PAROLE IS CONSIDERED FOR OFFENDERS WHO HAVE SERVED A PORTION OF THEIR PRISON TERMS AND CAN SHOW EVIDENCE OF CHANGES IN ATTITUDE. PAROLE DECISIONS ARE MADE BY THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, ALTHOUGH THE PRISON WARDEN USUALLY MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH ARE THEN PASSED THROUGH A CHAIN OF AGENCIES AND SENT TO THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION WITH MODIFICATIONS. MORALISTS ARGUE THAT THE CRIMINAL WHO IS PAYING FOR A BREACH OF ABSOLUTE RULES WILL BE STIMULATED TO REFORM THROUGH PAROLE. JURIDICAL-ADMINISTRATIVE ARGUMENTATION HOLDS THAT JUSTICE DEFENDS THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY, THAT PENALTIES ARE TO BE FIXED AND DISSUASIVE AND THAT PAROLES DIMINISH THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PENALTIES. SOCIAL DEFENSE PROPONENTS CONTEND THAT CRIMINALS ARE INCARCERATED TO PROTECT SOCIETY FROM FURTHER DANGEROUS CRIMINAL ACTS AND PAROLE IS A MEANS OF FREEING CRIMINALS WHO ARE NO LONGER DANGEROUS. SOCIAL ASSISTANCE ARGUMENTATION EMPHASIZES THE SOCIAL FACTORS LEADING TO DELINQUENCY; PAROLE IS VIEWED AS A POSITIVE METHOD FOR SOCIAL REINTEGRATION OF OFFENDERS AND FOR EXECUTION OF PENALTIES OUTSIDE PRISON. FINALLY, RADICAL THEORIES SEEK TO PUNISH A SOCIETY IN NEED OF CHANGE; THEY ARE LARGELY POLITICAL WITH LITTLE ACTUAL BEARING ON PAROLE. PROSECUTORS, JUDGES, AND LAWYERS TEND TO SUBSCRIBE TO JURIDICIAL ADMINSTRATIVE THEORIES. THE JUSTICE MINISTRY IS GUIDED BY MORALIST VIEWS, WHILE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION FAVORS THE MORALIST AND SOCIAL WORK VIEWS WITH LITTLE SUPPORT FOR SOCIAL DEFENSE THEORIES. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEES, SPONSORSHIP COMMITTEES, AND VARIOUS PRISON STAFF MEMBERS ADVOCATE SOCIAL ASSISTANCE. ALTHOUGH THE THEORIES FAVORED BY PARTICULAR GROUPS VARY ACCORDING TO THE ROLES OF THOSE GROUPS, THE JURIDICAL-ADMINISTRATIVE AND SOCIAL DEFENSE THEORIES ARE LEAST POPULAR, WHILE THE SOCIAL ASSISTANCE APPROACH IS GENERALLY ACCEPTED. A TABLE AND A BIBLIOGRAPHY ARE SUPPLIED. --IN FRENCH. (KMD)