Parole is a common thing around the world. In essence, it is a reward of early but conditional release for people who have been sentenced to a term of incarceration by the judicial system.

The fundamental issues related to parole are what constitutes reasons for awarding it and what conditions a person must adhere to ‘on the outside’ once it has been granted.

Joe Gerada, the head of the taskforce appointed to manage the consultation process on reparative justice put it this way: Parole is not a right but a privilege, which is awarded only for good behaviour, cooperation with prison authorities, remorse for wrongdoing, a desire to make good for damage caused and a commitment to provide for oneself and their family through legitimate work.

This newspaper could not agree more. But there is more to it. A very important issue that perhaps, has not drawn as much attention as the reasons for granting parole is - as we mentioned before - the reaction of a person once parole has been awarded.

It would be useless to have a parole board granting a person early release, only for them to stray from the path once more and be allowed to get away with it. These people will also need a great deal of assistance to integrate in the normal world - i.e. finding a job, dealing with the stigma of being an ex-convict, controlling their temper, stifling urges such as drugs or sexual advances.

All in all, it has to be a holistic plan, which will, however, be flexible enough to deal with individuals and their own unique situation.

Another point that is very important is reflected in the title of this editorial. Parole is not a right and must be earned. This newspaper believes that people who reform and turn their lives around and express true remorse for what they have done deserve a second chance at life.

But we already have a problem where people are sometimes given conditional discharges, one time after another and numerous suspended prison terms. The Chief Justice has already gone on the record in saying that these types of ‘punishment’ are sometimes far too lenient and one would have to also warn about the possibility of being too lenient with the granting of parole.

Malta, like any other country in the world, needs somewhere to put people sentenced to incarceration. That place is the Corradino Correctional Facility. Like anywhere else, it was built on Victorian lines and better conditions led to more use of space. This can lead to potential overcrowding.

We have seen the public backlash in places like the UK and the US where convicts have been granted parole after boards have been put under pressure to do so to alleviate overcrowding in prisons. God forbid it happens here, and this is where the potential problem lies.

Parole should never be confused with a community service ruling. The latter is used to give a person something constructive to do rather than send them to prison.

In theory, parole should only be granted if the conditions mentioned by Mr Gerada, which we agree with entirely, are met by the offender. Under no circumstance whatsoever should the parole board, once put in place, be put under any pressure to free prisoners early if they have not earned it.

To do so would be a travesty of justice to the people of Malta.