Make jail time a last resort - commentary by Jonathan E. Gradess on the report of the New York State Commission for Sentencing Reform, February 11, 2009.
"The recent report of the New York State Sentencing Commission, merely toying with sentencing reform, mirrors our past rather than breaking new ground. The Legislature should reject the report, send it to the State Archives, and begin anew...
...The Legislature should abolish all mandatory sentences and return full judicial discretion to judges. Prison sentences should be uniformly shorter, and non-incarcerative sentences should be available for every offense. Prison should be viewed and used as a last resort. The presumption of incarceration that has emerged should be replaced with meaningful procedures to fashion appropriate non-prison sentences. A continuum of non-incarcerative, treatment oriented, graduated sanctions should replace the simple "in" or "out" decision that currently characterizes sentencing. We should impose all sentences with an eye toward making people productive."
Jonathan E. Gradess is executive director of the New York State Defenders Association.
Showing posts with label New York State Commission on Sentencing Reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York State Commission on Sentencing Reform. Show all posts
March 06, 2009
February 10, 2009
Prison panel calls for "revoking" parole
"The governor's Sentencing Commission garnered attention for its call to reform the Rockefeller Drug Laws. Less noticed was its call for practically eliminating discretionary releases from state prisons.
When the New York State Commission on Sentencing Reform issued its final report last week, most attention centered on its recommendation to reform the so-called Rockefeller drug laws. But the commission also proposed the virtual elimination of parole – a move with practical implications for thousands of prisoners and historical significance for the state..."
Editorial on the final report of the New York State Commission on Sentencing Reform, by Jarrett Murphy
When the New York State Commission on Sentencing Reform issued its final report last week, most attention centered on its recommendation to reform the so-called Rockefeller drug laws. But the commission also proposed the virtual elimination of parole – a move with practical implications for thousands of prisoners and historical significance for the state..."
Editorial on the final report of the New York State Commission on Sentencing Reform, by Jarrett Murphy
February 04, 2009
The Future of Sentencing in New York State: Recommendations for Reform, by the New York State Commission on Sentencing Reform, January 30, 2009
The New York State Commission for Sentencing Reform has agreed on five major principles of drug law reform. The commissioners also recommend the establishment of a permanent sentencing commission for New York State to advise the Executive and Legislative branches on proposed legislation; the adoption of a largely determinate sentencing system to promote greater uniformity, fairness and truth-in-sentencing; the expansion of effective and cost-efficient shock incarceration and merit time initiatives to reduce recidivism and reserve costly prison space for the most dangerous offenders; and the enhancement of the rights of crime victims.
Press release from the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services ...for immediate release: 12 p.m., Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2009
Full Report (pdf)
Statement from the Press release:
Jeremy Travis, president of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said the “Sentencing Commission has performed a valuable service, at a critical time in the state’s history.”
“By focusing squarely on the connection between public safety and sentencing policy, the Commission has provided a roadmap that will guide the state during difficult fiscal times,” President Travis said. “The Commission’s recommendations, if followed, will bring clarity to our patchwork quilt of accumulated sentencing reforms, improve reentry outcomes, and support more rational uses of our prisons and our parole system.”
For commentaries, see also:
Prison panel calls for "revoking" parole, by Jarrett Murphy, City Limits Weekly #674, February 9, 2009.
Make jail time a last resort, by Jonathan E. Gradess, Times Union, February 11, 2009.
Press release from the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services ...for immediate release: 12 p.m., Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2009
Full Report (pdf)
Statement from the Press release:
Jeremy Travis, president of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said the “Sentencing Commission has performed a valuable service, at a critical time in the state’s history.”
“By focusing squarely on the connection between public safety and sentencing policy, the Commission has provided a roadmap that will guide the state during difficult fiscal times,” President Travis said. “The Commission’s recommendations, if followed, will bring clarity to our patchwork quilt of accumulated sentencing reforms, improve reentry outcomes, and support more rational uses of our prisons and our parole system.”
