HOW NEW YORK LAGS BEHIND - PAROLE REFORMS IN OTHER STATES - MARCH 2021
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
HOW
NEW YORK
LAGS
BEHIND
PAROLE REFORMS
IN OTHER STATES
MARCH 2021
ABOUT NYUJ
New Yorkers United for Justice (NYUJ) is a bipartisan coalition
of national and local non-profit organizations committed to
advancing commonsense criminal justice reforms in New York
State that promote public safety and fairness. NYUJ aims for
legislative urgency to fix a broken criminal justice system that
punishes the poor and communities of color, tears families
apart, and makes New Yorkers less safe.
How New York Lags Behind: Parole Reforms in Other States
New Yorkers United for Justice • nyuj.org 2INTRODUCTION
New York’s parole system is broken, costly, and unjust. The state leads the nation in
reincarcerating individuals on parole for noncriminal, technical violations of their
conditions of parole. And due to lack of transparency and chronic understaffing of
its parole board, too few incarcerated people are released on parole. Despite these
issues, New York has lagged behind much of the country in enacting comprehensive,
evidence-based reforms of its parole and community supervision systems.
In recent years, a growing number of states across the country—both red and blue—have
enacted various parole reforms that have led to positive results, including reduced costs
and prison populations.
New Yorkers United for Justice (NYUJ) developed this resource to illustrate how
components of recent parole reforms proposed in the New York Legislature compare
with other states. We believe enacting these reforms in New York can help create an
improved parole system that is more in line with the rest of the nation.
How New York Lags Behind: Parole Reforms in Other States
New Yorkers United for Justice • nyuj.org 3EARNED TIME CREDITS
New York currently does not allow individuals to earn any credits toward an earlier
discharge from community supervision. S. 1144 (“The Less is More Act”) would allow
individuals to earn 30 days toward an earlier discharge for every 30 days they remain
in compliance with their conditions of community supervision.
Eighteen states have enacted policies establishing a system of earned time credits to
reduce an individual’s period of supervision through compliance. These states include:
Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maryland, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, South Carolina,
South Dakota, and Utah.1 Here are some key examples:
The Reform
In 2012, Missouri enacted a law that allowed individuals on
supervision to earn 30 days off of their period of supervision for
every full calendar month they remained in compliance with the
terms of their supervision.2 This policy did include restrictions
Missouri
based on offense type and time spent on supervision.
The Result
By 2015, 36,000 people were able to reduce their terms of supervision by an
average of 14 months. This reduction in terms cut the supervised population by
18 percent and reduced supervision officers’ caseloads by nearly 16 percent.3
Reductions in supervision terms and supervised population did not harm public
safety, and there was no statistically significant increase in two-year
reconviction rates.4
How New York Lags Behind: Parole Reforms in Other States
New Yorkers United for Justice • nyuj.org 4The Reform
In 2015, Utah passed legislation aimed at shortening periods of
supervision. The new law established the earned compliance
credits program, in which individuals on supervision with terms
of three years can receive 30 days off of their sentence for
Utah each successful month of compliance with their conditions.6
The Result
Three years after the law’s implementation, supervision caseloads remained stable
despite the new law requiring more action on the part of supervision officers.
Additionally, the state’s violent crime rate leveled out following these reforms,
and the property crime rate decreased between 2015 and 2018.5
How New York Lags Behind: Parole Reforms in Other States
New Yorkers United for Justice • nyuj.org 5ELIMINATING AND
REDUCING USE OF
INCARCERATION FOR
TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS
In New York, incarceration remains an option for any violation, technical or non-technical,
of an individual’s conditions of parole. These terms of incarceration—referred to as time
assessments—can be as long as 15 months. S. 1144 (“The Less is More Act”) would remove
incarceration as an available response to most low-level, noncriminal “tier 2” technical
violations of community supervision. Furthermore, the bill would cap incarceration time
assessments at 30 days for noncriminal “tier 1” technical violations of parole.
24 states have enacted legislation to curtail the use of incarceration in response to
technical violations through alternative sanctions and/or caps on revocation length.
