Blahism: Abolish Parole?

For Abolishment of Parole
It is a widely accepted notion that convicted felons cannot be reformed and made into productive members of society. Rehabilitation programs do not work; repeat offenders are responsible for ¾ of violent crime (Allen, 2001, p. 170). Truth-in-sentencing laws need to be enforced; inmates should be serving at least 85% of their sentences. Courts need to enforce longer prison sentences to prevent recidivism. George Allen (2001) states that “the longer an offender remained behind bars, the less likely he is to commit another crime after finishing his sentence”. The money spent on punishing repeat offenders could be saved by keeping inmates in prison longer, reducing the amount of crime committed by these offenders. The victims of violent crime committed by repeat offenders can be saved by keeping violent criminals behind bars, where they belong. The abolishment of parole will save lives and money.

Against Abolishment of Parole
Humans can change, even criminals, if they are exposed to the appropriate treatment. More funding should go into education, and rehabilitation programs, than into building more prisons. Educating children with better values and morals will put a stop to the incline of people in prison. Legislators would need to raise already high tax levels to accommodate the growing prison population; but, that money should be going to better the community, not bettering the prison system. While it is true that inmates who are released on parole before their sentence is complete may continue a life of crime, the percentage is low. Rehabilitation programs do not profess perfection, but they do make a difference. The difference is made, in work furlough programs, when community correctional officers enforce punishment by sending unruly prisoners back to prison, instead of looking the other way.