First Informal a Parole Board

First informal a parole board is when you are in prison and become eligible for parole, you either go to a video hearing or see the parole panel in person which usually consist of three people and will know if you're approved by the end of this conference. They will read your charges to you, ask about why you committed the crime and why you should be released. The biggest part of determining there decision is based upon past criminal activity, any infractions while in prison (fights, write-ups, misbehavior, etc) they usually overlook any infractions you may have committed while in jail before you went to prison.

After that and if approved a home inspection will be done. No home equal No parole. You may either be shipped to a halfway house or sent home within the next 30 days. Base on the parole board on to factor of consideration when they evaluate prisoner for release The prisoner's discharge does not risk open public safety.

Get quality help now

Marrie pro writer

Verified writer

Proficient in: Crime

5 (204)

“ She followed all my directions. It was really easy to contact her and respond very fast as well. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

The parole board assesses if the earnestness of the prisoner's wrongdoing or the prisoner's rights, the basic wrongdoing factors is like the prisoner's record.

Given the current public attitude toward criminals, what I see as likely future of parole releases would be based off attitude, following the rules while you were doing your time, not engaging with fights while you were in the cell, so you would be able to be released to the public when it your time.

Suppose, as a parole board member, you are confronted by a man who has served 6 years of a 10- to 20-year sentence for murder.

He has a good institutional record, and you do not believe him to be a threat to community safety. Well people who are prone to these violent acts do not change. There is just no easy answer to this question. It just really depends on so many circumstances, that the outcome can usually end up bal. We have to first investigate the cause of the murder, how it was committed. If the murderer was found out and if they felt guilty. Punishment for such a crime would never be eradicated, we need to send a message to those out there, that such a crime is so horrendous, it would be best to avoid taking such a route. Yet the ultimate view of law and order is to balance the system where we can eventually turn people around.

It is a disaster that if punishment does not fully work, we could end up living in a system where many more feel murder is their only choice out of life because they are desperate enough not to care that they are throwing their life away or fear punishment. I feel a balance is the best way, some are beyond redemption, while others can if carefully applied, be given a second chance. I admit that some people can't be rehabilitated and that certain people will continue to commit crimes regardless of what sort of treatment they are given, to try and set them right. The only way to move forward, I feel, is to be the bigger person and do what is right. I don't believe in releasing people before rehabilitating them, but I do believe that everyone should have the opportunity to change if they have it in them to do so. In this case I do believe he should get a second chance after viewing his cases.