January 20, 2015

Police Union Blocks Justice in Parole and Community

The current standoff between the community and the NYPD is even larger than it appears. Not only are police, represented by their union, the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association (PBA), turning their backs on Mayor Bill De Blasio, but they are also denying New York’s growing population of incarcerated elders a chance at dignity and justice. Aside from the Parole Board itself, no group influences parole release decisions as much as the PBA, and they wield their power to make sure that certain people never get out.

Protesters in New York and throughout the country have made themselves loud and clear: there is a pattern of policing in our cities that suggests the police do not protect but rather endanger Black lives and communities of color. The PBA has taken these calls for change as a direct threat to police interests. Insisting that Black lives matter has become, in the eyes of the PBA, a violent threat. Since the deaths of two NYC police officers at the hands of a misguided man, media have chronicled the “rising tensions” between cops and New York City residents. In the wake of the deaths, the PBA initiated a work slowdown, claiming they feared for officers’ safety.

This punitive attitude has implications for incarcerated people. In light of the imaginary “backlash” against the cops, the PBA has renewed its efforts to keep many parole applicants behind bars – at all costs.

A button on the PBA webpage instantly sends letters to Parole Board Commissioners insisting they deny parole to anyone convicted of violence—even attempted violence—against police. The PBA urges parole commissioners to focus on the suffering of deceased policemen’s families, ignoring the mandated use of risk assessment tools to determine when an incarcerated person should be released. This nourishes a system of revenge and permanent punishment in which a person’s original offense (often committed as many as 40 years ago) is elevated above all considerations of change, personal growth, and current risk to public safety. This effectively positions the Parole Board as a re-sentencing body, in which the nature of the crime is paramount.

It also feeds the continuing growth of the population of people over age 50 in the New York prison system—the very population shown to pose nearly no risk at all to public safety.

PBA president Albert O’Leary insists that “cop killers should never see the light of day,” but nearly every cop who has taken the life of a Black man has walked free. And what of Eric Garner’s family? Akai Gurley’s family? Mike Brown’s family? Is their grief worth less? The PBA, alongside the Parole Board and the courts, is sending a clear message that some lives should matter more than others.

One of the most disturbing effects of this rhetoric identifying cries for justice as “anti-cop” is that it undermines our right to ask for accountability, our desire to confront the racism inherent in police practices, and our ability to question whether the life of a police officer should be worth more than a civilian’s. As the PBA and their president Patrick Lynch cause a racket with their vitriol and their arrogant demands for unearned respect, it is important to continue insisting that Black lives matter. Whether demanding racial justice on the streets, in the courts, or at parole hearings, we will continue making our voices louder than the PBA’s clamor.

#BlackLivesMatter #ReleaseIncarceratedElders #ReleaseAgingPeopleInPrison

(In September, 2015, a front-page NYTimes article provided another example of how the PBA and NYSCOPBA, their statewide union with correctional officers, tries to block justice)

Donate to RAPP

October 2, 2014

If California Can Do It, Why Can’t We?

Pay attention, New York! California has been changing its parole policies in ways favorable to basic human rights and economic good sense. In the last three years, the state has released nearly 1,400 lifers on parole with the approval of Governor Jerry Brown, and, as of this June, has announced it will begin the early release of elderly and unwell prisoners who meet new criteria.

People older than sixty who have spent at least twenty-five years in prison will be eligible for release—excluding only people sentenced to death or to life without parole. And those with health conditions requiring skilled nursing care will be in a position to be moved to health care or nursing facilities.

Back in 2008, the California Supreme Court ordered officials to look beyond the severity of parole applicants’ crimes. Instead, officials were directed to give serious consideration to people’s records while incarcerated and their volunteer work behind bars. Now that federal courts have ordered California to reduce its disturbingly high levels of crowding in prisons, the parole board is in a better position than ever to serve the needs of public safety and conserve community resources by releasing elders.

It would make sense for New York State to be taking similar steps, right? After all, the population of incarcerated people over age 50 increased 81% between 2000 and 2013, and elders now comprise fully 17% of the prison population.

But New York hasn’t heeded the call of common sense and humane practices. Instead, the parole board has continued to deny release to elders, citing over and over, for example, the nature of the original offense committed 43 years ago by a man who is now 64 years old—and whose prison record is pristine, family connections solid, and state-administered risk assessment score as good as it gets.

