New York State Department of Parole

¶ … New York State Department of Parole or the Department of Corrections is an agency of the state responsible for the supervision and management of criminals convicted of a crime, felony level or higher. The Department of Corrections was put in place to provide protection for the community by operating and managing safe, secure facilities that keep offenders under control as well as allow them fair treatment during time served. The main objective of the agency is to minimize the risk of criminal behavior through a partnership consisting of communities, a continuum of community supervision, incarceration, sanctions and services to deal with criminal or unlawful behavior. The core values existing within the sequence of probation, prison, and parole is the foundation that the least antagonistic adjustment be used to monitor offender behavior, all while adhering to public safety rules and regulations.

What does it truly encompass to be paroled in America? The term parole, like other criminal justice terms, is often times misinterpreted to signify different things or in some cases, is just not fully comprehended. The definition of parole as stated by Eisenstadt & Moss is: an offender serves a section of their given sentence while under the supervision of either their community or an officer. (Eisenstadt, & Moss, 2005, p. 120) Another definition, given by the U.S. Parole Commission, states that parole may be granted if:

1. The convicted person has extensively followed the rules of the institution

2. If release would not abate the gravity of the offenses or advocate impudence for the law.

3. Release would not threaten the public welfare. (National Institute of Corrections (U.S.), 2001, p. 45)

This definition implies that parole systems set in different states vary in how they observe the rules and regulations. Parole systems are the same in regards to overall structure, but differ in the details. By applying research to how New York deals with the parole system, many interesting facts and figures will surface that interconnect with the idea of parole for offenders and how successful or unsuccessful the system for the state and to some level, the country, truly is. A quick example would be offenders get 6 months to a year of unsupervised probation if it is their first offense committed in New York. This law applies countrywide, but only to certain crimes.

Looking into the origin of probation allows an insight into the need for probation's existence. The origin of probation can be traced back to England and its criminal laws of the Middle Ages. Punishments were not only given to adults, but children, and not only for major crimes. People were treated in the same, harsh manner for petty crimes as well as major crimes. Sentences included branding, flogging, mutilation, as well as public execution. (Morgan Jr., 2009, p. 2) Public execution was so common that during the time of King Henry VIII, over a hundred crimes (some, minor offenses) were punishable by death.

The severity of these punishments were eventually met with discontent by English society. Consequently, they decided to re-evaluate their justice system. Progressive mentality wanted to generate a justice system that would slowly, but resolutely make an effort to alleviate barbaric and unfair punishments. They went about doing this through a variety of measures that were concocted and adapted to suit the needs of the many. Examples of these were royal pardons which could be purchased by the person accused; leniency could be granted by decision of the judge; stolen property could be diminished in value by the court so offenders could receive a lesser crime charge.

Additional methods such as: benefit of clergy, judicial reprieve, sanctuary, and abjuration, gave offenders a level of protection from receiving bleaker charges.(Parent, & National Institute of Justice (U.S.), Abt Associates, 1994, p. 56) In time, the courts initiated the practice of "binding over for good behavior," a form of ephemeral release during which offenders could take action to assure resources for pardons or lesser sentences. As it progressed in the United States, certain courts began adjourning sentences. Offenders achieved adjournment through a method similar to modern bail: the accused paid a fee as collateral for good behavior.

Filing executed in cases that did not require an instant sentencing, was also permitted and is the norm for minor cases presently. Using this maneuver, indictments were "laid on file" or held in recess. To alleviate arbitrary mandatory penalties, judges often assumed a motion to extirpate based upon minor technicalities or mistakes in the proceedings. These American practices are seen today as precursors to probation. It is also acknowledged as the early use of recognizance and suspended sentence which played a direct role in modern probation.

Modern Probation encompasses a variety of terms and actions. Intensive Supervised Probation or ISP is a form of release into the community that spotlights close supervision of convicted offenders and appoints stringent conditions on that release, such as the following:

Multiple weekly correspondence with officer, mainly verbal (phone) or in person

Random and unannounced drug testing to assure the offender is not under the influence

Strict obligation of conditions, for instance, maintaining a job

Required attendance in treatment, education programs, volunteer work, etc. (Barker, 2009, p. 12)

ISP is only reserved for those who are deemed least likely to exist in society without regressing back to criminal activity in the community. The degree of limitation placed on them is often exorbitant and the level of direct, face-to-face contact required is thought to greatly impede, or at least thwart any ongoing criminal activity. Some say the opposite and feel as though this kind of parole serves to keep criminals from ever becoming upstanding citizens, which will be assessed later on.

