RAPP Campaign

You are here: Home / Archives for New York State Parole Board

Article Highlights Parole Injustices: Why We Need Change

Share

In their December 2, 2019 issue, The New Yorker magazine published “Prepping for Parole,” a 10,000-word article by Jennifer Gonnerman exposing some of the devastating problems with the New York State Parole Board. While we, the Parole Preparation Project, and so many others have pushed the Board to release more people from prison in recent years, they still continue to deny freedom to thousands of New Yorkers in prison and their families, and communities across New York State.

The article featured the incredible work our partners at Parole Prep do with currently incarcerated people serving parole-eligible life sentences. It also featured RAPP Director, Jose Saldana, RAPP co-founder Kathy Boudin, and the devastating story of Richard Lloyd Dennis, a currently incarcerated elder who the Parole Board has denied release to 13 times.


Richard Lloyd Dennis, currently incarcerated elder New Yorker. Photo courtesy of the New Yorker Magazine

“In May 2018, Dennis had been imprisoned longer than all but nine other men in New York State. If he had been convicted of killing anyone but a police officer, he likely would have been set free. Dennis appeared before the parole board for the thirteenth time on August 27th, 2019. Two days later, [Dennis’s Parole Preparation Project volunteer received the news], ‘He was denied.'”
This article helps tell the world what so many incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people and their loved ones have known for years: That the Parole Board still promotes a system of vengeance and punishment that fails to acknowledge peoples’ transformations behind bars. It’s another reminder of how urgent it is that New York State end life imprisonment and promote parole justice.  It’s another reminder of why we need the legislature to pass Fair and Timely Parole (S.497A). It’s another reason why we need you to join us for two events to fight for parole justice:  Tuesday, November 26, 12:30 pm, Foley Square – Rally to reunite families, promote parole justice, and bring hope for the holidays
Share

One Year After Mujahid Farid’s Death, We Call for Fair & Timely Parole Act

Share

One year ago today, the world lost a leader in the movement to end mass incarceration. Mujahid Farid died on November 20, 2018, at 69 years old, surrounded by his RAPP and Parole Preparation Project family in his apartment in the Bronx. Farid was a Co-Founder and former Director of RAPP and a trailblazer in the struggle to release older people from prison and end life imprisonment. He was our friend, family member, comrade, and so often our inspiration for doing this work. While we celebrate Farid’s life and continue to mourn over his death, we are also motivated by his personal struggle with long-term incarceration and his broader efforts to get others free as we continue our work for transformative reforms to the parole release process in New York State.

 Release Aging People in Prison Campaign & Parole Preparation Project
Call for Fair & Timely Parole Act on One Year Anniversary of Mujahid Farid’s Death 

 Despite appearing before the Parole Board for the first time after receiving four college degrees, founding lifesaving in-prison programs, and having an overall prison record that exemplified transformation, the Board denied Farid parole release nine times over the course of 18 years. Instead of being released in his early-mid forties, Farid was finally released in his 60s after serving 33 years behind bars. In his short 7 years of life after his release, Farid and New Yorkers across the state helped make significant changes that led to more parole releases and reunited families. However, despite these significant gains, the very same issues that Farid faced before the Parole Board persist today.

Thousands of people in New York State prisons continue to languish behind bars years and decades beyond their minimum sentences. The Parole Board continues to deny parole to people who have transformed their lives and who could instantly become community leaders if only they had a chance at freedom. Everyday, people in New York State prisons are growing older, sick, and dying. This injustice must end once and for all. To that end, we call on the New York State legislature to pass the Fair & Timely Parole Act (S.497A/A.4346A) in the 2020 legislative session.

Fair & Timely Parole would ensure that the parole release process is New York State is based on who people are today, as opposed to just the nature of their crime of conviction. It provides for a fairer and more forward looking assessment of peoples’ current suitability for release and removes harmful language from state executive law that effectively allows the Parole Board to re-sentence people. We call on lawmakers in Albany to support and pass this bill as soon as they return to Albany on January 8th as one of many ways to honor Farid’s legacy and promote justice in New York State.

