January 18, 2019

Gov. Cuomo’s FY 2020 Budget Proposal: No Compassion, No Reform

Statement from Release Aging People in Prison/RAPP
• January 18, 2019 •

Governor Cuomo’s executive budget proposal, announced on January 15, does nothing to end the crisis of aging in prison and fails to address the Parole Board’s woeful understaffing. This proposal ignores decades of research and the detailed recommendations experts, advocates, and community members have repeatedly given. The governor has once again insulted our communities and put forward the exact same policy proposal he offered last year, now under a different name: “compassionate” parole.

There is nothing “compassionate” about the Governor’s supposedly new proposal. It narrowly and ineffectively expands New York’s medical parole program, and does nothing to ensure that more people will be released from prison. In fact, the proposal excludes entire groups of incarcerated people by categories of crime and sentence and allows the Parole Board to deny compassionate release based on the nature of someone’s offense, regardless of how sick they are. Our communities reject the view that some people are unworthy of compassion.

Further, the governor failed to heed our demands to fully staff the Parole Board with Commissioners who are committed to assessing people through their rehabilitation and readiness for release. The seven vacancies on the board have caused harmful delays, procedural unfairness and hopelessness among incarcerated people. Until the governor listens to advocates, implements fair, meaningful and inclusive parole reforms, and promotes release mechanisms that center transformation instead of punishment, New York will continue to have a criminal justice system that creates mass aging, despair and death in prison.

Read our detailed analysis of the governor’s proposals (including our recommendations) below:
New York State Proposed Budget FY 2020 • State Parole Board Budget & “Compassionate” Parole:

STATE PAROLE BOARD BUDGET:

FY 2019:

In FY 2019, the Governor proposed an increase in Parole Board staffing by allocating $305,000 for three additional Parole Commissioners. *
At the time of the FY 2019 proposal, there were 13 Commissioners and six vacancies on the Parole Board. **
Had the money been used to appoint and confirm three new Commissioners to the Parole Board, the proposed FY 2019 budget allocation would have increased the Board’s capacity to 16 Commissioners, leaving three remaining vacancies.

FY 2020:

In FY 2020, the Governor proposed no increase in money for Parole Board staffing or to the Board’s overall budget. ***
At the time of the FY 2020 proposal, the Parole Board has 12 Commissioners and seven vacancies.
The proposed FY 2020 budget allocation allows the Parole Board to increase its capacity to 16 Commissioners but does not allow for the Board to be fully staffed.

RAPP’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

The Governor and legislature should ensure that the Parole Board has the money to increase Parole Board Commissioner staffing to complete capacity—19 Commissioners.
If current budget allocations allow for 16 Commissioners, then the Governor and legislature should increase the Parole Board’s funding by an additional $305,000 so that the Board can be fully staffed in 2019.

*Parole Board Commissioners make $101,600 per year (NYS Executive Law §169).

** See Assembly Yellow Book 2018 (p. 112): https://nyassembly.gov/Reports/WAM/2018yellow/2018files/2018yellowbook.pdf

*** See DOCCS FY 2020 Executive Budget Proposal (p. 4): https://www.budget.ny.gov/pubs/archive/fy20/exec/agencies/appropData/CorrectionsandCommunitySupervisionDepartmentof.pdf

CHANGES TO “COMPASSIONATE” RELEASE:

FY 2019:

In FY 2019, the Governor proposed “geriatric” parole, a new program and extension of New York State’s medical parole program for incarcerated older people, aged 55 and older with serious medical conditions. *

Eligibility:

The proposal excluded people convicted of murder 1, aggravated murder, an attempt or conspiracy to commit either and those sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
To be eligible, incarcerated people must have served at least half of their sentence (half of a determinate sentence or half of the minimum sentence on an indeterminate sentence)

Process:

The DOCCS Commissioner, at the request of the incarcerated person, their spouse, relative or attorney, can order an investigation to determine whether or not an assessment should be made to determine whether or not the person fits the medical standard for “geriatric” parole.
After a physician conducts the assessment, it is reported back to the Commissioner, who decides whether or not to certify the incarcerated person for “geriatric” parole.
If the Commissioner certifies the incarcerated person, then they refer the incarcerated person to the Parole Board within seven days of the certification. The Parole Board ultimately determines whether or not the person is released.

Release determination:

When determining whether or not to release someone on “geriatric” parole, the Parole Board must consider the factors they consider for all parole applicants. Additionally, they must consider the nature of the incarcerated person’s condition and level of care; the amount of time the incarcerated person must serve before becoming eligible for release; the incarcerated person’s current age and age at the time of the crime; and any other relevant factors.
Like for all parole applicants, the Board must provide notice to the sentencing court, district attorney, incarcerated person’s attorney, and the crime victim. They cannot grant “geriatric” parole until the expiration of a 30-day period that allows the aforementioned parties to comment.
The Board has total discretion with regard to the weight it applies to all the factors it must consider when determining whether or not to grant someone “geriatric” parole. They can justify a denial if they determine that release would “deprecate the seriousness of the crime as to undermine respect for the law.”

Post Release:

If released, “geriatric” parole applicants would be supervised by DOCCS.
The Board may require, as a condition of release, that the released person remain under the care of a physician, hospital, nursing home, hospice, family care, or any other placement that can provide the appropriate medical care recommended by the medical assessment.
A discharge plan must be completed with confirmation of the availability of the aforementioned placement.
If the incarcerated person has a cognitive illness that renders them unable to sign off on their discharge plan, and if they don’t have a guardian to do so, then the facility health services director would be empowered to be their guardian and sign off on discharge plans.

Reporting:

The Parole Board Chair must annually report the following to leaders of the legislature: the number of people who have applied for “geriatric” parole; the number of people who have been granted “geriatric” parole; the nature of the illness of the applicants; the counties to which applicants were released and the nature of the community placement; the categories of reasons for denial; the number of people who recidivate post release.