When more than 300 individuals and groups submitted statements to the board recommending that they begin assessing parole applicants based on the risk they pose to public safety rather than on the nature of the crime for which they were convicted, the board said, “No.”

That sums up New York’s intransigence compared to California’s forward-looking approach. Sad.

We urge New York State to begin showing greater leniency to the sick, the elderly, and those who have demonstrated their readiness to re-enter society. We urge Governor Cuomo to follow Governor Brown’s lead, and to assert leadership in this crisis. Although overall numbers of people imprisoned in New York State have been declining in the last ten years, the population of those over fifty is skyrocketing. So, too, are financial costs to taxpayers and personal costs to imprisoned people and their families.

Surely there is no need to wait for an even more serious overcrowding crisis in order to take sensible and humane action. If California can release more people without compromising public safety, why can’t New York?

[To see the comments community groups made about the parole board regulations, go to the Correctional Association of NY web site here]

ACT NOW! Sign our petition to release aging people in prison. Follow us on Twitter @RAPPCampaign

October 1, 2014

The Crisis

The number of aging people in New York State prisons is skyrocketing, confining thousands of seniors to cruel and degrading conditions, wasting financial and human resources, and doing nothing to enhance public safety.

• The number of incarcerated people ages 50+ in New York has increased 98% from 2000 to 2016, even as the total number of people locked up has fallen about 27% during the same period. Today, more than 17% of incarcerated men and 15% of incarcerated women in the New York prison system are over 50 years of age. Those percentages continue to rise every year.

This is an unnecessary crisis. Many of these elders could—and should—be released. New York routinely denies parole and compassionate release to elders behind bars, even though they pose no risk to public safety and are fully prepared to successfully re-enter and contribute to society.

• The recidivism rate (rate at which released people return to prison) of people who have served long sentences for serious felonies is 1.3%—lower than any other category of those released. And many of these elders can make meaningful contributions not only to their families, but to the entire New York community. Already throughout New York, many creative and vigorous efforts on prison reform are led by formerly incarcerated people.

RAPP is mobilizing advocates, formerly and currently incarcerated people and their families, and concerned citizens to demand that New York release incarcerated elders who have served considerable time and pose no threat to public safety. Our coalition meets the first Wednesday of every month. See our events page for details, and join us!

SIGN our petition to release aging people in prison • Follow RAPP on Twitter: @RAPPCampaign

September 30, 2014

The New York Times & RAPP Agree: Release Elders

The editorial board of The New York Times has been listening to RAPP and other community representatives. Here is the Times editorial that appeared in the paper on Monday morning, September 29, 2014:

The Opinion Pages | EDITORIAL

Nursing Homes Behind Bars

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD SEPT. 28, 2014

After declining for three years in a row, the nation’s stubbornly huge prison population has crept back up again. About 1,574,700 people were in prison at the end of 2013, up 4,300 from 2012. (While the federal population actually dropped for the first time in more than 30 years, it was offset by a larger increase in state prisoners.)

There are many ways to get this number back down, and in the process create a smarter, safer and more cost-effective penal system. One of the most long-known and sensible fixes, however, has proved in practice to be one of the hardest to employ: releasing older prisoners.

Thanks largely to harsh and rigid sentencing laws, aging inmates — defined as starting anywhere from 50 to 65, depending on the state — make up the largest and fastest-growing segment of the American prison population. Between 1995 and 2010, the number of inmates older than 55 nearly quadrupled; they are expected to account for a third of all prisoners by 2030.

Letting them out early makes sense for two reasons. First, they are far and away the most expensive inmates to house, costing at least twice as much as younger inmates, $16 billion per year over all. This is because the elderly have more significant medical needs — from broken bodies to failing minds — and because prisons are not designed to be old-age homes.

Just as important, older inmates are by far the least likely to reoffend. While close to half of younger inmates end up back in prison after release, only 7 percent of those older than 50 do, and only 4 percent of those over 65.

So why aren’t more elderly prisoners released? Under a pure cost-benefit analysis, it would seem to be an easy call. But decades-long sentences are not handed out simply to protect the public; they also represent retribution for serious crimes. This is often the biggest hurdle to early release for older inmates, many of whom are in for murder.

It doesn’t matter if the inmate has demonstrated excellent behavior for years; parole boards, which are made up of skittish political appointees who often have only minutes to consider each application, do not want to face the backlash that can come from letting a convicted murderer go free.