These states include: Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Texas, Utah, and West Virginia. 7 Key examples include:
The Reform
In 2010, South Carolina passed sweeping legislation that,
among other things, authorized supervision officers to use
administrative responses to revocations rather than
incarceration. The legislation allows officers to rely on verbal
South or written remands, home visits, and fee restructures or
Carolina
exemptions (to avoid missed payment revocations).10
How New York Lags Behind: Parole Reforms in Other States
New Yorkers United for Justice • nyuj.org 6The Result
After the implementation of these changes and added focus on non-carceral
responses to revocations, the total number of compliance revocations decreased
by 46 percent between FY 2010 and 2015.11 Research has shown recidivism rates
have been lower for those who began supervision after the implementation of this
law.12
Further, because of the prison population decline due to these and other sentenc-
ing reform policy changes in the bill, the state cancelled plans to build new prison
space and closed six prison facilities, saving a total of $491 million between 2010
and 2016.13
In 2017, Louisiana passed legislation that established a series of
“graduated sanctions” that the court can impose for technical
violations of probation and parole.8
Lousiana
First violation No more than 15 days of incarceration
Second violation No more than 30 days of incarceration
Third or subsequent violation No more than 45 days of incarceration
Fourth or subsequent violation No more than 90 days of incarceration.
The court also has the option to revoke probation and order the defendant to serve the
sentence suspended, with or without credit for the time served on probation at the
discretion of the court.9
How New York Lags Behind: Parole Reforms in Other States
New Yorkers United for Justice • nyuj.org 7RIGHT TO COUNSEL
IN THE PAROLE PROCESS
A defendant’s right to legal counsel varies by state and parole process. However, several
states provide better access to counsel throughout the parole system than New York,
where individuals are not entitled to counsel during their parole board interview or during
the preliminary hearing of the revocation process.
S. 1144 (“The Less is More Act”) would grant individuals the right and access to counsel
throughout the revocation process. Assembly Bill A. 3900 (2019-2020 Session Number)
would grant individuals the right and access to counsel during the parole interview pro-
cess. Two individual state examples of stronger right to counsel processes than New York
include:
People eligible for parole in Hawaii’s state prisons have the right and
access to counsel during parole hearings. The individual is entitled to
consult with “any person the [individual] reasonably desires in prepa-
ration for the hearing,” as well as “representation and assistance by
Hawaii
counsel (including appointed counsel if indigent.)”14
Hawaii also grants individuals facing parole revocation hearings the right to counsel during
the final revocation hearing. However, it is unclear if representation is provided for indigent
people.
Individuals in Michigan facing a revocation of their parole are grant-
ed the right to counsel during both preliminary and final revocation
hearings.15 An individual facing a preliminary parole revocation hearing
has the right to be represented by an appointed counsel if they have
a plausible claim of innocence that may be difficult to prove; have
Michigan
factors that may mitigate or justify the
How New York Lags Behind: Parole Reforms in Other States
New Yorkers United for Justice • nyuj.org 8violation which are complex or difficult to present; or are mentally unable to prevent a
defense. 16 Individuals found to be indigent at the final revocation hearing shall be
appointed an attorney.17
INCREASING THE
BURDEN OF PROOF FOR
TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS
In New York, a hearing officer need only find that an individual has committed a noncrim-
inal, technical violation of parole by a preponderance of evidence to re-incarcerate the
individual for an extended period of time.
S. 1144 (“The Less is More Act”) would increase the burden of proof throughout the revo-
cation process, including requiring clear and convincing evidence to sustain a violation.
One state that has a “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard for revoking an individ-
ual’s parole is New Jersey. New Jersey law requires that a hearing officer determine, by
clear and convincing evidence, that an individual has “seriously or persistently violated the
conditions of parole” in order to revoke an individual’s parole.18
How New York Lags Behind: Parole Reforms in Other States
New Yorkers United for Justice • nyuj.org 9STREAMLINING
PAROLE DECISIONS
New York currently allows presumptive release to certain incarcerated individuals,
however, this process is plagued by a lack of clarity and transparency. In 2016, for
example, only 21 individuals were released through this process in the state. 19
S. 1415/A. 4231 (“Fair and Timely Parole Act”) would create a presumption of release for
an eligible person appearing before the parole board, unless the parole board can
demonstrate that there is a “current and unreasonable risk the person will violate
the law if released and such risk cannot be mitigated by parole supervision.”
