Tuesday, December 05, 2017

Building Bridges, December 2017

Welcome to the site of Building Bridges, Prison Action Network's newsletter.   If you would like to receive a copy in your email in-box every month, please send a note with the reason for your interest.


During the month we often post late breaking news and announcements here, so you may want to check now and then.

  Scroll down now to go directly to the December 2017 newsletter.  (you know how to enlarge the fonts, right? )


Announcements:

 For the last six months, National CURE has hosted a monthly conference call on lifers. They are ready to move into the next step in 2018.

           This next step is to have monthly calls with those who have loved ones in the 11 federal Circuit Courts of Appeal.

            For example, suppose a jailhouse lawyer in Maine was able to convince the First Circuit (which Maine is in) to allow lifers to participate in rehabilitative programs. 

             This policy should be implemented not only in  Maine but also in the other states in the First Circuit which are NH, MA,  RI and Puerto Rico.

               CURE is seeking volunteer law students, jailhouse lawyers and family members and friends from throughout  the country to research decisions on lifers that  the 11 federal courts of appeals have made and to make sure that these litigation decisions are implemented in all the states in the particular Circuit 

             Now, how will we remember when your particular Circuit meets? After considerable thought and discussion, we will have each Circuit meet by conference call in the morning on the day of the month which coincides with the number of the Circuit.

              Thus, we will bring in the New Year by having the First Circuit meet on Monday, January 1.   It will begin 10:30-noon (EST), 9:30 AM-11 (CST), 8:30 AM-10 (MST) and 7:30 AM-9 (PST). Please call 1-712-432-0460 then 663535# to participate.

Then, on Tuesday, January 2, we will have Second Circuit (New York),   

Jan. 3rd, our third, all the way to Jan. 11th which will be the 11 Circuit. Same details on how to participate.
     
At the end of this research, we could have possibly progressive decisions on lifers for each of the eleven circuits. 

Contact cure@curenational.org  if interested in volunteering in your loved one's circuit. 

Charlie Sullivan, President, International CURE, PO Box 2310, Washington, DC 20013 202-789-2126.


Posted 12/23/17

We need your help!

NYS DOCCS is piloting a new program that will harm people in prison and their loved ones.

Beginning in January 2018, people at Greene, Green Haven and Taconic Correctional Facilities will no longer be able to receive packages directly from family members or friends. All packages must be ordered through an approved vendor. In September 2018, this policy will apply to ALL 54 prisons in New York State.

This policy is pro-business and anti-family. It is harmful because:

1) People in prison can no longer receive fresh fruits and vegetables or canned foods.
2) Warm clothing such as hoodies and scarves are prohibited.
3) All books must be newly purchased. No used books allowed.
4) Prices are controlled by the vendor and basic necessities will be more expensive.
5) People on the outside must use a credit card, check or money orders to pay for the approved packages. No cash or food stamps.
6) Those without access to the internet or those who are less technologically savvy face additional obstacles in sending packages.

JOIN OUR POSTCARD CAMPAIGN

Send a postcard or letter NOW to the individuals below to oppose the package policy.

Postcards should be sent to:
Hon. Andrew M. Cuomo
Governor of New York State
NYS State Capitol Building
Albany, NY 12224

Acting Commissioner Anthony Annucci
NYS DOCCS
Building 2, State Campus
Albany, NY 12226

Some sample language you can include on your postcard:

Dear Governor Cuomo,
This holiday season is about giving, not taking away. I object to the new DOCCS package rules.
From,
(Your Name)
(Your relationship to people in prison, if applicable)

Dear Acting Commissioner Annucci,
The new DOCCS package pilot punishes innocent families. Having a loved one in prison is already expensive and difficult—the new rules make it worse. Rescind the package pilot!
From,
(Your Name)
(Your relationship to people in prison, if applicable)

Background:





Posted 12/14.17.  more about the package directive....

“OPEN LETTER TO THE COMMUNITY”
The New Directive #4911-A is Anti-Family Support
The principle problem with DOCCS new Directive #4911-A is that it is pro-business and anti-family. It will increase revenue for those businesses DOCCS has designated as approved venders, with alleged kick-backs in the contract. Also, it will be more expensive for families to support their incarcerated loved ones. Directive #4911-A restricts the ability of the incarcerated to maintain any semblance of societal normalcy; rather it serves to dehumanize the incarcerated into a collective of uniformity, and denies any sense of individuality. 

DOCCS has been incrementally taking away all of the gains won by those who sacrificed their lives during the Attica insurrection. It is time for family, friends and the community to resist and prohibit the implementation of Directive #4911-A.

Here I am listing the most noticeable changes in comparison with the January 1, 2014 issue of Directive #4911.

 1. The Directive #4911-A totally eliminates any food or any packages being brought to the facility by family or friends during visiting hours.

2. The weight of packages ordered from DOCCS-approved vendors has been reduced to 30 pounds from 35 pounds per month. However, families/friends may order up to three times per month to accumulate the amount of 30 pounds. A 35-pound package of food has been severely restricted to only 8 pounds of food per package. The resulting effect is a family member or friend would have to spend additional shipping and handling for the equivalent of 24 pounds of food for the month.

3. The purchase of Bread(s), Canned Foods, Fresh or Dried Fruit and Fresh Vegetables is PROHIBITED!

4. No item with a logo will be permitted, including clothing, plastic containers, etc. Prior to the new Directive, clothing could have a logo no larger than 1 inch.

5. Clothing: The maximum cost of clothes has increased from $50 to $80 an item. The colors of clothing have been severely restricted to WHITE, PINK, TAN and GREEN solid colors. Previously, the only restricted colors were Blue, Black, Gray and Orange. The restrictions now include: Yellow, Gold, Brown, Burgundy, Purple, Maroon, Red—essentially every color that is not white, pink, tan or green. All briefs and underwear must be white, with the exception of the waistband. The same for thermals—no more underwear with colors, all must be white. Furthermore, all footwear must now be a solid color; no more multi-colored sneakers or shoes, which restricts the selection of footwear of any kind.

6Belts of any size are no longer permitted.

7. Sweatshirts and Sweatpants: No more hooded sweatshirts, no more sweats with a stripe down the side, no sweats with a logo or with a zipper, and only in the colors of white, pink, tan or green.

8. No longer able to receive carbon paper, a clip board, scotch or masking tape.

9. Women are no longer permitted to order a hair/blow dryer. All Incarcerated Persons are no longer able to have key chains, extension cords, floor rugs (with the exception of a prayer rug), no linens (sheets, pillow cases, blankets, towels, washcloths).

10. All religious items permitted in Directive #4911 have been removed, with the exception of a prayer rug, religious chain w/pendant.

Because of the limited vendors, there is no indication from where or how incarcerated persons can obtain books, magazines, newspapers and other reading materials. Furthermore, there is no indication that clothing, footwear and other items currently possessed by the incarcerated person will be permitted to be kept or must either be sent home, donated or destroyed or if, upon transfer to another facility, they will be confiscated as contraband.

