December 9, 2019

End death by incarceration & advance parole justice—Join us on April 21

RSVP HERE to be part of a powerful movement to end the cruelty of permanent punishment.

• Photos: Walter Hergt • Here’s how it looked last time we gathered in Albany (on January 14, 2020) demanding that our elected officials end death by incarceration and advance parole justice. RAPP, the Parole Preparation Project and hundreds of others from across New York State mounted a Day of Action to pass Elder Parole (S.2144) and Fair and Timely Parole Act (S.497A). We marched, rallied, and met with dozens of New York State elected officials. Go to our Press page to read what the media had to say about the rally and the issues.

NOW WE’RE GOING BACK TWICE AS STRONG, and we need you to RSVP here to join us on April 21

WHY: New York State has the eighth highest rate of people serving a life sentence in the country—roughly 9,200 people. More than 1,000 of them are serving Life Without Parole or virtual life without parole—with a minimum sentence of 50 years—sentences. 75 percent are People of Color.

Long and life sentences combined with few opportunities for release have created a crisis of aging, sickness and death in New York State prisons. There are now more than 10,000 people in NYS prisons—20% of the prison population—aged 50 or older; most are Black and Latinx. While the prison population in NYS fell by 27% between 2000 and 2016, the number of incarcerated older people more than doubled. Older people, especially those who have been convicted of the most serious crimes, pose little if any risk to public safety. In fact, when released, many formerly incarcerated older people engage in work that enhances public safety and community health.

To begin to scale back long and life sentences in New York State, promote the release of long-serving incarcerated older people, and reunite families and communities, New Yorkers across the state are pushing for two pending legislative initiatives:

Fair & Timely Parole (S.497A): A bill that would change the parole release process in New York State ensure that people are evaluated for release based on who they are today and not their crime of conviction.
Elder Parole (S.2144): A bill that would allow people aged 55 or older who have served 15 or more years in prison a chance at release, regardless of their sentence or crime of conviction.

Both these bills made some progress in the 2019 state legislative session, but never made it to the floor for a vote. That’s why we need to be up in Albany at the beginning of the new 2020 legislative session. Come with us to keep fighting for justice on April 21—and be part of the solution. RSVP HERE

MORE: Read more here about these bills and why we need them.

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 21, 2018

Parolees Deserve Justice: Stop Villifying Formerly Incarcerated People to Get Votes

by Nora Carroll and Dave George, Albany Times Union, October 20, 2018:

State Sen. Patrick Gallivan recently chaired “public” hearings on New York State Parole Board policies and procedures, and on Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s executive order that makes people on parole eligible to vote in this year’s elections.

Gallivan, R-Elma, and many of his Republican colleagues contend the governor’s restoration of voting rights is unconstitutional and endangers public safety, and that the Board of Parole has granted parole release to increasing numbers of “high risk” people.

These contentions are not only false, but also a clearly partisan attempt to incite race-based close to the mid-term elections.

Republicans’ objections to people on parole voting offer another example of their desire to limit rather than expand the fundamental core of democratic participation. They also promote a long-legacy of racism that vilifies currently and formerly incarcerated people for the purposes of inciting racist fear among voters.

The remote possibility (because there have been no reported incidents) of a newly-enfranchised parolee committing some crime at a polling place like a school is nothing but a dog whistle. It’s a desperate Willie Horton-esque move by Republican leaders to generate race-based fear before an important election.

It’s undeniable that proportionately more black people and people of color, especially black men, are in prison. This overrepresentation in the criminal legal system is precisely why issues like clemency, felony enfranchisement, and parole justice are racial justice issues, and why trying to disempower people on parole from participating in electoral politics is plainly racist.

The other imaginary menace postulated by many Senate Republicans is the Parole Board’s release of people they deem dangerous or irredeemable. Their hearings purported to examine the standards the Board of Parole uses and whether they are complying with them, as though the Board of Parole has suddenly unlocked the gates and released everyone who appears before them. This is hardly the case. The truth is, while the board’s release rates have incrementally ticked upward over the last year, the majority of parole applicants are still denied parole. That most people appealing for their freedom continue to be denied it for years and decades is the real injustice that Senate Republicans and all New Yorkers should focus on. But that’s unlikely, because for Gallivan and his colleagues these hearings were never about the well-being of New Yorkers or public safety.

The real beef that Republican Senators have is not with the executive branch or the Board of Parole, it’s with their own legislative branch. The people who are interviewed by the Board of Parole are those who were sentenced by judges to parole-eligible sentences. It is the Legislature that determines the sentences for all criminal offenses, not the Parole Board. Therefore, when Gallivan and others opine that someone convicted of murdering a police officer should never be released from prison, they are effectively telling the Parole Board to defy the very laws that they, the Legislature, created. It would be unlawful for the Board of Parole to decline to review someone’s case just because of their crime.

