Alters the composition of the state board of parole

EXISTING LAW :; Under subdivision 1 of section 259-b of the executive law, the governor appoints not more than 19 members of the parole board with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Justification

The Executive Law mandates that in making a parole release decision, the following factors are to be considered: the institutional record including program goals and accomplishments, academic achievements, vocational education, training or work assignments, therapy and interpersonal relationships with staff and inmates; performance, if any, as a participant in a temporary release program; release plans including community resources, employment, education and training and support services available to the inmate; and the written statement of the crime victim or the victim's representative (see Executive Law 259-i (2) (e)). This mandate, however, has been undermined by the Parole Board as a result of a shift in parole policy.

In 1991, the New York State Board of Parole granted parole to 66.7 percent of the 22,604 inmates who applied when they had served their minimum sentences. Since 1995, the rate of parole has steadily declined, so that by 1999, the parole rate had dropped to 46.6 percent of rates seeking parole for the first time. After a denial, the parole board can require an inmate to wait up to two years before reapplying. The approval rates for later appearances have fallen by similar amounts.

Parole has dropped most sharply for inmates convicted of violent crimes like murder assault rape and robbery. For these criminals, the release rate fell from 24 percent of applicants at initial interviews in 1991 to 8 percent in 1998. For other categories of violent crimes, the drop matched the decrease for all inmates.

The sharp drop in parole rates is the result of two major changes in parole laws since 1995 in an effort to get tough on crime. In 1995, a law was passed that requires all people convicted of a second violent felony to serve 85 percent of their sentences. And in 1998, Jenna's Law required that all violent felons serve 85 percent of their terms.

This shift in policy away from determining parole based on an individual, case-by-case basis to an en masse denial of parole based on the original crime undermines the purpose of parole. Parole is advantageous to the offender, to the state, and to society as a whole for a number of reasons. The offender has the benefit of a shorter time behind bars and a period of time under supervision to adjust to life on the outside while still having access to certain support services. Parole helps reconnect the offender with family relationships sooner; less harm is done to the family structure, reducing the social cost of family breakdown. There is also a reduced risk of criminal socialization which can occur in prison. It is also far less expensive for the individual to be on parole rather than behind bars. It costs approximately $32,000 a year to maintain a prisoner. Overcrowding in prisons is also eased. The monitoring of individuals on parole allows a measure of control and safety for the community while permitting the parole officer to evaluate whether a parolee i~ adjusting successfully to life on the outside. A person with the opportunity to adjust gradually to life outside prison poses less danger to society than one who walks out the prison door unprepared.

Parole also plays an important role in maintaining order in correctional facilities. Correctional facilities use the enticement of good time to induce prisoners to participate in programs and maintain good behavior while incarcerated. Without this inducement, maintaining order in the State's overcrowded prisons would be more difficult.

In order that the mandates for parole be followed, it is necessary that the Legislature have the authority to appoint members of the parole board. This legislation will give the Legislature the authority to recommend members of the Parole Board to the Governor. This will help ensure that parole policy, as established by the Legislature under the Executive Law, will be observed.

Legislative history

2001-2002: S.2549-A Died in Committee 2003-2004: S.1633 Died in Committee 2005-2006: S.1565 Died in Committee 2007-2008: S.2013 Died in Committee

Fiscal implications

None.

Effective date

This act shall take effect immediately.