The 2008 Parole and Probation in the United States states that number of non-violent offenders for every ten offenders has remained seemingly unchanged from 2004 through 2008 (Glaze & Bonczar, 2008). The rate of people entering parole has decreased while the rate of people exiting the parole and probation systems has increased. “The growth rate of parole population during 2008 (.9%) was a third of the rate of growth during 2007 (2.7%)” (Glaze & Bonczar, 2008). An increased percentage, 49%, of parolees completed their supervision terms in 2008 from the 2007 study’s 46% (Glaze & Bonczar, 2008). Many have questioned the parole system's effectiveness. Arguments for and against abolishing state-adjudicated parole have been presented. Those against giving parole to convicted individuals argue that a prison sentence is a better option because it successfully prevents criminals from entering the community and committing additional crimes. Parole system opponents claim that the system makes decisions that are sporadic and lack justification. Taking the best interests of the community into consideration, some States have abolished state-adjudicated parole.
Supporters of parole say that low-risk, one-time offenders should be given parole by considering certain factors. These factors will help determine if one is prone to habitually revert back to crime. They include mental health, prison discipline record, family support, permanent residence, and potential employment (Traughber). Supporters claim that parole helps keep track of offenders and that letting low-risk offenders out on parole is a more financially smart option. Immense amounts of resources are needed to hold offenders. Prisons are already over capacity, unable to house additional inmates.
Reference

Glaze, E. L., & Bonczar, P. T. (2008). Probation and Parole in United States, 2008. Retrieved