* “Geriatric” parole medical standard: “An incarcerated person suffering from chronic or serious conditions, diseases, syndromes or infirmities, exacerbated by advanced age that has rendered the [person] so physically or cognitively debilitated or incapacitated that the ability to provide self-care within the environment of a correctional facility is substantially diminished.”

FY 2020:

Despite advocates’ deep analysis and detailed recommendations to “geriatric” parole, the Governor proposed “compassionate” parole in FY 2020, which, with the exception of the change in name, is exactly the same as the “geriatric” parole proposal from FY 2019. **

RAPP’s RECOMMENDATIONS:

Pass Elder Parole (S.8581/A6354A): Parole release programs for older people must be inclusive of all older people in prison, not just a small portion of people who are very sick and dying. In place of this proposal, the Governor should champion real elder parole (S8581/A6354A), which would give parole consideration to all people aged 55 or older who have served 15 years or more in prison.

Remove “compassionate” and medical parole restrictions based on crime of conviction. If our state truly values compassion, mercy, and rehabilitation, then this new policy will be inclusive of all people regardless of their crime. By excluding certain people based on crime of conviction, New York guarantees that some older people will die in prison, effectively reinstating the death penalty in New York.

Remove the following proposed language from “compassionate” parole and all other statutes in the Executive Law, “release is not incompatible with the welfare of society and will not so deprecate the seriousness of the crime as to undermine respect for the law” (emphasis added). This punitive language is used in boilerplate fashion in the standard parole denials of tens of thousands of currently and formerly incarcerated New Yorkers. It allows the Parole Board to deny someone based solely on the nature of their crime.

Remove the Parole Board’s requirement to provide notice and a 30-day comment period to the sentencing court, district attorney, incarcerated person’s attorney, and the crime victim.

Create rules that require facility medical providers to do initial “compassionate” parole screenings for people aged 55 and older with serious chronic illnesses to see if such incarcerated people might be eligible for medical parole. This process requirement could begin in the RMUs and DOCCS’ hospice units.

Create more transparency and accountability. Annual reports on medical parole should include detailed summaries of the number of applicants who reached each phase in the application process, as well as HIPPA-compliant information on their conditions. All annual reports should be made available to the public and accessible on the Department of Corrections and Community Supervisions’ website.

** See FY 2020 New York State Executive Budget: Public Protection and General Government Article VII Legislation (p. 363-369): https://www.budget.ny.gov/pubs/archive/fy20/exec/agencies/appropData/CorrectionsandCommunitySupervisionDepartmentof.pdf

Take action with RAPP to push back and demand real change in New York State • come to upcoming events, or email nyrappcampaign@gmail.com

November 20, 2018

Mujahid Farid: September 3, 1949—November 20, 2018

We are heartbroken to announce the passing of our dear friend and colleague, Mujahid Farid, who died on the morning of Tuesday, November 20th, 2018 in his home, surrounded by friends, family, and enormous love. A great loss for all of us and for the movement for peace and justice. We will dearly miss our beloved Farid. We will honor his legacy every day in our work and lives.

Here is the obituary that ran in The New York Times (online November 28; print edition, p. B7, on December 1, 2018):

Mujahid Farid, 69, Ex-Prisoner Who Advocated for Older Inmates, Dies

Mujahid Farid in 2012, a year after being released from prison after 33 years. He dedicated the rest of his life to trying to change New York State’s parole system. Credit Correctional Association of New York

By Katharine Q. Seelye, Nov. 28, 2018

Mujahid Farid, a former prisoner who became a prominent advocate for the timely release of elderly inmates, died on Nov. 20 at his home in the Bronx. He was 69.

The cause was pancreatic cancer, his brother Randolph Howard said.

Mr. Farid was a founder and a lead organizer of the organization Release Aging People in Prison, known as RAPP. His interest grew directly from his own experience.

He was incarcerated after being convicted of manslaughter and the attempted murder of a New York City police officer in January 1978. He was given concurrent prison sentences of 11 to 22 years for the manslaughter conviction and 15 years to life for attempted murder.

At the end of the 15-year minimum, the state parole board denied him parole nine times. Court documents show that each time his case came up, the board dwelled almost exclusively on his crimes and his conviction as a violent offender, ignoring his model behavior in prison and his advancing age.

On his 10th attempt, in 2011, Mr. Farid was released after 33 years. He was 62.

Upon his release he dedicated himself to trying to change New York State’s parole system. In 2013, he received a fellowship from the Open Society Foundations, created by the philanthropist George Soros, to help found RAPP, one of the first organizations to advocate for the release of aging people in prison. The group’s prominence and success inspired similar campaigns in other states.

The graying of the prison population is a national phenomenon, with people over 50 becoming the fastest-growing segment. In the next decade, they are expected to make up one-third of inmates nationwide.

Experts consider inmates old starting at 50 because they have higher rates of chronic illnesses as well as stress and poor diets, causing them to age more quickly than people on the outside.

Instead of calling older inmates “lifers,” Mr. Farid helped reframe the public debate — and get more community support — by calling them elderly.

His efforts helped push the New York State Board of Parole, which had been slow to comply with a change in state law, to consider the reduced risk to society posed by older inmates, who have lower recidivism rates than younger inmates.

His organization’s rallying cry became “If the risk is low, let them go.”

Mr. Farid and Laura Whitehorn, a colleague at RAPP, came up with that slogan one night while riding the subway, Ms. Whitehorn said in a telephone interview.

“Farid said, ‘We need a slogan, like Johnnie Cochran had,’ ” she recalled, referring to O. J. Simpson’s lawyer, who memorably told jurors in Mr. Simpson’s murder trial, referring to a glove, “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”

Mr. Farid also advocated for more minority representation on the parole board. Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo ordered that it become more diverse after a New York Times investigation in 2016 documented severe failings of the parole system, including racism and understaffing.