This comes with great irony given that Gallivan’s career as a sheriff, Parole Board commissioner and now legislator has supposedly been about upholding, enforcing and literally making the law.

Further, the “no parole for cop killers” philosophy is troubling when subjected to the most minimal scrutiny. It suggests a greater value should be placed on the lives of law enforcement officers than the rest of us. It denies the reality of redemption and rehabilitation that is so apparent to most people who have even the most minimal experience with prison populations, whether as a convicted person or service provider, attorney, chaplain or prison volunteer. It rejects scientific evidence-based approaches to reducing epic levels of incarceration by releasing those who post the lowest risk: older people convicted of violent crimes. Finally, and perhaps most troubling, this philosophy centers and celebrates the retributive, punitive function of the criminal legal system by embracing life-without-parole sentences, also known as “death by incarceration.”

The motivations of Gallivan and other Senate Republicans are clear in our current political context. With the dissolution of the Independent Democratic Conference and the and recent electoral defeat of six former IDC senators, Republicans are on the verge of losing control of the Senate. Their response is to attempt to drum up and animate the white part of their base that is fearful of those they do not know or understand: black and brown people and the formerly incarcerated.

White voters shouldn’t take the bait and let Republicans succeed, let alone get away with this age-old political strategy. What should be exposed are the injustices facing people in prison and their families. Republican Senators should hear loud and clear that New Yorkers want and demand parole justice, not race-baiting politics.

Nora Carroll is co-director of the Parole Preparation Project. Dave George is associate director of the Release Aging People in Prison Campaign.

NEW: Tell us about what your friend or family member has experienced facing the parole board. RAPP and Parole Preparation Project now have an online form and will be gathering these stories.

Support RAPP’s work: Donate to our online fundraiser

Check our events page for ways to get involved

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

January 11, 2018

Governor Cuomo Proposes “Geriatric Parole.” RAPP Responds.

The Release Aging People in Prison/RAPP Campaign believes that Governor Cuomo’s calls to reform New York’s criminal legal system are only a baby step in the right direction. While we acknowledge his proposal to expand medical parole for incarcerated older people with debilitating health conditions (his “geriatric parole” bill), his proposal has serious flaws. Medical parole is a rarely used, limited, and at times exclusionary program that has led far too many people who pose no risk to public safety to die in prison of illnesses that could otherwise be adequately and safely cared for in the community. The governor’s bill still excludes whole groups of incarcerated people only because of the crime for which they were convicted. While we hope that the governor’s proposal promotes the release of more older people, including those with chronic, hard-to-manage conditions, and is a catalyst for the expanded use of medical parole for all eligible people, it must be amended if it is to be truly effective—and just.

In addition, the governor’s proposal only affects sick people. While some incarcerated older people are sick, many others aren’t. Their wellness should not limit opportunities for release. Older people should not have to become ill in order to be considered worthy of returning home. People should be able to come home before they’re stricken with a debilitating illness. As the crisis of older people in prison continues to worsen and the population of older people has reached an all-time high of 10,337 people—more than 20 percent of the entire state prison population—much more is needed to end the mass incarceration of older people in New York.

RAPP believes that the Parole Board should presumptively release all parole-eligible older people, unless there is clear evidence that they pose a current risk to public safety. If the Parole Board is unwilling to do this on their own, then the governor and legislature should legislate this change. That is why we support and urge the legislature to pass Assembly Bill A7546, which would ensure that people who pose little if any risk to public safety be released on parole.

We also believe that older people who are not parole-eligible, serving prison terms that amount to death sentences, should be given a “second look”—an opportunity for parole consideration. Such sentences were draconian and flawed to begin with, and pose no benefits to public safety.So we urge the passage of an assembly bill that would give people who are 55 or older and have served at least 15 years a shot at parole.

RAPP’s priorities require political will from the governor and all branches of state government across the political spectrum. We hope that he listens to the statewide community of formerly incarcerated leaders, families, and concerned New Yorkers who seek peace and justice. Taking meaningful and expanded action to release older people in prison will prevent death, despair, aging, and illness behind bars, and under Governor Cuomo’s leadership, make New York a true leader in the struggle to end mass incarceration.

Cover photo by RAPP member Dan Rous

Join us to push for release of older people from New York prisons—a big step towards ending mass incarceration. See RAPPCampaign.com/about and RAPPCampaign.com/events for ways to get with us. Follow us on Twitter: @RAPPCampaign

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.

