Parole System in Nepal's Prisons?

Parole is the system in the United States by which a prisoner is free to go back to a non-criminal life as long as he meets the demands of the prison/parole officer. The demand is to keep communicating with one's parole officer, updating about one's life outside of prison, for the duration of the parole period. This would make it seem that parole was a good way of helping the prisoner rehabilitate to life outside the prison. However, by sustaining the prisoner in communication with the prison, parole operates as an extension of the policing control of the prison outside the brick and cement prison building, with negative consequences. For this and other reasons, parole should never be considered by Nepal's criminalizing powers in their legal system.

With the system of parole, the criminal never enjoys the same level of freedom he enjoyed before his spell in prison, even though he/she once again inhabits the same real world as before his prison term. Parole demarcates the things the criminal can and cannot do, it evaluates what the prisoner does with his/her freedom. Prison time, therefore, never quite ends with the end of the complete limitation placed by the prison's guards upon the criminal's body, but rather extends beyond the prison walls to the control of the prisoner in the real world. Both his/her body and mind are to be controlled as he first emerges from prison and tries to adapt to life outside. Parole is such an intense form of control (controlling both body and mind) because parole officers always fear the next move of the criminal in the real world, the real world being the most elevated object needing protection from a criminal. Prison does not do a good job of educating and preparing for rehabilitation, which is why the parole system exists so ubiquitously.

What are the negative consequences of parole? By making the prison system ever-present to the life of the criminal, parole causes the criminal to always believe that he/she has an alternative to real life, the alternative being to spend even more time in prison in order to escape real life. Prison becomes a patriarchal structure, not just concerned with rehabilitating the criminal to real life, but always there to protect the very same criminal from the pressures of this rehabilitation; prison becomes a welcoming and tempting escape. Prison would not have been so tempting if it didn't show itself to be so present and aware of the mental anguish of the criminal in the process of his/her rehabilitation.

Foucault's metaphor of the Panopticon, where the prisoners are monitored via a tower erected at the center of the prison, still considers that the prisoners would contest the prison's power, but, the tactic of parole goes one step further, and is even more effective, for it enables criminals to actually want to be controlled, not just by being given advice about how to adapt in real life, but, by being ordered about in the most minute of things. Prisoners grumbled against the Panopticon; the Panopticon implied resistance and a strive for freedom by prisoners limited in their bodily movements, but with parole, freedom is given, real life is made accessible, but the criminal seeks the help of his/her former prison, meaning that freedom itself has been made less desirable by the prison's parole system. Additionally, a process of self-stigmatization may occur in the criminal's mind, where the criminal begins to feel himself inferior to other non-criminals in every single act and decision he/she makes in real life. Eventually the criminal cannot bear it, and seeks to be re-inserted in the prison system, by cooperating with his/her parole officer, and, if real life becomes too hard to handle, by committing breaches of his parole document in order to become a prisoner again. Unless Nepali powers want a prison-industrial complex with a system in place for the continuous 'recall' of the same prisoners, parole would not be good for helping criminals adapt well to life outside of the prison walls.