Parole Law

In the matter of Maye v. Russi NY Div. Of Parole, the Court held that the Parole Board decision must comply with the guidelines of Executive Law Section 259-i, including appellant’s institutional record, program goals and accomplishments, academic achievements, vocational education, training or work assignments, therapy and interpersonal relationships with staff and inmates, temporary release programs, release plans, including community resources, employment, education and training and support services available to the inmate. These considerations encompass all factors that must be considered in deciding whether to grant or deny parole. The Court also held that a parole hearing cannot be predetermined.

In the case of Ausin v. Ward, Supreme Court, Dutchess County 1976, the Court recognized together with Federal Courts that the aim of correctional institutions is to aid prisoners in their effort to rehabilitate themselves and hopefully return to society as useful citizens. Judge Fred Dickenson, in the case People ex rel. Charlton v. Oligiatti, Supreme Court, Dutchess County 1976, recognized that an inmate may not be denied parole release on the basis of his prior criminal record without an opinion as to the progress towards rehabilitation made by him during incarceration. The U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S.78, 88-90, 97 S.Ct. 274, held that an inmate’s institutional record is one of the "most significant factors" in predicting an inmate’s ability to assume his place in society.

Executive Law Section 259-i (1) requires that the inmate be informed in writing the reasons for denial of parole which shall be in detail and not in conclusory terms.

The law in New York State clearly is that "Inmates denied parole be given a meaningful statement of reasons supporting the denial." See Soleri v. Vincent, 46 AD 2d 453 (2nd Dept., 1975); People ex rel. Bermudez v. Kuhlmann, 386 NYS 2nd 772 (Dutchess Co. 1976); Watkins v. Caldwell, 54 AD 2d 42 (4th Dept., 1976).

Top Ten "not-so-frivolous" Lawsuits

1. Prison guards routinely sexually assault female prisoners. One officer sexually fondles a prisoner who is receiving medical care in the infirmary, forces her to perform oral sex, then rapes her. Forced sodomy of women prisoners by guards found. Another officer forces a prisoner to perform oral sex while she empties trash as part of a work detail. Pregnant prisoners are shackled to beds. Miscarrying prisoner is required to miscarry on steel bed without mattress. No heat in cells. Retaliation against women prisoners who complained. See Women Prisoners v District of Columbia, DC (1994), post trial order.
2. Several suicidal children are transferred to the state mental hospital where they are placed, naked or in paper gowns, in four-point restraints, hands and feet bound to the four corners of their beds,and then forcibly injected with psychotropic drugs as part of "aversive therapy." See Robert K v Bell, SC (1984), consent decree.
3. Prisoners restrained in handcuffs and shackles have their heads bashed into walls and floors by prison guards, their bodies repeatedly kicked and hit with batons, their teeth knocked out, their jaws fractured, their limbs broken and their bodies burned with scalding water. Prisoners placed naked in telephone booth-sized cages for prolonged periods regardless of weather. See Madrid v Gomez, CA (1995), post trial order.
4. Two youthful prisoners placed in a "hot box" by prison warden for refusing to answer questions. They both died. See Howard v Fortneberry, LA (1984), pretrial order.
5. Prisoners raped repeatedly. Contraband including drugs and pornographic movies were introduced into prison by guards. Prisoner-on-prisoner assaults routinely ignored by prison officials. Extortion of prisoners and their families by guards found. Upwards of five prisoners placed in two-man cell for extended periods. Homosexual prostitution known and allowed by prison officials. See Larca v Turner, FL (1987).
6. Dozens of women prisoners, some as young as 16, are forced to have sex with prison guards, maintenance workers, and a prison chaplain. Many become pregnant and are forced to have abortions by prison officials. See Cason v Seckinger, GA (1994), consent decree.
7. Prison officials ignore warnings by the Commissioner of Health and fail to implement basic tuberculosis detection and control procedures. Over 400 prisoners are infected in a single prison. See Austin v Dept. of Corrections, PA (1992). post hearing order.
8. A 17 year old boy, jailed or failing to pay $73 in traffic fines, is tortured for 14 hours and finally murdered in his cell by other prisoners without interference by jail officials. Another teenage prisoner had been beaten unconscious by the same prisoners several days earlier and this was known to jail officials. See Yellen v Ada County, ID (1985), consent decree.
9. Prison staff engage in sexual relations with female prisoners and allow male prisoners to enter the prison to engage in forcible intercourse with the women prisoners. See Hamilton v Morial, LA (1995), consent decree.
10. Confined youth are routinely beaten by facility staff; staff trafficking in illegal drugs and sex, sexual relations between staff and confined youth commonplace. See D.B. v Commonwealth, PA (1993), consent decree.

Let your voice be heard. See the Action Page

To return to the Homepage, click: