In Anderson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 80 Pa. Commw. 574, 472 A.2d 1168 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984), Anderson was paroled in 1974 and thereafter recommitted as a technical parole violator. Anderson was thereafter reparoled in 1980 and was again arrested and recommitted as a technical parole violator. In 1981, Anderson, while on parole, was arrested on new criminal charges and ultimately convicted of those charges. Following a revocation hearing and recommitment as a convicted parole violator, the Board recalculated Anderson's maximum date and included the periods which he spent at liberty while on parole in 1974 and 1980. On appeal, this court affirmed the Board's calculation, stating that the time spent on parole in good standing prior to recommitment for technical violations was correctly added to Anderson's maximum sentence after his recommitment as a convicted parole violator. In reaching its conclusion, this court examined the legislative intent behind Section 21.1(a) of the Act and stated: Clearly, the General Assembly intended Section 21.1(a) to be a strong deterrent to prevent parolees from returning to criminal behavior while enjoying the conditional liberty on parole . . . . As a parolee approaches the maximum, the statute operates to increase this incentive to refrain from criminal activity. The longer he has been on parole, the longer the period for which he can be recommitted. Anderson, 472 A.2d at 1171.