The issue of DOCCS eliminating many of the hard fought and won possessions of incarcerated persons serves to negate to what extent formerly incarcerated persons fought to achieve the humanization of the prison system. It also further establishes DOCCS intends to develop business relationships which will prove exploitative to the family and friends of the incarcerated person(s).

This issue is not insignificant or minor in NYS DOCCS, rather it points to efforts to further undermine incarcerated families’ ties, and generally create a system in which the majority of interactions will be business transactions. Similar to how DOCCS sought to restrict visiting to weekends only, and having already removed hooded sweatshirts from the population, this is another DOCCS conservative attempt to isolate, alienate and eventually eliminate all family and community relationships between incarcerated persons and the outside community. 
This nefarious effort by DOCCS must be vehemently opposed by every segment of the community, and to further demand any future proposed changes MUST be based on advice and consent by the community.

Keep in mind, it is the community that will have to deal with the end product of DOCCS alleged mandate to rehabilitate the incarcerated person. Therefore, it is the community that must be engaged in this process to ensure the rehabilitation process is successful.
ask that this open letter to the community be widely distributed and given serious consideration in opposition to the implementation of DOCCS Directive #4911-A.

Jalil A. Muntaqim
December 8, 2017



Posted 12/27.17

 or 845-288-1865

free rides from the metronorth station to people visiting their family and loved ones at Beacon-area prisons (Fishkill, Downstate, Wallkill, Green Haven, Shawangunk).

pastedGraphic.png


Building Bridges. December 2017

Dear Readers

Most of you have been incarcerated or have a relative in prison.  Building Bridges does our best to provide you and your families with true information that will inspire you, raise your hopes, provide important information, prepare you for the future, and bottom line, show you how much support you have on the outside.  [Article 2 is an illustration of that.]

People new to the movement sometimes get the impression that there are too many organizations doing their own thing and not working together. But that’s not really how it plays out so I’m going to take this opportunity to try give you a real picture:

A person who is hurting from looking at the state of the Criminal Legal System searches for some way to change it.  They learn about a group of advocates and get involved in whatever way that suits their time and enthusiasm.  Slowly the group grows and joins with another group, a network, or coalition, and with the extra people power they are able to do more things and get better at it.  The goal is to make change; to reform or end mass incarceration and the oppression of certain people.  Another organization forms to take on a piece of the problem, and some of those other groups decide to join them and double the support each issue gets. Pretty soon, skill sets start working together (lawyers, students, artists, social media experts; organizers, statisticians, etc) to the benefit of all the organizations with whom they’re affiliated…

Recently several of the networks have begun to get funding to pay organizers to help them, and again all of the organizations benefit.  As the organizations work with one other and start to get the ear of those who run the system, we begin to see more and more of our suggestions being taken.  I cannot help but feel that everyone reading this and many more had something to do with who was appointed to the Parole Board recently.  This is a country that once believed that “People Are the Power”, and we are seeing an example of how once again, ordinary people like you and me can truly have an influence when we work together with commitment and fervor!.  Power to the People!
At least that’s how I see it. The Editor


Table of Contents:
  1. Sept. 2017 Parole Statistics: 38% release rate for all parole applicants 33% for just A1VO’s. 
  2. NetWORK: Watching the Parole Board
  3. Report on Parole Board’s Business Meeting
  4. Appeal decisions will go on-line
  5. Health Care
  6. Justice and Derrick Hamilton
  7. Prisoners are People Too!


1.  September 2017 Release Rates.  DIN#s through 2002.   Unofficial research from parole database.  Total percentage of  parole releases: 38%.   Total for just A1VOs: 33%   For a copy of all the statistics gathered,  please send an .email


2.  NetWORKS, the monthly column of the New York State Prisoner Justice Network
THE PEOPLE’S PAROLE WATCH: WATCHING THE PAROLE BOARD

For the past year, a small but intrepid group of advocates have represented the concerned public by attending the monthly meetings of the New York State Parole Board and reporting on its activities. In this month’s Building Bridges you have an opportunity to read a detailed report by an advocate who attended the November Parole Board business meeting.

How did this come about, and why is it important? The Parole Board has always operated under a cloak of secrecy. It has not been easy for advocates to find out how the Board operates, and what factors actually go into its decisions. Parole applicants who have had hearings before the Board come back with harrowing stories of being humiliated, browbeaten, disbelieved, and verbally attacked – and then hit with two more years in prison. Reasons for parole denials are given in stock boilerplate language with no hint of what the applicant can do to win release, other than climb into a time machine and undo their original crime. 

What were those parole commissioners thinking? Who are these people who play God and with our loved ones’ lives? What drives their actions and what can we do to arrive at a more just and more merciful outcome?

Members of the Parole Justice Committee of Albany decided to investigate. They discovered that the Parole Board is subject to the Open Meetings Law, which provides that state agencies must allow the public to attend their business meetings. They do not have to let the members of the public say anything – just to be present. (The Open Meetings Law does not apply to parole hearings, only to the monthly business meeting.) The time, date, and place of the meetings are published on the agency’s website. So the Parole Justice advocates just showed up one day to see what would happen. They have attended every monthly meeting ever since. They call themselves the People’s Parole Watch.

Apparently no one had ever done this before. The Parole Board chair and commissioners seemed to be taken by surprise. Soon afterward, they started shortening the public part of the meeting and conducting most of their business in a closed meeting, called Executive Session. The Parole Watchers contacted the agency overseeing the Open Meetings Law to find out whether the reasons being given for keeping the public out were legitimate. The agency informed the Parole Board that they had to stick to open meetings unless they could cite specific legal reasons for closing them.

The Watchers saw some interesting things. A group called the Downstate Coalition for Victims made a presentation to the Parole Board which included strong evidence that the majority of victims favor solutions that prioritize accountability and safety over punishment and incarceration. This same coalition is scheduled to do a training for the Parole Commissioners in February about victims’ issues and needs. The myth that endless incarceration works for the benefit of victims is unraveling right there at the Parole Board. 

At another Parole Board meeting, Watchers heard the group Release Aging People in Prison present information showing that elders who have served long sentences are overwhelmingly not a safety risk to their communities, and keeping them incarcerated is cruel, expensive, and unnecessary. 

And then in June, another event occurred which had never happened before: six new parole commissioners with very different identities and backgrounds from the previous ones were appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate, and some of the old commissioners were not reappointed. It seemed very likely that public outrage and organized advocacy played a major role in shifting the composition of the Board.

