Make elder reform a priority

To the editor:

(re: “Be careful of what you wish for on elder parole,” Feb. 24)

In justifying his non-position on what he identifies as “the so-called ‘elder’ parole bill,” Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz is either misinformed — or misinforming — regarding the lawful scope of parole board empowerment.

It is well-settled that while, historically, parole boards are permitted to place a greater emphasis on the gravity of the offense, they are nonetheless obligated to consider a number of specific factors in weighing whether to grant parole.

In other words, release may not be denied solely on the basis of the gravity of the offense. That is the law in this state, Mr. Dinowitz. Boards are currently mandated to consider a substantial range of factors, including the prisoner’s pursuit of self-improvement through education, mental health and addiction corrections, assistance to others in and outside the prison system, age at the time of the crime, prior life history, and genuine recognition of the underlying and wrongfulness of their crimes.

Studies indicate that those who commit crimes of violence were first victims of same, whether by family members or others.

Given the consistent history of parole boards rejecting petitions in spite of compelling evidence supporting release — and the unparalleled length of prison sentences imposed in this country and state, in contrast with the rest of the industrialized countries of the western world — the modest provisions of the elder parole bill deserve support.

The bill does not ordain release, merely an opportunity for those who, after a minimum of 15 years of efforts, have reformed. After all, we call the department overseeing custodial confinement a “corrections” system. The incentive to provide a handful of long-termers an opportunity to prove themselves should be supported — not avoided — as the Assemblyman seems comfortable in evading.

The breathtaking costs to New York’s taxpayers — hundreds of millions of dollars a year — the abusive placement of prisons in rural upstate areas, motored principally by political tradeoffs at the additional costs of straining family involvement with those incarcerated, and the high rate of recidivism among those who have served full terms of incarceration, merely underscore why we citizens seek legislators with the courage to do something.

I would also suggest Mr. Dinowitz diminishes himself in attacking those who “have seemingly decided that parole reform is more urgent and important than” COVID-19, the New York Health Act, climate change, school quality, and housing affordability. It is a cheap shot and unworthy of a man who, from time to time, has pursued reforms that he found worthy of his attention — even if not the highest priority of others.

Eric Seiff

Have an opinion? Share your thoughts as a letter to the editor. Make your submission to letters@riverdalepress.com. Please include your full name, phone number (for verification purposes only), and home address (which will not be published). The Riverdale Press maintains an open submission policy, and stated opinions do not necessarily represent the publication.