Another form of probation is Shock Probation and Split Sentencing. Shock probation/split sentencing is a sentence for a designation of years, but after 1-3 months, the convicted is withdrawn from jail or prison. While both these concepts are used vice versa, they are in reality two different activities. Shock probation has the offender originally sentenced to jail, then taken before the judge after 1-3 months and re-sentenced to probation. Split sentencing, has the offender receive probation as part of the original sentence demanding no supplementary appearance before the judge. Still, the terms refer to jail, some community service or both. (Reichel, 2008, p. 23)

Reichel, P.L. (2008) discusses in Comparative Criminal Justice Systems: A topical approach the concept of revocation. Revocation refers to the removal of probation privileges. Probation is afterall, a conditional release. Because of this, under the right conditions, it can be revoked, or taken away. The conditions include a technical violation or if the person charged is convicted of a new crime within the probationary period. The process of probation revocation is first done by the probation officer's belief that a violation deserving revocation happened. As a result of the 1973 case Gagnon v. Scarpelli, the Supreme Court assured that where "liberty relevance" is involved, probationers are honored to clutch certain due process rights. Such rights include:

1. Written declaration of the supposed violations

2. Preliminary (or PROBABLE CAUSE) HEARING where a judicial authority will decide whether enough probable cause exists to continue the case

3. If warranted, a revocation hearing.

If a revocation hearing is then set up, probationers are given the authority to testify on their own behalf, may present witnesses, and may also have an attorney present. New York allows the offender the right to an attorney. If the person cannot retain a private lawyer, the court will appoint one. The court appointed lawyer option usually leaves the offender with little chance of escaping a harsher plea if a private lawyer is not retained, but does allow the offender time to prepare a defense.

The standard of proof needed at a revocation hearing is a "preponderance of the evidence," which means it needs less than what a criminal trial would. Possible outcomes include return to supervision, discipline with renewal to supervision, or revocation with jail time. Looking into modern parole/probation and how England began using probation and criminal leniency allows for a deeper look into the role of parole and the purpose it serves. As mentioned prior, the system of corrections existed for centuries before modern times.

The corrections history of New York is only a small piece of the picture that makes up parole/probation in the United States. But to begin to look into what this kind of agency is truly about, one must look at the problems it faces in its continual sequence of delivery and action. Are criminals re-offending? Can people put under probation and parole continue a normal and stable life outside of the criminal-justice system? Do actions like revocation and sealing perpetuate/hinder or help reduce criminal activity?

In the United States, Zebulon Brockaway, the superintendent of the Elmira Reformatory during the 1870s instituted the first indeterminate sentencing law in the United States. He also proposed the first good behavior system in order to diminish inmates' sentences and generate better behavior in correctional facilities. Good behavior was not the end result of his efforts and criminals kept committing crimes once they were released. The obstacle became providing adequate supervision and consequences once criminals were released.

By 1913, the re-offense rate increased and it became apparent, supervision of released offenders as well as inmates residing in correctional facilities had to be implemented. Actions were granted for officials to keep offenders from reoffending, but resources were unable to keep up with the demand. As will be discussed in the upcoming literature review, mental illness appears to correlate with increased criminal activity. During the Great Depression of the United States, there was a sharp increase in prison populations.

The increase was due in part to the lack of jobs and desperate conditions of the time. Diminished resources and overcrowding made parole agencies popular in alleviating overcrowding and overspending by removing prisoners from correctional facilities. The increase in re-offenders, the lack of resources, and the need to decrease overcrowding made parole/probation a vital part of the maintenance of the correctional system but it still did little to lower crime rates.

By 1930, Congress formally ensconced a United States Board of Parole. For a short while, it seemed the programs and initiatives put into development would be able to provide useful support and become a vital tool to the criminal justice system. However, bad timing and continual lack of resources added to its eventual downfall. Later in the twentieth century, philosophers started examining the social and psychological aspects of criminal behavior, like mental illness, heralding a shift from classicalist thinking towards positivism. The shift in thought generated different approaches to the parole system and treatment of offenders.

Under positivism, actions are thought to derive from forces beyond one's control such as: psychological, biological, or sociological in origin. With positivism, offenders were seen as "sick" and unable to "cure" themselves from the "disease" of criminal behavior. The parole department was then charged with the responsibility of "curing" them. Unlike with Classicalist theorists who believe criminals actively choose to perform crimes and therefore must be met with punitive action.

Positivism is logical with a less disciplinary method to sentencing and commonly involves an indefinite sentencing structure allowing for the potentiality of early release if the offender shows steps successfully and permanent rehabilitation. This approach in philosophy fits well with the Elmira system. The time in which all this was discovered and correlated gave the chance to officials to use parole as a way to moderate the overcrowded conditions that had formed during the era of the great depression.

