The response by three of Malta's top criminologists (September 27) to the article on the proposed Justice Ministry White Paper (September 15) rightly emphasised that "when discussing prison reform, the main focus should be on society's safety, not on the wellbeing of prisoners". However, whilst prisoners may not be victims, their families often are and both they and society at large can only benefit if a prisoner is reformed and crime reduced. The criminologists' observation that many offenders, on leaving jail, "tend to return to their old ways once they find themselves back in their old communities and mixing with their old 'friends' while needing to fend for themselves and start making money" is old-style thinking, which labels a person and thereafter condemns them.

Prison should not just remove the offender from society, it should teach them "new ways", make their "old friends" less attractive and provide them with the tools (mental and physical) to "fend for themselves and start making [legitimate] money. Some offend because they lack self-esteem and an employable skill (and the satisfaction of using it) can remove the basis of their criminality. Many prisoners have unrealised talents and the beautifully restored chapel at Corradino Correctional Facility is an example of what a prisoner can do. Prison provides a unique opportunity to try and cure criminality and parole can ensure that they don't just "return to their old ways". If the cause is drug-addiction or the failure to take prescribed medication, e.g. for schizophrenia or depression, parole can impose regular blood-tests to ensure that they are drug-free or that the medication is taken.

To state that "with remission, convicted criminals begin their sentence with one-third of it already knocked off" implies that judges are fools and won't realise that when setting the term. Prisoners do not walk out of jail "scot-free", they have served their sentence and paid their penalty. To state that "parole officers are very tough and it is difficult for convicted prisoners to surrender to that kind of control" pre-empts the question of what regime a Malta parole system would impose. If the parole officer is of the right calibre and not a sadistic bully, and the prisoner was actually suitable for parole, then the relationship can become one of mutual respect. In England and other countries, electronic ankle bracelets are used to monitor the movements of parolees and mobile phone technology can detect when the wearer moves out of a permitted area or into a prohibited one.

The criminologists interviewed are pessimistic and appear to be unwilling to consider anything new. It is encouraging that they are prepared to be openly critical of the Ministry of Justice, agreeing that the prison should not be run by policemen (who "tend to have a police mentality that is incongruous with a correctional facility") and that the ministry should acknowledge that "prison warders are overworked and the prison needs to employ more social workers, psychologists and probation officers". They accepted that prison should emphasise its correctional function, but admitted that the current success rate is "between 35 and 40 per cent". Some would not re-offend anyway, so a failure rate of over 60 per cent demonstrates that the current prison regime is failing. Obviously, not all criminals are ripe for reform, but that is no reason to write them off en masse.

It is to be hoped that the forthcoming White Paper will provide constructive solutions, which look beyond the Maltese Islands for inspiration.