NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION submitted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(f)
BILL NUMBER: A2930
SPONSOR: Aubry (MS) TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the executive law, in relation to
modifying the procedure for interviews of parole applicants and to the
disclosure of parole applicant records
PURPOSE: To modernize the procedures required of the parole hearing
process.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS: Section One of the bill makes a number of
changes to subdivision 2 of section 259- I:
- codifies the existing practice of scheduling parole board hearings at
least three months prior to an earliest release date;
- requires parole board hearings take place in person;
- requires videotaping of parole board hearings;
- provides inmate with copies of inmate records with appropriate redac-
tion in order to allow inmate to address any errors contained in such
inmate's file;
- provides victims.with copies of inmate status report, psychiatric
evaluation and any release plans submitted by the parole applicant in
order to expand their understanding of the offender's current threat to
their safety;
- requires statement of denial to specify reasons for denials and what
corrective actions the board requires;
- requires DOCCS to provide any such required programs to a parole
applicant;
- provides for a rehearing prior to the set rehearing date where a
required program has been completed in the interim;
- Provides for the release of inmates who meet release criteria, and the
denial of inmates who do not' meet release criteria until he or she
satisfies the stipulations of the parole board.
- Broadens a crime victim's representative to include any member of the
family or domestic partner of such crime victim.
Section Two requires the Parole Board to determine whether there is or
is not reasonable cause to believe that the release of the parole appli-
cant would create a present danger to the victim or the victim's repre-
sentative using specified criteria to arrive at such determination.
Where the parole applicant has participated in a restorative justice-
type program with the victim or victim representatives, such program
shall be considered among the criteria.
JUSTIFICATION: Under current law, the Parole Board appears to deny an
inmate release simply due to the nature of his or her crime. The courts
have found that the statute does not specify how the release criteria
must be considered, how an inmate should be evaluated, what weight, if
any, should be given each of the criteria required, nor that the board
is required to enumerate the criteria it did consider or explain how it
arrived at its decision. Thus, no matter how successful an inmate has
been in his or her rehabilitation and educational programs, this loop-
hole has permitted the denial of parole to such inmates otherwise eligi-
ble for release. This is evinced by the 50 reduction in the release rate
of such offenders since 1996, without a characteristic change in the
nature of such inmates or any revision in legislative authorization.
In order to ensure that the purpose of the indeterminate sentencing
scheme and its corollary release to parole supervision is not dimin-
ished, this bill proposes to modernize and revitalize the board of
parole by providing specific criteria for consideration and improving
the procedures utilized in the parole hearing process.
HISTORY: Indeterminate sentencing was authorized by the legislature
in 1876 and is still the majority of sentencing imposed today. Founded
upon the principle that people can and do change, the department of
corrections is staffed and funded to effectuate such change with the
largest operating budget in the state to provide the programs, treatment
and guidance necessary to rehabilitate persons committed to its custody.
This is reflected in the department's mission statement to "enhance
public safety by providing appropriate treatment services, in safe and
secure facilities, that address the needs of all inmates so they can
return to their communities better prepared to lead successful and
crime-free lives."
The department fulfills its function during the inmate's minimum period
of imprisonment at which time the board of parole commences its function
to assess whether or not such change has in fact occurred by such time.
Evaluating an inmate's rehabilitation and readiness for reentry is the
board of parole's purpose. If the inmate has changed in such regard, the
inmate should be released. If not, the inmate should be denied release
until he or she satisfies the stipulations of the parole board. Whenever
released, the inmate remains under parole supervision until the maximum
period of the indeterminate sentence has been reached, revoking parole
at any time if necessary. Simply put, this is the purpose of the inde-
terminate sentencing scheme and its corollary discretionary release by
the board of parole.
In the mid 1990's fundamental fairness and truth in sentencing were
hailed to be the hallmarks of democracy in sentencing justifying the
enactment of determinate sentencing for most violent offenders under the
name Jenna's Law. It was unforeseen and not intended that these same
hallmarks would be quietly subtracted from those who remain subject to
indeterminate sentencing, which seems to have been the side effect in
light of the 50% reduction in parole board releases for similar offen-
ders since that time. Some might claim that it is a fair use of the
board of parole to retrospectively lengthen the punitive phase of an
indeterminate sentence imposed upon certain offenders; however, this is
not the purpose of the board of parole nor should it be.
This bill instead proposes to modernize and revitalize the parole board
by providing specific criteria and procedural requirements to determine
whether or not an inmate is rehabilitated and safe to release. This,
since 1920 when the board of parole was created, is the purpose of
parole board hearings. While it is highly unlikely that all inmates are
safe to release, it is equally unlikely that the approximately 75%
conditional release rate granted determinately sentenced violent offen-
ders is reflective of an inmate who is more rehabilitated or safer to
release than the current 9% initial release rate of their indeterminate-
ly sentenced counterparts by the board of parole.
This bill restores fundamental fairness and truth in sentencing for all
inmates, for victims, for the courts, for society and for the legisla-
ture. It is the legislature's responsibility to provide direction, a
clear framework, reason and equity in the process utilized by the board
of parole to evaluate inmates' rehabilitation and readiness for release.
It is the board of parole's responsibility to apply it.
This bill would enhance the Parole Board's ability to operate with
greater consistency, accountability and transparency in performing this
function by providing greater specificity and requirements in the proce-
dures used thus modernizing and revitalizing board of parole.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: A.7939 referred to correction in 2011 and 2012.
A.4108 was referred to correction in 2013 and 2014.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: To be determined.
LOCAL FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This act shall take effect on the one hundred eight-
ieth day after it shall have become law; provided that the amendments to
paragraph (a) of subdivision 2 of section 259-1 of the executive law
made by section one of this act shall be subject to the expiration and
reversion of such paragraph as provided by section 74 of chapter 3 of
the laws of 1995, as amended, where upon such date the provisions of
section two of this act shall take effect.