Please join us on January 14th, 2020, to rally for passage of this bill and to honor Farid’s legacy.

Photo of Mujahid Farid by Michelle Lewin

Share

NYS Parole Board report shows justice still unfulfilled

Share

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

Share

The Missing Piece to End Mass Incarceration in New York

Share

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

Share

A New Chapter in Parole for New York State?

Share

An Amsterdam News article, “Exposing the New York State Parole Board,” has an encouraging ending
(see two UPDATES at end of article)

The Amsterdam News, June 8, 2017
by The Northeast Political Prisoner Coalition

(See updates at end of article)

Over the past several years, there has been a great deal of examination and public outcry about mass incarceration and its damaging impact on poor and working-class Black/Brown families and communities. What hasn’t had as much outcry or examination is the covert murkiness, impunity and absolute authority in which the New York State Parole Board and its recalcitrant commissioners operate as judge, jury and executioner over the lives of thousands of incarcerated individuals and their families.

The New York State Parole Board should, by law, comprise 19 commissioners, all appointed by the governor. The current Board has only 12 commissioners. The absence of the other seven has created a backlog and resulted in parole appearances that consist of a 10-minute video conference before a three-person panel. Three of the current commissioners are holdovers from the George Pataki administration, a Republican whose policy agenda favored locking people up for life.

For an incarcerated man or woman to be parole eligible, the individual must undergo a “risk and needs assessment” performance test. This test is a readiness instrument that measures who they are today, their prison record, educational, psychological and sociological accomplishments, and what, if any, risk the individual poses for committing a new crime if released. When applied justly and appropriately, the risk and needs assessment offers an incarcerated individual a fair shot at release. The practice, however, is anything but. Instead, parole commissioners routinely and perniciously ignore the risk and needs assessment findings, and rubber stamp the denial of 80 percent of those who appear based on the “nature of the crime” and a bias that their release “would so deprecate the law.”

Over the past approximately two decades, these repeated parole denials have caused a 98 percent increase in the number of people over the age of 50 incarcerated in the NYS prison system. These are people who have been in prison for 25 or more years, and who according to the state’s own research, are the least likely to engage in recidivism. They are persistently denied parole by a Board that continues to re-sentence them 10, 15 and, in some cases, 24 years past the sentence imposed on them by the judge. More often than not, a parole denial comes with a “two-year hit,” which means they cannot appear again for another two years. New legislation, already approved in the Senate, is now being proposed to extend the two-year hit to a five-year hit. Readers can object to such an extension by calling their elected representatives in the New York State Assembly.

For thousands of husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, grandmothers and grandfathers, aunties and uncles, sisters and brothers across this state, these encounters with the parole board turn an otherwise hopeful experience, full of the possibility of healing and renewal, into one of perpetual abuse, disappointment, separation, hopelessness, punishment and state violence.

How do we heal this trauma, violence and devastation inflicted on these families and communities by the mass incarceration and perpetual parole denial of their loved ones? We start by applying community and political pressure on Governor Cuomo to appoint commissioners who are educators, faith-based community leaders and social workers with an interest in reinvesting, rebuilding and rehabilitating the communities incarcerated people will return home to, and not the current practice of appointing current and former law enforcement (i.e., police officers, prosecutors or judges) personnel whose intent is to keep people in prison for life. We ask readers to petition Governor Cuomo not to reappoint commissioners James Ferguson, Kevin Ludlow, William Smith, Otis Cruse or Julie Smith. All of them have consistently demonstrated their refusal to follow the law and a blatant disregard for the communities in need of their loved ones return.