From personal first-hand accounts, it seems the new commissioners are already making a substantial difference in the tone and results of parole hearings. Release rates are going up!
As the new commissioners took their seats, the Watchers saw a change in the business meetings too. The most remarkable evidence of transformation was the proposal by one of the commissioners at the November meeting (see the Parole Watch report in this issue) to gather information on better practices by other states in reintegrating sex offenders and people with mental illness, who often remain in prison even when proven to be at low risk for re-offending, because there is literally no place for them to go. Looking for a better way to do things seems to be an entirely new approach for the Parole Board – but with a majority of Board members in attendance being new, it was voted on and passed! 

The People’s Parole Watch has achieved some remarkable victories in its first year. It has made the point to the Board and to policy officials that advocates care about and are keeping tabs on the Parole Board’s actions. It has given advocates, families, and incarcerated people a window into the functioning of the Board. And it has played a role, along with many other organizations and advocates, in changing the composition and practices of the Parole Board for the better.

Keep up the good work, People’s Parole Watch!



3. Report from Parole Watch, Albany:  
The November Parole Board Business Meeting, held November 27th, marked an anniversary for us—our small, but committed group has been attending since October 2016.   The meeting began at 1:05p and there were 11 of us present, seated in the back of the room close to the recording camera.  Commissioners in attendance:  Caryne Demonstenes; Erik Berliner; Carol Shapiro; Ellen Evans Alexander;  Tana Agostini; Tyece Drake; William Smith; Kevin Ludlow; and   Counsel, Kathy Kiley; Administrative Assistant to the Board, Lorraine Morse;  Executive Assistance to the Board, Ms. Villa.       Initially, there were concerns about a quorum until Ludlow arrived and later Otis Cruz joined the group.  
A report, difficult to hear, was offered while waiting for a quorum:  Commissioner Smith talked about some scheduling challenges which Commissioner Crangle has taken the lead on addressing.  Mentioned were Albion, Orleans, Lakeview, Gowanda and Coxsackie.  Commissioner Stanford talked about Ms. Villa who recently represented the Parole Board at a conference hosted by the Office of Victim Services.  Ms. Villa had created a brochure about the Parole Board which she handed out at the conference.   Commissioner Stanford noted that conference fees for Parole Board members are paid from offender fees and thus do not cost the taxpayers.  
When the quorum was reached and the meeting called to order, Stanford announced that Ludlow is retiring and that this would be his last Board Business Meeting.  She asked him to talk about his tenure as a parole commissioner which he did at some length, ending with that it’s been a “great ride” and “a great privilege and honor.”  He was gifted with a plaque honoring his time on the Board.    Standford also announced two trainings that will be happening in 2018:  January 18th, there will be an orientation by the Program Services Department which prepares all the documents that the Board reviews at each hearing.  On February 1st  the Downstate Coalition of Victims will be presenting to the Board about victims’ issues and needs.  Commissioner Stanford thanked everyone for doing the online training and encouraged them to renew their membership in the Association of Paroling Authorities International.  Commissioner Demostenes announced that she was available to collect money for the Sunshine Fund.   Commissioner Smith mentioned year-end mileage forms that need to be submitted before end of the year.
Then, Commissioner Shapiro spoke, expressing concern about inmates with mental health  issues and inmates who are sex offenders.  She said that these two groups present special challenges for re-entry because of the difficulties in securing safe places to live upon release.  She has colleagues who are doing research on this topic and cited Florida as a state where those who have committed sexual offenses are often forced to live under bridges.  She believes that in some cases people, many elderly, are languishing in prison rather than being released when it is appropriate  because the system has failed to address their reentry needs—which she sees as an ethical issue.    She is especially concerned with those who were young when sent to prison and pointed out that not all sex offenses are at the same level of heinousness (she has worked with both the mentally ill and with sexual offenders in a professional capacity).  Shapiro has colleagues at Stanford and at Rutgers who might be able to supervise the work of interns to look into what other states are doing in order to develop policy or programmatic recommendations for NYS.  
Commissioner  Stanford asked if Commissioner Shapiro wanted an analysis of what other states are doing or just NYS and she stated that she would want both.  She said that this would be something that would likely happen  in the spring semester, if intern interest could be found.  Commissioner Stanford stated that all research projects have procedures and protocols that need to be followed.     She asked if there was any interest in entertaining a motion supporting Shapiro’s idea.  Commissioner Drake made the motion and it was seconded by Commissioner Demostenes.  A voice vote was taken, which carried; Cruz and Smith abstained.    
Finally, minutes from the last meeting were accepted with one correction from Agostini and with Ludlow and Alexander abstaining.    Commissioner Stanford then announced that the Board would go into executive session, citing the discussion of employment of particular individuals, litigation, and informal training.   The “Public” was then excused (meaning us) at 1:48p and we all trooped out.  
---Jean E. Poppei, Parole Watch member


4.  Governor passes bill to require parole appeal decisions to be posted on a website

APPROVAL MEMORANDUM - No. 17 Chapter 412, MEMORANDUM filed with Assembly Bill Number 3053, entitled   "AN  ACT to amend the executive law, in relation to requiring parole decisions to be published on a website"
APPROVED

 This bill would require the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision to publish a redacted version of Parole Board appeal decisions on a searchable, publicly accessible website within 60 days of the decision being issued. This website would contain  a  word  searchable database  and a cumulative subject matter index of appeal decisions. The
bill would also require that the subject matter index be published annually in print form and  be  distributed  to  all  correctional  facility libraries.  Lastly,  copies  of  individual appeal decisions and subject matter indices would be made  available  upon  written  request  to  the Parole Board.

 I  vetoed  a similar bill last year because compliance with the bill’s mandated time frame was not attainable. (Veto No. 231  of  2016).  While this year's bill remedied several of my concerns, it did not address the remaining technical and administrative hurdles that would have continued to delay implementation. The Executive has secured an agreement with the Legislature to pass legislation in the upcoming session to address these remaining concerns. On that basis, I am signing this bill.


5.  New York's complex of 54 state prison facilities is struggling to hire nurses, doctors and other health-care providers.

Filling those vacancies and dealing with an aging prison population at facilities across the state have become among the tallest challenges for the $3 billion correctional system, top administrators concede.
Annucci also said he has been working to expedite so-called medical-parole release for terminally ill inmates.
DOCCS has also been working with community organizations to ease the transition for older convicts when they are released from their prison stays, he said.
Meanwhile, providing health care to inmates costs the state some $381 million annually, an increase of more than $64 million in three years, according to the State Comptroller's Office.
Approximately 20 percent of prison nursing jobs are vacant, and the department is trying to fill them by sweetening pay through regional pay differentials approved through the Civil Service system, Annucci and other officials said.
Assemblyman Dick Gottfried (D-Manhattan), chairman of the Health Committee, said he would like to see the health-care programs at state prisons get expanded oversight from the State Department of Health.
Another, Assemblyman David Weprin (D-Queens), chairman of the Correction Committee, is sponsoring bills that would expand eligibility for medical parole and create a new program for "geriatric parole."
"We have some prisoners in their 70s and 80s who are not a danger to society, and they're costing the state a lot of money," Weprin said in an interview. "They would be better off somewhere outside the correctional institutions."
He noted that Annucci's agency is committed to "doing what they can to release as many older prisoners who are not a danger" but is limited by current law.
Weprin’s legislation would allow older inmates convicted of some violent offenses — though not for first-degree murder — to be considered eligible for parole if they have been incarcerated for at least 10 years."They are not the same individuals they were when they were young men," Weprin said. "I think they should be considered for parole regardless of the crime."
While state officials said they are focused on delivering high-quality care to state prison inmates, Michael Cassidy, the managing attorney at Prisoners Legal Services office in Plattsburgh, said they presented lawmakers with a "rosy picture" that failed to acknowledge ongoing problems behind prison walls.
Cassidy agreed with Gottfried's contention that expanded external oversight of prison medical care programs would yield improvements.The aging of New York's prison population, which now stands at about 51,000 inmates, has been most pronounced with males, who account for more than 95 percent of those being confined, said Jack Beck, director of the Correctional Association's Prison Visiting Project.

