The Murky Waters of Parole
by David M. Reutter
In most states, the grant of parole is an act of grace. The systems of parole vary amongst the states, but one thing is certain—prisoners have high hopes when they come under review. Another certainty, at least in New York and Florida, is that parole denials are often clouded in ambiguous, boilerplate statements.
For those jurisdictions where parole is part of the release mechanism, its influence starts at the plea bargaining stage. The availability of parole influences how most prisoners do time. Proactive prisoners engage in programming to implement change in their lives and to enhance the possibility of an early parole.
New York prisoner Anthony Dixon was certain he would receive a “fair shake” before the New York Board of Parole (“Board”) after completing his 30-year minimum sentence. “I came into prison at 20, 21 years old, and I went before [the Board] as a man in my 50s, as a changed person,” Dixon said. While in prison, he developed anti-violence and anti-drug programs and took college courses towards a degree.
The Board barely explained its denial of Dixon’s parole, leaving him with no indication of what he could have done differently or how to prepare for the next hearing. Dixon fought for years before finally obtaining release.
The Board, much like the Florida Commission on Offender Review (“FCOR”), offers reasons such as “releasing you at the time would so deprecate the nature of the crime as to undermine respect for the law,” release “is not compatible with the welfare of society,” or “unreasonable risk to others.” (The first two are from source material, and the latter is from the writer’s own parole papers.) No explanation is provided upon how the conclusions were reached.
“What does that really mean?” asked Jose Saldaña, the director of Releasing Aged People in Prison, about those vague reasons. Saldaña was denied parole over several decades spent in New York prisons. While in prison, Saldaña earned an associate degree and led restorative justice and victim awareness programs.
“They’re not giving people clarity about what they can do to obtain parole the next time,” says Michelle Lewin, executive director of the Parole Preparation Project. “They’re not giving people individualized reasons for the reasons for denials, despite the fact that their own internal regulations demand they do so.”
New York and Florida’s parole systems both review over 10,000 cases per year. Florida abolished parole in 1983. FCOR’s parole cases are limited to the fewer than 3,300 prisoners under old law while the remainder of cases it reviews involves prisoners under controlled release, which requires they serve good time on probation. In both states, hearings are less than 15 minutes. Commissioners have wide discretion and little oversight from courts. The Board denies parole in around 60 percent of cases while FCOR releases fewer than 25 prisoners on parole annually.
“This system is killing hope, and in some instances, it does cause some people to take their lives,” said Dixon. “This is not just death by incarceration. It is specifically death by the parole board.”
At least one New York legislator feels strongly that change is needed. “I think it’s time that we gave people a chance to be productive citizens,” said Democratic Assembly member David Weprin who introduced legislation to increase the Board’s transparency, “especially in the case when they’ve shown that … they’re not the same individuals that they were when they committed the crime 20 years ago, 30 years ago.” The measure has spun its wheels with limited support.
Wanda Bertram, a spokesperson for Prison Policy Initiative, pointed to a federal study that found people who commit violent offenses are the least likely to be rearrested after release. “The safest person you can release from prison is a murderer, especially someone who has served 10 to 20 years,” Bertram said. “That’s what the data shows.”
Both New York and Florida use a matrix system that became popular during parole reform in the 1970s as a way to end disproportionate outcomes on similar facts. The matrices, however, consider only the circumstances of a crime and a prisoner’s criminal history. Parole boards focus mainly on the crime and give peripheral attention to positive prison achievements. Negative prison acts obtain full scrutiny.
“The matrix itself needs to be dismantled,” Dixon said. “The system has to change because it is criminal what is happening.” Current research proves the methods from the 1970s and 1980s are outdated. Some state legislatures have successfully implemented reform, but many states remain resistant to changing the status quo of the tough on crime stance.
Source: boltsmag.org
As a digital subscriber to Criminal Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
