apart from those in ( e ) above , acceptance of post-release assistance by a prisoner in these groups is entirely voluntary ; he may not be recalled to prison or have any other sanction applied to him for subsequent refusal to co-operate with the officers of the council , and no period of supervision can be laid down . we understand that the addition of detention centre inmates to the above list is being considered . from the discharged prisoners &apos; aid societies . 19 . any discharged prisoner may apply ( without being required to observe any statutory or other conditions ) for post-release assistance from the discharged prisoners &apos; aid societies . in practice most of those they help are persons who are not under the care of the after care council . these are societies approved by the Secretary of state under section 18 ( 4 ) of the prisons ( Scotland ) act , 1952 , and formed , in the words of the act , for the purpose of finding employment for discharged prisoners and enabling them by loans and grants of money to live by honest labour . there are eight such societies in Scotland , all but one of which carry out their after-care functions through part-time agents . they receive from the state grants equal to half their approved expenditure ; for the rest of their income they depend on voluntary contributions and interest from investments . the societies have formed a national organisation , the Scottish association of discharged prisoners &apos; aid societies , which acts as a co-ordinating body concerned primarily with policy and national appeals . we shall discuss the place of these societies in a modern scheme of after-care in our second report . existing pattern of selection for after-care . 20 . the aim of after-care is no doubt to protect society by helping the offender to re-establish himself so that he does not fall into crime again . it is , however , difficult to trace any guiding principle in the existing pattern of selection as described in paragraphs 17-18 above by which after-care is applied compulsorily , or made available on a voluntary basis to certain categories of prisoner . the arrangements would rather appear to have grown up piecemeal . the periods for which prisoners receive after-care also do not appear to be very effectively related to its objects . in general , the view appears to have been taken that a person released on licence before the end of his sentence should not be subject to supervision beyond the date on which the sentence expires . this has the odd result that the more remission a prisoner loses by misconduct , the shorter his period on licence . that is to say , in cases where rehabilitation might be expected to be particularly difficult the time available for after-care is cut down . apart from such special cases , it seems to us that if the period of after-care is based arithmetically on the period of sentence it is unlikely to bear much relation to the prisoner &apos;s individual needs , to the time required for after-care to be effective , or to the need of ensuring , in the public interest , that there may be adequate opportunity given to the welfare staff to do what they can to get the man to stand again on his own two feet . it will be very seldom that permanent good can be done in this field under six months , and for assistance to be withdrawn from a discharged person after , perhaps , a matter of weeks , must all too often mean a sorry waste of effort . 21 . we are therefore satisfied that a statutory period of after-care must normally be one entirely independent of the particular prisoner &apos;s period of remission as determined by his length of sentence and his conduct in prison - good conduct while in custody does not necessarily remove the need for supervision after release . it must in our view be fixed solely with the effectiveness of after-care in view . compulsory or voluntary after-care . 22 . there is , of course , an element of contradiction in the idea of compulsory after-care . no man can really be helped against his will and a prisoner who resented the conditions attached to after-care could effectively enough go through the motions of co-operation without deriving any benefit . there is no doubt that where after-care is at least voluntarily accepted , the chances of success are significantly enhanced . we can not be satisfied , however , that the type of prisoner most in need of after-care would always willingly ask for it . he might be motivated by misplaced pride , by reluctance to appear to be currying favour with the authorities , or by a genuine inability to realise his own plight . even of those who might while in prison opt for voluntary after-care , a considerable number , we have been assured , would on release find any kind of supervision conditions irksome and would cease to co-operate . this would involve great wastage of time and effort on the part of the already burdened after-care personnel . we therefore conclude that any effective system of after-care must depend on a statutory obligation on the prisoner or inmate to accept help , the value of which , we feel satisfied , will be fully explained to him by the staff of the prison or institution before his release . 23 . nevertheless , we do not consider that the work of the after care council should be confined to assisting those who are statutorily placed under its supervision . ideally , all discharged prisoners and inmates might be required to accept the council &apos;s supervision and help . this is manifestly impossible at the present time , and compulsory after-care must therefore be put on some kind of selective basis . but we feel that , over and above the after-care of persons in the selected categories , there is scope for the council to assist other discharged prisoners who are in special need of help and are willing to accept the discipline that any form of after-care must involve . we recognise that there is some danger of the resources of the after-care service being strained by an excessive volume of voluntary work , and that some method of selection to control it might become necessary . nevertheless we recommend that the after care council should be given explicit power and accept supervision although they are not in the statutory categories which we propose later in this report . selection for after-care . 