Fixing Malta's parole system will take political courage

Crime and punishment are among the most emotive subjects. Most people hear the word parole and think of dangerous criminals being released early. It is an understandable reaction but it is often based on misconceptions.

But if public safety is always first and if our aim is really to make Malta a safer and more liveable country we need to step beyond fear and reflect whether our parole system is working as it should.

The discussion should not only be about whether offenders deserve a second chance, which the government has been speaking about repeatedly. The question also ought to be whether our criminal justice system is reducing crime or merely postponing it.

Under the current parole system in Malta, prisoners who are serving one to two years may become eligible after serving 33% of their sentence; those serving more than two years and up to seven years become eligible after 50%; while prisoners serving more than seven years become eligible after 58% of their sentence (Restorative Justice Act, Chapter 516 of the Laws of Malta).

But the data that is available suggests very few inmates benefit from parole and one asks why is this the case. Considering Malta’s prison population hovers at around 700 inmates, including those on preventive arrest, this raises legitimate concerns about whether the system is functioning effectively.

Hence, the evidence points to the state not having done enough to make this important legislative tool work as it was supposed to. The very low number of parole beneficiaries indicates not so much a lack of eligible prisoners as systemic shortcomings in implementation.

As a starter I suggest that sentences over seven years should be treated on the same basis, with a 50 per cent eligibility threshold. The current spectrum is very wide, from eight years to life imprisonment, and a single threshold cannot do justice to that diversity.

In fact, to be completely honest, if we are prepared to have a mature and evidence-based discussion even the 50% threshold should not be seen as untouchable. Some jurisdictions with good public safety records consider earlier parole for well-evaluated low-risk offenders. It is not a matter of whether eligibility is fixed at 50%, or 45%, or one third of a sentence. It is whether we have the systems in place to assess risk and to supervise offenders properly.

But eligibility is not automatic release. It allows the Parole Board to determine whether a person has shown real rehabilitation, poses a low risk to society and may be safely returned to the community under carefully managed conditions. Those who continue to present a serious danger should continue to serve their sentences. That is a principle that should never be sacrificed.

This distinction matters because parole is often misunderstood. This is not an act of mercy, it is a matter of public safety. It means people are not simply released from prison unsupervised on their release date but are slowly reintegrated into society under strict conditions, ongoing monitoring and the possibility of immediate recall if they break those conditions.

Investment in strong parole systems have generally resulted in reductions in reoffending, greater compliance with release conditions and increased opportunities for former offenders to find employment and re-establish family relationships. They have also eased the pressure on overcrowded prisons, enabling correctional services to focus resources on offenders who truly require incarceration, while also investing more in rehabilitation and community supervision. The result has been fewer victims, lower long-term costs and a more effective justice system.

Reoffending in Malta remains high.

That should not be surprising. If people are released without stable housing, the prospect of work, mental health support or addiction treatment, they will inevitably go back to criminal behaviour. Victims become victims again, communities lose faith and taxpayers keep paying for an expensive cycle with poor results.

It may satisfy a legitimate desire for punishment to keep someone in prison for a few more months but if that extra time does little to reduce future offending, have we really achieved justice?

Surely justice also must be measured by our ability to prevent future victims.

This is why parole cannot be considered in isolation. Better supervision, better risk assessment, electronic monitoring where appropriate, better reintegration planning and stronger follow-up after release must accompany earlier eligibility. Release assessment is only half the equation.

Reoffending in Malta remains high- Andrew Azzopardi

What happens next is just as important. For the public to trust the parole system we need to invest equally in post release supervision as we do in the assessment process. 

And there is also a practical fact not to be overlooked. The prison system in Malta is under constant pressure and cannot provide the quality of rehabilitative services to be expected from a modern correctional environment. Every unnecessary day spent in prison has a financial cost and takes away resources that could be used for rehabilitation, victim support and crime prevention. Community supervision is much less expensive than incarceration and international evidence suggests it often produces better long-term outcomes.

The Parole Board must be allowed to exercise careful judgement, based on evidence, free from political pressure or public sentiment. Public confidence can only be built through transparent and strict decision-making.

Ultimately, this requires political courage.

Populism and the fear of tomorrow’s headlines should not drive criminal justice policy. Governments are too often afraid of being seen as “soft on crime” and shy away from evidence-based reforms.

Leadership is about making informed decisions in the long-term interests of society. Keeping people locked up for longer may be the easier political option. The better option is to adopt policies that reduce crime.

The challenge is changing how we think about prisons. If prison is nothing but a warehouse to hold people until they are released, then we shouldn’t be surprised when many come out unchanged.

But if imprisonment is accompanied by meaningful rehabilitation, preparation for release and supervised reintegration, society benefits.

No justice system can eradicate crime completely. However, it can make decisions based on evidence rather than emotion.

It is being smart about crime. At the end of the day, the measure of a justice system is not how long it keeps people locked up but how it helps to prevent future victims and build safer communities.

Andrew Azzopardi is chairperson of the Cottonera Resource Centre.