What's happening
This bill requires that parole board interviews with inmates must be conducted in-person at the correctional facility where the inmate is housed.
Why it matters
Mandates greater transparency and accountability. By requiring in-person parole interviews at the facility where the inmate is housed, the bill aims to ensure that parole decisions are made based on fuller observation and interaction, potentially reducing misunderstandings or miscommunications that can occur in remote interviews.
May impact inmate outcomes and procedural fairness. Face-to-face interviews could allow parole board members to better assess an inmate’s demeanor, rehabilitation progress, and readiness for release, possibly leading to more individualized and just decisions.
Could have logistical and resource implications. The requirement for board members to travel to correctional facilities for interviews may increase operational costs and require more coordination, which could affect the frequency and scheduling of parole hearings.
Addresses concerns about remote proceedings. The bill responds to criticisms that remote interviews might depersonalize the parole process or disadvantage inmates who are less able to communicate effectively through video or phone, promoting more equitable treatment.
Albany, before your first meeting.
Every bill that moved yesterday, summarized in a sentence and ranked by impact. The Albany Scorecard follows on Sundays.
Free. Unsubscribe in one click. Want alerts on specific bills? Create an account.
Who cares
Headline styles
Require In-Person Parole Interviews
Plain English, a few words. Used as the page title.
Sponsors
Senator · Senate District 32
No co-sponsors yet.
History
- Referred to crime victims, crime and correction
Full text
2 pagesUnderlined is new[Struck] is removedOfficial text on nysenate.gov ↗
STATE OF NEW YORK
7651
IN SENATE
February 4, 2020
Introduced by Sen. SEPULVEDA -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Crime Victims, Crime and Correction
AN ACT to amend the executive law, in relation to inmate interviews by the state board of parole
The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:
Section 1. Subparagraph (i) of paragraph (a) of subdivision 2 of section 259-i of the executive law, as amended by section 38-f-1 of subpart A of part C of chapter 62 of the laws of 2011, is amended to read as follows:
(i) Except as provided in subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph, at least one month prior to the date on which an inmate may be paroled pursuant to subdivision one of section 70.40 of the penal law, a member or members as determined by the rules of the board shall [personally] conduct an in-person interview of such inmate in the correctional facility where he or she is housed and determine whether he or she should be paroled in accordance with the guidelines adopted pursuant to subdivision four of section two hundred fifty-nine-c of this article. If parole is not granted upon such review, the inmate shall be informed in writing within two weeks of such appearance of the factors and reasons for such denial of parole. Such reasons shall be given in detail and not in conclusory terms. The board shall specify a date not more than twentyfour months from such determination for reconsideration, and the procedures to be followed upon reconsideration shall be the same. If the inmate is released, he or she shall be given a copy of the conditions of parole. Such conditions shall where appropriate, include a requirement that the parolee comply with any restitution order, mandatory surcharge, sex offender registration fee and DNA databank fee previously imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction that applies to the parolee. The conditions shall indicate which restitution collection agency established under subdivision eight of section 420.10 of the criminal procedure law, shall be responsible for collection of restitution, mandatory surcharge, sex offender registration fees and DNA databank fees as
EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD14960-02-0
S. 7651 2
provided for in section 60.35 of the penal law and section eighteen hundred nine of the vehicle and traffic law.
§ 2. Paragraph (a) of subdivision 2 of section 259-i of the executive law, as amended by section 38-f-2 of subpart A of part C of chapter 62 of the laws of 2011, is amended to read as follows:
(a) At least one month prior to the expiration of the minimum period or periods of imprisonment fixed by the court or board, a member or members as determined by the rules of the board shall [personally] conduct an in-person interview of an inmate serving an indeterminate sentence in the correctional facility where he or she is housed and determine whether he or she should be paroled at the expiration of the minimum period or periods in accordance with the procedures adopted pursuant to subdivision four of section two hundred fifty-nine-c of this article. If parole is not granted upon such review, the inmate shall be informed in writing within two weeks of such appearance of the factors and reasons for such denial of parole. Such reasons shall be given in detail and not in conclusory terms. The board shall specify a date not more than twenty-four months from such determination for reconsideration, and the procedures to be followed upon reconsideration shall be the same. If the inmate is released, he or she shall be given a copy of the conditions of parole. Such conditions shall where appropriate, include a requirement that the parolee comply with any restitution order and mandatory surcharge previously imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction that applies to the parolee. The conditions shall indicate which restitution collection agency established under subdivision eight of section 420.10 of the criminal procedure law, shall be responsible for collection of restitution and mandatory surcharge as provided for in section 60.35 of the penal law and section eighteen hundred nine of the vehicle and traffic law.