Currently, 15 states allow for presumptive release to parole for some or most offense
types and sentences.20 These states have adopted more robust systems than New York
that create a presumption of release for individuals convicted of some or more offenses
and have met the requirements of their case plan and shown a commitment to
rehabilitation. Key examples include:
In 2014, Mississippi implemented a system of presumptive parole
after earlier reforms relaxed the state’s “truth-in-sentencing” scheme
which required people to serve 85% of their sentence.21 Under the
new system, parole-eligible individuals have a presumption of parole
once they meet their minimum sentence, which varies based on
Mississippi
offense type, and meet all other criteria.22
The criteria ensure that the individual has met the requirements of the parole case plan,
any victims have not requested a hearing, the individual has not received a major violation
report within the last six months, the individual has agreed to the conditions of
supervision, and that the individual has a discharge plan approved by a parole board.23
How New York Lags Behind: Parole Reforms in Other States
New Yorkers United for Justice • nyuj.org 10In 2020, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott signed a bipartisan package of crim-
inal justice reforms under the Justice Reinvestment initiative into law,
which included the establishment of a system of presumptive parole.
This new system will allow individuals to be released once they meet
their minimum sentence requirement and have demonstrated key
Vermont
criteria indicating rehabilitation and good behavior.24
Under presumptive parole, the Parole Board will be required to conduct a review of
presumptive parole candidates within 30 days of an individual’s eligibility date.25
Presumptive release can be denied if the board determines that a victim should be
notified and given the chance to participate in a parole hearing.26
In 2020, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy signed the “Earn Your Way Out
Act” into law, which established a system of administrative parole
within the New Jersey Department of Corrections.
Under this new system, eligible individuals who have remained vio-
New Jersey
lation-free and have participated in rehabilitation programs have a
presumption of administrative release. The release is granted upon review by a hearing
officer and certification by a member of the parole board. Individuals granted administra-
tive release27 do not require a full parole board hearing.28
How New York Lags Behind: Parole Reforms in Other States
New Yorkers United for Justice • nyuj.org 11ELIMINATION OF
SUPERVISION FEES
New Yorkers on parole, conditional release, presumptive release, and post-release
supervision are required to pay a monthly fee of $30.29 The fee is often a considerable
burden on those entering community supervision, given the barriers they face in finding
steady employment once they return from prison.
While current New York law does not consider the supervision fee a condition of the
individual’s supervision (and therefore does not allow a person’s parole to be revoked over
failure to pay), the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision is entitled to
“seek enforcement of nonpayment in any manner permitted by law” for recovery of debts
owed to the state.30 Senate Bill S. 2201 would repeal the $30 monthly fee for those who
are on community supervision.
In 2020, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law a bill that would
effectively repeal 23 fees associated with the criminal justice system,
including supervision fees for probation and parole.31 Other fees that
will be repealed include public defense fee, criminal justice adminis-
tration fee, city and county booking fees, and more. California is the
California first state in the nation to repeal its administrative fees in the criminal
justice system.
How New York Lags Behind: Parole Reforms in Other States
New Yorkers United for Justice • nyuj.org 12CONCLUSION
As other states—both red and blue—around the country have shown, it is possible to
comprehensively reform a state’s parole and community supervision policies and see
significant reductions in crime, public costs, and recidivism.
Currently, there are various proposals focused on reforming New York’s parole practices
that have been put forward in the Legislature. As outlined, these evidence-based
legislative proposals mirror those that have been successfully implemented in other
states. To make New York’s parole and community supervision systems stronger and its
communities safer, NYUJ encourages lawmakers to take action by advancing these
commonsense reforms.
