Cape Town - Community involvement and community members' credibility while making decisions on the parole placement of offenders was discussed at a portfolio committee on correctional services meeting this week.
Crime fighters, who were part of parole process, including activists against gender-based violence (GBV), said community members should play an important role in parole decisions but they had to be trained and remain impartial.
DA MP Janho Engelbrecht questioned the educational background and skills of community members who served on the parole board. He said more than 90 000 offenders had been granted parole within three years, 40% of them repeat offenders who had committed serious offences.
The committee heard there were 52 correctional supervision and parole boards in the country. Their main function was to consider offenders for possible placement on parole and correctional supervision.
“These are shortcomings in the make-up of our parole board. I need to know what is the time line of this review of this parole system board in South Africa,” said Engelbrecht when referring to the number of offenders who had been granted parole and then committed another crime.
National Commissioner Makgothi Samuel Thobakgale said community members were screened before they were appointed.
“When we appoint community members, we prioritise those that come from the same vicinity or the same management area. A community member is required to have a level 6 qualification in the field of criminal justice, community development and social sciences,” he said.
“They should have at least five years' experience in community development or should have previously participated in an organisation on an executive level,” he said.
“We work with police stations, councillors, NGOs and traditional leadership from the place of placement, and violations are reported through these systems. We, therefore, encourage community members to apply when the opportunity comes to serve on parole boards.”
Michael Jacobs, of Mitchells Plain Residents Association, was part of the community engagement where Norman “Afzal” Simons, dubbed the Station Strangler, was being considered for parole.
“I am of the view that the community component of the parole board must stay in place,” he said.
“It must become the responsibility of the Department of Corrections and Justice to empower and train parole board members to be able to fulfil their role and duties effectively.
“The reintegration of offenders is not the sole responsibility of the parole board but starts with the Department of Corrections and other role-players, to ensure that inmates receive the necessary practical skills and education for them to become economically productive within society.”
Siyabulela Monakali, of Ilitha Labantu, which advocates for the rights of GBV victims, said they were concerned about the limited involvement of communities, especially survivors of GBV during parole decision-making.
“Given the profound and lasting impact that GBV has on survivors, families and entire communities, we believe that excluding community voices undermines the principles of justice and rehabilitation.
“Ilitha Labantu has consistently emphasised that the safety and well-being of survivors must be at the forefront of any parole considerations.
“When parole boards operate without meaningful community input, they risk overlooking the lived experiences and potential dangers that could arise from releasing offenders back into the very communities they've harmed.
“Survivors and their support systems are in the best position to highlight the ongoing trauma and safety concerns that parole boards should consider.”