Ending Parole Isn’t the Issue

Bob Dole says that, if president, he would end parole for those convicted of violent crimes. He did not mention how little responsibility for handling violent criminals the federal government--including the president--has. But even as a recommendation to the states, his suggestion is foolish. The issue should be how long dangerous people must be locked up for the public’s safety. That determination can be made regardless of whether it is followed by a period of supervised release--a period which should provide additional protection.

Crimes would not be reduced by eliminating parole. That only sounds reasonable if you assume parole time is subtracted from the length of incarceration the judge or legislature wanted. It is a sounder use of parole to add it on to a prison sentence that is already considered long enough to protect the public.

That is what our states are doing. There is very little variance in the average length of time served in prison for violent offenses. The states average about 45 months. The states differ greatly, however, in the length of the parole assigned. Here, the most cautious one-third of our states add, on average, more than 80 months, while the one-third of the states most indifferent to monitoring prisoners after their release added, on average, only 28 months of parole.

Even Congress will eventually figure out that serving 85% of a 10-year sentence (this qualifies a state for additional federal funding for prisons) provides less security to the public than serving 50% of a 20-year sentence and having 10 years of poor supervision thereafter (which does not qualify a state for federal support). It also makes little sense to argue from figures as to the number of crimes that are committed by people on parole or probation. The longer a person is subjected to some form of supervision, the less danger, so long as the period of supervision is not subtracted from a period of incarceration.

We cannot hold people in prison until it is 100% certain they will never commit another crime. We should err on the side of protecting innocent people against the chance of future harm at the hands of someone who has committed a violent crime. That’s a reasonable price to impose for being violent. But at some point, that chance of future harm becomes small enough that it is not worth holding the person any longer and supervised release becomes desirable. No one knows any armed robbers over age 50. The point is that we have to make judgments about individuals or categories of people. It is ridiculous to argue for some sweeping shift on a nationwide basis to end parole.