THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PAROLE SYSTEM LIES IN THE VALUE OF THE PRINCIPLES ON WHICH PAROLE WAS ESTABLISHED (I.E., THE REVIEWABLE SENTENCE AND CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE). THE 1967 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT ESTABLISHES THE PRINCIPLE OF THE REVIEWABLE SENTENCE, AND PROVIDES THAT WHEN SENTENCE IS REDUCED, THE PERIOD BETWEEN RELEASE AND THE END OF THE SENTENCE IS UNDER CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE. THE RIGHT TO GRANT SUCH CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE REQUIRES A RECOMMENDATION OF THE PAROLE BOARD WHICH MUST RELY ON DOCUMENTATION OF INDIVIDUALS BY JUDGES, PSYCHIATRISTS, AND THOSE SKILLED IN THE TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS. BUT DECISIONS ARE OFTEN WHOLLY SUBJECTIVE. AN URGENT NEED EXISTS FOR RESEARCH INTO THE CONTINUING VAILIDITY OF THE CRITERIA ON WHICH DECISIONS ARE MADE. THE PAROLE SYSTEM HAS MADE SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS TO PENAL PROGRESS: MOST PRISONERS COMPLETE THEIR PAROLE SATISFACTORILY; AND THOSE WHO DO RE-OFFEND RARELY COMMIT OFFENSES AS GRAVE AS THOSE FOR WHICH THEY WERE SERVING SENTENCE. THE GREATEST FAILURES OF THE PAROLE SYSTEM ARE THE UNSEEN ONES--THOSE WHICH THE SYSTEM REFUSED TO PAROLE BECAUSE FALSELY BASED CRITERIA WERE NOT MET. WE WILL EITHER CONTINUE TO BELIEVE IN THE PRINCIPLES ON WHICH OUR SYSTEM IS BASED, OR CHANGE IT FOR A WHOLLY JUDICIAL SYSTEM.