Before these changes, about 25 percent of inmates eligible for parole were released; afterward, the rate nearly doubled.

Mr. Farid, who adopted his name in prison when he became a Muslim, was born William Howard Jr. on Sept. 3, 1949, in Richmond, Va. His mother, Revia (Lightner) Howard, was a nurse; his father was a truck driver.

In addition to his brother Randolph, Mr. Farid is survived by his mother and two sisters, Patricia A. Martin and Denise C. Howard. Another brother, Theodore, died almost a decade ago.

The family moved to Manhattan in the 1960s. Mr. Farid graduated from Theodore Roosevelt High School in the Bronx and became a printer.

In 1977 he fatally shot a man outside a Manhattan bar. The police, after arriving at the scene, said that he had aimed his gun at them and tried to shoot, but that it had malfunctioned, according to court documents. His brother said in a telephone interview that to his dying day, Mr. Farid maintained that he had never aimed at a police officer.

While in prison, he earned four college degrees: an associate degree in business through the New York State Department of Corrections; a bachelor’s in arts and sciences from Syracuse University; a master’s in sociology from SUNY New Paltz; and a master’s in ministry from New York Theological Seminary.

He also counseled fellow inmates, learned sign language to help the hearing-impaired and helped start a program that educated inmates about H.I.V. and AIDS.

Once he was released, “he’d get to the office at 7 a.m., work all day and go to social justice events at night,” Ms. Whitehorn said.

“He fought with every cell of his being for the people he left behind.”

A version of this article appears in print on Dec. 1, 2018, on Page B7 of the New York edition with the headline: Mujahid Farid, 69, Prisoner for 33 Years Who Became Advocate for Older Inmates.

______________

A funeral for Mujahid Farid was held on Saturday, November 24 at Benta’s Funeral Home, 630 St. Nicholas Ave., New York, NY 10030. Farid was buried in Lindenhurst, NJ.

There will be a memorial in the coming weeks (date and time TBD).

With love,
Farid’s RAPP Family

October 1, 2018

Republicans Try to Bolster Mass Incarceration, Advocates Say No

On October 1, 2018, a broad coalition of criminal justice advocates, formerly incarcerated people and community members gathered in Albany before a NYS Senate Republican hearing on the State Parole Board’s conduct and the Governor’s restoration of voting rights to more than 24,000 people on parole.

Advocates Rallied to Call Out Senate Republican Leadership’s Racist Political Agenda, Interference in Independent Parole Board Decisions and Peoples’ Right to Vote

WATCH the short press conference here

WATCH Parole Preparation Project and RAPP testimony here

Scroll to bottom of this page to read written testimony by RAPP, Parole Preparation Project, NYS Board of Parole Chair Tina Stanford, Former Albany Police Chief Brendan Cox, the Osborne Association, the Coalition Against Sexual Assault, and NYDOCCS acting commissioner Anthony Annucci

Advocates stood in support of voting rights for all people and increases in Parole Board release rates despite strong opposition from some Republican Senators. Advocates called out the racist political tactics of many Senate Republicans attempting to demonize and attack currently and formerly incarcerated people for political purposes and before the November elections. Advocates said that Senate Republican-led hearings were not rooted in concerns for “public safety” or crime victims, but aimed at mobilizing their voting base in battleground Senate districts and scaring their constituency. Advocates said that the Parole Board should release more incarcerated people and that all people on parole should have the opportunity to vote, regardless of their crime. They stood with representatives of victims and survivors of crime to make clear that mass incarceration does not support healing, safety or justice for crime survivors and victims.

“New York State Senate Republican leaders need to stop playing political football with the lives of currently and formerly incarcerated people,” said Jose Hamza Saldana, Community Organizer with the Release Aging People in Prison Campaign. “After 38 years in prison, four parole denials and having just voted for the first time in my life, these political optics are a direct attack on me, my family and all incarcerated and formerly incarcerated men and women. There are thousands of parole-eligible and community-ready people languishing in prisons across the state, some for over three decades. The Parole Board should release them instead of re-sentencing them to death by incarceration.” Saldana continued, “Parolees are returning citizens. We were once a part of the problem but today and for a long time we have been an integral part of the solution. We are committed to working with faith and community-based organizations to develop viable strategies to address the social ills plaguing our communities. We will educate, organize, and advocate to retain our fundamental right to vote, and with the support of the community, we will vote our elders home. Let not one more of our elders die in prison.”

“Too often the actions public officials take in the name of crime victims, particularly in the name of survivors of sexual and domestic violence, do not line up with the actual needs and desires of the majority of survivors, especially survivors from communities that are most at risk,” said Chrys Ballerano, Senior Director of the New York State Coalition Against Sexual Assault. “As an organization committed to healing and justice for all survivors and to truly ending sexual violence, NYSCASA recognizes that reliance on a biased and inherently reactive criminal justice system will not achieve these goals. Like many survivors, we would rather see public officials take action to ensure that survivors, their families, and communities have the comprehensive resources they need to heal and to thrive; that significant investments are made in community services and institutions that will prevent violence from happening in the first place; that people who commit harm are held accountable in a meaningful way that does not perpetuate a cycle of violence; and that people who commit harm have access to the services they need to stop committing harm.”

“As Ranking Member of the Senate Crime Victims, Crime and Correction Committee, I fully support Governor Cuomo’s decision to restore voting rights to those who have paid their debt to society,” said Senator Luis Sepulveda, who represents the 32^nd District in the Bronx. “They also need more supportive programs – and opportunities – to help put and keep them on a stable and productive footing.” Sepulveda continued, “I also believe it is time for a major overhaul of the state’s Parole Board, which the New York Times in an in-depth investigative report called “a broken system.” To that end, I, the Senate Democratic Conference and the Ranking Member of the Senate Health Committee plan to hold a public forum this November in New York City on the issue of Parole Board reform, in which we hope to address a number of issues, including racial disparity of its membership and inadequate reporting of specific details in assessing its decisions.”