He noted the number of men who are at least 50 years old in prison has gone from 6,945 in January 2007 to 10,140 in January 2016, a period in which the total population declined, with the prisons now housing more inmates suffering from chronic illnesses.
And while security staff was trimmed by 2.4 percent from 2012 to now, there has been a reduction of 21 percent in medical staffing, leaving the prisons in "major trouble" in the quality of care provided to inmates.
 Joe Mahoney:  mahoney@cnhi.com


6.  Justice. 
I can remember demanding fairness at a very young age.  Despite our culture’s worship of “things”,  as a little child my first complaint was“that’s not fair”!,  not that I wanted more toys.  That’s probably why I’m so interested in Parole appeals and article 78’s and 440’s, etc.  I’m not wanting to be a lawyer but I sure admire people who value justice as much as I do, and then devote themselves to getting some for themselves using the very tools that convicted them.  Building Bridges tries to help by sharing information on how litigation can and is used to achieve justice.  That’s why I want to share part of an article I found online about one of my heroes.
Mr. Derrick Hamilton spent more than 20 years in prison. As a man who claimed innocence despite his conviction, in order to stay sane Hamilton had no other option than to learn how to use the legal system with all its complications and torturous language to try to overturn his conviction.  It turned out to also be a daily distraction from the many painful aspects of prison life, as well as the only possible avenue to freedom “
He began by earning his GED, then enrolled in a class on legal research, followed by studying in the prison’s law library where while working on his own case he learned enough criminal law that today he is known throughout the country for his skills.  Like many Jailhouse lawyers, he soon was helping others: “I would show the guy how to go to the point that relates to his case, so he didn’t have to read the whole thing,” he explains. “This way, he could get his answer and keep it moving.”
Hamilton always maintained that he had been framed by notorious former NYPD detective Louis Scarcella.who finally, thanks in part to Mr. Hamilton’s own legal advocacy, was found to have been involved in more than 50 cases of alleged malpractice, including Hamilton’s.
Prisoners seeking parole are typically expected to show remorse, but Hamilton argued that the parole board should consider his evidence of innocence before making its decision.

One of the 2 parole commissioners who interviewed him at his next parole board told him. “If, in fact, you’re incarcerated for something that you did not commit, I hope that you’re successful in your appeal.” 
In January 2014 for the first time in New York history, the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court, in People v. Hamilton, decided that a defendant convicted of a crime who has a plausible claim of innocence is entitled to a hearing to present his evidence. The People v. Hamilton decision went even further by adding that if a defendant can show “clear and convincing” evidence of his innocence, his conviction will be overturned. Hamilton v. People is often cited to bolster other claims of innocence cases. 
Derrick Hamilton was paroled and his case has since been vacated and dismissed after he was determined to be innocent of all charges. Today, he has taken up work as a paralegal and continues to help out in wrongful conviction cases.
From an article in the June 20, 2016 New Yorker. By Jennifer Gonnerman



7.  It’s Just Around the Corner
By Karima Amin
November 2017

We are approaching year’s end and we will have our last monthly meeting on November 27. By now, everyone knows that we have our regular meetings once a month on the last Monday. We do not meet in December, as the winter holidays tend to make regular meetings difficult.

There is no doubt that local issues are inextricably linked to state issues, and they are massive. When we take time to think about criminal INjustice issues, the list of concerns can be daunting. Feeling that these issues are insurmountable leaves us feeling that we can do nothing to make right what is wrong. We encourage you to believe in hope and victory. We were nearly victorious in advocating for Bernie Tolbert to be our next Sheriff. He did well in the recent election and he might have won if we had started our efforts sooner. During 2017, we have engaged our readers and attendees with monthly programs that centered on:  parole reform (Lobby Day in Albany); political prisoners (Jalil Muntaqim, Robert Seth Hayes, and Herman Bell); organizing for liberation (Black Panthers, Attica Rebellion 1971, and Black August); and reentry (Fonz Carter, Entrepreneur, Thearthur Duncan, Lawyer and Wayne Oates, Social Worker); and restorative justice (“Life Stories: Restoring Justice” and continuing RJ training in schools and with neighborhood youth in conjunction with My Brothers’ Keeper).

 During 2018, we anticipate continuing to highlight the above-mentioned subjects. They will be further illuminated by our membership in the NYS Prisoner Justice Network,  #FREEnewyork, and the Alliance of Families for Justice. We will move forward with information regarding Y.E.S.T…Youth Education for Social Transformation, mental health treatment in prison, and a recently organized campaign demanding bail reform. Our next regular meeting will feature a film about Kalief Browder, an African American male who went to prison at age 16 for allegedly stealing a backpack. He was held at Rikers Island for almost 3 years, awaiting trial. Most of that time was spent in solitary confinement. He committed suicide 3 years after his release at the age of 22. Kalief’s story is important and it relates to three of our 2018 initiatives: juvenile justice, bail reform, and mental health.

As always, the public is welcomed to join us on the 3rd Monday of the Month at 7:00 – 9:00pm at the Rafi Greene CAO Community Center, 1423 Fillmore @ Glenwood. For more information: Karima, 716-834-8438, karima@prp2.org;  BaBa, 716-491-5319, g.babaeng@yahoo.com.


Saturday, October 07, 2017

October 2017

Welcome to the site of Building Bridges, Prison Action Network's newsletter.   If you would like to receive a copy in your email in-box every month, please send a note with the reason for your interest.


During the month we often post late breaking news and announcements here, so you may want to check now and then.

  Scroll down now to go directly to the October 2017 newsletter.  (you know how to enlarge the fonts, right? )


Late Breaking News!

Posted October 17

On October 30, 2017, the New York State Legislature will host a Joint Assembly Committee Public Hearing (the Assembly Health and Corrections Committees) on prison healthcare.  

