While this system sounds ideal, we know from the statistics shown above that this system is failing in far too many instances. 6.6% of paroled murderers are rearrested for homicide (Beck 2). Given this fact and given that keeping these known criminals in jail could prevent these subsequent crimes, why are we continuing to parole those who we know to be likely to contribute to the recidivism rate? Although an inmate may behave in prison and promise to abide by parole regulations, we must keep in mind that they are convicted offenders. If they were capable to murder, steal, rape, etc, why do we think that they are incapable of lying to get out of prison? Doesn't seem even more likely that someone with corrupted morals would lie to avoid punishment? .
Programs such as the Intensive Surveillance/Supervision Program (ISSP) and Electronic Monitoring/Home Confinement Program were instituted to help combat the numerous problems associated with parole. In 1986, the Bureau of Parole implemented an ISSP to work with hard-to-manage parolees. The ISSP imposes strict conditions including, frequent weekly contacts with the parole officer, periodic urine monitoring and occasionally electronic surveillance, upon the offender (Keels 43). Unfortunately, after 6 months of satisfactory reports they are placed in a traditional parole caseload, often too soon for the offender to be adequately rehabilitated. Another problem encountered by this program is the lack of parole officers compared to parolees. The program has the capacity to supervise only 400 parolees at any one point in time. Another program that works to combat high recidivism rates in parolees is the Electronic Monitoring/Home Confinement Program (EM/HC). The New Jersey Department of Corrections initiated this program in 1989, where selected inmates are released from a correctional institution to their homes and are then monitored by trained staff using a state-of-the-art electronic surveillance system (Keels 43).
