The use of parole in the criminal justice system in the United States dates back to the late 1800s, when it was first introduced at a reformatory in Elmira, New York. Parole allows convicted felons to be released from prison before completing their full sentence, but with certain conditions. Factors such as behavior, rehabilitation progress, severity of the crime, and expression of remorse are taken into consideration to determine eligibility for parole. Many states have since adopted parole as the main method for releasing offenders from correctional facilities.
Eliminating parole and requiring prisoners to serve their full sentences is proposed in response to the potential risks posed by releasing deserving prisoners. The possibility of repeated offenses often outweighs the benefits of parole, which puts society at risk. In determining prison sentences, the severity of the crimes committed and the mental intent behind them are typically taken into account. For example, deliberate murder reflects an intentional act that disregards human life and knowingly results in death. In contrast, manslaughter involves taking a life but lacks deliberate intent to cause death.
The severity of a person’s death is determined by the circumstances, considering factors like self-defense or crimes of passion arising from provocation. These incidents can lead to violence and danger. Inmates receive different sentences due to the varying nature of these offenses, ranging from life imprisonment to shorter terms with the chance of parole after serving part of their sentence. Parole aims to release inmates before completing their full sentences if they have been sufficiently punished and can reintegrate into society under supervision as law-abiding citizens. However, despite efforts to carefully assess inmates before granting early release, parole decisions often turn out unwise.
As a social worker, I observed firsthand these situations with my parolee clients who required counseling and referral services. Unfortunately, the majority of the parolees I aided were not familiar with modern technology and had poor communication skills. Additionally, financial limitations prevented them from attending interviews or obtaining appropriate attire. Consequently, they resorted to their previous patterns of drug trafficking, theft, and burglary in order to meet their basic needs for money, food, and other necessities. Clearly, these obstacles contribute to the ongoing cycle of parolees reoffending.
Inmates complete their remaining prison sentence and may face additional sentences if they commit new crimes. However, the parole board neglects to sufficiently assess the inmates’ readiness for employment after release, disregarding important factors like their communication skills and written proficiency. Without adequate preparation to present themselves as prospective employees, parolees will encounter difficulties in supporting themselves. The absence of employment leads to financial hardships, potentially driving individuals towards desperation and incentivizing criminal behaviors such as robbery, burglary, and drug trafficking.
Although not all inmates are unable to be released due to a lack of job readiness, some inmates who are job ready may still lack responsibility and sound judgment because of inadequate rehabilitation programs that are either short in duration or unavailable. Additionally, the screening process is flawed as parole boards have yet to find a more effective method of verifying the sincerity of inmates when they appear before the panel. For example, there are numerous inmates who have previously gone through the parole system only to return to prison. These individuals inform other inmates about the expectations of the parole board and assist prospective parolees in practicing how they will respond to crucial questions that will determine their release.
According to a parolee, understanding what the authorities want to hear and doing some small favorable actions, such as taking classes, ensures a smooth process with the parole board. However, this scripted behavior undermines the purpose of comprehensive parole evaluation because it does not assess the prisoner’s genuine moral character and remorse. Conversely, there are those who claim that parole officials cannot determine which inmates are truthful or dishonest. Though accurate, psychologists possess expertise in using specialized tests to evaluate different facets of an inmate’s character like honesty, capability, and intelligence.
Alternative methods are employed to determine which prisoners present a lower risk to society. These methods involve evaluating their prior criminal records and the severity of the offense that led to their imprisonment. In certain instances, inmates who are aware that their chances of parole are minimal may strategically participate in programs that appeal to the parole board, aiming to increase their likelihood of being granted parole. However, their primary motivation often revolves solely around attaining freedom, with limited genuine interest in reintegrating as law-abiding members of society. Conversely, there are also inmates convicted of non-violent crimes like forgery or embezzlement who are released under the assumption that they do not pose a threat upon release.
The offenders in prison learn new crimes, like extortion and theft techniques, as well as intellectual ways to deceive people in order to obtain their desires. This poses a threat to society as they become capable of committing more crimes. However, parole board panels overlook these issues in their screening process, focusing only on an inmate’s background without considering any new habits developed during incarceration. Despite the high rates of recidivism reported by state parole commissions, parole boards have not found a solution to enhance their screening techniques.
This deficiency poses a risk to society as it pertains to crime. Serving time in prison does not automatically reform a prisoner. Frequently, inmates are not adequately rehabilitated for their transgressions, and instead endure additional punishment in the form of extended periods of solitary confinement, exacerbating their emotional and mental well-being. Many of the parolees I work with have conveyed their experience of racing violent thoughts and overwhelming despair while confined to a small, bare, and chilly isolation cell, completely cut off from human interaction or any activities for twenty-three hours daily.
The inmates believe they were not taught how to live together peacefully and did not receive psychotherapy for handling violent conflicts. Without a support system, the parole board is releasing angry individuals who can be explosive when facing everyday challenges outside of prison. Some opponents argue that longer sentences would make criminals angrier, but I disagree. I believe that parole, along with rehabilitation programs, can help individuals adjust to a less hostile environment if they have learned self-control, feel remorse for their crimes, and undergo proper rehabilitation while in prison.
There is a strong opposition to abolishing parole due to concerns about prison overcrowding and increased taxpayer expenses to keep inmates serving their entire sentence. This would also result in waiting lists for new offenders, exacerbating existing waiting lists in some states. On the other hand, those who disagree prefer directing taxpayer funds towards rehabilitative programs to support the development of more functional parolees. While I acknowledge the validity of these perspectives, it is crucial to recognize that taxpayer money is similarly allocated to aid third world countries as a means to prevent injustice, mirroring the investment in inmate housing.
The United States government recently sent soldiers to Bosnia with the aim of establishing peace. During this mission, millions of dollars were spent on destructive actions, such as using million-dollar missiles and destroying defensive military tools in order to prevent potential retaliation. I am curious why our government does not use this money to defend its own citizens from domestic criminals by building new prisons. Our government clearly has the necessary funds, and instead of using them to protect the rights of foreigners, these millions should be used to improve the security of our society. Our society consists of promising children, young adults, and senior citizens who have shaped our generation. Therefore, just like any other ethnic group, we deserve proper protection.
It is crucial to acknowledge that the cost of housing inmates is comparatively lower than the immeasurable pain and suffering endured by victims targeted by parolees who refuse to reform. The impact on these victims cannot be measured. If imprisoning these criminals for their entire sentences resulted in saving even one innocent life or preventing irreparable harm, it would be considered a valuable investment. In conclusion, while parole benefits inmates seeking freedom, society seldom benefits from the progress or rehabilitation efforts made by parolees in the community.
We must acknowledge that parole is a privilege, not an automatic grant. It’s crucial to understand that if almost half of parolees return to prison, then parole is ineffective and should be abolished. Those who abide by the law have earned their freedom, while offenders have earned their imprisonment and should fulfill it.