“The National Action Network was honored to have Gov. Cuomo announce his executive order, granting conditional voting rights to over 35,000 people on parole in the state of New York at our National Convention,” said Reverend Al Sharpton, President and Founder of National Action Network. “We have fought and will continue to fight for every person’s fundamental right to vote, despite their history in the justice system. Mass incarceration has only served as a smokescreen for systematized oppression and racist practices. Taking away someone’s right to a voice in our democracy only furthers their disempowerment in a system that has already misserved them for too long. As citizens of their communities, they deserve a right to their voice. Voting and fair parole practices are pillars of a fair restorative and rehabilitative system of justice.”

“The majority of incarcerated older adults have completed or even developed many progressive programs that promote education, constructive and critical thinking, and pro-social behaviors for the betterment of the community,” said James Royall, Re-Entry Advocate at Brooklyn Defender Services. “Rejoining their families and being part of the fabric of society is paramount to them. These are the very individuals who, after release, continue to make tremendous contributions to our society, whether as entrepreneurs, mentors, or loving family members. The state must accelerate the release of these elderly people and uphold the voting rights of all those who are justice-involved.”

“Parole is not an institution that belongs swept up in the ever changing political wind. It is an important tool that allows society to acknowledge the completion of an individual’s sentence, and their capacity to have used their time within the correctional facilities to reflect and change,” said Christopher E. Bromson, Executive Director of the Crime Victims Treatment Center and Co-Chair of the Downstate Coalition for Crime Victims Legislative Committee. “Just as victims have the capacity to heal, and can be offered support to move beyond the trauma of victimization, so too do offenders have the capacity to move beyond criminal behavior. Just as each survivor of a crime is an individual, so too is each incarcerated person. Policies barring the Parole Board from considering the important details of each individual case would exclude a vast number of survivors whose voices deserve to be heard. Many survivors view parole as a justified and appropriate end to an extremely painful experience.”

“These ill-timed hearings are clearly a political stunt orchestrated by Senate Republicans to score political points and to mobilize their voters prior to November’s general elections,” said State Senator Gustavo Rivera. “They are being held to cast a cloud of doubt against incarcerated and formerly incarcerated individuals, even after they have paid their debt to society and have been rehabilitated. As a legislator who is fighting relentlessly to reform our criminal justice system, I will continue to champion common sense measures, such as my bill to implement discretionary release as part of the parole process, so that our State can truly improve the parole system for both victims and incarcerated individuals.”

“If people have served their time inside, then they deserve the rights afforded to them on the outside. Voting is one of those rights,” said Reverend Dr. Que English, Founder, NYC Clergy Roundtable. “The system once again is looking for ways to keep our people in bondage while free. Instead of looking for ways to keep people from their rights, let’s work to improve and enhance opportunities, education, housing, and other important supports.”

“This week, the current majority in the State Senate will hold hearings to reinforce their position that the Parole Board releases too many people. It is a sad day when elected officials call a system broken because parole board members are increasingly fulfilling their sworn duty to uphold the law. Instead of this politically-driven attack, our legislators could work towards a more effective—and just—system,” said Liz Gaynes, president and CEO of the Osborne Association. “We must fill the seven empty seats on the Parole Board so that overloaded Commissioners can thoroughly consider the unique circumstances in each case; digitize records so that Commissioners need not travel long distances to review a single copy of paper records, in some cases just minutes before a hearing that is held by video-conference; and move to in-person parole hearings that are fully staffed by three commissioners. Our current televised but not digitized process makes it even more difficult to assess fully the person before them, leading to thousands of people facing repeated denials despite the wishes of prosecutors, sentencing judges, and in many cases, the victims themselves.”

“The politics of fear and the false connection between race, dangerousness, and criminality have served as obstacles to parole justice for far too long,” said Anthony Thompson, Director of New York University Law Center on Race Inequality and the Law. “We should be working to change that paradigm, and implementing reforms that help get people who have paid their debt to society and changed their lives for the better out of prison and successfully reintegrated into their communities. Unreasonably curtailing parole releases and silencing the political voices of those who have been released from prison is bad policy, guaranteed to reproduce the unfairness and injustice we should all stand against.”

“The Campaign for Alternatives to Isolated Confinement (CAIC) supports people who are on parole to have the right to vote, and urges that New York release more people on parole,” said Victor Pate, Community Organizer with the Campaign for Alternatives to Isolated Confinement. “People who have served their time and been released on parole are New York citizens who should have an opportunity to vote for the representatives who make decisions affecting their and others’ lives. Regarding releases, for far too long the Parole Board has repeatedly denied release to those who have demonstrated their low risk, accomplishments and transformation, and readiness for release to the outside community. The Board needs to look at the people who sit before them and base their release decisions on evidence-based, forward-looking factors.”

“Denying me and others who have been justice-involved the right to vote does not help build communities,” said Edwin Santana, Campaign Leader with JustLeadershipUSA. “Restoring voting rights to people on parole provides a voice to those who have been disenfranchised by mass incarceration, overwhelmingly people of color. While Senate Republicans claim that the Parole Board has been “lenient,” anyone paying attention knows the Board is finally taking baby steps in the right direction, but still has miles to go. As a person who lived through multiple parole denials, I have experienced their total disregard for rehabilitation and sheer uselessness of the system Senate Republicans are looking to re-impose. I say let’s invest in forgiveness and healing in order to give our community the nurturing it needs to grow strong.”

“We need to trust our Parole Board professionals to release individuals who do not pose a threat to public safety,” said Chief Brendan Cox (Ret.) Albany Police Department. “We want them out of prison, contributing to society instead of costing us $100 a day that could be reinvested into programs that prevent crime.”

“Parole must be decided based on criteria such as rehabilitation, remorse, and growth,” said Allen Roskoff, President of the Jim Owles Liberal Democratic Club. “Republican Senators’ desire to base parole release solely on revenge and retribution is wrong. It shows a lack of understanding of human potential and degrades the value of human life and the very concept of humanity.”

