Records have shown that despite the overwhelming intake rate within the camps there was also a high number of individuals who were granted parole. Primarily after the death of Stalin many individuals were released after it was found that there was insufficient evidence to justify their imprisonment. However, for those who were not granted this privilege they had to undergo the parole process. The concept of parole was not new to the USSR, a parole bill was passed in 1909 meaning that parole was in place but it just wasn’t granted as an option under Stalin’s rule. Parole reforms signaled a change from, “harsh Stalinism and a new commitment to social humaneness”. However, this came with a lot of backlash because too many prisoners were being …show more content…
It is important to note that some of those who were released went on to reoffend but then the government refused to acknowledge the problem that they had created. In addition to this, those in favour for parole argued that the prisons fostered criminality and by reducing the penal population it should get better. However, those against parole argued that parole would release criminals back into society were they would reoffend. It can be argued that both sides of this argument were correct, considering the conditions within the camps and the fight for survival it’s not surprising that criminality would flourish under such conditions. However, without any mediating factors upon release this effort to reduce the prison population would in turn create a revolving door. If all a person comes to know is crime or some form of deviance in order to survive then once they are released, without some form of intervening measures it can be argued that they would be more likely to turn back to crime in order to survive on the outside. Lastly, should they decide to profit off of their newly acquired or improved skill set then it could arguable make them more successful and profitable within the criminal