February 12, 2016

3 Steps To Parole Justice in New York

Shock waves continue to spread from the August suicide of John MacKenzie in his 40^th year behind bars and following his 10^th parole denial. At the August meeting of the New York State Board of Parole, the chairperson read an angry letter blaming the Board for John’s death.

Fueled by our grief for John’s death, we must now push forward and make a change. It is time to get the Board to release our elders, our family members, the thousands of people in New York prisons who have served well beyond their minimum terms, who pose no threat to public safety, but who remain in the tombs of our state because the Board denies their parole applications every two years.

Those denials, after all, are what killed John.

Urgent, Right Now: Comment on New Parole Board Regulations

Reacting to years of pressure from the public, the NYS Board of Parole has published new draft regulations to guide release decisions. The new version is designed to correct a major fault in the current regs, which ignore a 2011 law directing the Board to base decisions on risk and needs assessments—evidence-based tools that help predict a person’s future actions.

Some of the proposed changes to the regulations may provide greater protections to parole applicants. Specifically, the proposed changes require commissioners to consider risk assessment scores, as well as age (for people who were under 18 at the time of the crime and face a life sentence), with more purpose and intention than is current practice. In the same spirit, the new regulations also require that in their denials, commissioners must give “factually-individualized” reasons for their conclusions.

But the proposed regulations do not fundamentally change the structure or methods of the Parole Board. The rules are not explicit and clear in making sure that the Board assesses applicants based on their current risk, rehabilitation, and readiness for release. As such, the regulations could result in a continuation of the Board’s current practice: refusing to release people from prison even when they pose a low risk of endangering public safety and are undeniably suitable for release. THIS sample comment, which you can use in submitting your own, explains this more fully.

The Board needs to hear from us—incarcerated people, family members, community organizations and individuals who care about justice and want to see the prison population decrease.

Click here for instructions on submitting comments.
Click here for suggested points to include.
Click here to read the Parole Board’s draft regulations.

Read comments filed by:
RAPP
Center for Appellate Litigation
NYC Council Member Daniel Dromm, 25th District Queens
National Lawyers Guild New York City Chapter
Community Service Society
New York State Bar Association Committee on Civil Rights
Quinnipiac University School of Law
Christopher Seeds, Attorney at Law
Milk Not Jails
Kathy Manley , Attorney at Law
Brooklyn Defender Services
Legal Aid Society and Prisoners’ Rights Project
Correctional Association of New York
Brooke Taylor
Claude Marks/Freedom Archives
Daniel McGowan
Glenn Martin/Just Leadership USA (JLUSA)
Prince Shabazz
Michael Gauthier
Ryan Barbur
NahShon Jackson
Jeffrey Bernstein
José Garcia
John Curry
Rise & Shine Community Services, Inc.
Mark Dixon
Donnell Deberry
Roslyn Smith
George Hill
Robert Rose
Issa Kohler-Hausmann, PhD, JD; Avery Gilbert, JD; Christopher Seeds, JD
Richard Hontoria
Annette Ross
Kevin Mays
The Osborne Association/Elizabeth Gaynes
Dwight James
Adrian Lopez
Alberto Rivera
Moira Meltzer Cohen, Esq.
New York State Prisoner Justice Network
Aaron Talley
Alejo Rodriguez
Richard Robles
Nancy Jacot Bell
Prison Action Network
Elysa Vulpis-Zoccoli
April Ruiz
Aretta White
Blair Meyer
Parole Justice Committee of Capital Area Against Mass Incarceration
Brittany Blizzard
Cale Layton
Charles Bowman
Christine Lolisco
Chuck Culhane
Craig Stallone
Dawn Savarese
Connie Tusa
DeAnna Dawson
Center for Community Alternatives
CURE-NY/Deborah Bozydaj, President
Damaris Reina-Herbas
Donna M. Accettulli
Elaine Arsenault
Erobos Lamashtu
Felice Gelman
Duane Dimick
Roberto Pascal
Ben Al-Dijali
Andras Turcsan
Allen Moore
Jesse Shannon
Donovan Sampson
Errol Prince
Phillip Yates
Marvin Everett
Eddie Williams
Anthony Morgan
JoAnne Palmer
Ivy Yapelli
Joan Calcaterra
Joan Potter
Kerry Gant
Laura Rawls
Laurie Storm
James Morgan
Lisa Drapkin
Lisa Melendez
Liseli Haines
M.C. Wise
Luke Patterson
Nakayima Fennelly
Mike Cintron
Patricia Lydon
Patricia Seals
Patricia Thomas
Robin Love
Robin Schnell
Sarah Mills
Shannon Rodriguez
Shea Settimi
Sylvia Bernard
Sister Honora Kinney
Timothy Bustle
Gail Patrick
Misha Volf
Sandra Giles
Audrey Hawkins
Norm Allen
Karen Flynn
Steven Mangual
Susan Hass
Suzzette Miller
Thomas Answeeney
Rosalind Robinson
Linda King
Anne Lamb
Walter D
Jessaya Duvall
Tiffany Alexander
Sheila Bush-Robinson
Crystal Alexander
Johnny Cole
Diane Alexander
Janice Sutton
Lisa Alexander
Leida Rodriguez
Susan Putland
Mary Frances Burek and Pat Case
Lenwood Jackson
Philip Fernandez
Robert Rose III
Peter King
Luzcelenia Lamont
Lawrence Dotson
Robin Alpern
Sharyn Kerrigan
Bonnie Shoultz
Ashley Habermann
David Darshan
Pamela Darshan
Naveena Darshan
Richard Kuhn, Criminon
Diane Miller
Gladys Gonzalez
Mildred Gonzalez
Scott Paltrowitz
Lee Wengraf
James Edler
Evelyn Kennenwood
Vicki Fox
Edith Allen
Julia Long
Elizabeth Halloran
Theresa Kardos
Matthew Swagler
Jenise Britt
Lindsey Ricci
Julie Greenwood
Lauren Katzman
David McNamara
Wil Van Natta
Yusuf Ahmad
Michelle Spark
Victor Pate
Gerard Deighan
Kaylee Knowles
Valerie Linet
Leah Gitter
Rhys Mateo Klauser
Nicholas Scott
R’Keyah Klauser
Robert Klauser
Marcella Klauser
Tyrell Hodge
Donna Hodge
Monique Fernandez
Lorenzo Brooks
Bear Bonebakker
Jenny Romaine
Rima Fand
Rosy Galvan
Joanne Walsh
Lisa Ellin
Tracie Threatt
Karmen Cheng
Eugene Griffin
Robert Roth
Steve Garrett
Debbie Griffin
Eva Boodman
Mujahid Farid
Robert Watt
Emily Kaufman
Shoshana Brown
Sandra DePillo
Autumn Leo

