Why It Might Be Time to Rethink the Rules of Parole

Also I think we should stop making it a requirement of parole that the convict admit to the crime of which they have been convicted.

I certainly understand why parole boards have required these admissions. If someone has committed a crime but will take no responsibility for it, that certainly does not bode well for their future behavior.

The problem is that the justice system is not perfect, and occasionally convicts an innocent person. It's not right to demand that someone admit to a crime they actually didn't commit, and to deny them parole until they do.

Accordingly I submit that the only consideration for parole should be the convict's behavior while incarcerated.

On a related note, I was surprised to learn that there is NO parole for federal crimes. It was eliminated under Reagan in 1984 as part of "getting tough on crime".

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_parole_in_the_United_...

Changing the parole system is going to be a tough sell to politicians ("it's always safe to be tougher on criminals"), law enforcement ("if you let them out, they'll do it again"), the right wing ("burning them alive is too good for them"), business ("we build prison five cough hundred-thousand dolla! incarcerate them long time") and victims (maybe the only people with the right to say yay or nay).

Which pretty much leaves only the left of center and if the last elections are any indicator, we'll be lucky not to get declared criminal by all of the above.

Bayes Impact (YC S14) is/was working on a project related to this, using risk models to help predict recidivism.