For the same reason, governors and presidents who have the unfettered power to grant clemency rarely do so. And while 36 states have enacted “compassionate release” laws, meant to provide a last touch of mercy to inmates with terminal illnesses or other severe medical problems, the laws are rarely used, according to a recent report by the Osborne Association, a prison-reform group.

It is no surprise that a nation addicted to imprisonment is quickly approaching a crisis of elderly inmates. Some states are finding ways to meet the special needs of these prisoners, and in 2013 the Justice Department made it slightly easier for certain inmates to seek compassionate release.

As the United States increasingly comes to terms with the staggering financial and moral costs of mass incarceration, it is time to reconsider whether it is worth keeping hundreds of thousands of people behind bars well into old age.

March 20, 2014

September Must Be Release Aging People in Prison Month

In the first half of September, 2014, aging people in prison—and the challenges they face winning release and reintegrating into their communities on the streets—provoked a flurry of articles. Here are some (check our press page for more):

September 12: “What’s Wrong With This Picture? Elderly People in NY’s Prisons,” by Peter Wagner: Prison Policy Initiative

September 12: “Begging Cuomo for Clemency,” editorial: The Bedford/Pound Ridge Record Review

September 16: “Mohaman Koti, 87-Year-Old Prison Inmate, Granted Parole After 36 Years,” by Albert Samaha: The Village Voice

September 17: “Even Model Inmates Face Steep Barriers to Parole,” by Bill Hughes: City Limits

September 18: “You’re Old & Finally Out of Prison. What Happens Now?” by Victoria Law: the Gothamist

AND our own Release Aging People in Prison/RAPP Interviews: A Preliminary Report, by Ariane Davisson: RAPP

What might the rest of the year bring? We hope: more releases of aging people in prison, to start undermining mass incarceration and its foundations of permanent punishment, racism and revenge.

Take action now: Sign our petition to release aging people in prison.

January 23, 2014

Parole Board Ignores Community, Refuses to See the Light

Undoing months of organizing efforts took less than three minutes for New York State’s Parole Board. At their April 21, 2014 meeting, the Board dismissed more than 300 public comments urging the use of objective and consistent criteria in release decisions.

After the board posted their draft regulations governing parole criteria in December 2013, a large number of formerly and currently incarcerated people wrote letters commenting on the regs, as did families, lawmakers, civil rights organizations, and other concerned groups and individuals. The overwhelming majority of comments asserted that the Board’s draft regulations were inadequate to address the core problem: parole decisions currently function more as second (or multiple) trials than as assessments of an individual’s readiness for release. Because the board bases its decisions largely on the “nature of the original offense” committed by an applicant, the community argued for the regulations to be amended to shift the focus to risk-assessment and rehabilitation. This would allow the board to release people—especially elders—who pose no risk to public safety and for whom longer incarceration serves no rational purpose and simply wastes community resources. We also insisted that the Board provide specific guidelines as to why an applicant was denied and what they could to do improve their chances of parole.

The Parole Board’s response to countless pages of passionate and analytical comments? Dead silence—and then a show of hands unanimously affirming their own regulations and procedures.

Recently, the case of Stokes v. Stanfordchallenged these insubstantial regulations. The Appeals Court ordered a new parole hearing for petitioner Robert Stokes, ruling that the Board failed to show evidence that they had considered anything but the nature of the crime in their decision to deny parole. The case exposes what we already know to be true: there is an alarming disconnect between Parole Commissioners’ decisions and the evidence presented to them of individuals’ low-risk status and readiness for release. Stokes may represent a legal victory, but until the Board is put in check with clear regulations, it will continue to use the vague language of its regulations to deny release in most cases and continue a culture of permanent punishment.

The Parole Board may be relying on silence to maintain the status quo, but we will only raise our voices louder to show that we want change! The community will make our voices heard – by people on the streets, in the subways, at community board meetings, on campuses, and across the world on the internet. We hope you will join us in our efforts to build a mass movement so big that Parole Commissioners will have no choice but to listen and respond.

Join us: Sign the petition to release our elders. Attend our monthly coalition meetings. Together we can end perpetual punishment, build respect for human rights, and heal our communities.

Police Union Blocks Justice in Parole and Community

If California Can Do It, Why Can’t We?

The Crisis

The New York Times & RAPP Agree: Release Elders

The Opinion Pages | EDITORIAL

Nursing Homes Behind Bars

September Must Be Release Aging People in Prison Month

Parole Board Ignores Community, Refuses to See the Light

Attend our monthly meetings!

See Us on Social Media

CONTACT US

Blog Posts