Parole Conditions Name

Institution

Year

One of the most criticized crime prevention system under criminal justice is the parole. Over the years, the effectiveness of parole in improving the crime-deterrent approaches has been evaluated and found to have some flaws. For instance, some law experts argue that parole only works based on the individual criminal and the associated crime profiling laws. This statement implies that the application of parole comes with some conditions that many criminals commit to obey at the expense of behavior reform that puts them in danger of repeating the same offenses. The other major criticism laid on parole is that it comes with many conditions that makes it ineffective and hard to apply based on respective state laws. These conditions also hinder the perceived crime deterrent aspect that was intended on the criminal and thus the likelihood of the offender repeating the same crime and ending up in prison repetitively. Most criminals already have a perception that they are being targeted by the law enforcers and thus they maintain low profile while on parole. Once the parole period is over, the get back to life of crime thus creating an unending cycle of crime and imprisonment.

Parole as a crime deterrent concept has its own drawback that demands urgent review to ensure that the criminal justice system is more robust and effective (Rhine, Petersilia & Reitz, 2017). The conditions that come with parole have been termed as one of the reasons the system fails and thus a need for a review. Some of the conditions that comes with parole include; one must be of good behavior, the individual must not commit an offence, and the person has to adapt to a normal lawful community life. The application of parole under these conditions thus makes the system hard for many people (Pogrebin et al., 2015). Still, the value of parole and its effectiveness has been questioned in regard to how it can be applied and still produce good results. The conditions under parole have been termed as hard to meet and this has put many potential criminals under watch thus creating a biased system (Opsal, 2015). One of the keys to creating a fundamental system that is crime analysis and deterrent friendly, there must be room for the basic law to apply.

The conditions that come with parole have appeared hard to meet for most of the individuals thus making it hard to obey the law. Those under parole also feel victimized and targeted and thus forcing them to act out of line (Rhine, Petersilia & Reitz, 2017). The parole period thus only serves to suppress normal behavior where the potential criminals choose to lay low than expose their true colors. This is very dangerous as it does not guarantee that the individual will maintain the same behavior once the parole period is over (Pogrebin et al., 2015). Moreover, the parole system is designed to enforce behavior correction that does not guarantee that the individual under the process will maintain the same conduct. In fact, this has been termed as the biggest failures of parole as it only works for the moment where the likelihood of the criminal returning to the same crimes is high (Opsal, 2015). For this reason, the conditions that come with parole only works for a moment and even makes the system unable to apply and effectively create behavior change among potential criminals.

An individua under parole is required to report to a community corrections officer regularly and comply with any directions given by the officer. The conditions put the criminal under too much pressure that often makes them live a secluded life thus denying normal behavior development (Opsal, 2015). This has been termed as the reason as to why most of the people who complete parole goes back to the same crimes as they feel alienated and targeted by the community. The other major condition is that individual must report regularly where they live, what they are doing, and who they interact with at all time (Pogrebin et al., 2015). These conditions add to the pressure that denies the person time and space to develop good behavior and correction. The privacy of the individual under parole is even violated as they must at all time allow the corrections officer to visit where they live any time even unannounced. These conditions go contrary to the normal behavior correction that should be upheld when dealing with a potential criminal. The conditions under parole only make it hard for convicted criminals to integrate with the community that is meant to offer them the platform to redevelop the right behaviors (Rhine, Petersilia & Reitz, 2017).

Conclusion

The parole as a behavior correctios system under criminal justice has its drawbacks when it comes to crime deterrence. There are many conditions that make parole hard to apply or work in the direction it is meant in enhancing behavior change among criminals. Many people argue that parole only induces a life of section and victimization that makes many criminals feel pressured to change their behavior. behavior change under parole is enforced to extreme levels that makes the criminals bounce back to the life of crime once the parole period is over. There is a need to review the operationalization of parole and look for ways on how the system can be restructured with less conditions to make it effective in criminal justice.

References

Opsal, T. (2015). “It’s Their World, so You’ve Just Got to Get Through” Women’s Experiences of Parole Governance. Feminist Criminology, 10(2), 188-207.

Pogrebin, M. R., Stretesky, P. B., Walker, A., & Opsal, T. (2015). Rejection, humiliation, and parole: A study of parolees’ perspectives. Symbolic Interaction, 38(3), 413-430.

Rhine, E. E., Petersilia, J., & Reitz, K. R. (2017). The future of parole release. Crime and Justice, 46(1), 279-338.