Parole is a carefully constructed bridge between incarceration and returning to the community. It can also be described as a form of conditional release that involves a thorough review of an incarcerated person's record(s) and assessment of risk. This requires that the NYS Division of Parole Board members review the facts of a case and decide whether or not a person may be permitted to return to the community before the end of their sentence of incarceration.

Parole is a conditional release, which allows some people to continue serving the balance of their sentence outside of prison. Parole does not mean that prisoners are completely free, without supervision. It does give them an opportunity, under the supervision and help from a Parole Officer, to become contributing members of society, providing they follow the conditions of their release. If the conditions of parole are not met, the Board has the power to revoke the parole and return the person to prison.

The concept of parole is based on the belief that a gradual, controlled and supervised release helps people who are incarcerated reenter society as law-abiding citizens and it helps contribute to a safer society.
In New York State, the Board of Parole is made up of 19 people. Each of them is appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate for 6-year terms. One of them is designated by the Governor to serve as Chairman of the Division of Parole. The functions and powers of the Board are:

1. Making release decisions: the Board determines which inmates are to be released on Parole. The New York Executive Law (Section 259-I) (2) (a) requires the Board to personally interview incarcerated people who are eligible for release. Prisoners do not have the right to a lawyer at their parole board hearings. A typical parole board panel is made up of 2 or 3 parole board members who are responsible for:
   
   
   • Interviewing the incarcerated person.
   • Deciding whether the incarcerated will be released on parole.
   • Reviewing summary reports prepared by the facility parole officer.


2. Making release decisions: The Parole Board sets conditions for incarcerated people released on parole. It also sets release conditions for incarcerated person “conditionally released” to parole supervision by statute. The incarcerated earn time off of their maximum sentence for good behavior. Subsequently, sentencing reforms that were enacted in 1995 and 1998 changed sentences for people who committed violent felonies. These violent felons now receive determinate sentences and are released to parole supervision without appearing before the parole board for release consideration. Even though, the board still imposes conditions of release upon these people



3. Revoking parole: The New York State Parole Board has the authority to revoke parole under executive law (Section 259-I) (3) (f) (x)), when it determines a parolee has violated the conditions of their release. The parole action may send the individual back to State prison or they can impose other sanctions. Board action has also been delegated to Administrative Hearing Officers. All decisions that the parole board panel and Administrative Hearing Officers can be appealed. These appeals are made specifically to the appeals unit and also, the board, at the Governor's request, reviews clemency applications and makes recommendations to the Governor. They delegate statutory authority to investigate requests to the Division's Clemency Unit.
   
   In many instances, the Executive Law (259-I) (2) (c) (a) is misapplied when those incarcerated in New York State prisons go before the Parole Board. The above Executive Law says that:
   
   
   1. The institutional record including program goals and accomplishments, academic achievements, vocational education, training or work assignments, therapy and interpersonal relationships with staff and peers.
   2. Performance, if any, as a participant in a temporary release program;
   3. Release plans including community resources, employment, education and training and support services available to the individual.
   4. Any deportation order issued by the federal government against the individual while in custody of the Department of Correctional Services and any recommendation regarding deportation made by the Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services pursuant to Section One Hundred Forty Seven of the Correctional Law;
   5. Any statement made to the Board by the crime or the victim's representative, where the crime victim is deceased or is mentally or physically incapacitated. The Board shall provide toll free telephone access for crime victims. In the case of an oral statement made in accordance with subdivision one of Section 440.50 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the parole board member shall present a written report of the statement to the Parole Board. A crime victim's representative shall mean the crime victim's closest surviving relative, the committee or guardian of such person, or the legal representative of any such person. Such statement submitted by the victim or victim's representative may include information concerning threatening or intimidating conduct toward the victim, the victim's representative, or the victim's family, made by the person sentenced and occurring after the sentencing. Such information may include, but need not be limited to, the threatening or intimidating conduct of any other person who or which is directed by the person sentenced.
   
   
   In most instances, those who have satisfied all the requirements of the relevant sub-sections of Executive Law (259-I) (2) (c) (a) but this law has constantly been misapplied by the New York State Parole Board denying them discretionary release on parole.
   
   The Ex-Governor recently had in place an unwritten policy that all those convicted of violent felonies should be denied parole. These parole denials are in fact, direct violation of the legislative mandate in Executive Law (259-I) that sets the standard parole commissioners are supposed to consider for parole releases.
   
   The Parole release mandate actually renders the parole evaluation a contradiction, the department of correctional services has severely cut educational and vocational training, the Board in most cases fail to adequately consider this information. According to statistics released by the Division of Parole in 1995, release to parole supervision has been severely decreased. People convicted of homicide have a release rate of approximately 20%, burglary 64%, assault 38%, robbery 61% and rape 4%. Ever since the beginning of 1997, these rates have continually dropped even further, particularly when the budget crisis in the state legislature and senate created a demand for prison cells, thereby making parole release a distorted political tool in the equation. Though often misunderstood, parole supervision serves the general public by fulfilling a number of important functions. First, it insures that supervision takes place and helps minimize the risk that those formerly incarcerated will commit new crimes. Planning for parole release in prison serves to motivate those who are incarcerated to adjust their behavior and acts, as an incentive to take part in treatment programs. Policies that suggest abolishing parole actually disregard the fact that an increase in parole supervision, designed to help those incarcerated succeed instead enhances public safety, since a continued confinement of rehabilitated individuals beyond the minimum sentence no longer serves a legitimate State interest. Secondly, parole supervision also saves tax dollars and can prove to be a far superior means of helping the those incarcarated make a smooth transition back to a law abiding life style, which insures the safety of the community at an affordable cost. The Board must look at whether a person “will live and remain at liberty without violating the law,” thus the parole board faces the difficult task of predicting propensity for criminal behavior. They must also determine future criminality, based in part on indicators that are not in the record. In many cases today, this information is simply not considered, further aggravating this fact is the parole board’s tendency to disregard “the guideline time range”, thereby creating inequities as to prison time for specific offenses and those who commit them. Ideally, the parole board’s release guidelines should be strictly adhered to, because in effect, the board determines how long those convicted stay in prison. These guidelines are completely ignored in most cases and have not been revised since 1985. The inequity lies in the fact that, because the release guidelines are discretionary, reviewing courts will not intervene when guideline time ranges for specific offences are exceeded. If the guideline time range was stuck to, in contemplation of the legislative intent of it’s implementation, the range would serve to enhance parole as a legitimate way of controlling those in prison; i.e. well behaved individuals would more likely be released within the appropriate time range. It is therefore obvious that the guideline time range and the current pace of parole release denials have yet to be reconciled. If the Board does not want to use or even recognize the guidelines, then they should change them or abandon them. Participation in any rehabilitative programs while in custody currently does not guarantee discretionary parole release at all. This policy fails to serve the general public interest. The Board’s primary concentration “seriousness of the instant offence” clearly disregards the legislative intent that the Board of Parole must exercise its discretionary release authority as requested by statute. The Board’s failure to fully consider an applicant for parole release, by confining its inquiry solely to the “instant offence,” inappropriately disregards, by “administrative fiat,” the duties of the Board as defined in executive law (259a). In the meantime, the Legislative and the Judiciary sit by and watch thousands of men and women “held” unnecessarily every year, and in some cases, illegally, beyond the minimum term of imprisonment imposed by the judge that presided over the trial or plea.