> A person is either safe enough to be in society, or not. There should NEVER be an in between state. Doesn't this contradict the whole idea of parole? My unde

> A person is either safe enough to be in society, or not. There should NEVER be an in between state. Doesn't this contradict the whole idea of parole? My understanding is that people who are out on parole are deemed not safe to be fully left to their own in society, they often have not served their full sentence, but are given the chance to ease back into society earlier. Wouldn't a more hard-line approach of either 100% safe or unsafe result in even more time spent in jail?