This is an opportunity for your voice to be heard. It is critical that directly-impacted women and frontline advocates in particular present testimony on the above stated issues (and any other related issues that you feel are important).  Many of you have important perspectives as women and frontline advocates who have been subjected to DOCCS prison healthcare/healthcare system.  We encourage you to submit testimony.
Here is the link to the public hearing notice:  http://assembly.state.ny.us/write/upload/publichearing/20170913.pdf

Generally, the hearing will cover:
     the adequacy of care;
·    the treatment of communicable diseases; 
·    women’s healthcare;
·    the administration of medications; 
·    long-term care;
·    the use of for-profit healthcare contractors;
·    healthcare facility placements for people leaving incarceration; and,
·    potential Medicaid coverage for incarcerated people.

In addition, advocates have identified the following priority concerns:

·    the need to obtain a waiver from the Federal Government to utilize full Medicaid funding to pay for treatment to improve continuity of care upon release; 
·    staffing and quality control concerns; 
·    decentralized oversight of medical services in local correctional facilities; 
·    the complexity of ensuring continuity of care when inmates are moved from one facility to another and following release; 
·    the use of for-profit correctional medical companies; and,
·    the adequacy of health care for women. 

The Public Hearing Reply form is attached to the hearing notice.  Please note that presentation of oral testimony is by invitation only. However, we have confirmed that anyone can submit written testimony

For those who may be unfamiliar with the legislative hearing process and public testimony, here is a user-friendly resource from the University of Kansas, Center for Community Health and Development, Community Tool Box to assist you:  


Posted October 24:  

Do You Really Want Sheriff Howard for Another Four Years?

By Karima Amin

Since 2005, Timothy Howard has been the Sheriff of Erie County. We have lived with his incompetence, his lack of transparency and his descriptions of conditions and incidents at the Erie County Holding Center and the Erie County Correctional Facility in Alden that rarely reflect the truth.  I just took a look at an article that I wrote, just before the last election in 2013, entitled: “Who Will Be Our Next Erie County Sheriff?”  I could have written it yesterday. Not much has changed. I urged you then, as I am urging you now to VOTE!  In 2013, improving conditions at the Holding Center was a real “hot button” issue. This time there’s not much excitement about the Holding Center or about the upcoming election on November 7.

By 2013, PRISONERS ARE PEOPLE TOO, INC. and the ERIE COUNTY PRISONERS’ RIGHTS COALITION, had invested a lot of time advocating for prisoners to receive humane and professional treatment. We were among several entities that led the push to bring in the Department of Justice to investigate Erie County’s Jail Management Division after a suspicious spate of suicides. We also urged the Commission on Correction in Albany to be more vigilant in its oversight, as it was discovered that Sheriff Howard was guilty of misreporting and simply not reporting issues at both the Holding Center and the jail in Alden.

Those who find themselves confined to either of these facilities deserve better that they are getting.  In the early days of our advocacy, there were those who said that we wanted “4-star hotel accommodations” for prisoners.  That was a ridiculous assertion, made in an attempt to make us look ridiculous. When we held our rallies, and speak-outs, and teach-ins, forums, and press conferences, there were media people and others who asked if we were being paid to do the work of advocating for the voiceless.

Election Day, November 7th is almost here. Sheriff Howard has one opponent. You need to know who he is. You need to be aware of his platform. He wants to bring change to county law enforcement. You must come to our next meeting to be informed. Your vote is vital in making this community a place where justice prevails and those in power are held accountable. Don’t ever assume that the criminal justice system will never touch you.

PRISONERS ARE PEOPLE TOO will hold its next monthly meeting on Monday, October 30, 2017, 7:00 – 9:00pm, at the Rafi Greene C. A. O. Community Center in Buffalo, 1423 Fillmore @ the corner of Glenwood.


More Information: Karima, karima@prp2.org. 716-834-8438; BaBa, g.babaeng@yahoo.com, 716-491-5319.



Building Bridges October 2017


the monthly newsletter of Prison Action Network


Dear Reader,  
Building Bridges wants to thank all the people who help put this newsletter together;  those who contribute articles, those who suggest topics, our partner in envelope stuffing, and especially our statistician who not only researches the Parole stats but also patiently helps us lay it out.  (It’s not as easy as it appears. - see article 7…) We also want to thank all the men in the Lifers and Longtermers Organization at Otisville who hosted their annual Parole Summit and made me feel like a Celebrity.  It’s inspiring to know how much these humble pages mean to some of you.  To all our readers, we hope you know this is all done for you, to help you find the tools you need to successfully reenter the world you left many years ago.  We’re here waiting for you
Your Editor ….

Table of Contents 

  1. About the March for Justice  
  2. Why the SAFE Parole Act is so important. 
  3. Art and Activism (in Buffalo)  
  4. Three outstanding Judges  
  5. Formerly incarcerated Lawyers  
  6. Youthful Offenders Facility in the Adirondacks  
  7. Learning to use the internet and social media is not easy! 
  8. PAROLE STUFF..   You'll have to ask for the charts to be emailed 2 U:  ParoleReform@gmail.com


1.NetWORKS  The Monthly Column of the New York State Prisoner Justice Network
The Movement for Prison Justice Marches On
As regular Building Bridges readers already know, a group of intrepid souls, led by the Alliance of Families for Justice (AFJ),  walked 140 miles from Harlem to Albany to protest human rights abuses in New York State prisons and jails. 
After a vibrant send-off rally in Harlem on August 26th featuring Danny Glover and AFJ founder Soffiyah Elijah, the marchers stopped at more than a dozen cities, towns, and villages along their route before reaching Albany on September 12th. They were welcomed with food and lodging, and presented teach-ins from their own experiences as family members and friends of people behind bars.  Local residents were inspired to join the march for a few blocks or for days and miles. Passing by Fishkill Correctional Facility, the marchers chanted, “One, two, three, four, tell me what we’re marching for? Five, six, seven, eight, no more prison state!” 

In Albany, the marchers presented a successful series of programs culminating in a statewide rally with several hundred people at the Capitol on September 13th, the anniversary of the famous Attica rebellion. The events were well attended, received some media attention, and featured the marchers telling their own stories of the impact of incarceration plus their tales of fun, adventure, and trouble on their long march. Everyone’s favorite moments included inspiring remarks  by the beloved Miss Ivey, an 82-year-old elder who led the march out of Harlem and then participated in the entire route, walking much of the way with her walker. 

The themes of the march included many issues championed by allied organizations, such as releasing older people from prison, raising the age of adult criminal responsibility, restricting the use of solitary confinement,  and changing the unfair parole system. In addition, the Alliance of Families for Justice focused on two important dimensions that have not previously received enough attention in the movement for prison justice: the impact of incarceration on the families of people in prison and the widespread existence of human rights abuses in prison.

