parole board

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, 2019

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

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 8^th 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

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

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.

September 6, 2016

False Hope and a Needless Death Behind Bars (NY Times Editorial)

New York Times, The Opinion Pages
September 6, 2016
By Jesse Wegman, Editorial Observer

On July 26, John MacKenzie went before the parole board at the Fishkill Correctional Facility in Beacon, N.Y., and made the case, once again, for his freedom. He had been locked up since 1975 for shooting and killing a Long Island police officer, Matthew Giglio, during a bungled robbery attempt. His sentence was 25 years to life — the maximum under state law.

On Aug. 2, he learned that the board had voted 2 to 1 against him. It was the 10th time in 16 years that he had been denied parole.

Later that day, he sent a handwritten letter to his daughter Denise, saying that “they’re hell bent on keeping me in prison” and “I don’t believe I’ll last much longer.”

On Aug. 4, another inmate found Mr. MacKenzie hanging by the neck from a bedsheet tied to the window bars of his cell. He was 70.

John MacKenzie was no ordinary prisoner. In the more than 40 years he spent behind bars, he became one of the most respected inmates in the state’s penal system. He had a spotless disciplinary record. He took full responsibility for the murder of Mr. Giglio. He earned degrees in business and the arts. He started a program to give victims the opportunity to speak directly to inmates about the impact of their crimes. The state’s own risk-assessment program found that he posed little to no risk of re-offending. Prison guards, judges, clergy members and prosecutors wrote letters supporting him.

None of this seemed to matter to the parole board. Because of the seriousness of his crime, one denial said, his release would “undermine respect for the law.” Another referred to “significant community opposition.” The wording would vary, but the message was always the same: Mr. MacKenzie’s sentence, which appeared to give him a real chance at freedom after 25 years, was a sham. No matter what he did to atone for his crime, he was never getting out.

Some see this as a just result, particularly law enforcement groups, which steadfastly opposed Mr. MacKenzie’s release. But New York criminal law provides for the possibility of parole, which is based on the idea that people can change.

Under state law, the parole board is required to weigh a prisoner’s entire history: his degree of remorse, his behavior behind bars and the likelihood that he will be able to live lawfully outside prison. Those factors never got more than a cursory mention, at best, when the board denied Mr. MacKenzie’s requests. In May, a State Supreme Court justice, Maria Rosa, held the board in contempt for failing to give any reason for denying Mr. MacKenzie parole other than the nature of his crime. Justice Rosa wrote that “if parole isn’t granted to this petitioner, when and under what circumstances would it be granted?” She ordered the board to hold a new hearing, with different board members. The state appealed that order. The case was still pending when Mr. MacKenzie killed himself.

Certainly crime victims and police officers should have a voice in the parole process, but they should not have a veto. Otherwise, parole is a meaningless promise.

Some years ago, Mr. MacKenzie wrote an essay about the frustrations of living at the whim of parole commissioners. “If society wishes to rehabilitate as well as punish wrongdoers through imprisonment,” he wrote, then “society — through its lawmakers — must bear the responsibility of tempering justice with mercy. Giving a man legitimate hope is a laudable goal; giving him false hope is utterly inhuman.”

A version of this editorial appears in print on September 6, 2016, on page A20 of the New York edition with the headline: False Hope and a Needless Death Behind Bars.

For more on John MacKenzie, see RAPPCampaign.com/press

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)

January 23, 2014

Parole Board Ignores Community, Refuses to See the Light

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Missing Piece to End Mass Incarceration in New York

A Former Parole Commissioner on Aging & Changing

False Hope and a Needless Death Behind Bars (NY Times Editorial)

A version of this editorial appears in print on September 6, 2016, on page A20 of the New York edition with the headline: False Hope and a Needless Death Behind Bars.

3 Steps To Parole Justice in New York

Parole Board Ignores Community, Refuses to See the Light

Attend our monthly meetings!

See Us on Social Media

CONTACT US

Blog Posts