Attorneys fighting to secure more Paroles for criminals are doing so at the peril of the citizens of America. The harm that will undoubted be realized if they are successful will be irreverseable! One attorney argues that to deny a prisoner a parole, “Just because of the nature of their crime,” is wrong! DUH…Any Judge that falls for that arguement is worthy of commital to an asylum!
In the spring, they were heartened when Mr. Spitzer’s new chairman of the State Parole Board, George B. Alexander, reminded his fellow commissioners that they were obligated to consider the potential for rehabilitation, remorse and recidivism as well as the severity of the original crime.
By fall, lawyers for the plaintiffs and Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo were on the verge of a legal settlement that would have granted 1,000 or so inmates new parole hearings.
At the last minute, word of the settlement was leaked to the press, around the same time that the board approved parole for a man who had taken part in a holdup that led to a police officer’s death. Among the critics was Patrick J. Lynch, president of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association in New York City, who said, “Violent felons should not be eligible for parole, and cop killers should stay incarcerated for life.”
With Mr. Spitzer’s political capital depleted and the governor hardly eager to embark on another unpopular crusade, the Division of Parole, which reports to the governor, rejected the settlement in November.
The decision suggested a deep ambivalence within the governor’s office regarding treatment of convicts. Mr. Spitzer created a commission to study disparities in sentencing, while he imposed curbs on temporary release programs from prison. He issued one pardon, erasing a robbery conviction, since called into question, of a Brooklyn man who had been out of prison for 10 years but was threatened with deportation to his native Jamaica because of the case. He did not grant a single request for clemency.
Releasing inmates has proved troublesome to politicians nationally, from Michael S. Dukakis, whose presidential campaign in 1988 was put on the defensive because of Willie Horton, a convicted murderer who committed a rape while on furlough from a Massachusetts prison, to Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, whose clemency record was questioned this year.
While preliminary figures suggest that violent felons have been more likely to be paroled under Mr. Spitzer than under Mr. Pataki (the board is still dominated by Pataki appointees, though), a federal judge this month granted the inmates class-action status, and their lawsuit is proceeding.
In 2006, the last year of the Pataki administration, releases were approved for 20 of the 274 inmates who had been convicted of violent crimes and went before the parole board for an initial hearing. This year, through the end of November, 40 of 292 were released. In 2006, of the 978 who had previously been rejected and appeared before the board for a rehearing, 128 were released. This year, of the 957 who appeared, 185 were released.
Robert N. Isseks, a lawyer for the inmates, said: “We’re informed that the release rate is going up. However, as we see more people getting released, there are still a large number of people who have exemplary prison records being denied parole just because of the nature of their crime.”
The Board of Parole consists of 19 members appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate. Five of the current 17 members (two spots are vacant) were appointed by Mr. Spitzer.
Typically convening in panels of two or three members, members of the Parole Board consider whether inmates who received indeterminate sentences — 25 years to life, for example — have met the requirements for release after having served their minimum terms. Since the mid-1990s, violent felons have received specific sentences, after which they may be released to the supervision of parole officers.
The lawsuit by the inmates charged that prisoners eligible for parole were denied their constitutional rights during the Pataki administration because of what they said was the board’s unwritten policy of rejecting parole in most of the cases solely because of the severity of the crime. The lawsuit said the board failed to also take into account, as required, the degree of remorse or rehabilitation or the likelihood that the inmate would commit another crime if released.
Although a settlement of the suit seemed near, there was a hairpin turn after the Parole Board approved the release of Shuiab A. Raheem, who was serving 25 years to life for the 1973 holdup and siege of a Brooklyn sporting goods store during which hostages were held, Officer Stephen Gilroy was killed and two others were wounded. Four men were charged, but it was not clear who fired the fatal shot.
The board cited Mr. Raheem’s spotless disciplinary record for eight years, his participation in a program to help young people and the fact that he had earned several college degrees.
Mr. Lynch, of the police union, demanded that statements be taken from the hostages and the officer’s widow, Patricia, who was quoted as saying: “He is still the love of my life.”
In response, the Parole Board delayed Mr. Raheem’s scheduled Jan. 3 release and agreed to reconsider the case.
