The philosophical foundation of parole laid by the superintendent A. Machonochie of the Norfolk Island penal colony off the coast of Australia in the 1830s. He believed that criminal sentences should not be seen in terms of time to be served, but rather in terms of tasks to be performed. And he accentuated that retribution may deter some offenders and incapacitation is a temporary hold on a criminal career. Almost all, the real goal of corrections (the aim an function of the penal executions) should be to teach virtue.
At one of the corrections, the aim of Parole should be thorough proportional, fair, effective penal executions to maximaize the chances of genuine law-breakers being ‘brought to justice’. Especially thorough effective procedures, early release mechanisms come in a variety of forms, ranging from the fully automatic to the highly selective. At one end of the scale are those justice systems which early release is treated essentially as an entitlement, and granted in a routine fashion to all prisoners who fall into a particular categorie or meet well-defined criteria. At the other end of the scale are systems in which decisions are taken on an individual basis, allowing a significant amount of discretion by those considering the case. The difficulties in implementation of parole in reality are persistent calls for abolitions of parole from crowd, victims and laymen. First of all, hatred for offenders based on prejudiced opinion against the crime and offender should be overcome. Those that worked best to reintegrate parolee into their community, were concrete programs that provided offenders with skills to compete in the workplace
and intensive drug programs. Programs that were located in the community such as the halfway houses were more effective than prison-based programs.