Measuring Parole Violation

When the criminologists of the future will record the history of the development of parole it is likely that the present controversy as to whether parole is a success or failure will be spoken of as being second only to the more ancient and therefore more venerable controversy as to which is the mightier-the pen or the sword. These students will probably indicate extreme impatience at the lengthy polemics resulting from attempts to bolster a position and make out a complete case without first reaching agreement on the meaning of terms or setting up standards to measure the value and efficiency of parole. Parole is undoubtedly a failure and an utter and complete failure if it is to be assumed that the whole system may be justifiably condemned because of the inability or the unwillingness of a number of parolees to comply with the rules, conditions and restriction3 imposed upon them by the paroling authority. Parole is a signal failure if the concept of success is predicated on the complete and permanent non-violation of laws. Parole has undoubtedly pioven itself inadequate if it is to be assumed that a person released from a penal institution emerges therefrom as a model citizen impressed with the nobility of righteousness and possessed with a consuming desire to make a contribution to the forward march of society. But these conditions or premises are idealistic if not fantastic. Necessarily they fall of their own weight because they imply higher standards and more crucial tests for parolees than for the general so-called law-abiding citizen who has not been caught in the meshes of the law

Computer Science · Crime Patterns and Interventions · Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis · Criminal Law and Evidence · Psychology