“It is disgraceful that Senate Republicans continue to oppose the restoration of voting rights for people on parole,” said Susan Lerner, Executive Director of Common Cause/NY. “Do Senate Republicans also think Dean Skelos should be denied the right to vote when he’s eventually paroled? Sheldon Silver? People on parole in New York deserve the right to vote, just like they do in many other states. It’s time for New York to catch up.”

“Limiting opportunities for people to fully engage in society based on their past mistakes makes little sense and is among the last vestiges of race-based voter suppression,” said Avery Bizzell, Community Organizer with Community Service Society. “Voting is the bedrock of democracy, the voice of the people. For individuals to successfully thrive in our communities, they must have the opportunity to vote and be fully empowered stakeholders.”

MEDIA CONTACT: Dave George, ddgeorge23@gmail.com, (631) 885-3565

Watch the press conference here

Full Albany press statement here

Read our press statement opposing the Senate Republicans’ Long Island hearing on Oct. 2, 2018

Written Testimony of Jose Hamza Saldana, RAPP

Written Testimony of Michelle Lewin, Parole Preparation Project

Written Testimony of Tina Stanford, Chair, NYS Board of Parole

Written Testimony of Elizabeth Gaynes of the Osborne Association

Written Testimony of Chrys Ballerano of the NYS Coalition Against Sexual Violence

Written Testimony of Chief Brendan Cox (Ret.) of the Albany, NY Police Dept.

Written Testimony of Anthony Annucci, Acting Commissioner, NYS Dept. of Corrections and Community Supervision

August 14, 2018

NYS Parole Board report shows justice still unfulfilled

August 14, 2018: Along with the Parole Preparation Project, RAPP today released our latest report, The New York State Parole Board: Failures in Staffing and Performance.

“No one can appreciate the importance of sitting in those rooms making liberty decisions except those who sit on either side of the table. I applaud your work. Staff shortages result in applicants seeing see the same commissioners again and again, and they never get a date.” —Barbara Treen, former commissioner, NYS Board of Parole

Over the past two years, RAPP and other advocates and community members have succeeded in winning some changes in the practices of the New York State Parole Board, so that some decisions are now based in rehabilitation and transformation—who a person is today, as opposed to who they were decades ago when their crime was committed. This has begun to bring the Board into line with the law and best practices advocated by criminal justice experts.

But these advances continue to be undercut by other trends in the Board, including understaffing and the presence of several commissioners who continue to resist practices based in rehabilitation. These commissioners enable powerful, reactionary law enforcement forces to interfere in release decisions, illegally turning parole-eligible sentences into de facto life without parole.

Our new report exposes the horrific practices of the New York State Parole Board and their impact on incarcerated people across New York State.

You can read more coverage of the report in the Daily News

May 22, 2018

Trump, Lynch, And Who We Call Animals: A Safety Alert

• BY SUSIE DAY • Did you hear Trump call undocumented immigrants animals? It’s stirring up — rightly — a lot of concern. Among humans, “animal” is the essential, go-to word to deprive people of their humanity. It’s the permission some people give themselves to ridicule, enslave, and commit genocide against other people. “Animal” is a term we read as a danger signal, even in a society such as ours, which was built on ridicule, enslavement, and genocide. And “animal” is often used by law enforcement to describe anyone accused of assaulting a police officer. Interesting, how we’ve let this one go.

Over and over, my friend Herman Bell, who spent almost 45 years in New York State maximum-security prisons, has been called an animal. Herman was convicted in 1975 of killing two New York City police officers and sentenced to 25-to-life — meaning that, after 25 years, he was eligible for parole. Thanks to his accomplishments and compassion over the years; thanks to advances in state parole regulations weighing who a person has become and not just the “nature of the original offense”; thanks to enormous love from family and friends, Herman was released in April, after his eighth appearance before the Parole Board.

But this column isn’t about Herman. It’s instead about the institutions and the people who wanted him to die slowly over more decades in prison. As an animal.

When Herman’s parole decision came down last March, Patrick Lynch, president of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association (PBA), declared at a press conference, “We’re gonna get you, we don’t care why you’re behind bars… We just care that you are behind bars.” The PBA also issued a “safety alert” to NYPD officers: “In the event of Bell’s release, all PBA members are urged to remain vigilant, both on- and off-duty, to ensure their own safety and to provide back-up to any other law enforcement officers in their vicinity.”

The danger to public safety posed by Herman Bell out of prison roughly approximates the danger posed by 99.6 percent of undocumented immigrants inside US borders: NONE.

The real danger — which most of us are sleeping on — is the vigilante mentality that powers our law enforcement. Since way before Stonewall, cops have rounded up queers; they can still arrest and brutalize us at street protests. But queer communities don’t necessarily see how the cops also work alongside the prison system. So here’s another safety alert; this one’s about the police.

Be on the lookout for:

Use of Scathing Pejoratives: Words like “monster,” “vermin,” “blood-thirsty,” and, of course, “animal” used by police as synonyms for actual people accused or convicted of crimes. This degree of loathing is designed to authorize the deepest kind of lynch-mob contempt. These names are, in fact, used so often to describe people of color that you wonder if they’re simply society’s latest ploy to get away with saying “n*gg*r.”

Lurid Press Coverage: This is the aorta through which “law-and-order” pejoratives and vigilantism enter the public bloodstream. Mainstream media repeat — unquestioned and un-fact-checked — whatever police officials tell them. “Cold-blooded cop-killer” headlines boost ratings. Meanwhile, the press is too busy buying tough-on-crime accounts wholesale to ask journalism-101 questions, such as why a law officer such as Pat Lynch threatening, “We’re gonna get you, we don’t care why you’re behind bars” isn’t … well … illegal?