The movement for prison justice and against mass incarceration benefited from the personal engagement of the marchers with so many New Yorkers, and the visibility of the march to media, bystanders, and policymakers. The march carried a clear message of how prisons and jails, far from being the solution, contribute in major ways to the problems of the communities most impacted by them, especially communities of color.   Each of the many thousands of steps from Harlem to Albany was a step forward for our movement for justice.

As the movement for prison justice marches on our entire prison justice movement extended-family sends love and our wishes for healing and freedom to beloved elder Herman Bell.   

(good news!  As we went to press we learned Mr. Bell has been transferred to general population at a different facility, and is in good spirits after hearing from so many of us.)



2.  The Safe and Fair Evaluations (SAFE) Parole Act

It is a  teaching tool as well as legislation that will make parole decisions fairer and society safer

The SAFE Parole Act has quietly been gathering legislative support and community recognition. Our May 10 Advocacy Day and Rally seemed to be responsible for several of them.   In the Assembly 26 members have signed in support.  If you’re curious about partisan politics, only ONE Republican and ONE Independent signed are among them.

The Senate has been slow to add their support, but after May 10 the number increased to 14 signers.  All are Democrats.  The Senate is tough!  Hopefully Gustavo Rivera will be able to educate other members of the Senate to follow his example. (He walked aways with the March for Justice!)

That may not be enough to get the bill passed any time soon, but it has other valuable qualities.  In the years we have been working for parole reform, it has served as a textbook for educating the public about the existence of parole and the propensity of the Parole Board to hand out multiple 2 year hits to our loved ones, so needed by their families, for years on end;  acting like judge and jury and re-sentencing instead of evaluating a person’s readiness for reintegration.  

Not only the public but legislators also - take Gustavo Rivera for example - have finally realized that there are major flaws with our Parole System.  Bills have been proposed that satisfy one or more of the changes required by SAFE.  We don’t care how the changes happen!  The Good Giant is waking up, we hope.
But all is not rosy.  There are awful bills still sitting in the Crime Victims, Crime and Correction Committee, ready to be passed if we don’t  raise our voices to stop them.  Are you ready to shout?!  We can’t do it otherwise.



3. “LIFE STORIES: RESTORING JUSTICE”….
We have presented this twice before and we’re presenting it again  in conjunction with Buffalo State College’s “Anne Frank Project.”  This two-day Social Justice Festival will feature PRP2’s  Art/Activism effort  this week…

Wednesday, October 4
Buffalo State College
1300 Elmwood Avenue in Buffalo, NY 14222
Student Union Social Hall
4:45 – 6:30pm

Hear our storytellers: Sandi Green, Danielle Johnson, and Marquita Nailor share their stories of loss and restoration. Sadly, losing a loved one to gun violence has become a part of the “new normal” in some communities. What can we do to begin to heal ourselves, our families and our communities?  This production will give you food for thought and an opportunity to ask questions and to share your ideas.

This is a FaceBook  event. Check out this link:  https://www.facebook.com/events/542672519409253?%3Fti=ia&__mref=mb
Or contact Karima Amin at  karimatells@yahoo.com



4.  Judicial Items

Two Unusual judges

WASHINGTON — Judge Richard A. Posner recently announced his retirement. “I awoke from a slumber of 35 years.” He had suddenly realized, he said, that people without lawyers are mistreated by the legal system, and he wanted to do something about it.
“He called his approach to judging pragmatic. “I pay very little attention to legal rules, statutes, constitutional provisions,” Judge Posner said. “A case is just a dispute. The first thing you do is ask yourself — forget about the law — what is a sensible resolution of this dispute?”
The next thing, he said, was to see if a recent Supreme Court precedent or some other legal obstacle stood in the way of ruling in favor of that sensible resolution. “And the answer is that’s actually rarely the case,” he said. “When you have a Supreme Court case or something similar, they’re often extremely easy to get around.”

“There are others who are just, you know, reactionary beasts,” he said. “They’re reactionary beasts because they want to manipulate the statutes and the Constitution in their own way.”The immediate reason for his retirement was less abstract, he said. He had become concerned with the plight of litigants who represented themselves in civil cases, often filing handwritten appeals. Their grievances were real, he said, but the legal system was treating them impatiently, dismissing their cases over technical matters.

Judge Posner said he hoped to work with groups concerned with prisoners’ rights, with a law school clinic and with law firms, to bring attention and aid to people too poor to afford lawyers.
In one of his final opinions, Judge Posner, writing for a three-judge panel, reinstated a lawsuit from a prisoner, Michael Davis, that had been dismissed on technical grounds. “Davis needs help — needs it bad — needs a lawyer desperately,” he wrote.
Judge Posner said that opinion was a rare victory. “The basic thing is that most judges regard these people as kind of trash not worth the time of a federal judge,” he said.


Because We Remember Lynne Stewart!
Hosted by Justice for Lynne Stewart
Friday October 6th at 6:30PM - 10 PM
Theatre 80, 80 St Mark's Pl Bet 1st & 2nd Ave, New York, NY

Join us as we celebrate Lynne's birthday!**FILM Flavia Fontes: Lynne Stewart Documentary
PANELS
What is a Political Prisoner ?
Anne Lamb New York Jericho, Sekou Odinga North East Political Prisoner Contingent, Mimi Rosenberg Building Bridges: WBAI Radio, Frank Velgara ProLibertad

Getting Our Political Prisoners On the National Agenda
Sara Flounders International Action Center, Bob Lederer queer anti-imperialist, Resistance Bklyn, Daniel McGowan Certain Days Collective, Assemblyman Charles Barron P.O.W.E.R., Ralph Poynter Lynne Stewart Organization

GUEST ARTISTS
Raging Grannies;  Raymond Nat Turner, Jazz Poet 
Janine Otis & Friends
The Poynter/Stewart Grandchildren "A dramatic interpretation"
Adiallo, Professor of Hip Hop;  Lanar "Barry White Interpreter”;   Serafina Brown;  Dale Ortega Duo

Suggested donation at the door $5~$10. No one turned away!  After expenses, all proceeds go to political prisoners.

Refreshments will be served compliments of:  Ellen Kirshbaum, Dolores Cox, Abu's Bakery, Nasser Ahmed

5.  Felony doesn’t prevent admission to CT Bar.
A convicted felon who became an award winning author and graduated from Yale Law School won approval Friday to practice law in Connecticut, after a state panel reviewed his moral character. The Connecticut Bar Examining Committee recommended Reginald Dwayne Betts, 36, for admission to the state bar, a move that cleared him to become an attorney pending a swearing-in ceremony.
"I'm happy that they made that decision," Betts said. "I'm just grateful for the huge amount of support people gave me."
The committee had flagged Betts' file after he passed the bar exam in February, because of his three felony convictions for a carjacking he committed in Virginia two decades ago as a teenager. Like most states, Connecticut does not prohibit felons from becoming attorneys, but a felony conviction creates a presumption that the applicant lacks "good moral character and/or fitness to practice law." Such applicants must prove otherwise by "clear and convincing evidence."

