Early parole and inconsistencies
The Israel Prison Service Parole Board convened to discuss President Moshe Katsav's fate on Wednesday. The deliberations on his request for early parole -- which means serving the final third of his sentence outside prison -- had to be conducted very delicately because of the gravity of the matter; the scales of justice in this case should have the same accuracy as those used in the pharmaceutical industry because every ounce counts.
Kastav had two things going for him in the runup to the decision. The first was that the Israel Prison Service did not view him as a major threat to others. As the some in the service said: "He is not the kind of rapist who lurks on the street corner [for potential victims]." The other thing he had going for him was the current law governing early paroles. Under the law, he doesn't have to express remorse or accept guilt in order to have his request granted.
On the other hand, to be granted early parole, one has to undergo psychological treatment inside prison. Such treatment is meaningless if the felon insists he is innocent, as Katsav has. Let me make myself more clear: He doesn't have to accept guilt, but there is a difference between saying he did nothing wrong -- which precludes any psychological/professional treatment -- and saying that mistakes were made but he failed to realize just how bad his conduct was at the time.
Katsav chose to stay the course by vehemently denying the allegations all through the trial and imprisonment, and as a consequence he never got the psychological treatment that could have laid the groundwork for an early parole. That is why in the overall analysis, ahead of the parole board decision Wednesday, the case for keeping him behind bars was stronger than the case for early release.
There is also the unexplained about-face of the Prisoner Rehabilitation Authority (which for some reason is part of the Welfare and Social Services Ministry and not the Public Security Ministry). It initially opposed early parole because Katsav failed to prove he could be successfully rehabilitated outside prison, but this "no" suddenly became a "yes" without a plausible explanation. This raises some questions on other cases and whether the authority's positions are professionally sound.
It would be a stretch to say that Katsav is dangerous to society. That said, releasing him under the current circumstances may inflict real harm on the rule of law because people will say it is preferential treatment. Instead of fast-tracking this parole request, the various agencies should have deliberated on this matter further and come up with concrete guidelines -- perhaps through new legislation -- for early paroles.
Israel Prison Service Commissioner Ofra Klinger has said she opposed early release for convicts unless they did their part to rehabilitate and integrate into society. This view is shared by many professionals. Those who have mended their ways in prison in a constructive manner should be allowed to make their case for early release.
But those who hunker down in their positions and insist they did nothing wrong, those who refuse to cooperate with professionals and just give blank stares, should serve out their prison sentences in their cells. Klinger has a principled view that makes sense. It is reasonable and wise. It has nothing to with Katsav.
The early parole process no longer has the seriousness it used to have. Several decades ago, when members of the Jewish Underground terrorist group applied for early parole, they were told that they must express remorse if they wanted their request granted. One of the inmates, Yehuda Etzion, refused to do so on principle, and as a result, he stayed in prison to serve out the rest of his sentence. This is a case in point for future reference.
טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו