Ex-Parole Commissioners Decry Rescission of 'Cop Killer' Release

An unprecedented amicus brief has been signed by six former members of the New York State Parole Board, and is accompanied by a petition accusing the New York State Board of Parole of bowing to pressure from the media and the New York City Patrolmen's Benevolent Association (PBA) by rescinding parole for Pablo Costello, who had already been approved for release.

The brief is signed by Robert Dennison, Vernon Manley, Thomas Grant, Barbara Treen, Theodore Kirkland and Edward Hammock. These six former parole commissioners, including two previous chairmen and three parole board members appointed by Governor George Pataki, urge the Appellate Division, Third Department, to hold the Board of Parole to a higher standard and prevent it from revoking an inmate's release simply because victims object after parole has been approved.

At the same time, in a separate case, advocates for Samuel Hamilton are preparing to challenge his repeated denial of parole by the Board, despite his strong support from both the prosecutor who sent him to prison and the state corrections commissioner.

Key points from the amicus brief:
* The Board is aware of how crime affects victims, and it assumes that victims continue to grieve.
* The Board needs clear standards if it is to avoid sitting in judgment of victims' grief.
* The Board cannot treat victims or prisoners fairly in an atmosphere that is easily sensationalized and conducive to improper influence.

For full report, including Pablo Costello's brief, the Board of Parole's reply, and details of Samuel Hamilton's case, see:
Ex-Parole Commissioners Decry Rescission of 'Cop Killer' Release, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, November 26 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