The success or failure of parole generally depends on the following factors:
It must be reiterated that the purpose of parole is not leniency towards the prisoner but to seek his rehabilitation in future life. Like probation and other forms of clemency, parole is a rehabilitative phase of law enforcement. The system essentially involves two considerations, namely:
(i) Watchful control over parolee so that he could be returned to prison institution from which he was paroled out if the interest of public security so demanded; and
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(ii) Constructive help and advice to parolee by securing him suitable work so as to develop self-confidence in him and finally to guard him against exploitation.
The success or failure of parole generally depends on the following factors:
(1) It has generally been accepted that the offenders committed for crime against person are more suited for parole than those committing crime relating to property. The latter, often resort to recidivism and do not respond favourably to the conditions of release on parole.
(2) Family circumstances of the offender have much to do with the success or failure of parole. The noted criminologist, Donald Taft rightly contends that prisoners with domestic liabilities and family responsibilities are “good-risks” as compared to those who are bachelors or without family liabilities.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(3) Recent methodical researches on parole clearly demonstrate that recidivists often derogate from parole conditions and have to be brought back to prison sooner or later. The first offenders, on the other hand, are usually good parolees and readily adjust themselves to the conditions of normal society.
(4) Social status of the offender also has a direct bearing on the parole success. It is generally observed that offenders who belong to higher socio-economic strata or those who have a better educational background, respond favourably to the system of parole. The obvious reason for this is that such persons are generally committed to prison for an act which they might have committed due to sudden impulse or emotional disturbance for which they are usually repentant.
(5) At times, certain parolees prefer to waive off their clemency of being paroled out if their final discharge from prison or similar institution is not far off or if they feel that their release on parole under the supervision of parole staff is indirectly an expression of distrust for them.
(6) As a matter of policy, parole should be administered only to those prisoners who display an inclination for good behaviour and show respect for law and justice. The adaptability of prisoners can be assessed through a method of careful diagnosis by trained and qualified parole staff.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Modem penologists have suggested that correctional agencies administering parole must make use of prediction procedure to study the effectiveness of its decisions relating to parolees. Present day management training course stresses that mere experimentation is not enough but social agencies should get closer to their clients to understand the whole personality of the inmates. These agencies have to perform the twin functions of keeping case-records arid making decisions.
The two activities are performed by different personnel whom Duglus Grant calls information collectors and decision-makers. There is lack of proper coordination between the two functionaries. This does not, however, mean that the Parole Board is totally unconcerned about these facts but rather no adequate means of bringing the two together have yet been devised.