A thought-provoking, NASC-inspired question

The first day of the 2007 Conference of the National Association of Sentencing Commissions has been very intriguing.  (The local AP provides coverage here and Corey Yung discusses one panel here.)  Among the thoughts provoked concerns the place of traditional parole mechanisms in modern sentencing systems.

As many readers surely know, the federal system eliminated traditional parole over 20 years ago in the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.  And, in the 1990s, the feds also encouraged states to eliminate traditional parole systems as part of “truth-in-sentencing” reforms.  Nevertheless, a number of states have retained traditional parole in various forms. 

In the first plenary session at NASC, Kevin Reitz indicated that the ALI will soon debate whether parole has a place in its on-going revision of the sentencing portion of the Model Penal Code.  Kevin noted that he favors a system without traditional parole, but fellow panelist Steve Chanenson made a pitch for retaining parole mechanisms in some form.

So, dear readers, here is the NASC-inspired question of the day: Do you think an ideal sentencing structure should include or exclude a traditional parole mechanism?