The March edition of Building Bridges has been issued by the Prison Action Network.
*** This edition of Building Bridges is dedicated to the memory of Jerry Balone, who died unexpectedly in his sleep on March 13. ***
Prison Action Network's brief summary is given below. Please see Building Bridges for full details, ways to help and get involved.
1. An apology repository exists but who knows how to find it? Do you?
2. Legislation reports: the Senate Committee on Crime Victims, Crime and Correction, with Senator Patrick Gallivan as Chair, met on Wednesday March 13, to consider 11 bills. A video recording of their meeting is given here.
3. The call to end extreme isolation as a punishment is attracting more attention every day.
4. Parole news includes December 2012 statistics, 2012 summary pt.2, an update on the Thwaites case, and changes to the leadership of DOCCS and the Parole Board.
The Thwaites decision was avoided: the issue is moot. In 2011, Orange County Supreme Court Justice Lawrence Ecker ruled in the case of Douglas Thwaites that the revision of Executive Law 259 (c) not only required the parole board to put more weight on the rehabilitation of the inmate rather than the instant offense, but he also applied the revision retroactively. The Attorney General's Office urged the Appellate Division, Second Department, to overturn the ruling. Mr. Thwaites was released before the issue was decided and not for the first time, a challenge to parole's functioning was declared moot and thereby avoided. (From CURE-NY's Winter 2013 Newsletter.)
Changes in the leadership of DOCCS and the Parole Board:
DOCCS Commissioner Brian Fischer is retiring at the end of April.
Andrea Evans announced at a Public Safety Hearing that February 6 2013 was her last day as Chair of the Parole Board, but did not clarify whether she would be staying on as a Board Member. The Prison Action Network has heard that she will continue to serve in her role as Chair until replaced by the Governor.
5. Adolescent minds are not receiving the guidance needed, says Corey Parks of SNUG.
6. Appropriate prison programming may be a reality to Fischer, but not to some intended recipients, who explain.
7. Work for Success takes its show on the road, but where does the rubber meet the road?
8. RECONNECT offers job training to women recently released from prison.
9. Job Fair invites formerly incarcerated people to explore opportunities for a second chance.
10. Prison poetry project features former participants and a panel to demonstrate the value of art in rehabilitation.
11. Veterans' Memorial Day weekend retreat and symposium will combine rest and relaxation with efforts to provide better services for incarcerated veterans.
12. Please see Reentry Resource Center: New York's calendar for details of other meetings and events.
13. Black history and culture film series every Thursday in Albany, NY.
14. Knitting supplies are needed at Woodbourne Correctional Facility.
Showing posts with label Douglas Thwaites. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Douglas Thwaites. Show all posts
March 15, 2013
December 16, 2012
Building Bridges - December 2012 edition
The December edition of Building Bridges has been issued by the Prison Action Network.
Their brief summary is given below. Please see Building Bridges for full details:
1. Bring Back the Buses - DOCCS free bus service was created to support rehabilitation by strengthening family ties.
2. Calendar of Events - for family members and anyone else who wants to get involved in changing the criminal justice system.
3. "Central Park 5" documentary, now showing at commercial theaters, exposes the corruption that poisons our criminal justice system.
4. Corey's column describes his struggle to succeed in the face of incomplete freedom.
5. Educational and vocational programs were the topic at a hearing with the NYS Assembly's Corrections Committee where Glenn Martin shared the testimony of Fortune Society clients.
6. Fortune in My Eyes describes how the Fortune Society was conceived in the theater.
7. Getting out and staying out. Parole Board obstacles, community obstacles, and how to help overcome them.
8. A conversation about the impact of political imprisonment and mass imprisonment on our families and our communities presented by the Sedou Odinga Defense Committee.
9. Job openings that don't discriminate against people with criminal records.
10. NYS Parole Reform Campaign. Let’s pass the SAFE Parole Act this year! It will take all of us working very hard. Will you help? Send us your pledge.
11. Parole News - October releases, updates on recent Judicial and Parole Board hearings and a report on the Amicus Brief filed by five past Parole Commissioners, in which they accuse the Parole Board of caving to outside pressure.
Douglas Thwaites was released in October, on his second appearance before the Parole Board, for deportation. On December 21, 2011, the court granted his Article 78 against the Parole Board. In his decision, Hon. Lawrence H. Ecker, J.S.C. accused the Board of employing past-focused rhetoric, not future-focused risk assessment analysis, thus failing to sustain a rational determination on the inquiry at hand: whether there is a reasonable probability that, if such inmate is released, he will live and remain at liberty without violating the law. The court found the Board's decision denying parole to be arbitrary and capricious, irrational, and improper and annulled the Board's determination, vacated the denial, and directed the board to, within 30 days *, hold a new hearing with a different panel of the Board. (*The Board did not comply with the 30 day time limit, and waited until October to give Mr. Thwaites another interview.)