Copying down “cop-killer” denunciations, reporters seldom bother to question if adjectives like “cold-blooded” and “monster” are close to accurate. NYPD Commissioner James O’Neill, on hearing of Herman’s parole, wrote that Herman should remain in prison because, “His mind has not changed, his heart has not opened…” Mainstream news outlets never asked how James O’Neill knew this.

It’s inconsequential that O’Neill (also Lynch, Mayor Bill de Blasio, and any other official denouncing Herman’s parole) never met Herman Bell or evinced an interest in records describing how Herman’s changed over the years. This sidelining of journalistic curiosity in favor of garish headlines is the foundation of media and police collusion. Through it, we’re bullied out of wondering if “criminals” might actually be people a little like ourselves.

Backlash Against New Parole Board Regulations: In another press conference, Patrick Lynch lamented the “coup” at the State Parole Board, where “right-minded” commissioners were ousted and replaced by those with an agenda. Already, conservative state senators, who only noticed progressive regulation changes after Herman’s parole, have passed several bills overturning these advances.

Although the bills still need Assembly approval, they include regressions such as mandatory life sentences without parole for a broad range of offenses; requiring the Parole Board to accept statements from third parties — specifically, the police — which would remain confidential; and extending the waiting period between prisoners’ parole applications from two to five years.

These bills would enforce a penal structure denying mercy and equality to thousands of human beings who, for a moment, had hopes of not being seen as animals. Already, tabloids are carrying stories about why the Parole Board should not make the Herman Bell mistake and should deny parole to other “cop-killers.” Already, the PBA has bought radio ads to keep Herman’s co-defendant in prison for the rest of his life.

Assuming the Life of a Police Officer Weighs More than that of a Civilian: In a May 17 editorial titled, “Will every cop-killer in New York now go free?”, the New York Post writes, “cop-killers strike at the core of public safety. That’s why there was long a presumption against ever granting them parole.

But the PBA’S “public safety” means protection from “animals” — not protection for people like Eric Garner or Sandra Bland. It encourages a “worst-of-the-worst” category, which, once established, endangers everyone’s humanity. Recently, in The New Yorker, Masha Gessen wrote about the plight of immigrants and refugees, of Hannah Arendt’s concept of “the right to have rights.” These rights, in theory, “belong to every person by virtue of existence.”

So either we all have this right to have rights or we buy into a safety that ultimately removes our individual agency. Accepting that we don’t matter as much as the person in blue with the badge and the gun provides a cornerstone of an oncoming police state. And — remembering why Hannah Arendt wrote in the first place — that kind of thing has happened before.

This article appears at Gay City News/ http://gaycitynews.nyc/ along with others by Susie Day on parole justice and the case of Herman Bell.

February 20, 2018

The Missing Piece to End Mass Incarceration in New York

On February 12, the New York State Assembly announced a Criminal Justice Reform Package with some meaningful changes to New York’s criminal legal system on bail, discovery, speedy trial, and solitary confinement—important steps toward undoing the far-reaching damage of mass incarceration.

But a major element was missing: No bills on parole and elder release were included in the package. Mass incarceration in New York will never end unless the legislature and the governor initiate changes that get at the heart of the problem—the persistence of a racist culture of revenge and permanent punishment that keeps people in prison without meaningful access to release. Increasing parole releases, especially of older people who have served long terms for violent crimes, would be a step in this direction.

That may sound unlikely given that the prison population soared because politicians found it easy and popular to act “tough on crime.” The starting point? Increase punishment by pointing to people convicted of the most serious offenses—especially the crimes that make headlines. But now, we need policy makers to understand that what got us here won’t get us out.

To end mass incarceration, the legislature, the parole board, and the governor will need to end the cycle of permanent punishment. Releasing people who have spent decades in prison for a violent crime committed years ago, who have engaged in meaningful transformation and now pose minimal risk to public safety, would be a safe, cost-effective way to begin this process.

Here are some ways RAPP is urging them to do exactly that:

“Geriatric Parole:” Governor Cuomo has proposed legislation to expand New York’s medical parole program for incarcerated older people, instituting a medical parole plan for people age 55 and older with debilitating health conditions.

But the plan excludes some people based solely on the crime of conviction, such as anyone convicted of first-degree murder, no matter how ill or debilitated—and no matter how low the risk they pose to public safety. Engaging in a serious crime at a young age does not make an incapacitated elder a current threat to public safety. In fact, evidence shows that long-incarcerated elders convicted of murder actually pose the very lowest risk to public safety: in contrast to recidivism rates that generally hover in the 40% range, people in this group return to prison at rates around 1% and lower.

The governor’s exclusions should also make us question whether we want our society to deny compassion to whole sectors of people, guaranteeing that they will die in prison.

RAPP urges the governor and the legislature to strengthen the “geriatric parole” proposal by removing all restrictions based on crime of conviction, along with other language that allows the Parole Board to deny applicants solely because of the nature of the crime. The bill should also be strengthened to ensure that the medical criterion for eligibility is an individual’s ability to provide “self-care,” not “self-ambulation.” Finally, mechanisms that trigger and speed up the otherwise slow-moving certification process and ensure public transparency should be strengthened as well.

“If the Risk is Low, Let them Go”

The governor’s plan will shift rather than cut spending, especially as states, confronted with the Trump administration’s economic plans, will be forced to shoulder a larger proportion of spending on Medicaid and other public health costs.

What would truly save money—and promote public safety—would be real elder parole: a plan that presumptively releases people who have served more than their minimum terms and whose present—not past—behavior show that they pose little if any risk to public safety. Older people should be released before they are ill and dying, when they can still contribute to their families and communities. We urge the Assembly to pass A.7546, which ensures that an individual’s current risk to public safety determines parole release. Additionally, older people not otherwise eligible for parole should be given a “second look” and considered for parole at age 55 after serving at least 15 consecutive years in prison.

