假釋為刑事政策轉向緩衝機制，受刑人在監獄表現良好，達到悛悔實據，基於特別預防觀點，應適時給予假釋，以利復歸社會，預防再犯。受刑人悛悔實據判斷，除符合假釋形式要件外，尚須真正能與法秩序達成和解，始可核准假釋。重刑累再犯不能假釋及性罪犯危險評估顯著降低始可假釋的特別限制，建議重刑化的刑事政策應採更嚴格審查標準，但仍應給予假釋機會；性犯罪假釋應於執行刑範圍內為之，以符合法定原則及罪責原則。
受假釋人出獄應付保護管束，繼續接受觀護人輔導、教化、限制，使其適應社會生活，受假釋人違反保護管束規定，對法律產生敵意，應撤銷假釋，但違反保護管束係出於過失、情節尚屬輕微或未確定判決，應予以告誡，俟再犯或認定案件確定，再給予撤銷假釋，以保護受假釋人權益。假釋適用執行時法律，而非行為時法律，現行以行為時法律作為認定，應予檢討。受刑人在裁判確定前犯數罪，假釋之後發現雙重假釋、減刑、累犯或赦免等，不論為實質競合或事後競合，處理原則須依整體刑觀點定單一執行刑，以處理數罪假釋問題。
假釋及保護管束為刑罰執行事項，執行方式改變應由法院裁定，不應由法務部決定。假釋不是受刑人權利、恩惠，亦不是單純行政處分，而是刑事政策轉向機制，大法官會議釋字第691號解釋認為假釋是權利，救濟由行政法院審理；釋字第681號解釋假釋救濟由普通法院審理，顯然誤解假釋本質，為徹底解決問題，使假釋權獲得合理權限分配，建議修改刑法及新增刑事訴訟法假釋核准及撤銷程序規定，假釋由監獄提出，法務部本於專業審核同意後，由檢察官向法院聲請，經法院裁定，使實體法與程序法能相互配合，以解決假釋回歸法院，落實權力分立的基本構想。
基於特別預防構想，假釋撤銷返回監獄執行應可再假釋，僅是執行期間計算應依原刑計算，以避免受刑人獲得雙重利益；至於無期徒刑假釋被撤銷，殘刑執行仍是無期徒刑，無期徒刑為法院判決所得，無執行完畢問題，現行假釋期間不應僅考量重刑化刑事政策，執行期間不能小於假釋期間，殘刑期間考核評估如符合假釋要求，包含無期徒刑，應給予再假釋。

Parole is a diversion buffer mechanism in criminal policy. According to the special prevention theory, if inmates perform well in prisons and there is substantial evidence proving adequate repentance, they should be approved for parole in order to re-integrate into society and inhibit recidivism. Inmates who demonstrate substantial evidence of repentance, and who meet parole requirement should be paroled. However, the risk of major criminal recidivism provides an exception to this rule, and only sexual offenders whose risk assessments are significantly reduced can be paroled. We suggest limiting the get-tough-on-crime policy. The review standard of parole should be stricter, but inmates guilty of major crimes should still be entitled to apply for parole. To conform to legal principles and the principle of responsibility, sexual offenders should only be paroled within the scope of execution.
Parolees are placed on probation and community supervision. In order to adapt to society, they should keep receiving assistance, rehabilitation and supervision from probation officer. If a parolee violates the regulations of probation or the law, then their parole should be revoked. To protect parolees’ rights, a caution should be used if their violations are only caused by negligence. Their parole can not be revoked until they relapse and are convicted. Parole should be based on the law at the time of sentencing, not at the time of the commission of the crime. The judgments based on the law of act should be changed. If inmates commit multiple crimes and are approved for double parole, commutation, recidivism or a pardon during the period of parole, it should not matter if it is substantial coopetition or post coopetition, the principle of single execution should be followed. Multiple paroles for offenders guilty of multiple crimes can be eliminated.
Parole and probation are an execution of criminal punishment. The change of execution must be decided by court instead of the Ministry of Justice. Parole is not a right or administrative disposition for inmates. It is a diversion buffer mechanism of criminal policy. According to the interpretations of the Grand Justice Council No 691, parole is regarded as a right. Parole remedies are reviewed by an administration court. On the other hand, interpretations of the Grand Justice Council No681, parole remedies are reviewed by general court. It is obvious that the essence of parole is misinterpreted. In order to solve this problem, the power distribution of the right to parole should be rational. We suggest amending the Criminal Law and revising the approval and revocation procedure of Criminal Procedure Law. Parole should be applied by the prison manager and approved of by the Ministry of Justice based on professional evaluation. Then, prosecutors petition the court for a parole declaration. So the Substantive Law and Procedural Law are able to be implemented in coordination. The right of parole declaration belongs to the courts. The basic conception of doctrine of separation of powers can be delivered.
According to the basic conception of special prevention theory, inmates who are sent to prisons again because of violation of parole are allowed to apply for parole again. To avoid inmates deriving a double benefit, parole should be decided based on original incarceration. If parole is revoked because of life imprisonment, the uncompleted execution is still life imprisonment. It is not necessary to consider the case of execution completion. Parole terms should not be decided based on only a get-tough-on-crime policy. Incarceration must be longer than the parole term. During the uncompleted execution, inmates whose sentences are fixed-term imprisonment or life imprisonment should be paroled again if their performance evaluations meet parole requirements.