§ 3. This act shall take effect one year after the date on which it shall have become a law; provided, that the amendments to paragraph (a) of subdivision 2 of section 259-i of the executive law made by section one of this act shall be subject to the expiration and reversion of such subdivision pursuant to subdivision d of section 74 of chapter 3 of the laws of 1995, as amended, when upon such date the provisions of section two of this act shall take effect.
Reflowed for reading: line numbers and page breaks removed. Cite the official text.
Sponsor's memo
Title of bill
An act to amend the executive law, in relation to inmate interviews by the state board of parole
Purpose
To require in-person parole interviews instead of video interviews.
Summary of provisions
Sections 1 and 2 amend Executive Law 259-i(2)(a)to require the board to conduct in-person parole interviews inside correctional facilities. Section 3 is the effective date.
Read the full memo (715 words)
Justification
Since 1997, most parole interviews have been conducted by videoconfer- ence. Prior to that time, all interviews were in person inside of correctional facilities. Videoconferencing was introduced to make the system more efficient, but is in fact maximally inefficient. Three parole board commissioners now drive from their home offices, usually in different parts of the state, to a video conference center at a parole office near the prison where the parole applicant is housed. For exam- ple, a parole interview for a prisoner at Elmira Correctional Facility may include a commissioner from Buffalo, a commissioner from Albany and a commissioner from New York City, each traveling separately to a parole office in Syracuse.
Inmate records are not digitalized so DOCCS employees must also travel from the prisons where they work to the video conferencing sites, bring- ing the applicants' paper records with them. The DOCCS employees, who, unlike the commissioners, are paid time and a half for overtime if the interviews extend past their normal shifts, stay with the records until the commissioners have finished all their interviews for the day. Reportedly, there is pressure on the commissioners to keep interviews short so that DOCCS will not incur overtime charges. Commissioners may interview 30-35 people in day, without breaks, trying to fit them all into an 8-hour shift.
Parole commissioners generally use state cars to travel to the video conference sites and stay overnight, or sometimes two nights, in hotels near the parole offices where the videoconferencing equipment is set up. There is no cost savings for travel to videoconferencing centers, since they are going to the same areas where the prisoners are housed and staying in hotels, just as they would if they actually traveled to the prisons to interview prisoners. According to the Daily News, the Depart- ment of Corrections spent approximately $270,000 over five years for parole commissioner travel expenses, a number that would not change much were the commissioners to travel to the prisons themselves rather than the video conference centers. This is a negligible amount of money in a 3 billion dollar budget for the department, which would be more than offset by eliminating travel by DOCCS employees to bring the records to the commissioners.
Most importantly, the video interviews are dehumanizing and make prison- ers uncomfortable and nervous. The parole applicants can only see one of the three commissioners at a time on the video screens used by DOCCS. If a commissioner bends down, or twists around, only his or her shoulders may be visible on the screen. It is nearly impossible for either the commissioners or the parole applicants to make eye contact or read body language. The individuals seeking parole cannot tell what the off-camera parole commissioners are doing during the interview. Since most people who have been incarcerated for long sentences are not tech savvy, having spent years or decades in a technology-free environment, they tend to be uncomfortable with any use of technology, let alone the primitive video conferencing used by the Board. It is difficult to build rapport, evalu- ate demeanor or accurately assess a person's sincerity under the condi- tions set up by the Board for video interviews. Both prisoners and parole commissioners have expressed a strong preference for in-person interviews.
Prior legislative history
This is a new bill.
Fiscal implications
None or a slight savings
Local fiscal implications
None.
Effective date
This law shall take effect on year after the date on which it shall have become a law; provided that the amendments to paragraph (a) of subdivi- sion 2 of section 259-i of the executive law made by section two of this act shall be subject to the expiration and reversion of such subdivision pursuant to subdivision d of section 74 of chapter 3 of the laws of 1995, as amended, when upon such date the provisions of section three of this act shall take effect.
Summaries, headlines and scores are AI-generated from the official bill text. How we score bills. Source: NYS Open Legislation.