He served eight years in prison. He went on to graduate from the University of Maryland, win a Harvard University fellowship and earn a Yale law degree.Along the way, he has written two books of poetry that received good reviews from media critics. A third book, "A Question of Freedom: A Memoir of Learning, Survival, and Coming of Age in Prison," won a 2010 NAACP Image Award. He is now married with two children and lives in New Haven. Betts has also been working on a doctorate in law at Yale, saying he wants to become a law professor one day. He recently finished an internship in the New Haven public defender's office, and has a clerkship next year with Judge Theodore McKee at the federal appeals court in Philadelphia.              Excerpts from the NEW HAVEN HERALD



6. Youthful Offenders
Raising the Age
The Adirondack Correctional Facility in Ray Brook NY will be converted to accommodate a new law that raises the age of criminal responsibility from 16 to 18.  Youth from 16 to 18 will replace its adult male population by October 2018, while keeping the 150 people it employs.



7.  Reentry
Learning to use the internet and social media

Reentry is different for every returning citizen, but one challenge that’s going to effect everyone is using the new technologies.  Building Bridges found an article on the internet by a formerly incarcerated writer and here is some of what he wrote:
I floundered when it came to technology. During the time I was in prison the smartphone became ubiquitous. Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook all reached critical mass. I hadn’t used Facebook before I was incarcerated but I learned about the platform by reading Facebook for Dummies, which is like learning to swim on dry land.

Dealing with the device was hard enough—I tapped when I should have swiped, swiped when I should have stopped—but not knowing the hierarchy of platforms and chat/messaging abbreviations branded me an outsider more brightly than felony convictions. I was so lost I couldn’t find my app with both hands. FML. That’s the one to use, right?
I would have been far better prepared for society if I had been primed for social media use prior to coming home.

The real potential in justice reform is the ability to reduce recidivism. After all, 95 percent of the 2.2 million people incarcerated in this country will be released one day. Hundreds of thousands of prisoners are released each year, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, but they are replaced, either by newly convicted people or themselves, at a quick pace. The costs of our mass incarceration, all told, exceed $1 trillion per year, according to a study released last year by Washington University in St. Louis.
Education, visits, and phone contact all correlate with more successful rehabilitation. What really works in reducing repeat offenses—and preventing crime—is giving inmates contact with non-incarcerated people to help them not succumb to prison subculture. If prisoners could use social media, it would allow them a virtual reentry into society so they could test the waters, instead of being dropped into them like I was.

The traditional objection to allowing inmates to use the internet and social media—that prisoners inside will use it to get information about their victims and hector them from behind bars—are weak. From what I saw, anyone with total disregard for the rights of others had already long forgotten about any victims. Besides, there’s no reason why someone can’t look up a victim’s information upon release. 

The challenge is to make sure prisoners have no desire to do so because they have other, safe, prosocial connections they can rely on. Those usually get cut off during incarceration. Connecting with one’s past and future life at once, and reconciling them into one plan of law-abiding conduct is what keeps people clean, at least that’s what I’ve seen in three years of freedom.

How to bring prisons online is secondary to the point of whether prisoners should connect with other people, in controlled ways. So far, evidence indicates that allowing and teaching controlled social media use—and therefore social skills—behind bars is a better idea than banning it. If this country is ever to allow people more freedom and reduce crime at the same time, it must recognize prisoners as members of the human network. One way to do that is allow inmates to join the non-exclusive club of social media users.

No matter what platform any returning citizen chooses, he won’t start out running. He’ll have to crawl and walk like I did, which is a shame, since helping people behind bars gain their online footing benefits everyone.

Chandra Bozelko (@aprisondiary) is a 2017 John Jay/Harry Frank Guggenheim criminal justice reporting fellow and writes the award-winning blog Prison Diaries.



8.  PAROLE STUFF
Parole Watch - 9/26

Every month or so the Board of Parole has a Business Meeting in Albany, and a random number of citizens attend as silent witnesses (we are not allowed to speak).
There were 8 of us on 9/26, two of whom thought they were there to see a live parole decision interview and were disappointed,  and an advocate who drove all the way from Rochester.
The public part of the meeting lasted less than 15 minutes after which they moved to executive session, citing litigation and…..?? as the reasons. 
The meeting started with a roll call.  It’s very hard to hear or see the commissioners.  I estimate there were 16 commissioners at the table but I could only see Stanford, Agostini, Thompson, Shapiro.
Chairwoman Tina Stanford ( and Counsel Kiley) notified us that the Rules and Regs would be posted on the State Register, and effective on September 27,2027 (they were).
We also learned that all but one commissioner has completed the Vera training.  It will be available (thanks to their new technical equipment) throughout the state on Thursdays for commissioners to review.
Two new staff have been hired, an assistant to the Board and one to Counsel. 
Transportation remuneration forms and how to fill them out was discussed.
Two letters were read, one from Julia Smith thanking theBoard for her farewell party and exclaiming how wonderful retirement is.  
The other was from a recently released citizen who thanked them for their confidence in him after 7 hearings.



For those who wrote comments to the Parole Board regarding their proposed rules and regs, approved by the Board on Sept 28, 2016, here are the Boards’ responses:
On September 27, one day before the deadline, the Parole Board filed their required rules and regulations to amend sections 8002.1, 8002.2 and 8002.3 of Title 9 NYCRR.
Statutory authority: Executive Law, sections 259-c(4), (11) and 259-i 
Subject: Parole Board decision making.
Purpose: To clearly establish what the Board must consider when conducting an interview and rendering a decision.
Text of final rule: Sections 8002.1-8002.3 are repealed and new sections 8002.1-8002.3 are added.

The Board received over 400 submissions, including from incarcerated individuals, families and friends of incarcerated individuals, advocacy and support organizations, bar associations, academics, attorneys, and elected officials. Instead of responding to each letter, they bundled them into common themes which they addressed:

Given the number of comments received, separately addressing the substance of each letter is not practical, particularly given the common themes, observations and suggestions contained in a majority of the comments; accordingly, the substance of the concerns raised are summarized and addressed below.

One of the primary concerns was that proposed Section 8002.2 mis-identified the risk and needs assessment and “minor offender” status as “factors” to be considered in release determinations. The Board agrees these considerations are distinct from the statutory factors enumerated in Executive Law § 259-i(c)(A). Accordingly, the Board decided to clarify this by omitting “factor” from section 8002.2’s heading, moving language relating to consideration of the case plan, which is required by Correction Law § 71-a, to a new subdivision (b) and renumbering the remaining subdivisions accordingly. Executive Law § 259-i(c)(A)’s factors now are contained in subdivision (d), which reiterates these factors must be considered in all release determinations consistent with the statutory parole scheme.