UPDATE #1

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

  • Of the five Commissioners whose terms expired this year only two were reappointed: Otis Cruse and William Smith. While we celebrate the fact that only two Commissioners were reappointed, it is unacceptable that the Governor and Senate re-appointed William Smith. Appointed by Gov Pataki, Smith has been on the Board for over 20 years and has a record of humiliating people and denying release to those who have served decades in prison, transformed their lives, and pose little or no risk to society.
  • Three Commissioners were NOT reappointed: Ferguson, Ludlow and Julie Smith. Ferguson and Ludlow were both Pataki appointees, and all three frequently disregarded the humanity of people in prison and violated the law.
  • Additionally, Parole Commissioner Lisa Elovich resigned from the Board, despite the fact that her term does not expire until 2019. Elovich was also a Pataki-era appointee. We believe as a result of your advocacy efforts and continued calls to the Governor’s office and legislature, she felt pressure to leave the Board. Now, only one Pataki-era appointee will remain on the Board by the end of the year.
  • Six new Parole Commissioners were appointed for the first time: Caryne Demosthenes, Carol Shapiro, Tana Agostini, Erik Berliner, Tyece Drake, and Charles Davis. While only time will tell whether these new appointees perform their duties correctly and justly, many of them more closely reflect the identities and experiences of people in prison, and come from a broader range of professional backgrounds.

OTHER VICTORIES

We defeated Lorraine’s Law (A2350A) in the Assembly (after it had passed the Senate as S2997-A): As many of you know, a devastating bill that increased the time between Parole Board hearings from 2 years to up to 5 years for people convicted of the most serious crimes had a lot of support in the legislature. However, as a result of your efforts, it was narrowly defeated.

Most importantly, we profoundly shaped the confirmation process of new Commissioners, exposed the many injustices and cronyism inherent in the process, educated our legislators about the impact of parole on our loved ones, and for the first time, garnered serious opposition on the Senate floor. In an unprecedented moment, Senators on the Crime Victims, Crime and Correction Committee that confirms the appointments, voiced strong opposition to the reappointment of William Smith. The opposition continued onto the larger Senate floor, where Senators dissented and 19 people ultimately voted NO on Smith’s reappointment! Although not enough to defeat his reappointment, such a public rejection of a long-standing Commissioner suggests a new and dramatic shift in parole policy. For example, watch this short video of Senator Gustavo Rivera’s speech to the Senate on the purpose and practice of parole.

UPDATE #2

On September 27, 2017, the new Board of Parole regulations became available. While still far from what justice and good governance demand, these regulations do categorize risk and needs assessments as a “guiding principle” for release decisions, rather than as one on a list of “factors” to be considered.

Along with the newly appointed commissioners, the new regs could allow more incarcerated people to win release on parole, as their records and achievements mandate. BUT: It will take continuing pressure from the community to ensure that the new regs and the new commissioners are not just window dressing to make a cruel, unforgiving, and unjust parole system look less ugly.

 

UPDATE #3

On March 13, 2018, a widely respected elder, Herman Bell, was granted parole, having met all the criteria for release according to his sentence.  The parole commissioners recognized his progress after serving nearly 45 years in prison and granted his parole application.  He is looking forward to being reunited with his family and friends.  We welcome him home.

On March 19, 2018, responding to a solid week of attacks on the decision—and on Mr. Bell himself—by the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association and other law enforcement organizations, the New York Times wrote this editorial in favor of Mr. Bell’s release:

Don’t Let Parole Become a Meaningless Concept
by the New York Times Editorial Board

Some felt Herman Bell deserved execution or at least a prison sentence of life without parole, but in mid-1970s New York those weren’t options. No question, Mr. Bell’s crime was a despicable assault on society itself. In 1971, with fellow Black Liberation Army radicals, he ambushed two police officers in Harlem, repeatedly and fatally shooting them as part of a war they had declared on the United States.

Rather than being condemned to prison forever, Mr. Bell got 25 years to life. Now, at 70, and after more than 44 years behind bars, he has been granted parole by a New York State board, which found he had expressed “regret and remorse.” Long in coming though the statement was, he is said to have told board members this month: “There was nothing political about the act, as much as I thought at the time. It was murder and horribly wrong.” In mid-April, he could be freed from his maximum-security prison in the Hudson Valley.

