Given the increasing attention, parole has been getting, the mounting anger of the public and the ceaseless committee reports on investigations has created ideas of rethinking parole in the criminal justice system. While a majority of the people support the structure is effective since it reduces the costs of imprisonment, many others believe that the system has failed in its penal rehabilitation ( Hoeve & van der Laan, 2016) . Supporters of Parole argue that abolishing the system does not guarantee a reduced crime rate. Instead, it would also increase the already burdened prisons. Despite there being flaws within the system, getting rid of troublemakers who are on parole has more disadvantages than benefits.
Arguments
Parole systems can correct errors in judgment where harsh treatments such as life sentences are given to first-time offenders or non-violent crimes. At the same time, parole systems would reduce unnecessary incarcerations of young offenders. In most instances, small crimes that have had minimal negative consequences require monitoring and rehabilitation of behavior than harsher sentences. At the same time, young people who show the capability of reforming more often than not benefit from the system without having being imprisoned ( Caldwell, 2016). Additionally, first-time offenders who have committed less serious crimes would be prevented from having to go through the incarceration process. Therefore, problematic offenders would need stricter parole monitoring than dropping them or returning them to prison.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
On the other hand, parole offers support released prisoners where officers help their clients’ reform, get jobs, manage addictions, and mend broken relationships. The experience of social stigmatization from being imprisoned is detrimental and would likely influence recidivism. This means that parole systems help reduce repeat offenses that were less serious instead of going through the jail scheme ( Caldwell, 2016) . After all, little is being achieved by imprisoning more people for longer durations instead of helping them reform and get back to society . This, therefore, means that returning troublemakers to jail would not at help in correcting their behavior but likely worsen the behavior of individuals. Criminals will take out their frustrations out on other prisoners where the increased population would only spur up crime behind the walls ( Caldwell, 2016) . Parole separates criminals with the possibility of reforming from those who have no disregard for public safety. In this regard, dropping them from parole would mean limiting opportunities of rehabilitation.
On the other hand, ramifications for incarcerating criminals for longer durations would overcrowd prison systems that have already become a huge problem to the society. Despite parole having its costs, they are cheaper than prisons. The costs of incarcerations are high within the criminal justice system with the potential of burdening taxpayers ( Petersilia, 2018). The elimination of supervision would, in turn, increase the time spent in prison. High costs of prisons would be saved when compared to returning troublemakers to prison settings.
Taking parole off would mean no incentive for prisoners who make efforts in doing what is right. When one person is put in jail, another offender will likely take over the criminal role of the incarcerated person. While in prison, offenders are often motivated to work or cooperate to be returned to society . Therefore, returning troublemakers from parole settings to jail would defy the purpose and meaning of the system in reducing high incarceration rates ( Petersilia, 2018) . Making mistakes should not be weighed down by prison time but rather reform efforts to correct behavior and monitor change.
However, I could agree that parolees who are continually presenting problems to their supervisors should be dropped out and returned to prison once their offenses graduate from being less violent to serious crimes. For instance, a person jailed for pick-pocketing who is out on parole but later gets involved in armed robbery should be returned to jail. In other cases, offenders who show little possibility of changing their behavior when out on parole should be returned to jail to maintain public safety ( Hoeve & van der Laan, 2016) . Nonetheless, parole would lose its meaning and its intended purpose of correcting behavior and reducing the burden of incarcerations. The system that was established to provide alternatives to imprisonments would fail if it would not be effective in handling offenders.
Conclusion
After a careful consideration of the effects of unnecessary imprisonments, it is clear that getting rid of troublemakers on parole is more detrimental than beneficial. Offenders who have been put on parole display high likelihoods of reforming and integrating back with the society. Offenders who continually display problems to their officers should be placed under strict monitoring and supervision instead of being returned to prison where violent criminals are. Unlike school suspension of troublemakers, dropping out parolees into prison systems does not rectify the problem. Suspending troublemakers from school enables students to realize their mistakes and work to not repeat their offenses that would be met with far-reaching consequences of expulsion. On the other hand, getting rid of parolees would mean placing them in a system with minimal supervision that is more likely to harden them, add more burdens of costs of imprisonments, and increase recidivism rates.
References
Caldwell, B. (2016). Creating Meaningful Opportunities for Release: Graham, Miller and California's Youth Offender Parole Hearings. NYU Rev. L. & Soc. Change , 40 , 245.
Hoeve, M., & van der Laan, P. H. (2016). Persisters and desisters in crime from adolescence into adulthood: Explanation, prevention, and punishment . Routledge.
Petersilia, J. (2018). Alternative Sanctions: Diverting Nonviolent Prisoners to Intermediate Sanctions: The Impact on Prison Admissions and Corrections Costs. In Minimizing Harm (pp. 115-149). Routledge.