As for comments recommending retention of the Earned Eligibility Certificate standard or alteration of the standard in other cases, the Board cannot alter the standards applied in its decision making. Executive Law § 259-i(c)(A) provides that “[d]iscretionary release on parole shall not be granted merely as a reward for good conduct or efficient performance of duties while confined but after considering if there is a reasonable probability that, if such inmate is released, he will live and remain at liberty without violating the law, and that his release is not incompatible with the welfare of society and will not so deprecate the seriousness of his crime as to undermine respect for law.” Correction Law § 805 provides for release of inmates who have received a certificate of earned eligibility unless the Board determines “there is a reasonable probability that, if such inmate is released, he will not live and remain at liberty without violating the law and that his release is not compatible with the welfare of society.” Although these standards are no longer repeated in the regulation, this in no way modifies the statutory mandate requiring their application. Thus, the Board declines to revise its rules to provide for standards different from what is provided under the laws of New York.

§ 8002.2(a): Risk and Needs Principles
Some comments expressed concern about proposed Section 8002.2(a)’s specific, or exclusive, reference to the COMPAS instrument as well as concerns that the language was too limiting to comply with Executive Law § 259-c(4). The Board has considered these comments and determined that minor changes would address these concerns by making explicit that the Board shall be guided by risk and needs principles; more specifically, “a periodically-validated risk assessment instrument”, thus, replacing the term “COMPAS.” Regarding the concern that the periodically-validated risk assessment instrument may not be applicable to some subsets of the inmate populations, the Board notes that the proposed regulation allows other risk and needs assessments or evaluations to be considered and any instrument used is not dispositive. As for the suggestion that a periodically-validated risk assessment instrument be prepared for juveniles in the custody of the New York State Office for Children and Family Services (OCFS), the Board has no authority over OCFS to implement this.

Many comments suggest creating a presumption in favor of release when scores on a periodically-validated risk assessment instrument are low. The creation of any such presumption is a legislative function and would conflict with the requirements of Executive Law § 259-i. The new regulation is also intended to increase transparency in the Board’s decision making by providing an explanation when the Board departs from any scale in denying an inmate release. Additionally, the Board will state the reasons for denial in detailed, factually individualized and non-conclusory terms after applying the factors of Executive Law § 259-i. No further changes were made in response to these comments.  In response to concerns regarding the meaning of “departs from” scores on a periodically-validated risk assessment instrument, the Board has clarified that it will specify any scale within the assessment from which it departed that impacted its decision.

§ 8002.2(c): “Minor Offenders”
Many comments suggest the proposed regulation fails to incorporate the constitutionally required standard and procedural protections for minor offenders. Some argue youth is not simply a mitigating factor and the applicable standard must be whether the inmate has demonstrated “maturity and rehabilitation.” Others argue consideration of the inmates’ reduced culpability and subsequent maturation should outweigh the factors enumerated in statute. Yet, another suggests diminished culpability of youth is always a mitigating factor.  Suggested procedural safeguards include, for example, representation by counsel at the Board interview. While the Board has clarified that age is not a statutory factor and moved this subdivision to confirm its distinct status as a principle informing the Board’s consideration as a whole, the Board declines to make additional changes in response to these comments. The Board disagrees with the suggestion that State (or Federal) precedent abrogates the requirements of Executive Law § 259-i. The Board must consider the applicable statutory factors in every decision and has the discretion to weigh each factor as it deems appropriate. Consequently, the Board believes that the proposed regulations embody the spirit of applicable New York precedent by providing meaningful consideration of the diminished culpability of youth and the individual’s growth and maturity since the time of the commitment offense, while also following the requirements of the Executive Law. The suggested procedures are not required by law, and, in some cases, fall outside the Board’s authority. Additionally, it should be noted that since New York law establishes parole board release review as non-adversarial interviews, not contested hearings, there is no right to counsel.
Several comments contend proposed Section 8002.2(c)(2) is confusing and could lead to its application in a manner that undermines the paragraph. Several also suggest expanding “hallmark features of youth” or clarifying the list is not exhaustive. The Board agreed and clarified this language to ensure an inmate’s presentation of information regarding their youth at the time of the offense will not be construed to demonstrate a lack of insight or the minimization of the instant offense. This does not preclude the Board from concluding that a minor offender has demonstrated a lack of insight or minimized the offense based on other information or observation. The Board also notes that the hallmark features of youth “includes” some characteristics, indicating the list is not exhaustive.

As for comments that suggest expanding the subdivision to encompass inmates who committed offenses before the age of 25 (or as youths generally) and without regard to sentence length as well as to discount disciplinary records based on youth, nothing in the Executive Law or in current State or Federal case law supports these comments. To the extent comments suggest this rule-making address the incarcerated elderly population, nothing in the law requires advanced age to be a separate factor or consideration. Moreover, because medical parole, in some instances related to advanced age, is governed by Executive Law § 259-r and § 259-s, any regulations within this area must be in harmony with those statutory provisions.

§ 8002.2(d): Factors to be Considered
A recurring theme among comments is that the Board places too much emphasis on the nature of the crime without adequate consideration of other factors. Some suggest specificity as to how the factors are weighed, a requirement to “substantially” consider the factors, or the creation of presumptions in favor of release. A number of comments suggest the Board eliminate separate consideration of some (but not all) statutory factors addressed by a periodically-validated risk assessment instrument – namely, the instant offense, criminal history and disciplinary history. To the extent comments argue that the regulations should alter the requirement that the Board consider all applicable factors set forth in Executive Law § 259- i(c)(A) or require the Board to assign any particular weight to any factor, the Board disagrees as the statutes governing parole consideration remain unchanged. No rule-making could alter the statutory standards for making discretionary release determinations or the requirement that the Board weigh the statutory factors in every determination. Accordingly, no changes were made in response to these comments.

§ 8002.3(b): Denial Decisions
Many comments suggest the regulations require the Board to state in writing what steps an inmate should take to improve their chances of parole in the future. An independent evaluation must be made by the Board each time an inmate appears before the Board based on the existing record and interview. The new regulations reinforce that detailed reasons must be articulated for denial of release. Accordingly, it is anticipated that future denial decisions will help inmates to better understand the decision and what more, if anything, they can do to facilitate a legally appropriate release. To the extent comments suggest that reasons for denial must be premised upon factors that are “inherently correctible,” this would conflict with the requirements of Executive Law § 259-i(c)(A) which delineates the factors which must be considered.

As for comments concerning reliance on official statements (i.e., statements from prosecutors, defense attorneys and the sentencing court) and victim impact statements, such statements, when they exist, are factors that must be considered.
The Board received numerous submissions on topics outside the scope of this rule making, including complaints about individual Board decisions, recommendations regarding particular release candidates, the appointment and training of Commissioners, and letters from inmates who have never appeared before the Board.  As these submissions did not address the proposed rule-making, no changes were made in response. However, where appropriate, these communications were directed to relevant parties for further action.



PAROLE STATS:  send for them at ParoleReform@gmail.com