Despite angry reactions from law enforcement groups and others, the process worked as it should if parole is to amount to more than an empty word. Our prisons call themselves “correctional facilities.” The New York board found that Mr. Bell had indeed been corrected, based on a solid disciplinary record, a “sturdy network of supporters” and a likelihood of his now leading a “law-abiding life.” To lock him up forever even though deemed a changed man is to make a mockery of his sentence: “25 years to life” is not supposed to be cynical code for “life.”

Parole is understandably fraught in cases of slain police officers. Emotions run high, as does posturing by the politically powerful. In New York, a notable example involves two women who were part of a leftist band that killed two police officers and a guard during a bungled robbery of a Brink’s armored car in 1981.

Though plainly guilty of involvement in the crime, neither of the women, Kathy Boudin and Judith Clark, fired a shot. They both went on to become model prisoners who expressed remorse for their actions. Ms. Boudin was paroled in 2003. But the road to freedom has been rockier for Ms. Clark, denied parole once again last year despite having had her sentence commuted by Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

The Bell case is a reminder of how brutal New York could be in the early 1970s, an era of supercharged racial and political hostilities. Mr. Bell’s victims, Waverly Jones and Joseph Piagentini, were among 12 police officers in the city shot to death in 1971. In contrast, it has taken the past 13 years to record 12 officer deaths. (The New York City police, too, are now far more restrained, fatally shooting eight criminal suspects in a typical year, compared with the 1971 toll of 93.)

Officer Piagentini’s widow, Diane, remains implacably opposed to freeing Mr. Bell. The parole board’s decision, she said, “devalues the life of my brave husband” and “betrayed the trust” of police families. But relatives of Officer Jones have been more forgiving. In a 2014 interviewwith The Daily News, Waverly Jones Jr. said, “This man has been in prison for over 30 years and hasn’t gotten into so much as an argument.” To continue to lock him up, Mr. Jones said, “would only be for revenge.”

He’s right. And vengeance is not supposed to guide a system of justice.

 

Take Action to Help Keep Advancing Parole Justice

Come to our meetings and get involved: Email us to learn more about joining our campaign and attending meetings in your area.

Attend a meeting of Challenging Incarceration. To find out when and where, email nyrappcampaign@gmail.com.

  • Capitol Region: CAAMI (Capital Area Against Mass Incarceration) has a Parole Watch team who attend every public Parole Board meeting. CAAMI’s work also extends far beyond parole. Email nycaami@gmail.com for more info.

THANK YOU!

Again, we want to thank you all for your powerful and persistent efforts these past few weeks. We are entering a new moment in the movement for parole justice. We have the attention of our legislators and Governor and we have each other!

Share

Social Workers Should Be Appointed to the Parole Board

Share

By Shazzia Hines, LMSW and RAPP Organizer

• In December 2016, a front-page article in The New York Times said, “The New York State Board of Parole often operates like an assembly line, with inmates given mere minutes to make a case for their freedom. It is an impersonal process: Commissioners see dozens of cases a day, and most hearings are conducted via video conference. Decisions are frequently boilerplate and can sometimes seem arbitrary.”

To help remedy this problem, the parole board may want to consider hiring New York State Licensed Master’s Social Workers as parole commissioners. I believe that social workers are the most qualified professionals to take up a role that requires parole board members to conduct fair and comprehensive assessments to determine whether an incarcerated person is prepared to be released with conditions including community supervision. If I were an incarcerated person going for a parole hearing, I would only pray that the people reviewing my case were ethically responsible to value the dignity and worth of human beings as a basic professional guideline and code of conduct. Social workers are such people.

That New York Times article (“For Blacks Facing Parole, Signs of A Broken System”) makes it clear that the current parole board members are overpaid, under-qualified, and culturally incompetent. According to The Times, “Board members are mainly from upstate, earn more than $100,000 annually and hold their positions for years. They tend to have backgrounds in law enforcement rather than rehabilitation. Most are white; there is currently only one black man, and there are no Latino men.”

