It is essential that New York Governor Kathy Hochul prioritizes the inclusion of those who have personal experience with the criminal justice system when appointing members to the parole board. This appointment strategy asserts that an individual should not be deemed unfit for society by those who have never experienced challenged freedom. Recently, New York City Council advocated for the inclusion of previously incarcerated individuals on the New York State Board of Parole with the passage of Resolution 414-A. The bill, sponsored by Senator Cordell Cleare, gained support from the majority of Queens Council members, asserting their belief that people directly affected by incarceration should inform decisions regarding parole. Council member Sandy Nurse clearly stated, ‘Who has better qualifications to make judgments about parole than those who have firsthand experience?’ There is no disagreeing. This is not just logical—it’s a democratic and ethical obligation.
The parole process in New York State has been historically marked by the prevalence of appointees from the law enforcement sector. Former law enforcers and those associated with communities hosting prisons often inherently express punitive attitudes over rehabilitative ones. In certain situations, unions have publicly requested the Board to violate the law by refusing parole based purely on the victim’s profession, ignoring the legal obligation to evaluate rehabilitation instead of past offenses. Today, we still see some law enforcement officers condemning the release of over 40 persons labeled as ‘cop killers’. What they don’t mention is crucial: each one of these people is elderly, has spent thirty to forty years in prison, has demonstrated profound regret, and has lived a law-abiding, community-oriented life post-release. None of them have been re-imprisoned. Many have even turned into pro-social mentors and contributors to the community.
In addition, it’s crucial to underline that law enforcement does not voice the perspectives of crime survivors. There is a striking preference towards prevention and rehabilitation rather than extended prison terms among crime survivors, on a 2-to-1 ratio. The notion that continuous punishment results in closure is a fallacy; restorative justice studies suggest that such punishment can actually prolong trauma. Genuine healing derives from acknowledgement, transformation, and opportunities for rectifying wrongs—not unending punishment.
The New York State Board of Parole is not simply an arm of law enforcement. It’s important to recognize it as an autonomous entity vested with the responsibility to evaluate rehabilitation and risk factors, managed beyond the political arena. The attempts by certain individuals within law enforcement to overtake the Board’s authority directly impede its legally protected independence. The structural stability of the Board is also at stake, falling prey to political interference. Despite a full membership of 19 being ideal, only 12 out of the 16 commissioners currently serving are holding over their expired terms. A chilling consequence of this is decision-making influenced by fear of non-reappointment, given that three of these terms expired six years back. Also, regular shortages of staff result in increases in two-person panels thereby escalating chances of tied votes that automatically deny parole.
With an uninhabited and assertively equipped Board, parole commissioners fall short in performing core tasks, such as reviewing discharges, settling appeals, and distributing Certificates of Relief. These operational difficulties disturb more than 10,000 parole interviews yearly and affect 24,000 individuals under supervision, progressively eroding public confidence.
Conversely, the law provides scope for considerable diversity regarding experience and qualifications when appointing to the Parole Board. But until lately, selections made over several decades favored former law enforcers, whose punitive training and adherence to the ‘blue code’ inevitably propagate an invested interest in denying parole.
Despite some progressive appointments, the essence of the Board continues to be marked by a doctrine of retribution over reform. Parole releases are dwindling, structural racial disparities linger, and commissioners often fixate on the initial crime rather than focusing on one’s potential for growth and societal contribution. The appointment process for the Parole Board should mirror rehabilitation and restoration if these concepts are indeed the crux of the justice system.
The Parole Board in New York must embody a diverse mindset and a sense of seriousness regarding determinations on community re-integration. The inclusion of people who have experienced incarceration on the Parole Board will go a long way towards restoring a sense of balance and integrity. Those who’ve lived through the experience of imprisonment and have successfully reintegrated can bring an insightful, humanizing perspective. They have lived through genuine transformation and they understand the blind spots in the process that others do not.
Several sectors value lived experience: Veterans are at the helm of VA, survivors of cancer work in health institutions, and people in recovery play significant roles in forming policies around addiction. It is puzzling why the parole system should be an exception. This is not only unfair—it is entirely unjustifiable.
Allocating just a single seat to an individual with this kind of transformative experience is insufficient. To genuinely break away from the pattern of mere symbolic representation and to start rebuilding public trust, multiple previously incarcerated individuals should be appointed as commissioners. This is not an act of charity. This is the establishment of true justice. The inclusion of these voices isn’t optional- it’s fundamental.
Furthermore, as the chief executive of New York, it falls within the governor’s responsibilities to set a precedent for fair employment practices. State legal provisions, including Correction Law Article 23-A and the NYC Fair Chance Act, explicitly prohibit employment discrimination anchored on one’s conviction history. However, the reality shows a persistence in this bias. Consequently, the appointment of former inmates to the Board will send a forthright message that New York’s state leadership upholds the principles of equal opportunity following the fulfillment of individuals’ societal obligations.