12. Reentry Roundtable's 7th anniversary - join them for lunch and a talk on the importance of effective reentry services, by Rob Carmona.
13. Senate Shenanigans. No... let's upgrade that to Senate Insanity. Or a trip down the Rabbit hole. This year's NYS legislative practices are anyone's guess. We pray it may be a brand new day that restores justice, but it doesn't look promising.
14. In Our Name will be presenting a Veteran's Conference in May, focusing on the needs of homeless, substance abusing, and incarcerated veterans. Ed Tick, of Soldier's Heart, will join with other cutting edge professionals to talk about some effective interventions for PTSD.
Their brief summary is given below. Please see Building Bridges for full details:
1. Bring Back the Buses - DOCCS free bus service was created to support rehabilitation by strengthening family ties.
2. Calendar of Events - for family members and anyone else who wants to get involved in changing the criminal justice system.
3. "Central Park 5" documentary, now showing at commercial theaters, exposes the corruption that poisons our criminal justice system.
4. Corey's column describes his struggle to succeed in the face of incomplete freedom.
5. Educational and vocational programs were the topic at a hearing with the NYS Assembly's Corrections Committee where Glenn Martin shared the testimony of Fortune Society clients.
6. Fortune in My Eyes describes how the Fortune Society was conceived in the theater.
7. Getting out and staying out. Parole Board obstacles, community obstacles, and how to help overcome them.
8. A conversation about the impact of political imprisonment and mass imprisonment on our families and our communities presented by the Sedou Odinga Defense Committee.
9. Job openings that don't discriminate against people with criminal records.
10. NYS Parole Reform Campaign. Let’s pass the SAFE Parole Act this year! It will take all of us working very hard. Will you help? Send us your pledge.
11. Parole News - October releases, updates on recent Judicial and Parole Board hearings and a report on the Amicus Brief filed by five past Parole Commissioners, in which they accuse the Parole Board of caving to outside pressure.
Douglas Thwaites was released in October, on his second appearance before the Parole Board, for deportation. On December 21, 2011, the court granted his Article 78 against the Parole Board. In his decision, Hon. Lawrence H. Ecker, J.S.C. accused the Board of employing past-focused rhetoric, not future-focused risk assessment analysis, thus failing to sustain a rational determination on the inquiry at hand: whether there is a reasonable probability that, if such inmate is released, he will live and remain at liberty without violating the law. The court found the Board's decision denying parole to be arbitrary and capricious, irrational, and improper and annulled the Board's determination, vacated the denial, and directed the board to, within 30 days *, hold a new hearing with a different panel of the Board. (*The Board did not comply with the 30 day time limit, and waited until October to give Mr. Thwaites another interview.)
12. Reentry Roundtable's 7th anniversary - join them for lunch and a talk on the importance of effective reentry services, by Rob Carmona.
13. Senate Shenanigans. No... let's upgrade that to Senate Insanity. Or a trip down the Rabbit hole. This year's NYS legislative practices are anyone's guess. We pray it may be a brand new day that restores justice, but it doesn't look promising.
14. In Our Name will be presenting a Veteran's Conference in May, focusing on the needs of homeless, substance abusing, and incarcerated veterans. Ed Tick, of Soldier's Heart, will join with other cutting edge professionals to talk about some effective interventions for PTSD.
May 03, 2012
Effect of Risk Assessment Rule on Parole Decisions Is Unclear
Extract from a report by John Caher, reviewing the impact of recent changes in the parole statute:
ALBANY - A new law requiring the state parole board to consider inmates' rehabilitation and use a "risk assessment" procedure to gauge whether parole-eligible inmates have reformed appears to be having little effect as release rates are largely unchanged and the board is routinely basing its denials on boilerplate statutory language emphasizing the offense, records suggest.
In October, the panel was legislatively required to "incorporate risk and needs principles to measure the rehabilitation of persons appearing before the board, the likelihood of success of such persons upon release."
The board did so, but advocates say the new process appears to have no impact.
"My experience has been it doesn't matter because most of the guys are scoring the lowest risk assessment level and they are still hitting them and saying they are a threat to society," said Cheryl Kates, an attorney near Rochester whose practice consists of advocating for inmates seeking parole. "It doesn't make any sense. They've added an evidence-based procedure but still cite the statute the same way they did previously. It is just a façade. It is status quo."
Similarly, Edward Hammock, a former parole board chairman who now practices criminal law, much of it post-conviction, said he has not seen any change.
"It is my impression that nothing is really happening," Hammock said. "Why do a risk assessment if you are not going to deal with it when considering someone for release?"
Part of the problem is that there is uncertainty about why the statute was changed and what the revision was supposed to achieve. It is not clear if the revision represents a sea change in the operations of the parole board, a tweak of one of the existing factors it takes into consideration, or something in between ... ...