With older people now making up 21 percent of people in New York State prisons—10,337 total people, a number more than twice what it was in 2000— a bolder and more evidence-based proposal for elder parole should be the governor’s choice. Such a proposal will require Governor Cuomo to exercise political will and would make New York a true national leader in the struggle to end mass incarceration.

To get involved, check our events page or email nyrappcampaign@gmail.com

January 28, 2018

Former Commissioner: “Let Common Sense in, Let the Aging Out”

By Barbara Treen, Retired NY Board of Parole Commissioner •

The disgrace of mass incarceration in the United States continues to be critically commented upon by academics, analysts, criminologist, practitioners, and providers. Still, with all the condemnation and forward-thinking formulas that would lead to warehousing fewer people, nothing has changed for the aged locked in by parole denials. I have a ‘best practice’ to suggest that would surely make a difference: common sense!

After a career in criminal justice, I am now a retiree of 12 years as a commissioner on the New York Parole Board. I now am an advocate for the aging and long-term incarcerated. I follow the promises and the politics, the conferences announcing reform (bail, drug treatment, modifying stop-and-frisk) at the front door to prison, while the appeals to denials at the back door pile up in the office of the Parole Board’s counsel.

The new solutions are suggested in the language of regulations, guidelines, and policies attempting to legally employ humanity and change our culture of punishment. What about gut instinct? What would it take to convince the Board that an incarcerated person devoured by dementia, who can’t walk straight, should be released? What does it take to figure out that a crime committed by an 18-year-old should not stick to the transformed 62-year-old? What does it take to release an applicant meeting the board twenty or more years beyond what the court prescribed?

While decision-making has been shored up by guardrails, human behavior occurs through feelings. And this ingredient is what this Board needs to allow in their deliberations—and to recognize in others.

I realize that emotional decision-making is not professional and can go either way. But there is room within the guidelines and the written word to articulate what rules don’t spell out: sincerity, transformation, time, physical condition, or on the other hand suggestions of public risk. Is this not why we have people doing this job rather than computers tallying the score? And this is why we should abandon decisions made by camera rather than personal appearances. When I was on the Board and sitting at a business meeting, a most conservative colleague stood up and declared that we all used gut instinct as part of our reasoning (surely he believed that we were all behavioralists and not cops). There was a gasp followed by silence in the room. This was heresy and this was never spoken about again…until now. Intuition is compatible with legalese; let in common sense and begin letting out the aging.

Barbara Hanson Treen, Comm (ret)
Author of “Geranium Justice” January 27, 2018

Note: a version of this article later appeared in the Albany Times-Union as “Let common sense in and let aged prisoners out,” January 31, 2018

November 2, 2017

New York Needs Elder Parole: Prison Healthcare Hearing

On Monday, October 30, 2017, Release Aging People in Prison/RAPP presented testimony at a legislative hearing on healthcare in the New York State prison system. Two New York Assembly Committees—Health and Correction—hosted the hearing, which was titled, “Healthcare in Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) prisons.”

RAPP was pleased as much of the day’s conversation focused on the increasingly urgent issue of older people in prison. This conversation began when Assembly Member David Weprin, Chair of the Correction Committee, asked DOCCS Acting Commissioner Anthony Annucci what he thought were the biggest barriers to healthcare in DOCCS. The Commissioner responded by saying that the aging prison population is the number one barrier to supporting the healthcare needs of those in custody.

Assembly Member Weprin also took the important step of asking the Commissioner the age at which he and the Department begin defining people as older. The Commissioner and his Chief Medical Officer both responded, age 55. Although RAPP defines incarcerated older people as those who are 50 and older, we agree with the Commissioner that people in prison age at a faster pace than those in healthier environments, and as a result have an internal, physiological clock that is 10-15 years accelerated.

Both RAPP and the Osborne Association spent nearly all of their presented testimony on the subject of incarcerated older people, and both publicly stated that older people should be presumptively released on parole. Throughout the hearing, Assembly Member Weprin indicated that he is interested in taking major steps to promote the release of incarcerated older people. He is currently the lead sponsor of several bills on the topic.

While RAPP believes that everyone in DOCCS custody should receive the healthcare they deserve and are constitutionally required to receive, we challenge the legislature to prioritize presumptively releasing older people aged 50 or older who have served at least 15 years in prison. Releasing older people who fit this criterion would save lives, reconnect families and communities, and reduce the high financial costs (both financial and moral) associated with keeping aging people in prison. It is time for New York State to champion policies that promote the release of our elders and save all of us from unneeded death and despair. —Dave George, RAPP

Watch Dave George’s testimony at the hearing

Read the testimony RAPP submitted to the hearing

Watch the entire hearing, where others—including David Weprin, chair of the Assembly Committee on Correction—spoke in favor of parole for older incarcerated people, and where DOCCS Acting Commissioner says that aging is the top challenge to prison healthcare in New York.

August 23, 2017

A Former Parole Commissioner on Aging & Changing

by Barbara Hanson Treen (NYS Parole Commissioner for 12 years)

We’ve heard for years that all the cells in our bodies regenerate every seven to ten years. Can we assume then, that our moral and emotional compasses are also capable of transforming over time? Not according to parole commissioners who keep large numbers of aging long-termers warehoused in prison, based only on what individuals did years ago, rather than who they are now.

In New York State, people of conscience are watching to see how six recent appointees to the Board of Parole will make release decisions. Will they respect transformation? It is too late for John MacKenzie, a model prisoner who died by suicide at the age of 70 after 40 years incarcerated and ten repeated parole denials. Tragically, John Mackenzie is the human sacrifice that underscores the broken parole system.

