Should Parole Be Abolished Pros And Cons

“The theory and practice of criminal sentencing is today experiencing extensive change. One often-heard recommendation is that parole be abolished” (Von Hirsch & Hanrahan, pp. iii, 1978). Several points are made by critics in opposition of a parole system. “First, scholars concluded that indeterminate sentencing and discretionary parole did not achieve offender rehabilitation, which was because it was solely based on parole board judgement without explicit standards of fairness and equity in sentencing” (Schmalleger & Smykla, pp. 290, 2015). As a result, it has been found that racial bias plays a role in the parole system’s decisions, along with socioeconomic factors. Second, “instead of a discretionary release decision made on the basis of rehabilitative or incapacitative considerations, there should

Simply put, a criminal offense requires a specific sentence to be served, this can even be adjusted for mitigating factors, however, the lax enforcement of already vague punishments is a practice that must be stopped. Next, in lieu of “permitting parole revocation for releasees suspected of new criminal activity, they should be prosecuted as any other suspect” (Von Hirsch & Hanrahan, pp. iii, 1978). In any event, new offenses require new punishments, although, this particular prong of the argument would create an additional burden on the judicial system by requiring the conviction a new crime. Finally, “instead of routinely imposing supervision on ex-prisoners, supervision should be eliminated entirely, or if retained, should be reduced substantially in scope, sanctions for noncompliance should be decreased, and the process should be carefully examined for effectiveness and cost” (Von Hirsch & Hanrahan, pp. iii, 1978). Ultimately, this argument conforms to the belief that once an offender pays their debt to society, they are restored. As a result, if a debt has been fully paid, then there is no need to waste valuable resources monitoring a restored