|
1. Read, Take
Pieces, & Edit the following Message:
(or write your own)
NYS Division of Parole statistics show that the release rate has decreased
markedly over the past decade. (e.g. The first appearance approval rate
dropped from 66% in 1992 to 53% in 2001). The drop has been even more severe for
long-termers convicted of a long-ago violent crime. The result is longer,
expensive incarceration, - longer than necessary, given the rehabilitation
record and the ability of many incarcerated persons to live within the law.
I urge your support of reform of the
NYS Parole Policies and Practice as follows:
-
Ensure that parole decisions fully comply with Executive Law Section 259-i,
including consideration of the institutional record, program goals and
accomplishments, academic achievements, vocational education, training or
work assignments, therapy, and interpersonal relationships with staff and
other incarcerated persons.
Require written explanations, in some detail, of
the reasons for Parole Board decisions.
-
Develop and use a comprehensive risk assessment tool to help determine the
risk factor of the incarcerated person, considering all the components above.
-
Establish clear statutory standards, creating, in most cases, a presumption
of parole at the judicially imposed minimum, unless specified post
sentencing factors exist.
-
Establish, in each County, a Community Parole Advisory Council to develop
and encourage use of specific community-based programs that allow the
community to be directly involved in preparing and re-acclimating the
parolee to the community.
-
Restore the Division of Parole’s latitude in the merit termination of parole
after full risk assessment and years of successful reintegration by
parolees.
-
Provide a gradual lifting of sanctions
for people who are on parole, - that is, down grading in supervision from
intense to minimum following the meeting of milestones that indicate
"success" on parole or "successful transition."
-
Ensure that the Parole Board has an appropriate diversity of experience and
background , and is
thus representative of the communities from which the majority of
incarcerated persons come, and to which they will return.
-
Strengthen the appeal process, giving further weight and
consequence to the verdict of a judge of article 78
In support of the above, consider the truth of
nine expert criminologists published in "Unlocking America," JFA Institute,
Nov. 2007, www.jfa-associates.com :
Length of
incarceration? Three facts: a) many prisoners are now serving
longer prison terms; b) the longer prison terms are not
proportionate to the severity of the crime they were convicted of;
and c) the extension of their length of incarceration has no major
impact on their recidivism rate, or crime rates in general.
For the same crimes,
U.S. prisoners receive sentences twice as long as English prisoners,
three times as long as Canadian prisoners, four times as long as
Dutch prisoners, five times as long as Swedish prisoners and five to
ten times as long as French prisoners. Yet these countries’ rates of
violent crime are lower than ours, and their rates of property crime
are comparable.
e.g. The rate of
re-arrest (for any reason) for state prisoners released in 1994 was
essentially constant (62%-66%) regardless of time served (6 months
to 60 months) and was somewhat less (54%) for those serving 61
months or more.
Career criminals?
Of the total arrests in 1994-97, only 5% were the total arrests
of prisoners released in 1994-97, and only 1% were the total arrests
of released prisoners for violent crimes.
Just 1.2 % of those
who served time for homicide and were released in 1994 were
re-arrested for a new homicide within three years of release; and
just 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape. Sex
offenders were less likely than non-sex-offenders to be re-arrested
for any offense. Their rates of re-arrest for a new sex offense were
only 5.3%.
Parole policy?
There is little evidence that lengthy parole terms decrease crime or
recidivism; there is no evidence that incarcerating people for
non-compliance with the terms of parole prevents more serious crime.
Justice Kennedy, in his recent speech before the American Bar
Association, directed attention to the "remarkable scale" of incarceration in
the United States, compared to other industrialized countries, the high
proportion of African-American males incarcerated, and the high expenditures for
prisons. He noted "Our resources are misspent, our punishments too severe, our
sentence too long."
Savings.