As a NYS Parole Commissioner for 12 years some time ago, it was unusual for me to meet a parole candidate over the age of 50. Last year, of 52,344 women and men in the state’s correctional facilities, 10,140 (19%) were 50 and older, despite the decline in the overall prison population. The number of elderly incarcerated has increased 98% since 2000, at least partially reflecting the board’s unwillingness to release in spite of parole applicants having met their minimum allowable sentence. Life on the back of a sentence appears to give a pass to the Commissioners, who have been unwilling to accept transformation in human behavior and are too politically motivated to practice their job, risk assessment. Thus we have prison hospitals and infirmaries filled with long-termers languishing through the years even though their risk of reoffending is 1%. And the health care costs for the prisons have increased 20 percent from three years ago to $380 million dollars today—an increase of $64.5 million.

If the parole board doesn’t trust in people’s transformation—supported by their proof of advanced education, program involvement, clean disciplinary records and so on—perhaps they’ll believe in new evidence that is also coming of age from a field of science through brain scan research: neuroplasticity. Simply stated, it is a scientific development that shows that the brain has the ability to change and heal as it is subjected to new experiences. Much is coming to light in the medical community about this study with implications of change for ADD and Parkinson’s Disease.

But as important in our criminal justice community is the possibility that people can become entirely different in their behaviors. This change occurs in the brain on its own physically with exposure to life’s surrounding stimulus over time. I would guess that 80% of 77,000 interviews I participated in as a commissioner were with people who suffered early life traumas such as sex abuse, violence, and concussions. Our older imprisoned have gained maturity, non-violent adaptive behaviors and more often the punishing effect of their crimes on them and their families, leading them to introspection over time. They become different people by demonstrating different responses.

The repeat parole hearings of candidates echo the retelling of the crimes that brought them to these places, crimes that are most often horrendous. And while the penalties for these crimes can never satisfy the need to restore a victim or render survivors of crime whole, the court-sanctioned sentence is our accepted legal calibration for punishment.

Can continuing denials amounting to 30 or 33 years beyond a sentence change the crime? Can 10, 13, 17 times before the board expressing redemption and remorse make a person any more prepared to face the community? No, it makes them older and sicker and some don’t even recall why they are there.

These aged are mostly invisible people. On paper, we don’t see their limps, their dementia, their physical impairments, their addled senses, their diminished capacities. They bring with them all the hope it takes to describe their transformation and regret to the parole board, although it will probably result in the same denial based on the “nature of the crime.” And the category of those aging, the women and men aged 50 and older, grows.

Perhaps the Parole Board can examine the possibility of the growth of their own hearts and brains among their new colleagues.

May 24, 2016

The Prison Population We Should Talk About Releasing

President Barack Obama has made reducing the prison population one of his top agenda items during his final term in office. – AP/David Goldman, JUSTICE

Given his recent granting of clemency to 58 prisoners, many of whom were serving time on federal drug offenses, the President has made it clear he doesn’t want non-violent drug offenders serving long sentences. He’s also made the case that reducing sentences for non-violent drug offenders is an important part of reform and cutting the financial cost of the U.S. criminal justice system.

But criminal justice researchers say that non-violent offenders are not the prison population we should be focusing on when it comes to long-term criminal justice reform.

“The president is significantly mistaken,” Stanford University Law Professor Robert Weisberg told ATTN:.

For successful long-term criminal justice reform, the U.S. needs to consider releasing violent offenders who are no longer dangerous, even those who have been convicted of murder, said Weisberg, who is also the co-director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center.

“The percentage of people who have committed non-violent drug offenses is not that many to be the solution for criminal justice reform,” said Weisberg.

Of the U.S. prison population, only 17 percent of inmates in 2010 were incarcerated for primary drug offenses, according to research by Fordham University Professor John Pfaff. He wrote in research published in 2015 that the focus should be on violent crime not primary drug offenders.

“The policy implications here are clear,” Pfaff wrote. “Reducing the admissions of drug offenders will not meaningfully reduce prison populations.”

This does not mean that addressing prison sentences for non-violent drug offenses isn’t important, but Pfaff said that those offenses should not be the only focus and they don’t make up the majority of people in prison.

People who have committed drug offenses make up more of the new admissions to prisons, but nearly half of inmates incarcerated are there for violent crimes, according to the Brookings Institute.

Basically, the research suggests that if we want to effectively reduce the 2.2 million people in the U.S. prison population, we have to consider releasing violent offenders.

But aren’t all violent offenders dangerous to the public?

Actually, there’s research that suggests a significant amount of them are not.

Weisberg said that violent offenders middle aged and older who committed a crime in their 20’s and 30’s tend to age out of their crime.

Elderly Prisoners

“The most interesting example of people who should be considered for release and unquestionably committed violent crimes, but are not dangerous anymore, are elderly people,” said Weisberg.

A 2011 report by the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, which followed 860 California murderers released since 1995, found that only five of the murderers were convicted of new felonies in the 15 years after release. None of them returned to prison for “life-term” crimes. That’s a 1 percent rate of return to prison for the murderers in this study compared to the nearly 50 percent return to California state prison for the broader prison population.

So why were these murderers so well-behaved after their release?

Age is mostly likely the reason. Not only are most violent crimes committed by people under 30, but even the criminal behavior that continues after that age declines drastically after age 40 and even more so after age 50, according to the report. The average age in the 2011 study for California inmates serving life in prison who were granted parole was 49.9 years old. This suggests that by the time these “lifers” made parole, they had “aged out” of the violent stage in their lives.

However living in the outside world after a prison sentence is not easy. After a recent increase in parolee releases under California Gov. Jerry Brown, and an uptick in returns to jail for some of those parolees, some wondered whether former inmates are prepared to be successful. “We’re talking about people with track records of the most serious and violent crime … and we’re saying, ‘Good luck out there, do well,'” Christine Ward, executive director of Crime Victims Action Alliance, told the Los Angeles Times.

Former inmates struggle to find jobs, have a higher likelihood of divorce, and their children have a higher rate of mental health problems and school drop out rates, according to the Obama administration.

Weisberg said the difficulty of navigating society with a criminal record could contribute to re-offenses.

“It’s plausible the longer you keep someone in prison, the longer you’re wrecking their chances for legal life on the outside,” he said.