Parolees must serve some jail time in order to qualify as a parolee. This fact makes parolee appear to be a greater threat to society than their less serious offender counterparts, the probationers. Therefore, the main goals of parole should encompass crime deterrence and offender control. Given that most offenders in time will return to the community, a competitive goal that should go in conjunction with the primary goal is reintegration, or the facilitation of an offender's transformation from confinement to freedom.

In 1917, a State Division of Probation was established within the NYS Department of Corrections, and in 1928 the Office of the Director of Probation formed. The State's Division of Probation continued within the Department of Corrections until 1970. After 1970 it was classified as a separate state agency within the Executive Department. The Director of the NYS Division of Probation then became a gubernatorial appointee, directly accountable to the governor. In the 1980s New York, especially New York city, had high amounts of crime that the parole system was failing in diminishing.

Street crime rates during this period skyrocketed and in many instances, the crimes were carried by parolees who were released into the community before to the official cessation of their sentence. This negative consequence led directly to the formation of penal philosophies approving strict approaches and insisting on harsher sentencing. Such philosophies brought on the mentality: "do the crime, do the time" and resulted in radical changes to sentencing practices nationwide. In 1984, the Classification/Alternatives Law expanded the authority of the state division. The name was changed to the New York State Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives. Currently, the New York City Department of Probation is the second largest agency of its kind in the U.S.

Kates, C.L. (2007) states in the article, Policy Report: An Analysis of Current NYS Parole Policy that New York has an abysmal release rate of 3% for A-1 felons and 2% for plea bargains. She also shares the desire for New York state politicians like Governor Pataki to end parole for violent felons demonstrating the lack of faith government has in the efficacy of parole/probation. To some degree, this is the case as it pertains to re-offense, but does not solve the problem of higher crime rates. The scope of the situation lies in understanding what ex-convicts have to deal with outside of prison/jail.

The structure of the parole agency, especially one as large as New York City's gets heavily inundated with new cases every day. To deal with people released from prison/jail, to properly supervise and implement steps to reduce re-offense takes a great deal of resources. State and Federal government does not have the money invested to ensure success within the agency. Investing more resources will lead to further analysis of how criminals re-offend and why.

Nelson, M., Deess, P., & Allen, C. (2011) examines in The First Month Out: Post-Incarceration Experiences in New York City, the possible reasons parole and probation remain ineffective. The article explains the struggle, the nearly 350 people released from prison and jail daily, as they try to live again. The difficult of the economy, from limited job growth to lack of affordable housing, leave ex-convicts and parolees dependent on drugs and other negative habits to cope. Lack of supervision and support from the government leave them feeling hopeless and stuck.

Many people who've been in the system cannot find work due to their criminal history. Most jobs in New York's economy are sales jobs and do not pay as much as say a city/government job. Government jobs typically require a clean record from prospective employees. Ex-criminals find it difficult to gain the necessary foothold to stabilize themselves in an economy that demands a clean record.

A lot of people who perform criminal acts are mentally ill. They feel as though they cannot contribute adequately to society through normal means and must do illegal activities in order to survive. Matejkowski, J., Caplan, J.M., & Cullen, S.W. (2010) discusses in a study the effect mental illness plays on criminal behavior. It also shares how it perpetuates the cycle of crime within families.

Generations of criminal activity exist within families. Sometimes, just like with mental illness and addiction, (conditions that generate a higher risk for criminal activity) the actions of the parents directly impact the actions of the children. If a child's parent is absent due to incarceration, the child might have a harder time dealing with school and other normal activities. This could lead to mental illness, addiction, and future illegal activity.

Adding to the despair is the increasing debt from fees and levies that the courts force convicted offenders to pay. Katzenstein, M.F., & Nagrecha, M. (2011) share in the article, A new punishment regime Criminology & Public Policy, the addition of fees as a new means of institutionalization. Parole/probation has been replaced in terms of systematic use by fees and levies. This in turn perpetuates continued criminal activity.

New York City is known to give traffic tickets to thousands of drivers each month. The tickets run as much as $500. Offenders are given a few months to pay these fines along with probation or risk jail time. Sometimes they give the option of community service, but that can interfere with a person's work and schedule. Losing money paying these fines leads some people to turn to illegal means to compensate.

Some agencies within the country are trying to resolve the problem. Board of Pardons and Paroles (2010) shares in their article a program called TAPP (Treatment and Aftercare for Probationers and Parolees) which promises to boost support for people with mental illness coming off of probation or parole. The people for the program recognize most mentally ill offenders commit low level crimes to survive. Some also commit crimes to feed their drug habit. If more agencies adopt programs that reduce dependence on illegal substances and provide job placement for ex-convicts, the re-offense rate would drop.