Welcome to the Prison Talk Online Community! Take a Minute and Sign Up Today!






Go Back   Prison Talk > U.S. REGIONAL FORUMS > NEW YORK > New York Parole, Probation & Release
Register Entertainment FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

New York Parole, Probation & Release All information & questions relating to parole, probation or release in New York should be posted here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-23-2017, 07:43 PM
ConCraft's Avatar
ConCraft ConCraft is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: NY & FL
Posts: 91
Thanks: 11
Thanked 55 Times in 35 Posts
Default Parole denial reversed & remanded for de novo hearing

Good recent court decision reversing denial of parole on murder conviction where parole board failed to properly consider inmate's age at the time of the murder.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ConCraft For This Useful Post:
nimuay (12-23-2017)
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 12-24-2017, 09:41 AM
CenTexLyn CenTexLyn is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: TX-US
Posts: 14,327
Thanks: 544
Thanked 10,122 Times in 5,645 Posts
Default

Courts should not be getting involved in matters of discretionary releases. Age would be a more compelling factor for decision-makers if he had actually complied with the rules of the institution, but claims of immaturity at the time of offense commission fail miserably when the offender continues to violate the rules of the institution.

Further, age is NOT an excuse for taking a life while engaged in another felony (specifically repetitive sales of narcotics). The two-year set-off does not appear to have been unreasonable...

When you let the Courts get involved in reviewing release decisions, you begin down a path that creates more hard-and-fast 'rules' that ultimately remove discretion from the decision-making entity. And THAT is NOT something that benefits the offender class as a whole...
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-24-2017, 09:49 AM
ConCraft's Avatar
ConCraft ConCraft is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: NY & FL
Posts: 91
Thanks: 11
Thanked 55 Times in 35 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CenTexLyn View Post
Courts should not be getting involved in matters of discretionary releases. Age would be a more compelling factor for decision-makers if he had actually complied with the rules of the institution, but claims of immaturity at the time of offense commission fail miserably when the offender continues to violate the rules of the institution.

Further, age is NOT an excuse for taking a life while engaged in another felony (specifically repetitive sales of narcotics). The two-year set-off does not appear to have been unreasonable...

When you let the Courts get involved in reviewing release decisions, you begin down a path that creates more hard-and-fast 'rules' that ultimately remove discretion from the decision-making entity. And THAT is NOT something that benefits the offender class as a whole...
Respectfully, I disagree with regard to the NY parole board. For many years it has acted with impunity and has considered itself immune from the law which governs its operation. Time and time again it has supplanted itself as a court of law, effectively usurping the the sentencing authority belonging exclusively to the judiciary.

It's not the facts of this particular case, involving a death, that are important. Instead what matters - or at least should matter - is that the courts are holding parole officials to the letter of the law.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ConCraft For This Useful Post:
nimuay (12-24-2017), xolady (01-03-2018)
  #4  
Old 12-24-2017, 09:14 PM
nimuay's Avatar
nimuay nimuay is online now
Super Moderator

PTO Super Moderator Pumpkin Hunt Participant 2014 Easter Egg Hunt 2013 - Participant 

Donation Award 
 

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: new york
Posts: 23,654
Thanks: 5,881
Thanked 28,147 Times in 10,244 Posts
Default

There have been many complaints about the NY parole boards, since their denial of parole letters have so often had one repetitive theme - 'the nature of the crime'. The statutory law allows for parole, the judge has given a sentence that allows for parole, but the board says that the nature of the crime (whatever it may have been) makes them deny. The courts have told them they can't continually give that code, but they do anyway. And it's something that cannot change, so parole is always denied.
__________________
You'll know you've created God in your own image when He hates all the people you do.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-25-2017, 06:20 AM
CenTexLyn CenTexLyn is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: TX-US
Posts: 14,327
Thanks: 544
Thanked 10,122 Times in 5,645 Posts
Default

Nature of the offense should ALWAYS be something a Board considering a discretionary release can take into account. Some are egregious enough that a release in the first few reviews simply is not a good risk while others have built in records of recidivism and, again, are not suitable risks at this time PRECISELY because of the nature of the offense.

When such a reason is utilized, it allows the offender to know what they need to hammer on in a subsequent consideration. It is one of the reasons I do as well as I do in cases where I have been involved in my jurisdiction and where there was a previous denial recorded...the earlier decision is a roadmap.

Bottom line, though, is that people do NOT want a situation where a releasing entity loses discretion...and when the Courts get involved, that is what tends to be the end result.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CenTexLyn For This Useful Post:
Ms Sunny (12-25-2017)
  #6  
Old 01-03-2018, 11:14 AM
ConCraft's Avatar
ConCraft ConCraft is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: NY & FL
Posts: 91
Thanks: 11
Thanked 55 Times in 35 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CenTexLyn View Post
Nature of the offense should ALWAYS be something a Board considering a discretionary release can take into account. Some are egregious enough that a release in the first few reviews simply is not a good risk while others have built in records of recidivism and, again, are not suitable risks at this time PRECISELY because of the nature of the offense.

When such a reason is utilized, it allows the offender to know what they need to hammer on in a subsequent consideration. It is one of the reasons I do as well as I do in cases where I have been involved in my jurisdiction and where there was a previous denial recorded...the earlier decision is a roadmap.

Bottom line, though, is that people do NOT want a situation where a releasing entity loses discretion...and when the Courts get involved, that is what tends to be the end result.
However, since the 2011 merger of parole with corrections in NY, per statute the parole board is now required to base its decision largely on the COMPAS Risk Assessment Report generated by ORCs using the Northpointe software. Yet time and again the board disavows its statutory obligation to do so, thus resulting in appropriate judicial review.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ConCraft For This Useful Post:
nimuay (01-03-2018)
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How can I appeal or get visitation denial reversed momabehr Florida Prison Visitation - General Q&A 0 01-19-2013 05:50 PM
Tier III reversed based on denial of inmate's right to call witness Paralegal USA New York Legal Information 1 09-29-2010 02:25 PM
California lifer parole denial reversed 2sleepy California Prison & Criminal Justice News & Events + 3 Strikes 1 06-15-2010 01:03 PM
Parole denial - de novo hearing ordered Paralegal USA New York Parole, Probation & Release 3 07-21-2009 02:26 PM
Parole hearing coming up, he is in denial shell021001 Michigan Parole, Probation, Halfway Houses, Employment, etc. 5 10-11-2007 09:32 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:32 PM.
Copyright © 2001- 2017 Prison Talk Online
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Website Design & Custom vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media
Message Board Statistics