Op-Ed | Parole is the Ultimate Safety Valve for Prison Order

On October 30 of this year (2025), the Executive Yuan approved draft amendments to the Criminal Code of the Republic of China, the Enforcement Law of the Criminal Code of the Republic of China, and the Prison Act. The main pillars include "prohibiting the death penalty for defendants with mental disorders or other mental deficiencies" and "denying parole for major violent crimes." While the former responds to TCC Judgment 113-Hsien-Pan-8 (2024), "The Constitutionality of the Death Penalty Case," to safeguard the fundamental rights of defendants with mental disorders or other mental deficiencies, the latter bows to public pressure for the "severe punishment of grave crimes" while ignoring the plight and rights of frontline correctional officers.

When policies focus solely on the severity of punishment without considering the capacity of prisons to bear the burden, they risk triggering a breakdown of internal order, turning the correctional system into a sacrifice to policy.

When Hope Is Erased Behind High Walls: Parole as the Ultimate Safety Valve for Prison Order

The parole system is not an act of "forgiveness," but rather a safety valve in criminal policy that provides hope and security within the penal system. Its design aims to give incarcerated individuals a "conditional opportunity to start anew" through correction and repentance. Such "hope" serves not only as an outlet for inmates, but also as the foundation for maintaining prison order and the stable operation of correctional professionalism. Through its experience in responding to letters from inmates in correctional institutions, JRF has come to deeply appreciate the importance of this system. In their letters, most inmates candidly admit their past mistakes, repent for the harm they have caused, and express a longing to reintegrate into society and resume their lives. Between the lines of tens of thousands of letters, we see many individuals striving to maintain good behavior, engaging in continuous learning, and correcting their past conduct, all while hoping for the day they can truly regain their freedom.

Yet, after having their parole applications rejected time and again, many find this inner hope gradually extinguishing—while still stubbornly telling themselves to hold on and not give up. It is precisely because of this longing that they manage to endure the long years of correctional life behind high walls, continue to maintain good conduct, and strive to once again embrace the sunlight. From a historical perspective, the parole system was created specifically to "reduce resistance and promote self-discipline in serving sentences." From early strict confinement to the emergence of the work-release system, and from isolation to assistance with gradual reintegration into society, parole has transformed punishment from mere retribution into a vital bridge between correction and rehabilitation. It is the existence of parole that gives direction to imprisonment and provides correctional workers with tools for guidance and counseling, thereby preserving internal stability and order within prisons.

This belief serves as the final line of defense sustaining prison order. When the parole system loses its function, and when hope is completely buried beneath high walls, not only will inmates plunge into despair, but the safety of correctional staff and the stability of the entire prison will be shaken as well.

Can Denying Parole for Life Imprisonment Truly Deter Crime?

Statistics from the National Police Agency show that the number of major violent crimes has dropped year by year, falling from 859 cases in 2019 to around 450 cases in 2023. In other words, existing penalties are already sufficient to exert a certain deterrent effect on most offenders.

For those who still commit major violent crimes, their behavioral motives are rarely related to a rational weighing of the consequences of punishment. Instead, they are linked to irrational factors such as psychological state, upbringing, and retaliatory emotions, which remain largely unaffected by the severity of punishment.

For this group of individuals who "cannot be deterred by punishment," criminal penalties have reached their deterrent limit. Continuing to increase the severity of punishment will not stop them from offending. Instead, reducing recidivism and fulfilling the preventive objectives of punishment can only truly be achieved by promoting behavioral change and social reintegration through psychological counseling, educational training, and social support systems.

The current legislative amendments claim to deter major violent crimes by increasing punitive deterrence through "life imprisonment without parole." This is clearly unnecessary for those who would not commit such crimes in the first place, and will have limited effect on those who continue to perpetrate major violent crimes.

Trading Prison Hardship for Social Peace? Prisons Are Not Bottomless Pits That Swallow Crime

In July 2025, a written record from an inspection of the Taipei Detention Center by the Judiciary and Organic Laws and Statutes Committee of the Legislative Yuan pointed out that the average inmate-to-correctional-officer ratio in correctional institutions nationwide was as high as 11:1, while the ratio at the Taipei Detention Center reached 13.5:1. Such a disproportionate ratio indicates that Taiwan's correctional capacity has long been under severe strain. If the parole system were to be abolished at this juncture and life sentences effectively converted into imprisonment for life without parole, it would amount to sacrificing the achievements already established by the state's criminal policy and transferring the resulting risks entirely onto frontline correctional personnel.

The current reality of overcrowding in Taiwan's prisons—compounded by insufficient space, personnel shortages, and an increasing population of elderly and chronically ill inmates—means that correctional capacity is already under heavy pressure. Consequently, abolishing parole would strip inmates of any hope of release, subjecting prisons to an extremely high-pressure and hopeless atmosphere. Conflicts and violence could become increasingly common within correctional facilities, and the realization of prison human rights would regress rather than advance. We contend that the shift toward harsher punishment through life imprisonment does not buy safety through "severe punishment"; rather, it trades the risks, occupational injuries, and labor of correctional staff for temporary "psychological comfort" for society. In essence, this fails to resolve the root causes of crime, leaving the underlying problems intact.

Furthermore, "life imprisonment without parole" has already triggered severe consequences in the United States. According to reports from multiple U.S. states, the incarceration cost for elderly inmates is roughly three times that of younger inmates, with medical and care expenditures being the primary drivers. Research involving prison systems in Texas and Florida—two of the largest state prison systems in the United States—indicates that average medical expenses for elderly inmates may be as high as 3.5 times those of younger groups. This demonstrates that the aging of the inmate population places a heavy burden on criminal justice and public medical-finance systems. Therefore, abolishing parole and subjecting the prison system to unsustainable burdens means that any policy enacted in the name of increased punishment should not come at the cost of correctional labor and public resources.

Justice Should Not Be Built Upon Despair Behind High Walls

The promotion of any penal policy should never be a mere emotional response; rather, it must withstand scrutiny in terms of institutional operation and human rights protection. We believe that this draft amendment will not make society safer; instead, it will make the correctional process more difficult and allow pressure to accumulate once more behind prison walls. While public anger and fear regarding major violent crimes are certainly real, "harsher punishments" do not equate to a "safer society." Prisons have always served as a mirror of society. When the state chooses to strip prisons of hope, it is declaring that it has abandoned the possibility of rehabilitating offenders. Perhaps true criminal justice lies not in retributive and severe punishment, but in whether we are willing to confront the overlooked social structural issues behind crime and invest resources to change them.

Does anyone remember the Kaohsiung Prison hostage crisis from ten years ago? Six inmates used their lives to protest rigid and inhumane conditions and human-rights violations within the prison system, ultimately dying by suicide from gunshot wounds. That tragedy should have served as a wake-up call for society to confront what happens when hope is snuffed out in prisons. If we still choose to walk down a path of punishment that offers "no exit," the tragedy will not merely repeat itself; it will be artificially replicated by the state, causing us to miss the social fissures that truly need mending. Ultimately, those locked inside the high walls and those tasked with managing them will sink together into deeper fear and anxiety.

This article was published on November 11, 2025, in Up Media.