stay
there
on release.
2. Employment in rural areas in Queens-
land is almost unavailable
and
if it
were, a prisoner is not likely to
stay
in
that
employment on discharge.
3. The avenues of employment in Queens-
land
are
only available in
or
near
capital
and
provincial cities.
4. The recording, management
and
many
other
features of release to work,
which
are
too numerous to mention,
can only be carried out successfully
at or
near
a main prison. I
think
it
could quite probably be done at Pent-
ridge Prison in Melbourne
where
a
hostel or section separate from
the
prison
can
be provided.
5.
Our
object is trying to resettle a
prisoner in suitable employment which
he will continue
after
the
expiration
of his sentence. Consequently, we
encourage him to live as normal a life
at
work
as
any
ordinary workman.
They
are
given a specific
amount
of
money daily of which
they
hand
the
unexpended portion back at night,
with
averbal account of
their
daily expen-
diture, including expenditure on
cigarettes
and
alcohol.
6. I feel it unrealistic to suggest
that
normal drinking of alcohol should be
prohibited.
7. Persons addicted to alcohol, as
you
are
no doubt aware,
are
bad risks
both
for parole
and
release to work,
and
persons imprisoned where
the
reason
for imprisonment is excessive alcohol
are seldom paroled or released
to
work
as
they
cannot comply
with
the
pro-
visions.
8. Prisoners
are
permitted to
work
on
shift
work
including night work. In
fact one
man
was a supervisor of
night
staff in one of
our
biggest enterprises
for some
months
during his release to
work programme.
9. I disagree
that
jobs as builders'
labourers should be excluded. In fact,
80% of
our
successful release
to
work
fellows
are
employed in
the
building
industry,
mostly
as builders' labourers,
where
the
employment climate is good.
Leave passes
are
altered to
permit
transfers from one job to another,
and
also
the
time periods
are
altered to
suit requirements. The prisoner car-
ries a copy of the Order (pass)
with
him.
10. In some cases prisoners have used
the
employer's vehicle to and from
the
gaol each day.
11. Life sentence prisoners
are
participat-
ing in
our
scheme
preparatory
to
parole.
12. I do
not
accept
that
the
work
release
supervisor
must
be a professionally
trained man. He is a liaison officer
between
the
prison administration
and
the
employer
and
should have aprac-
tical knowledge of employer/employee
relationship
and
prison management
and requirements.
13. I agree
that
the
Classification Com-
mittee would be appropriate, although
Imake
the
decisions here
but
confer
with
the
Superintendents
and
the
Welfare Officers who
are
required to
maintain liaison with the employers.
One point which to my mind is
the
whole substance of
the
release to
work
programme is employer involvement
and
acontinuity of this. Prisoner employees
must in
the
first instance be recognized
as satisfactory workers, and
without
the
interest of
the
employer,
the
scheme can-
not function, let alone continue to function.
As mentioned earlier, most of
our
em-
ployees
are
in
the
building industry
and
other favourable employment climates,
and
we
are
hesitant
to place a man on release
to work if we feel
that
he is going to
let
his employer down by leaving as soon as
his sentence is finished. This would
almost inevitably be so in
rural
areas.
The whole basis of employer involvement
has been built up on the goodwill of
officials of
the
Prisons Department
and
To continue reading
Request your trial