Parole is a contract and is thus managed and handled as per the precepts of contractual agreements as opposed to the rights and privileges of ordinary citizens. Traditionally, parole was based on word of honor between the prisoner and the penal department. The modern parole contract is premised on this philosophy of word of honor. By definition, therefore, parole is the release of a prisoner who would otherwise remain in prison, on a contractual basis. The contract lays down the terms and condition under which the prisoner is released (Blasko et al., 2015) . As a fundamental rule, when the prisoner is found to be in breach of the terms and condition, the parole is voided. Upon voiding of parole, the prisoner will resume incarceration until either a new contract is agreed upon or the sentence is served in full (CDRC, 2017) . It is by the parole agreement that the prisoner willingly gives up fundamental rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights hence rules of evidence, due procedure, and probable cause do not apply when an individual is on parole.
Jail sentences are designed for two fundamental reasons. The first is a form of punishment with the second being as a form of rehabilitation (Kaeble et al., 2015) . The primary basis of parole in America is not per se to reduce the punitive and rehabilitative functions of the sentence. Instead, parole is mainly meant to reduce congestion in the US penal system that is already overwhelmed. After parole has been granted , the system still intends to ensure that the punitive and rehabilitative functions of the initial sentence still subsists (Reingold & Thomas, 2017) . Limiting movement and communication is still a means of ensuring that the individual continues to pay the debt for the crime that led to the incarceration. On a different note, limiting interaction with people on parole as well as felons seeks to ensure continuity of rehabilitation. Humans are social beings and require some form of social interaction. Limiting interaction with the wrong group ensures that the parolee will interact with the right people and continue with the journey towards rehabilitation. Avoiding wrong company will also reduce chances of recidivism.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Parole rules vary from state to state, and vary when it comes to federal prison sentences. Under general rules, however, extreme limitations as a form of active control on the parolee is provided for (CDRC, 2017; Brett, 2012) . It is, however, worthy of notice that from the very beginning, the parolee always has a choice on whether to accept the terms. The option also means that the prisoner shall be denied parole but is a choice nonetheless. The control also depends on the nature of the crime that the parolee had been convicted for . A person who has been convicted of online fraud, for example, might get restrictions relating to computers, a person convicted of sexual offenses may be limited from contact with even family members. Another fundamental limitation relates to who to interact with, more so individuals who are also on probation or known convicts.
In most cases, this limitation operates even when the restricted person is a close family member or a spouse. The general idea, as mentioned above is that the parolee accepts the terms of parole having understood them well (Kaeble et al., 2015) . The parolee cannot make a turnaround and claim that the terms are unconstitutional or unfair as they are based on a contractual agreement. As indicated above, these parole rules ensure that the punitive and rehabilitative aspects of the original sentence subsist even after parole. However, there are some exigent circumstances that contact with family members who have been convicts may be unavoidable. A good example is when the parolee has to attend a funeral. It is for such reasons that every parolee has a parole agent who represents the state in the parole agreement (Blasko et al., 2015) . Whenever a situation that may result in a breach of parole rules arises, the parolee is supposed to always clear it with the parole agent for exceptions to the general rules.
Whenever a parolee is considered to have acted in breach of the terms and conditions of the parole agreement, a parole board hearing will take place to determine if the parole contract should not be terminated (Reingold & Thomas, 2017) . The outcome of these hearings determine whether the parolee will continue being free or return to jail. However, crucial as the hearings are, normal rules of evidence and probable cause does not apply to the hearings. For example, a chain of custody for evidence used in the hearing or probable cause for accessing the evidence in private places does not apply. Evidence that would not be admissible in court under the exclusionary rule is thus admissible in these parole board hearings (Reingold & Thomas, 2017) . The absence of these rules is based on the fact that under the parole contract, the parolee willingly exchanges fundamental rights for freedom. Based on this contract, therefore, the parole board has a free hand to use any available information in its hearing without due procedure limitations.
Every contract has an element of quid pro quo , which means something for something. Parole is a contractual agreement where the parolee agrees to some terms and conditions and in exchange the parole board grants the parolee freedom from a jail cell. The terms and conditions may not be fair, more so because the prisoner no longer has most fundamental rights as guaranteed by the constitution. Further, rules of procedure and fair administration may not operate for the parolee. This is based on the fact that parole is not a right, but rather a gift. To earn it, the prisoner gives up these rights and earns early freedom. By extension, the state earns a reprieve in cost and congestion within the penal system. The fairness or unfairness of the contract is thus cured by the fact that it is agreed upon by all parties.
References
Blasko, B. L., Friedmann, P. D., Rhodes, A. G., & Taxman, F. S. (2015). The parolee–parole officer relationship as a mediator of criminal justice outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 42 (7), 722-740
Brett, S. (2012). No contact parole restrictions: Unconstitutional and counterproductive. Michigan Journal of Gender and Law , 18 (2), 485-519
CDCR. (2017). Division of adult parole operations: Parole conditions. Retrieved from http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Parole/Parole_Conditions/index.html
Kaeble, D., Maruschak, L. M., & Bonczar, T. P. (2015). Probation and parole in the United States, 2014. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics
Reingold, P. D., & Thomas, K. A. (2017). From grace to grids: Rethinking due process protections for parole. J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 107 (2), 213-92