For complete report, see:
Effect of Risk Assessment Rule on Parole Decisions Is Unclear, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, April 30 2012)
See also:
Judge Finds Parole Risk Assessment Not Retroactive, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, May 21 2012)
Acting Supreme Court Justice Mark Fandrich wrote: "While the changes may modernize the parole laws, there is no indication that they were intended to correct any past oversight or clarify the law in any way."
Inmate Loses Parole Bid Despite his 'Incredible Prison Record', by John Caher (New York Law Journal, April 24 2012)
Matter of Thwaites v New York State Bd. of Parole 2011 NY Slip Op 21453
Matter of Hamilton v New York State Div. of Parole 2012 NY Slip Op 22112
ALBANY - A new law requiring the state parole board to consider inmates' rehabilitation and use a "risk assessment" procedure to gauge whether parole-eligible inmates have reformed appears to be having little effect as release rates are largely unchanged and the board is routinely basing its denials on boilerplate statutory language emphasizing the offense, records suggest.
In October, the panel was legislatively required to "incorporate risk and needs principles to measure the rehabilitation of persons appearing before the board, the likelihood of success of such persons upon release."
The board did so, but advocates say the new process appears to have no impact.
"My experience has been it doesn't matter because most of the guys are scoring the lowest risk assessment level and they are still hitting them and saying they are a threat to society," said Cheryl Kates, an attorney near Rochester whose practice consists of advocating for inmates seeking parole. "It doesn't make any sense. They've added an evidence-based procedure but still cite the statute the same way they did previously. It is just a façade. It is status quo."
Similarly, Edward Hammock, a former parole board chairman who now practices criminal law, much of it post-conviction, said he has not seen any change.
"It is my impression that nothing is really happening," Hammock said. "Why do a risk assessment if you are not going to deal with it when considering someone for release?"
Part of the problem is that there is uncertainty about why the statute was changed and what the revision was supposed to achieve. It is not clear if the revision represents a sea change in the operations of the parole board, a tweak of one of the existing factors it takes into consideration, or something in between ... ...
For complete report, see:
Effect of Risk Assessment Rule on Parole Decisions Is Unclear, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, April 30 2012)
See also:
Judge Finds Parole Risk Assessment Not Retroactive, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, May 21 2012)
Acting Supreme Court Justice Mark Fandrich wrote: "While the changes may modernize the parole laws, there is no indication that they were intended to correct any past oversight or clarify the law in any way."
Inmate Loses Parole Bid Despite his 'Incredible Prison Record', by John Caher (New York Law Journal, April 24 2012)
Matter of Thwaites v New York State Bd. of Parole 2011 NY Slip Op 21453
Matter of Hamilton v New York State Div. of Parole 2012 NY Slip Op 22112
April 16, 2012
Building Bridges - April 2012 edition
The April edition of Building Bridges has been issued by the Prison Action Network.
Items discussed in the April newsletter include the following, see Building Bridges for full details:
1. The Senate's Crime Committee passed all but one of the mostly - but not only - sex-offender related bills at their meeting on March 20. The legislation considered by the committee is listed in detail.
2. People in prison weigh in on Parole Reform: talking about the moral high ground and the optimism that is felt not just despite, but because of, the escalation of prison abuses. This includes a perceptive item by Ismael Igartua, "The Moral High Ground", responding to the suggestion that facility parole officers have more influence at parole board hearings than previously thought. Igartua is writing in response to this article: State tells parole officers to surrender guns, by Brendan J. Lyons (New York Times, 24 February 2012).
3. Parole releases for February are depressing, but there is a recent favorable court decision in the case of Emmanuel Patterson. In response to requests, the Prison Action Network has reposted biographies of current members of the Parole Board.
Update in the case of Thwaites: Douglas Thwaites filed an Article 78 contesting the Parole Board's denial of his appeal that his parole hearing denial should be overturned: State Supreme Court Judge Ecker ruled in his favor on the Article 78 and stated that at the new hearing Mr. Thwaites needed to be judged by whether there is a reasonable probability that if released, he will live and remain at liberty without violating the law, and not on his past offense. According to the Board's website, his reappearance is scheduled for June 2012. We will be waiting to learn the decision.
In a recent court decision, Emmanuel Patterson received a favorable ruling on his Article 78: Patterson v Cully, Index # 1-2011-4748, Erie County, Michalski, 2012. The court noted the criteria governing release is contained in NYS Executive Law 259 (i)(2)(c)(a). Due to the timing of the case (2010), the court also refers to NYS Executive Law 259 (i)(1)(2)(c) which has now been changed and added to the preceding section.
The court stated the Board cannot solely cite the serious nature of the crime as a reason for denial, IGNORING THE CASE PRECEDENT IN King and Johnson. The court indicated the statement: "criminal behavior being extreme and violent with a total disregard for human life" could be said about any homicide and was not enough to constitute an aggravating circumstance beyond the serious nature of the crime, Patterson (id). The court found this decision "irrational and improper" Patterson (id).
