The postrelease trauma thesis is that during the time immediately following release from prison the offender faces particular stress, which often culminates in renewed criminal activity. Although this thesis enjoys almost universal acceptance by criminologists, it can be questioned on several grounds. First, from an importation perspective, entry into or exit from the prison community may not represent a major break in the felon's life; his role may be seen as remaining continuous before, during, and after imprisonment. Second, the failure to reduce recidivism through programs designed to ease the transition from prison to community suggests that they may, by nature, be superfluous. Third, the most common way of reporting parole violation data overstates the risk during the early parole period relative to later periods. Finally, the social organization of parole work makes apprehension of violators more likely during early months than it is later on, regardless of the parolee's behavior.These issues suggest the need to exercise caution in the interpretation of parole statistics. More generally, they suggest that the postrelease trauma thesis itself should not be accepted without extensive and rigorous empirical examination.Despite the social scientists' claim that all propositions are subjected to strict scrutiny, some assumptions are so intuitively appealing that serious challenge to them is rarely considered. As a consequence, theories and programs are sometimes developed on the basis of plausible folklore rather than carefully tested propositions. We suggest that the postrelease trauma thesis may be one such instance of criminological folklore, and that it is a proposition of sufficient importance to warrant careful review.In brief, the postrelease trauma thesis is that the time immediately after the offender's release from prison is marked by particular stress, which often culminates in renewed criminal activity. This belief is evident in most parole writ-