24 . since compulsory after-care for every person released from custody is not feasible , or indeed necessary , some scheme of selection must operate . some recommendations on this subject have already been made in the advisory council &apos;s reports on custodial sentences for young offenders ( published in July , 1960 ) and on short sentences of imprisonment ( published in May , 1960 ) . we refer to the effect of our own proposals on these recommendations in the summary of recommendations in paragraph 53 below . ( a ) . method of selection . 25 . we have considered a number of possible methods of selection , but in the end we have concluded that at present the one that is most satisfactory is the application of compulsory after-care to categories of inmates and prisoners clearly specified in statute . we refer below to the other possibilities we have discussed : ( 1 ) . selection by the court . it is arguable , on the view that compulsory after-care , where it is appropriate , is part of the sentence imposed , that the court should select the offenders who would be likely to benefit from after-care , and include an appropriate period in the sentence . but we doubt whether the court , except perhaps where the sentence was a very short one , could actually assess at the time of imposing it what would be the offender &apos;s needs when the time came for him to leave prison . the court might , possibly , impose after-care by categories , but this would only be doing what could more effectively be done by act of parliament . selection by the courts of individual cases would , we fear , result in much resentment on the part of those chosen for it ; few would appreciate the court &apos;s reason for choosing them rather than others , and some would regard the period of after-care as an addition to the sentence . they would thus be in a bad frame of mind to start the training which now begins on admission to prison . successful prison training must be a favourable factor for resettlement after release , but if the prisoner started it with a feeling of resentment his co-operation would be more difficult to secure . it seems to us better that after-care should be attached by the law to certain custodial sentences rather than that it should have an appearance - in the minds of some offenders - of being an additional element that courts may add to the normal sentence at their discretion . ( 2 ) . selection by prison staff , or by a prison board , or by the secretary of state . the Governor of a prison and his senior staff , including the prison welfare officer , could theoretically choose deserving cases for after-care , or make recommendations to a board consisting of members of the visiting committee . as , however , the basis of selection would be in the main the prisoner &apos;s conduct and progress while in prison there might be a tendency to choose the man who simply avoided getting into trouble . it would , we think , be likely to create discontent among the body of prisoners to have the prison staff , or any board acting on their advice , choose certain men as apparently better , or worse , post-release risks than others . this would certainly be discouraging to the prisoner who might have welcomed after-care and who was not chosen , but conversely , would encourage the prisoner who did not want supervision to behave in such a way as not to be selected or recommended . in the end , the Governor and his staff would be inclined to avoid the invidiousness of selection by recommending almost every prisoner , or none . placing the ultimate decision for selection on the Secretary of state might appear to remove the onus from the prison staff or prison board . the Secretary of state , however , would have to rely on reports from the prison and welfare staffs , and sooner or later this would be known to the prisoners . all the undesirable consequences of selection would still remain . ( 3 ) . opting by prisoners , with earlier release . the suggestion that a prisoner who voluntarily accepted after-care might thereby qualify for earlier release , through , possibly , a higher rate of remission , is at first sight not unattractive . we have been assured , however , that every prisoner would be only too willing to make a show of accepting after-care if earlier release were the consequence . the proposal would inevitably involve some kind of selection , with the attendant evils , and we do not think the prison staff , or any other staff , should have in their hands what would amount to a wide power to confer earlier release . there would , moreover , be some risk that those who opted would be regarded by the others as seeking the favour of the prison staff , and some might opt in the expectation of more considerate treatment , for example , by getting the better kind of jobs in prison . opting for after-care with any kind of reward attached must in our opinion be ruled out at the present time . 26 . any of these methods of selection involves consequences which we think are unacceptable . other strong objections to these methods are the prisoner &apos;s uncertainty whether he will be selected and the difficulty of deciding the best time for selection . it is clearly undesirable that the prisoner should have to serve perhaps the better part of his sentence not knowing whether he will get after-care help on release , or that the welfare staff should not know in good time the prisoners they will be required to help . if conduct in prison were a deciding consideration selection would tend to be left to a time near the date of release . if a prisoner is going to get after-care he should know it as soon as he starts his sentence . 27 . we therefore conclude that the only method of avoiding the difficulties of individual selection and of ensuring that a prisoner is at no time in any doubt where he stands in relation to after-care is to specify , in statute , the categories of prisoners to whom after-care is to be applied . 