The court concluded "the Parole Board's reliance on the severity of the crime to deny parole not only contravenes the discretionary scheme mandated by statue, but also effectively constitutes an unauthorized resentencing" Patterson (id).
4. Parole reform strategies: talking points that stress the importance of removing "the seriousness of the offense" from the Parole Board's consideration, when discussing effective changes to Parole Board policies. It is an opportune time because we are now at a point when there is concrete evidence of the parole board's lawlessness, arbitrariness and their refusal to follow the mandates of the legislature. In other words, they have demonstrated their bad faith to give fair consideration to parole applicants.
On March 31, 2011 several significant amendments to the Executive Law were signed into law including an amendment to Executive Law § 259-c(4) which requires the parole board to:
Establish written procedures for its use in making parole decisions as required by law. Such written procedures shall incorporate risk and needs principles to measure the rehabilitation of persons appearing before the board, the likelihood of success of such persons upon release, and assist members of the state board of parole in determining which inmates may be released to parole supervision.
The effective date of this mandate imposed on the parole board was October 1, 2011. As of April 5, 2012 the parole board has failed and refused to establish the written procedures that were required by the state legislature. The result of this bad faith on the part of the parole board is that they have failed to establish lawful procedures by which they will consider the risk and needs instrument that they are using, the COMPAS, and that they have no rules that control how they are to implement risk and needs principles. Not only does this make all decisions since October 1, 2011 unlawful, by failing to establish rules it prevents judicial review since the courts have no way of knowing whether the board decisions are consistent with law procedures. This total disrespect for the legislature and its mandated reform clearly requires stronger action on the part of the legislature. The parole board cannot be trusted to use its own devices to establish written procedures that will be fair and appropriate. If they will not follow the law as directed to them by the legislature, how can they be counted on to make their own rules?
Therefore, it is time for the legislature to act in response to this affront by the parole board and establish tighter control of parole board decision making. In order to do this, more specific statutory requirements must be imposed. Now is the time to impose the statutory requirements of the SAFE Parole Act!
One of the dominant features of the SAFE Parole Act is that it removes "the seriousness of the offense" from the parole board's consideration. There are several strong reasons why that factor is no longer appropriate for parole board consideration:
*Double counting of the crime and criminal record. This factor is used in the COMPAS risk and need assessment and is currently also being used by the parole board as a separate factor. By double counting, this factor creates an imbalance in the factors to be considered. It serves no legitimate purpose when it comes to the ultimate decision that the parole board is called upon to make, which is whether "there is a reasonable probability" that the parole applicant, if released, "will live and remain at liberty without violating the law." The seriousness of the crime has no predictive value in determining if the person is likely to reoffend.
*Currently as it is being used, the parole board is abusing the use of this factor. Even in cases where the COMPAS risk assessment score indicates low risk, the parole board is defaulting to the "seriousness of the offense" to support their conclusion that the parole applicant is a high risk. In other words, nothing has changed with the parole board, despite the legislature’s attempt to reform the process.
*The factor, "seriousness of the offense" originally appeared in the Executive Law § 259-i (1) as a factor to be considered by the parole board at a time, years ago, when the parole board actually had the authority to set the minimum sentence when the court had not. In such cases, because the parole board was serving a sentencing function, it was appropriate to consider that factor because the sentencing function properly considers punishment as a sentencing goal. However, since the parole board no longer sets the minimum, and therefore no longer is charged with the responsibility of considering punishment, it should no longer be considered as a factor.
*In 2011, subdivision (1) was repealed. Unfortunately, and without debate of discussion about the rationale, this factor was moved to subdivision (2) for parole board consideration in general. That repositioning of this factor was without sound rationale, and should be removed.
5. Building Bridges is polling their readers on the delivery of the Transitional Accountability Plan and the COMPAS risk and needs instrument. When are they being administered? Have they made a difference in parole decisions?
6. NYS Prisoner Justice Network announces May 22 Justice Action Day, including a meeting with legislators and a rally to demand fairer parole decisions and to show how much statewide support there is for Parole Board reform.
7. Merit Time for violent offenders is still on the table. Add your name to a website which already has over 2000 signatures in support of this bill, S338/A154.
8. Photo ID for visitors is to be required and maintained in DOCCS data bases. Prison officials plan to start photographing visitors to state inmates in a pilot program this fall at a facility in northern New York and possibly a few others. Those pictures will be filed in the corrections department's central visitor identification system. Regulations to establish the practice in all 60 facilities housing 56,000 prisoners are expected to follow. Separately, the department issued final regulations earlier this week to require adult visitors present a photo identification starting Oct. 1 at all state prisons.
Items discussed in the April newsletter include the following, see Building Bridges for full details:
1. The Senate's Crime Committee passed all but one of the mostly - but not only - sex-offender related bills at their meeting on March 20. The legislation considered by the committee is listed in detail.
