Has Spitzer eased parole?

Local News

Discussion

PLEASE NOTE: There is a 150 word maximum for comments. All comments greater than 150 words in length will be deleted in their entirety.

ALSO NOTE: Derisive name-calling of an individual or group will result in the entire comment being deleted. This includes the terms "stupid" and "idiot" and similar references.

Welcome to our new online comments feature. Before you can join the discussion, you must first register with Disqus and verify your email address.

Once you do, your comments will post after they have been reviewed by a moderator.

We welcome your thoughts and your opinions, including unpopular ones. We ask only that you keep the conversation civil and clean.

Not all comments are deemed printable. Some are disqualified, at the newspaper’s discretion, for a number of reasons. Here are some typical practices to avoid in trying to get your comment printed:

There is a 150 word maximum for comments. All comments greater than 150 words in length will be deleted in their entirety.

Don’t state as a fact something that is unsubstantiated or that our editors wouldn't know to be true.

Don’t presume someone’s guilt in a case when it hasn't been established by a court.

Don’t assail or impugn an identifiable individual or group. If you have that kind of criticism, sign your name and submit it as a Letter to the Editor. (There is some leeway on this in connection with public officials, but it is not unconditional.)

Don’t use profanity. This includes the term “tea bagger.”

Don’t be incendiary or tasteless. Those qualities are subjective, of course, and our editors will be the arbiters.

Do not identify yourself in the main content area of the article content form. Only by enforcing this rule can the moderators prevent unscrupulous commenters from falsely identifying themselves as someone they are not.

Don't type in all caps. It is considered the Internet equivalent of shouting.

In sports articles, do not criticize officiating.

Remember, moderators are not allowed to edit any article comments. If an article comment fails any of the above criteria, the entire comment will be deleted.

We monitor comments Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Saturday and Sunday, 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. Approval of comments outside these times may be delayed.

comments powered by Disqus

December 9, 2007

Release rates for violent felons are up

By MICHAEL HILL The Press Republican Sun Dec 09, 2007, 11:00 PM EST

ALBANY -- Ailing at age 89, Charles Friedgood will leave prison this month after more than three decades behind bars. The wife killer with terminal cancer had been denied parole five times when a board finally granted him release last month.

Friedgood's parole comes as inmates convicted of the most violent crimes are being released at a higher rate under the first-year administration of Gov. Eliot Spitzer compared to his predecessor. Parole officials stress there is no policy change and that they merely are making careful decisions based on the law. But early numbers suggest a change since the Pataki administration.

17 percent released

Parole boards through October of this year interviewed 1,087 so-called "A-1" violent felons -- those convicted of murder, attempted murder, kidnapping or arson in the first degree -- and granted release to 118, or 17 percent. That compares to release rates in the 5 to 6 percent range for those inmates during the last two complete fiscal years of the Pataki administration.

The Republican governor came into office promoting a tough-on-crime philosophy and parole boards began granting releases at a lower rate after he succeeded Democratic Gov. Mario Cuomo in 1995. While there was no formal policy to deny release to inmates convicted of violent felonies, critics say that was the practical effect.

Spitzer's parole chairman, George Alexander, would not speak to The Associated Press about release rates under the new administration. Spokesman Mark Johnson said 10 months of data available is not enough time to discern if there is a trend. He added that the parole board operates independently of political pressure.

Board independent

"The Board of Parole, by law, operates as independent quasi-judicial body that functions outside of politics," Johnson said in an e-mail. "Decisions made by the board are done independently on a case-by-case basis. All cases are different and considered on their own merits."

In fact, Alexander in April reminded parole board members in a memo that, by law, they must consider a number of factors when deciding whether to grant supervised release to an inmate. Factors include not only the applicant's crime, but his institutional record and prior criminal record.

Parole has always been a sensitive issue for public officials. A release policy viewed as too lenient can inflame public opinion, while a lockdown on releases can lead to other problems. Pataki was sued in federal court in 2006 by inmates who claimed they had been denied parole improperly. Lawyers for the inmates claimed there was an "unofficial policy" of making blanket denials for A-1 violent felons based solely on their crimes.

Settlement talks in the lawsuit ended last month when the state pulled out. Robert Isseks, attorney for the inmates, said a finalized settlement was imminent when the state suddenly withdrew without an explanation.

The withdrawal came shortly after details of the pending deal began leaking out. The Daily News published a story about the possible settlement under a headline that read in part: "Eliot Eyes Deal in Suit to Spring State's Most Heinous Killers."

Spitzer spokesman Paul Larrabee did not say why the state broke off talks, but stressed that officials were guided by public safety.

"The state absolutely has a right to deny parole to some violent felons in order to protect the citizens of the state," Larrabee said.

The inmate lawsuit is pending in White Plains before a federal judge, who on Thursday denied the state's motion to dismiss based on a change in administrations in Albany.

Isseks said that despite anecdotal evidence that some inmates are being granted parole after proper consideration by parole boards, other inmates continue to be denied parole based solely on the nature of their offense.

"It appears to be a random sort of thing," Isseks said. "Some people get released, some people don't."

He said the lawsuit is still relevant.

Despite Spitzer's election, Pataki nominees continue to dominate the 19-member parole board. Members are appointed to six-year terms and Spitzer appointees are not likely to gain a majority during this term. Two slots are currently vacant.

Still, Friedgood's release suggests the administration in Albany can affect parole decisions. Friedgood, convicted of killing his wife in 1976, was denied parole for a fifth time in October. The three-member board said there was a good chance he would break the law again.

Within weeks, parole officials ordered a do-over, citing the pending lawsuit, which included Friedgood as a co-plaintiff. A board consisting of three new members conducted a separate interview of Friedgood and granted him release on a 2-1 vote.

The initial three-member board that denied Friedgood parole included two Spitzer appointees. The second board that released him consisted entirely of Pataki appointees.