Contrast this with the Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers, which states, under the section on the dignity and worth of human beings: “Social workers treat each person in a caring and respectful fashion, mindful of individual differences and cultural and ethnic diversity. Social workers promote clients’ socially responsible self-determination. Social workers seek to enhance clients’ capacity and opportunity to change and to address their own needs. Social workers are cognizant of their dual responsibility to clients and to the broader society. They seek to resolve conflicts between clients’ interests and the broader society’s interests in a socially responsible manner consistent with the values, ethical principles, and ethical standards of the profession.”

By the time they attend a parole hearing, most of our incarcerated elderly have long since rehabilitated themselves by taking college courses and creating programs demonstrating positive leadership. The fact that these elderly incarcerated women and men are consistently denied release on parole shows that the parole board lacks humility and competence. It exemplifies the board’s professional inability to adequately and comprehensively assess a person’s readiness for parole.

The parole board should function in a way that reflects those principles of social work—to look at a person as an individual, honoring their capacity to change and determining whether to release them based on who they are now and what they can offer to society. Parole boards should also act in the interest of society as a whole, meaning they should promote fairness and healing over revenge and hatred.

I conclude with a call to action for Governor Andrew Cuomo to appoint licensed masters level professional social workers, as five of the current parole commissioners’ terms are due to expire this year.

Share

3 Steps To Parole Justice in New York

Share

Shock waves continue to spread from the August suicide of John MacKenzie in his 40th year behind bars and following his 10th 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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)

Share

“The Nature of the Crime”—A Poor Reason To Keep Elders in Prison

Share

The statewide Parole Justice New York Coalition, with RAPP as a member, has released this new short film, “The Nature of the Crime,” featuring RAPP lead organizer Mujahid Farid, former parole commissioner Ed Hammock, and other experts on the issue.

The film shows how 14 people in New York State control the freedom of tens of thousands of men and women. The 14 people are called the Parole Board and they determine whether people in prison with indefinite sentences (such as 25 years to life) should be released.  Every year 10,000 incarcerated New Yorkers are denied parole. Most of these people are denied repeatedly despite the fact that they pose little if any risk to public safety. For the skyrocketing population over age 50 in the New York prisons—a group that poses the lowest risk of committing a new offense if released—this means a future of illness and death behind bars. For New York as a whole, this means the destruction of our communities and families, and the immense waste of public funds spent keeping people behind bars for no reason. It means a continuation of the culture of revenge and permanent punishment that has filled the prisons in this country and threatens to keep doing so. It means continuing a racist system of “justice” that treats Black people and other people of color as criminals unworthy of a second chance at life.

“The Nature of the Crime” refers to the reason the Parole Board gives when it denies an incarcerated person parole: no matter what you have accomplished in the 20, 30, or 40 years since your conviction, no matter how much support you have in the community, no matter how low a risk you pose of returning to prison or committing a new crime, you cannot be released because of the nature of the crime for which you were convicted, often many years ago. That is something you cannot change. And it is an unreliable measure of whether you are ready to be released. It only means that there is a political gain for the Board to deny you: they can show how “tough on crime” they are.

The film premiered in Albany at the state Capitol in May to pressure the legislature to pass the Safe and Fair Evaluations (SAFE) Parole Act. RAPP is part of a statewide effort to use this film to increase public support for the SAFE Parole Act and for the wisdom and humanity of releasing aging people from the New York prisons.

If the risk is low, let them go. Bring our grandparents, our fathers, our mothers, our loved ones and friends home. Please share the video and the campaign homepage with your friends and family, then join the campaign for justice for New York.

Share

Parole Board Ignores Community, Refuses to See the Light

Share

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.

New York State Parole Board

Share

Attend our monthly meetings!

First Weds. of each month.
6:00-8:15 pm
See our events page for location
• Pizza, soda and meeting
• For more information: nyRAPPcampaign@gmail.com

See Us on Social Media

CONTACT US

RAPP, 168 Canal St., 6th Fl., NY NY 10013; 631-885-3565; nyrappcampaign.com

Blog Posts