2. People in prison weigh in on Parole Reform: talking about the moral high ground and the optimism that is felt not just despite, but because of, the escalation of prison abuses. This includes a perceptive item by Ismael Igartua, "The Moral High Ground", responding to the suggestion that facility parole officers have more influence at parole board hearings than previously thought. Igartua is writing in response to this article: State tells parole officers to surrender guns, by Brendan J. Lyons (New York Times, 24 February 2012).
3. Parole releases for February are depressing, but there is a recent favorable court decision in the case of Emmanuel Patterson. In response to requests, the Prison Action Network has reposted biographies of current members of the Parole Board.
Update in the case of Thwaites: Douglas Thwaites filed an Article 78 contesting the Parole Board's denial of his appeal that his parole hearing denial should be overturned: State Supreme Court Judge Ecker ruled in his favor on the Article 78 and stated that at the new hearing Mr. Thwaites needed to be judged by whether there is a reasonable probability that if released, he will live and remain at liberty without violating the law, and not on his past offense. According to the Board's website, his reappearance is scheduled for June 2012. We will be waiting to learn the decision.
In a recent court decision, Emmanuel Patterson received a favorable ruling on his Article 78: Patterson v Cully, Index # 1-2011-4748, Erie County, Michalski, 2012. The court noted the criteria governing release is contained in NYS Executive Law 259 (i)(2)(c)(a). Due to the timing of the case (2010), the court also refers to NYS Executive Law 259 (i)(1)(2)(c) which has now been changed and added to the preceding section.
The court stated the Board cannot solely cite the serious nature of the crime as a reason for denial, IGNORING THE CASE PRECEDENT IN King and Johnson. The court indicated the statement: "criminal behavior being extreme and violent with a total disregard for human life" could be said about any homicide and was not enough to constitute an aggravating circumstance beyond the serious nature of the crime, Patterson (id). The court found this decision "irrational and improper" Patterson (id).
The court concluded "the Parole Board's reliance on the severity of the crime to deny parole not only contravenes the discretionary scheme mandated by statue, but also effectively constitutes an unauthorized resentencing" Patterson (id).
4. Parole reform strategies: talking points that stress the importance of removing "the seriousness of the offense" from the Parole Board's consideration, when discussing effective changes to Parole Board policies. It is an opportune time because we are now at a point when there is concrete evidence of the parole board's lawlessness, arbitrariness and their refusal to follow the mandates of the legislature. In other words, they have demonstrated their bad faith to give fair consideration to parole applicants.
On March 31, 2011 several significant amendments to the Executive Law were signed into law including an amendment to Executive Law § 259-c(4) which requires the parole board to:
Establish written procedures for its use in making parole decisions as required by law. Such written procedures shall incorporate risk and needs principles to measure the rehabilitation of persons appearing before the board, the likelihood of success of such persons upon release, and assist members of the state board of parole in determining which inmates may be released to parole supervision.
The effective date of this mandate imposed on the parole board was October 1, 2011. As of April 5, 2012 the parole board has failed and refused to establish the written procedures that were required by the state legislature. The result of this bad faith on the part of the parole board is that they have failed to establish lawful procedures by which they will consider the risk and needs instrument that they are using, the COMPAS, and that they have no rules that control how they are to implement risk and needs principles. Not only does this make all decisions since October 1, 2011 unlawful, by failing to establish rules it prevents judicial review since the courts have no way of knowing whether the board decisions are consistent with law procedures. This total disrespect for the legislature and its mandated reform clearly requires stronger action on the part of the legislature. The parole board cannot be trusted to use its own devices to establish written procedures that will be fair and appropriate. If they will not follow the law as directed to them by the legislature, how can they be counted on to make their own rules?
Therefore, it is time for the legislature to act in response to this affront by the parole board and establish tighter control of parole board decision making. In order to do this, more specific statutory requirements must be imposed. Now is the time to impose the statutory requirements of the SAFE Parole Act!
One of the dominant features of the SAFE Parole Act is that it removes "the seriousness of the offense" from the parole board's consideration. There are several strong reasons why that factor is no longer appropriate for parole board consideration:
*Double counting of the crime and criminal record. This factor is used in the COMPAS risk and need assessment and is currently also being used by the parole board as a separate factor. By double counting, this factor creates an imbalance in the factors to be considered. It serves no legitimate purpose when it comes to the ultimate decision that the parole board is called upon to make, which is whether "there is a reasonable probability" that the parole applicant, if released, "will live and remain at liberty without violating the law." The seriousness of the crime has no predictive value in determining if the person is likely to reoffend.
*Currently as it is being used, the parole board is abusing the use of this factor. Even in cases where the COMPAS risk assessment score indicates low risk, the parole board is defaulting to the "seriousness of the offense" to support their conclusion that the parole applicant is a high risk. In other words, nothing has changed with the parole board, despite the legislature’s attempt to reform the process.