For every 1% drop in the parole-release rate, at least
300 extra incarcerated persons will be maintained in the system at a
cost of about $ 9 million dollars per year retained. Most who are denied
parole are hit with another two years, and this often can happen
repeatedly. Hence, a release rate drop of 10% means that the costs of
that extra retention would build up to over $180 million per year. These
are obtainable savings from a fairer parole board process.
Children & families. Unnecessarily extended prison terms
means that tens of thousands of NYS children further miss the daily love, instruction, and guidance
of a parent who is in a NYS prison, and their development as full citizens is
further jeopardized.
Children of incarcerated
persons are at risk, and have a higher probability of emotional distress,
failure in school, and conflict with the law.
Counteracting this exposure, earlier restoration of family unity can
reduce the probabilities of later youth-breakdowns, drug use, crime and incarceration costs.
The Commission on Sentencing Reform report dated October 15, 2007
states:
"The Commission believes that great strides can be made in the area of
public safety by utilizing evidence-based practices when assessing and
making decisions affecting offenders in
order to reduce recidivism. Stated
simply, an "evidence-based" practice is one that is measurable and
repeatedly has been shown, through high-quality research, to reduce
offender recidivism. At the heart of evidence-based practices is
the adoption of a validated "risk and needs" assessment
instrument which can assist
sentencing judges -- as well as prison, probation and parole
authorities -- to more accurately estimate the actual risk posed by an
offender, identify personal deficits
that have contributed to the offender's past criminality and target
those deficits most likely to lead to further criminal behavior.”
"Parole should use the instrument to help
determine, to the extent indeterminate sentencing is continued, which offenders
are appropriate for release into the community and which continue to pose a
significant threat to public safety. Parole and probation officials also should
use it to help determine the type and intensity of offender programming, as well
as the level of supervision that should be provided for any given offender while
on parole or probation. Because "dynamic" factors routinely change, the
instrument can be used to decrease or increase the level of supervision based
upon offender progress or regress. Based on the foregoing, the Commission
strongly recommends that the State adopt and utilize a validated risk and needs
instrument throughout the criminal justice system."
|
2. Send Your Email
or Postal Message
to some
of the following:
DCJS Director Denise O'Donnell
infoDCJS@dcjs.state.ny.us
DOCS Commissioner Brian Fischer ..
bsfischer@docs.state.ny.us
Parole Director George Alexander ...
galexander@parole.state.ny.us
Parole Exec. Director Felix Rosa ...
frosa@parole.state.ny.us
Senate: Crime Victims,
Crime & Corrections Comm.
Michael Nozzolio,
nozzolio@senate.state.ny.us
Dale Volker
volker@senate.state.ny.us
James Wright
wright@senate.state.ny.us
George Maziarz
maziarz@senate.state.ny.us
Eric Adams
eadams@senate.state.ny.us
Carl Kruger
kruger@senate.state.ny.us
V. Montgomery
montgome@senate.state.ny.us
Senate Codes Committee
Dean Skelos
skelos@senate.state.ny.us
Stephen Saland
saland@senate.state.ny.us
Serphin Maltese
maltese@senate.state.ny.us
John DeFrancisco
jdefranc@senate.state.ny.us
Eric Schneiderman
schneide@senate.state.ny.us
Thomas Duane
duane@senate.state.ny.us
John Sampson
sampson@senate.state.ny.us
Assembly Corrections Committee
Jeffrion Aubry
aubryj@assembly.state.ny.us
Harvey Weisenberg weisenh@assembly.state.ny.us
Keith Wright
wrightk@assembly.state.ny.us
Feliz Ortiz
ortizf@assembly.state.ny.us
Tom O'Mara
omarat@assembly.state.ny.us
Assembly Codes Committee
Joseph Lentol
lentolj@assembly.state.ny.us
Robin Schimminger
schimmr@assembly.state.ny.us
Mark Weprin
weprinm@assembly.state.ny.us
James Brennan
brennaj@assembly.state.ny.us
David Townsend
townsed@assembly.state.ny.us
|