Those who oppose the use of parole as a correctional component assert that it is a waste of time, unfair and ineffective, and should be abolished. Those who support the use of parole as a correctional component in the criminal justice system argue that it is beneficial to the criminal and the community and that it is the behavioral outcome that is important in determining whether one should be on parole or not (Kleis, 2010).
The abolishment of parole has been tried and failed because it makes sentencing of an offender longer and tougher and offenders who are released from prions are subjected to longer periods of incarceration (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Parole is part of the criminal justice system and cannot be easily abolished. The U.S. Board of Parole states that parole can be done with fairness and equity by use of severity ratings for any offense to evaluate their behavioral outcomes.
That puts offenders under constant review and re-evaluation to ensure that they do not harm the public when released as opposed to complete imprisonment (Kleis, 2010). Parole is not a waste of time and resources because offenders on parole are released to reduce congestion in prisons. To be on parole, an offender has to be evaluated for eligibility with active public participation, affirming the position that parole should not be abolished.
References
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 39.
Kleis, K. M. (2010). Facilitating failure: Parole, reentry, and obstacles to success. Dialectical anthropology, 34(4), 525-531.