*The factor, "seriousness of the offense" originally appeared in the Executive Law § 259-i (1) as a factor to be considered by the parole board at a time, years ago, when the parole board actually had the authority to set the minimum sentence when the court had not. In such cases, because the parole board was serving a sentencing function, it was appropriate to consider that factor because the sentencing function properly considers punishment as a sentencing goal. However, since the parole board no longer sets the minimum, and therefore no longer is charged with the responsibility of considering punishment, it should no longer be considered as a factor.
*In 2011, subdivision (1) was repealed. Unfortunately, and without debate of discussion about the rationale, this factor was moved to subdivision (2) for parole board consideration in general. That repositioning of this factor was without sound rationale, and should be removed.
5. Building Bridges is polling their readers on the delivery of the Transitional Accountability Plan and the COMPAS risk and needs instrument. When are they being administered? Have they made a difference in parole decisions?
6. NYS Prisoner Justice Network announces May 22 Justice Action Day, including a meeting with legislators and a rally to demand fairer parole decisions and to show how much statewide support there is for Parole Board reform.
7. Merit Time for violent offenders is still on the table. Add your name to a website which already has over 2000 signatures in support of this bill, S338/A154.
8. Photo ID for visitors is to be required and maintained in DOCCS data bases. Prison officials plan to start photographing visitors to state inmates in a pilot program this fall at a facility in northern New York and possibly a few others. Those pictures will be filed in the corrections department's central visitor identification system. Regulations to establish the practice in all 60 facilities housing 56,000 prisoners are expected to follow. Separately, the department issued final regulations earlier this week to require adult visitors present a photo identification starting Oct. 1 at all state prisons.
February 15, 2012
Building Bridges - February 2012 edition
The February edition of Building Bridges has been issued by the Prison Action Network.
Items in this issue include the following:
1. Pepsi Beverages Company has agreed to a $3.1 million settlement following federal charges that Pepsi committed racial discrimination in its hiring practices, specifically by eliminating approximately 300 African American applicants based on arrest records (but not necessarily convictions).
2. Threat to close Auburn Prison's Hospitality Center alarms families who depend on this service to provide shelter while they wait from the time the bus drops them off until the beginning of visiting hours.
3. Today's "Incarcerated Man" is vastly different from the representative specimen of yesteryear. For the first time in "incarcerated man's" history there are more notable success stories than failures, as evidenced by a dwindling prison population and the success of the many women and men in leadership positions in re-entry programs throughout the state.
4. Two Job Opportunities: 1) Full time Development Associate at the Correctional Association. 2) Combine your desire to sharpen your skills and your commitment to fair criminal justice policies by training to become a media volunteer with the NYS Parole Reform Campaign. Free training.
5. Standardize Marijuana Offenses: We need a permanent, statewide solution like the bipartisan version proposed by Assemblyman Jeffries and Senator Grisanti. Please support A.7620 (Jeffries)/S.5187 (Grisanti): legislation that would end the racially biased, costly, and unconstitutional marijuana arrests throughout New York State.
6. How is the merger of DOCCS going to be implemented, and when? Who is overseeing the process? In this vast system with all its tensions and conflicts - between agencies, between management and unions - who is monitoring this monolithic entity? Building Bridges attempted to find out by attending, and reading testimony from, the Public Hearing on the Merger of DOCS and the Division of Parole into the new Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Thursday, November 10, 2011 and a hearing on the Public Protection portion of the 2012-13 Executive Budget, held by the State Legislature's fiscal committees on January 30, 2012. Please scroll down to section 6 of the Building Bridges newsletter for their report on this highly complex situation, including information on TAP and COMPAS.
7. The Merit Time Bill S338/A154, sponsored by Senator Velmanette Montgomery and co-sponsored by Senator Dilan is sitting in the Senate Crime Victims, Crime and Corrections Committee and in the Assembly’s Correction Committee, as is the SAFE Parole Act. Brianne Russo has posted a petition in support of Senator Montgomery’s Merit Time Bill, S338. If you want to make your voice heard, please sign the petition.
8. Last chance to decide to attend the Caucus weekend workshops. The NYS Parole Reform Campaign of the Coalition for Fair Criminal Justice Policies has a room that holds 500. Think of the impression it would make if it was filled! But if you can’t get there, you can help to get your legislators to support the SAFE Parole Act. People are suffering in prison waiting for us to win this struggle. It won’t be easy, but it can be done if we ALL get involved!
9. Mass Incarceration and the NYS Prisoner Justice Movement: "Dear Prisoner Justice Network, I have been in prison for 27 years. My last parole hearing lasted 4 minutes." Mass incarceration is a false solution that gets in the way of real solutions. It does not interrupt violence - it feeds the cycle of violence.
