Parole should be abolished for violent and repeat offenders?

On average, everyone strongly agrees with nonconsensus between 178 voters.

Reasons To Disagree

If there is no parole then there is no monitoring when they are released. Just cut it down so it can't be more than 10% of their sentence.

I agree with the person on top of me just cut it down.

we need to keep parole. we just need to up the maximum sentances, so that an ass my actually serve in prision until he is dead.

Prison should be about punishing the Criminal for doing the crime and giving them the opportunity to turn their life around so when they leave prison they can reintegrate into society as reformed and law abiding citizens. (in an ideal world) Parole is about reintegration into society and it needs to be there for every prisoner who leaves prison after a long stretch. It should be a program that helps them find meaningful work or training and guides them towards being free citizens again. Abolishing it means that there would be no guidance and no control over them at a very vulnerable time.

don't abolish it, but make it harder to get and monitor it more carefully before and after release to ensure that offenders remorse and attitude change is genuine.

No parole and harsher punishment.n

Reasons To Agree

Many violent offenders are recindivists and seldom first offenders. Protection of society must in this case take precidence over reform of the offender.

At some point violent and repeat offenders are going to be released from prison. Parole enables us to put conditions (for a while) upon their release, monitor them and recall them to prison if there are breaches of parole. To abolish parole means, upon their release, there is no monitoring at all and no assistance to help with reintegration into the community

Yes for repeat offenders, undecided for violent because it needs defining. Someone may have a one off altercation bought about by huge emotional stress, it is unlikely that this person will reoofend

Parole or reduced sentencing makes judges Liers. If a judge knowing sentences someone to 10 years knowing they will be out in 3 he is a lier. If he raises his sentence to 30 to make it 10 he is still a lier. The time sentenced should be the time served, unless anoother judge decides otherwise. Parole is a way to change sentences after the fact and makes a mockery out of the whole system

I agree with this one. The reasons to agree are jumbled however, with the second one needing to be on the other side of the page..or am I reading it wrong?

Only for real serious cases!!!

"Parole"? "I'll be good!" What a laugh! What credence can be given to the word of a violent or repetitive (especially the latter) offender? A man of violence lacks the necessary self control. The repeat offender has demonstrated his stupidity as well!

I definitely think it should be abolished for repeat offenders, they are "repeat" offenders and obviously can't abide by the law, but they certainly should be monitored for a while after release. as for violent offenders, again they should do the time handed down by the Judge I believe if a Judge hands down a sentence of 10 years then it should be 10 years, not 'but is aligible for parole after 4' otherwise what is the point of the sentence.

Absolutely. Anyone who disagrees probable has a cuzzie bro in prison.

Violent offenders should NOT be paroled. They should be kept in jail for a very minimum of 30 years and if after that sentence the idiots still commit a violent assault then lock them up for life or better still get rid of them, the world won't miss them.