older people in prison

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

August 23, 2017

A Former Parole Commissioner on Aging & Changing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 2, 2017

More Compassion Needed

Medical parole, along with other release mechanisms, should be used more widely to reduce the population of older people in the New York’s prisons, said New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli in a report in April 2017. Now Congress is saying something similar to the federal Bureau of Prisons:

Congress Wants to Know Why the BOP Won’t Let Elderly Prisoners Go Home to Die

“Compassionate release” is an excellent tool that the BOP refuses to use.

(From the “Hit and Run” blog on reason.com)

Mike Riggs

July 28, 2017

For years, federal prisoners and their advocates have begged the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to shorten the sentences of elderly and terminally ill offenders using a provision called “compassionate release.”

With the stroke of a pen, the BOP has the power to release men like Bruce Harrison, sentenced in 1994 to 50 years for delivering cocaine and marijuana at the behest of undercover federal agents. Now 65, Harrison suffers from a heart condition and has neuropathy in his feet that makes it difficult to walk. His official release date? 2037.

Then there are prisoners like Michael Hodge, who was sentenced in 2000 to 20 years for distributing marijuana while in possession of a firearm. Hodge developed pancreatic cancer while in prison and requested to be released so he could die in the company of family. That request was denied, and Hodge died behind bars in 2015, according to the Washington Post.

In 2013, the DOJ Office of Inspector General encouraged the BOP to send these kinds of prisoners home. Two years later, the office released a report that found “aging inmates engage in fewer misconduct incidents while incarcerated and have a lower rate of re-arrest once released.” In 2016, the U.S. Sentencing Commission went so far as to expand eligibility for the program in hopes the BOP would use it more.

But the BOP has largely ignored those recommendations. Yesterday, Congress demanded that the BOP explain why it continues to incarcerate geriatric and terminally ill prisoners who pose no threat to public safety and are unlikely to commit new crimes upon their release.

In a report accompanying the 2018 appropriations bill, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) ordered the BOP to turn over reams of data about the compassionate release program. Including:

the steps BOP has taken to implement the suggestions of the BOP Office of Inspector General and the U.S. Sentencing Commission
a detailed explanation as to which recommendations the BOP has not adopted, and why
the number of prisoners who applied for compassionate release in the last five years, as well as how many requests were granted, how many were denied, and why
how much time elapsed between each request and a decision from the BOP
the number of prisoners who died while waiting for the BOP to rule on their application for compassionate release

Only 10 percent of America’s prisoners are in federal prisons, but it is an increasingly old and sick population due to the disproportionately long sentences tied to federal drug offenses. As of June 2017, BOP facilities held 34,769 prisoners over the age of 51. More than 10,000 of those prisoners are over the age of 60.

Elderly prisoners pose financial and human rights problems.

“In fiscal year 2014, the BOP spent $1.1 billion on inmate medical care, an increase of almost 30 percent in 5 years,” BOP Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz wrote in prepared testimony to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. “One factor that has significantly contributed to the increase in medical costs is the sustained growth of an aging inmate population.” In its 2015 report, the DOJ OIG determined that facilities with the oldest populations spent $10,114 annually on medical care per prisoner, compared to $1,916 per prisoner in facilities with the youngest populations.

“It is difficult to climb to the upper bunk, walk up stairs, wait outside for pills, take showers in facilities without bars and even hear the commands to stand up for count or sit down when you’re told,” Human Rights Watch’s Jamie Fellner told the Washington Post. “Prisons simply are not physically designed to accommodate the infirmities that come with age.”

Shelby’s letter gives the BOP 60 days from the passage of the appropriations bill to submit its data to the committee.

“Elderly and sick prisoners cost taxpayers the most and threaten us the least, and there’s no good reason they should stay locked up or die behind bars because bureaucrats can’t or won’t let them go home to their families,” Kevin Ring, president of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, said in a statement. “It’s time for someone to get to the bottom of why the BOP’s answer is always no on compassionate release.”

This reporter worked for FAMM from 2013-2015

The Missing Piece to End Mass Incarceration in New York

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

A Former Parole Commissioner on Aging & Changing

More Compassion Needed

Attend our monthly meetings!

See Us on Social Media

CONTACT US

Blog Posts