10. Parole News: Updates on Thwaites decision, and Graziano's:
Douglas Thwaites reports that the Assistant Attorney General is appealing Judge Lawrence H. Ecker's ruling in which the Judge ordered the Parole Board to hold a new hearing for Mr. Thwaites with a different panel within 30 days of the decision dated 12/21/11. Thwaites is challenging the appeal. He thanks all who have written in support and asks us to keep faith alive. His next parole hearing is scheduled for March 2012.
In a new decision on January 26 2012, Judge Lawrence H. Ecker handed down an almost identical ruling in the case of Newlly Velazquez as he did for Douglas Thwaites, one month previously. He again quotes Professor Phillip Genty's interpretation of the governor's revisions to the Parole Statute, including: "[T]he most important change is the replacement of static, past focused "guidelines" with more dynamic present and future-focused risk assessment "procedures" to guide the Parole Board."
Graziano does not give up! It is not the end of the road yet. Lawyers are waiting for a date to argue their federal case to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. They also plan to request leave to appeal the state case to the New York Court of Appeals.
11. Stop and Frisk policies are the scourge of a Black person's life, particularly for males, and particularly for young males. But as this story reveals, even grey haired 70 year old Black men are not immune to being stopped and frisked.
12. Veterans in Prison, a report by Karima Amin in Buffalo, where the first Veteran's Treatment Court in the nation was created by Judge Robert T. Russell, Jr.
13. Over 37,000 New Yorkers are denied their constitutional right to vote because they are on parole, even though they are living and working in their communities. Join the effort to change this!
Items in this issue include the following:
1. Pepsi Beverages Company has agreed to a $3.1 million settlement following federal charges that Pepsi committed racial discrimination in its hiring practices, specifically by eliminating approximately 300 African American applicants based on arrest records (but not necessarily convictions).
2. Threat to close Auburn Prison's Hospitality Center alarms families who depend on this service to provide shelter while they wait from the time the bus drops them off until the beginning of visiting hours.
3. Today's "Incarcerated Man" is vastly different from the representative specimen of yesteryear. For the first time in "incarcerated man's" history there are more notable success stories than failures, as evidenced by a dwindling prison population and the success of the many women and men in leadership positions in re-entry programs throughout the state.
4. Two Job Opportunities: 1) Full time Development Associate at the Correctional Association. 2) Combine your desire to sharpen your skills and your commitment to fair criminal justice policies by training to become a media volunteer with the NYS Parole Reform Campaign. Free training.
5. Standardize Marijuana Offenses: We need a permanent, statewide solution like the bipartisan version proposed by Assemblyman Jeffries and Senator Grisanti. Please support A.7620 (Jeffries)/S.5187 (Grisanti): legislation that would end the racially biased, costly, and unconstitutional marijuana arrests throughout New York State.
6. How is the merger of DOCCS going to be implemented, and when? Who is overseeing the process? In this vast system with all its tensions and conflicts - between agencies, between management and unions - who is monitoring this monolithic entity? Building Bridges attempted to find out by attending, and reading testimony from, the Public Hearing on the Merger of DOCS and the Division of Parole into the new Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Thursday, November 10, 2011 and a hearing on the Public Protection portion of the 2012-13 Executive Budget, held by the State Legislature's fiscal committees on January 30, 2012. Please scroll down to section 6 of the Building Bridges newsletter for their report on this highly complex situation, including information on TAP and COMPAS.
7. The Merit Time Bill S338/A154, sponsored by Senator Velmanette Montgomery and co-sponsored by Senator Dilan is sitting in the Senate Crime Victims, Crime and Corrections Committee and in the Assembly’s Correction Committee, as is the SAFE Parole Act. Brianne Russo has posted a petition in support of Senator Montgomery’s Merit Time Bill, S338. If you want to make your voice heard, please sign the petition.
8. Last chance to decide to attend the Caucus weekend workshops. The NYS Parole Reform Campaign of the Coalition for Fair Criminal Justice Policies has a room that holds 500. Think of the impression it would make if it was filled! But if you can’t get there, you can help to get your legislators to support the SAFE Parole Act. People are suffering in prison waiting for us to win this struggle. It won’t be easy, but it can be done if we ALL get involved!
9. Mass Incarceration and the NYS Prisoner Justice Movement: "Dear Prisoner Justice Network, I have been in prison for 27 years. My last parole hearing lasted 4 minutes." Mass incarceration is a false solution that gets in the way of real solutions. It does not interrupt violence - it feeds the cycle of violence.
10. Parole News: Updates on Thwaites decision, and Graziano's:
Douglas Thwaites reports that the Assistant Attorney General is appealing Judge Lawrence H. Ecker's ruling in which the Judge ordered the Parole Board to hold a new hearing for Mr. Thwaites with a different panel within 30 days of the decision dated 12/21/11. Thwaites is challenging the appeal. He thanks all who have written in support and asks us to keep faith alive. His next parole hearing is scheduled for March 2012.
