Final answer:
One argument against parole boards is that they may release individuals due to prison overcrowding rather than evidence of rehabilitation. This concern highlights potential conflicts between institutional pressures and the rehabilitative goals of parole. Cost-benefit analysis is essential for effective criminal justice decision-making, favoring more cost-effective options like diversion to treatment.
Step-by-step explanation:
One argument against the value of parole boards is that they might release someone due to overcrowding in prison rather than rehabilitation (b). This is a critique focusing on the idea that decisions by parole boards may be influenced by external factors, like the need to alleviate overcrowding, rather than the offender's readiness for reintegration into society based on rehabilitation progress. Although parole is designed to encourage individuals to maintain positive community interactions and avoid recidivism, the reality is that these decisions can sometimes prioritize institutional needs over rehabilitation outcomes.
In contrast, the cost of incarceration is quite high, averaging $43,836 per year for federal prisoners as of 2021 in the U.S. It has been suggested that other strategies, such as diversion to drug treatment, may be more cost-effective. Cost-benefit analysis is important when considering ways to reduce crime and improve criminal justice outcomes, taking into account the most effective and ethical treatment of individuals.