How New York Lags Behind: Parole Reforms in Other States
New Yorkers United for Justice • nyuj.org 13ENDNOTES
1
Vincent Schiraldi and Jennifer Arzu, “Less is More in New York: An 21
Sid Salter, “Mississippi prison reform being emulated,” Clarion Led-
Examination of the Impact of State Parole Violations on Prison and Jail ger, February 7, 2016. https://www.clarionledger.com/story/opinion/
Populations,” Columbia University Justice Lab, January 29, 2018. https:// columnists/2016/02/07/salter-mississippi-prison-reform-being-emu-
justicelab.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/Less_is_More_in_ lated/79937002/
New_York_Report_FINAL.pdf
22
Alexis Lee Watts, Julie Matucheski, Noah Finn, and Kevin R. Reitz,
2
“To Safely Cut Incarceration, States Rethink Responses to Super- “Profiles in Parole Release and Revocation: Mississippi,” Robina Insti-
vision Violation,” The Pew Charitable Trusts, July 2019, https://www. tute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, September 19, 2019. https://
pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2019/07/pspp_states_target_technical_vi- robinainstitute.umn.edu/publications/profiles-parole-release-and-re-
olations_v1.pdf vocation-mississippi
3
Ibid. 23
Ibid.
4
Ibid. 24
Sheridan Watson and Ellen Whelan-Wuest, “Explainer: The Sig-
nificance of Vermont’s Justice Reinvestment Legislation,” Council
5
Samantha Harvell, “Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Utah,” Urban Insti- on State Governments, July 16, 2020. https://csgjusticecenter.org/
tute, March 2020, https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2020/03/27/ explainer-the-significance-of-vermonts-justice-reinvestment-legis-
justice_reinvestment_initiative_jri_utah.pdf lation/
6
Ibid. 25
Ibid.
7
Schiraldi and Arzu, 2018. 26
Ibid.
8
Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 900(A)(6)(b) 27
New Jersey P.L.2019, c.364 https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2018/
Bills/PL19/364_.PDF
9
Louisiana Revised Statues 15:574.9(H)(1)(A)
10
Elizabeth Pelletier, Bryce Peterson, and Ryan King, “Assessing the 28
Ibid.
Impact of South Carolina’s Parole and Probation Reforms,” The Urban
Institute, April 2017. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publica- 29
NY Corrections Law Section 210(9). https://www.nysenate.gov/leg-
tion/89871/south_carolina_jri_policy_assessment_final_0.pdf islation/laws/COR/201#:~:text=*%209.,release%20or%20post%2Dre-
lease%20supervision
11
Ibid.
30
Ibid.
12
Ibid.
31
California Assembly Bill 1869, Chaptered September 18, 2020.
13
Ibid. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_
id=201920200AB1869
14
Alexis L. Watts, Edward E. Rhines, and Julie L. Matucheski, “Pro-
files in parole Release and Revocation: Hawaii,” The Robina Institute,
2017. https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/sites/robinainstitute.umn.edu/
files/704723_hawaii_parole_profile3.pdf
15
Alexis L. Watts, Edward E. Rhines, Catharine A. McDonough, and Mike
McBride, “Profiles in Parole Release and Revocation: Michigan,” The Ro-
bina Institute, 2017. https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/sites/robinainstitute.
umn.edu/files/700688_new_michigan_parole_profile3.pdf
16
Mich. Admin. Code R. 791.7745
17
Mich. Comp. Laws § 791.240a
18
New Jersey Administrative Code Section 10A:71-7.12
19
Jarret Murphy, “Advocates Press Albany to Fix New York’s Parole
System,” City Limits, January 30, 2019. https://citylimits.org/2019/01/30/
pressing-albany-to-address-flaws-in-new-yorks-parole-system/
20
Jorge Renaud, “Grading the parole release systems of all 50 states,”
Prison Policy Initiative, February 26, 2019. https://www.prisonpolicy.
org/reports/grading_parole.html
How New York Lags Behind: Parole Reforms in Other States
New Yorkers United for Justice • nyuj.org 14nyuj.org
You can also read