For commentaries, see also:
Prison panel calls for "revoking" parole, by Jarrett Murphy, City Limits Weekly #674, February 9, 2009.
Make jail time a last resort, by Jonathan E. Gradess, Times Union, February 11, 2009.
December 09, 2007
Testimony of Professor Philip M. Genty, given at the public hearing before the New York State Commission on Sentencing Reform, November 13, 2007
The testimony of Professor Philip M. Genty, Clinical Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, given at the public hearing before the New York State Commission on Sentencing Reform, New York City, November 13, 2007.
Professor Philip M. Genty explains the anomalies in the current Parole Board guidelines in New York State and goes on to suggest ways of restoring hope and rationality to the parole system.
Extract from his testimony:
"The Parole Board guidelines currently in use date back to the late 1970's and have been essentially obsolete for more than 20 years. These guidelines were created for a purpose that no longer exists – guiding the Parole Board in the setting of sentences, specifically the minimum terms of indeterminate sentences. The guidelines measure two factors only – seriousness of the crime and prior criminal history. These are factors that should be used at the time of sentencing. The problem is that the responsibility for setting sentences was removed from the Parole Board and restored to the courts in 1980. This was done to eliminate unnecessary duplication of function between the Parole Board and the sentencing courts. Since 1980, the Parole Board’s main responsibility has been to evaluate individuals for parole release after they have served their minimum sentences. However, the Parole Board guidelines were never changed to reflect this shift in mission. To this day, the guidelines continue to measure only two factors – seriousness of the crime and criminal history – rather than the array of factors that would be relevant to a meaningful assessment of who the individual is today, and whether that individual has been rehabilitated and can be safely released from prison.
This, then, is an important example of what the Commission has described as "disorder and confusion" caused by an "ad hoc and piecemeal approach to sentencing." Our current Parole Board guidelines were designed for a purpose that ceased to exist 27 years ago, and they are ill-suited to the purpose for which they are now being used. A consequence of this is that the Parole Board often acts as if it were still responsible for sentencing decisions – it simply re-examines the underlying crime and criminal history. In doing so it fails to consider any changes that have occurred in the individual in the many years that have passed since the crime was committed. ...This is especially true for individuals convicted of felonies classified as violent."
(The full text of Professor Philip M. Genty's testimony may be found here.)
Professor Philip M. Genty explains the anomalies in the current Parole Board guidelines in New York State and goes on to suggest ways of restoring hope and rationality to the parole system.
Extract from his testimony:
"The Parole Board guidelines currently in use date back to the late 1970's and have been essentially obsolete for more than 20 years. These guidelines were created for a purpose that no longer exists – guiding the Parole Board in the setting of sentences, specifically the minimum terms of indeterminate sentences. The guidelines measure two factors only – seriousness of the crime and prior criminal history. These are factors that should be used at the time of sentencing. The problem is that the responsibility for setting sentences was removed from the Parole Board and restored to the courts in 1980. This was done to eliminate unnecessary duplication of function between the Parole Board and the sentencing courts. Since 1980, the Parole Board’s main responsibility has been to evaluate individuals for parole release after they have served their minimum sentences. However, the Parole Board guidelines were never changed to reflect this shift in mission. To this day, the guidelines continue to measure only two factors – seriousness of the crime and criminal history – rather than the array of factors that would be relevant to a meaningful assessment of who the individual is today, and whether that individual has been rehabilitated and can be safely released from prison.
This, then, is an important example of what the Commission has described as "disorder and confusion" caused by an "ad hoc and piecemeal approach to sentencing." Our current Parole Board guidelines were designed for a purpose that ceased to exist 27 years ago, and they are ill-suited to the purpose for which they are now being used. A consequence of this is that the Parole Board often acts as if it were still responsible for sentencing decisions – it simply re-examines the underlying crime and criminal history. In doing so it fails to consider any changes that have occurred in the individual in the many years that have passed since the crime was committed. ...This is especially true for individuals convicted of felonies classified as violent."
(The full text of Professor Philip M. Genty's testimony may be found here.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)