The primary role of early release schemes or parole programs is to enable low risk prisoners to be integrated back into the society, through good behavior while in prison. Delayed paroles can have various negative consequences in both the correctional institutions and the government. With no possibility of parole or early release schemes, prisoners will not really be motivated to adapt to good behaviors. Moreover, prisoners’ unrests and fighting have been observed over the past years primarily generating from frustrations of inmates, who feel that they deserve parole and constantly denied the opportunity.
Unfair justice systems may consequently demoralize potential inmate candidates who can be enlisted for parole, and later achieving full release and integrates back into the community. The aim of parole is to give prisoners the incentive to transform and change their attitudes, in the essence of being responsible and law abiding citizens who can be assimilated back into the society, without the fear of criminal re-occurrence or offences (Shepherd, 2002 p. 530).
Therefore, delayed early release programs not only put pressure upon inmates and correctional institutions, but also the different governments, states or countries with overcrowded prisons. The governments usually end up spending considerable amounts of funds to support the running of prisons, which can be a burden especially on a slow economy. Early release programs through government initiatives, are aimed at saving money, especially in a crippling economic time to ensure that budgets keep afloat.
However, critics towards such government measures, warn that such initiatives are usually destined to fail when they are not accompanied by sufficient supervision and support. Simply releasing prisoners is observed as a myopic move in the initiative of decongesting prisons, and this places the public safety at risk, as contested by critics. Moreover, the issue of parole has received various criticisms concerning the initiative and the procedure of allowing previously convicted offenders back into the society.
The major concern for those groups and individuals is the security risk posed by these prisoners, who have acquired release through ‘good’ conduct while they were serving time in prison. On whatever stage and ground the prisoners are released early, arguments reflect that the perception of ‘truth in sentencing’ with prisoner parole somehow means that the offender has escaped his or her just deserts (Shepherd, 2002 p. 510). A portion of the inmates released on the scheme of parole, usually re-offend even while on license, in essence which could not have happened if there was no parole or early release of offenders.
Moreover, the population size in the prisons ought to be a public concern, because the correctional institutions and authorities incur major expenses while catering for the prisoners. It makes a poor economic sense, in the aspect that keeping more people in prison would get security risks off the community, making the public a safer place. Whatever is contested in favor of ‘truth in sentencing’ is proving to be an expensive luxury.