In a new decision on January 26 2012, Judge Lawrence H. Ecker handed down an almost identical ruling in the case of Newlly Velazquez as he did for Douglas Thwaites, one month previously. He again quotes Professor Phillip Genty's interpretation of the governor's revisions to the Parole Statute, including: "[T]he most important change is the replacement of static, past focused "guidelines" with more dynamic present and future-focused risk assessment "procedures" to guide the Parole Board."
Graziano does not give up! It is not the end of the road yet. Lawyers are waiting for a date to argue their federal case to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. They also plan to request leave to appeal the state case to the New York Court of Appeals.
11. Stop and Frisk policies are the scourge of a Black person's life, particularly for males, and particularly for young males. But as this story reveals, even grey haired 70 year old Black men are not immune to being stopped and frisked.
12. Veterans in Prison, a report by Karima Amin in Buffalo, where the first Veteran's Treatment Court in the nation was created by Judge Robert T. Russell, Jr.
13. Over 37,000 New Yorkers are denied their constitutional right to vote because they are on parole, even though they are living and working in their communities. Join the effort to change this!
December 24, 2011
Parole Board Ordered to Apply Retroactively Rehabilitation Factor
Extracts from article:
A judge has ordered the state parole board to retroactively apply a new provision requiring it to consider the rehabilitation of an inmate and not base a denial of release on an offense that may have occurred decades in the past.
The decision, if upheld, could entitle scores of inmates to new parole interviews.
Orange County Supreme Court Justice Lawrence H. Ecker, in what he says is a case of first impression, reviewed a recent revision of Executive Law §259(c), and held that a man who came up for parole before a change in the law is nonetheless entitled to benefit from that law.
The revision requires the parole board to look beyond the instant offense and consider whether the applicant for parole has been rehabilitated.
In Matter of Thwaites v. New York State Board of Parole, 2011 NY Slip Op 21453, Justice Ecker said the board, in denying the inmate's release, relied on "past-focused rhetoric, not future-focused risk assessment analysis." He directed the parole board to afford Douglas Thwaites a new interview ...
... Justice Ecker said there is no question the board did not apply in Mr. Thwaites' case standards that had yet to take effect. Regardless, he said the "remedial" objective of the legislation requires reconsideration of the inmate's parole bid.
For complete article, see:
Parole Board Ordered to Apply Retroactively Rehabilitation Factor, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, 27 December 2011)
In a new decision on January 26 2012, Judge Lawrence H. Ecker handed down an almost identical ruling in the case of Newlly Velazquez as he did for Douglas Thwaites, one month previously. See:
A judge has ordered the state parole board to retroactively apply a new provision requiring it to consider the rehabilitation of an inmate and not base a denial of release on an offense that may have occurred decades in the past.
The decision, if upheld, could entitle scores of inmates to new parole interviews.
Orange County Supreme Court Justice Lawrence H. Ecker, in what he says is a case of first impression, reviewed a recent revision of Executive Law §259(c), and held that a man who came up for parole before a change in the law is nonetheless entitled to benefit from that law.
The revision requires the parole board to look beyond the instant offense and consider whether the applicant for parole has been rehabilitated.
In Matter of Thwaites v. New York State Board of Parole, 2011 NY Slip Op 21453, Justice Ecker said the board, in denying the inmate's release, relied on "past-focused rhetoric, not future-focused risk assessment analysis." He directed the parole board to afford Douglas Thwaites a new interview ...
... Justice Ecker said there is no question the board did not apply in Mr. Thwaites' case standards that had yet to take effect. Regardless, he said the "remedial" objective of the legislation requires reconsideration of the inmate's parole bid.
For complete article, see:
Parole Board Ordered to Apply Retroactively Rehabilitation Factor, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, 27 December 2011)
In a new decision on January 26 2012, Judge Lawrence H. Ecker handed down an almost identical ruling in the case of Newlly Velazquez as he did for Douglas Thwaites, one month previously. See:
Judge Orders Parole Board to Reconsider Release Bid, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, 6 February 2012)
An update on the Thwaites case, 20 September 2012: the New York State Attorney General's Office is appealing Justice Lawrence H. Ecker's ruling to the Second Department in Matter of Thwaites v. New York State Board of Parole, arguing that the ruling "stands to wreak havoc on the parole system" and that the "Legislature cannot plausibly have intended to apply the changes to parole practices to past parole board decisions". See:
A.G. Urges Court to Upset Parole Interview Decision, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, 20 September 2012)
An update on the Thwaites case, 20 September 2012: the New York State Attorney General's Office is appealing Justice Lawrence H. Ecker's ruling to the Second Department in Matter of Thwaites v. New York State Board of Parole, arguing that the ruling "stands to wreak havoc on the parole system" and that the "Legislature cannot plausibly have intended to apply the changes to parole practices to past parole board decisions". See:
A.G. Urges Court to Upset Parole Interview Decision, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, 20 September 2012)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)