These materials are suggestions—undoubtedly it is those most affected by parole who are the experts in its reform. However, we believe there is great power in sending a unified and consistent message. We can demand that the Parole Board create clear regulations to begin doing what Parole Boards should: release people for whom further incarceration serves no purpose—neither protecting public safety nor advancing personal growth and rehabilitation. With your help, we can work toward parole reform and help reunite people with their families and communities.

Comments can take the form of a letter, or even just a list. We encourage you to include your own personal stories of how you or your loved ones have been impacted by current parole policy, as well as criticisms of the current proposed regulations.

2: Remove Obstacle: Recalcitrant Commissioners

Improving the regulations would be an important step forward. But there is another obstacle to justice: some parole commissioners have shown themselves to be dead set against following any such changes. They deny parole release over and over, thumbing their noses at the law. There is no reason to believe that these commissioners will respect the new regulations any more than they have respected the 2011 law.

The Board’s practice will never improve with such commissioners in office. Therefore, we urge Governor Cuomo, who appoints the Board, to remove these commissioners now or refuse to reappoint them when their terms expire. Among the most recalcitrant Commissioners are G. Kevin Ludlow, Lisa Beth Elovich, Walter William Smith, and James B. Ferguson (all appointed by former Governor Pataki). Governor Cuomo, who is the ultimate authority for the Board, must tell them and all commissioners: Either follow the law or find another job.

Join the Fight for New Laws for Parole Justice

Two bills now before the New York State Legislature—the Safe and Fair Evaluation (SAFE) Parole Act (S.1728/A.2930), and Assembly Bill A,9960—would correct basic problems with New York’s parole practices. The Assembly bill (A.9960), for example, says:

…risk and needs assessments shall comprise presumptive evidence of the inmate’s risk of re-offense. Should the board choose to override such risk and needs assessments in deciding whether or not an inmate will iive and remain at liberty without violating the law, its decision must provide a detailed, individualized and nonconclusory statement as to its reasons for departing from the risk and needs assessment findings which shall be subject to judicial review. Such override decisions shall not be based solely on information relating to the instant offense and/or the pre-sentencing report for such offense.

Join RAPP, Parole Justice New York, and many other groups (more than 100 so far) in urging your representatives to pass these laws.

(Photo on homepage by Victoria Law)