June 19, 2011
"Paroled lifers pose high risk of new crimes: Serious offenders often back in jail in 3 years, review finds"
The title of this post is the headline of this lengthy article appearing in today's Boston Globe. Here are excerpts:
More than a third of the most serious criminal offenders paroled in Massachusetts over the past five years were returned to prison for committing new crimes or violating the conditions of their release, a Globe review has found, raising questions about the public risk posed by granting early release to scores of convicted murderers, as well as the state’s ability to supervise violent criminals on parole.
The Globe analysis, undertaken after last December’s fatal shooting of a Woburn police officer by a career criminal on parole from a life sentence, found that the Parole Board freed 201 prisoners serving 15 years to life from January 2006 through December 2010.
Thirty of the parolees, or 14.9 percent, were returned to prison after being accused of committing new crimes, including murder and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, as well as less serious offenses such as assault and drunken driving. An additional 39, or 19.4 percent, were sent back because of parole violations such as failing a drug test.
The 34.3 percent reincarceration rate goes directly to the question the Parole Board could not answer after the shooting death of Woburn officer John Maguire last winter: How often do Parole Board decisions to release serious criminals go awry, resulting in new threats to the public? Was paroled lifer Domenic Cinelli’s murderous rampage an anomaly or part of a pattern?
The Globe analysis also appears to contradict a widely held belief in criminal justice circles: that lifers are less likely than other parolees to return to prison because they tend to be older and face the risk of resuming a life sentence if they violate the conditions of their release.
In fact, in 2009, Massachusetts lifers returned to prison more often than parolees convicted of lesser offenses, based on a Parole Board study that found that 22 percent of non-lifers on parole returned to prison.
Josh Wall, the newly installed chairman of the Massachusetts Parole Board, said the Globe’s findings reflect an urgent need for change in the decision-making process used by board members when considering parole applications from violent criminals. He said the board has approved parole for about one-third of the lifers who applied in recent years, but that rate is likely to drop as it adopts newly written guidelines and more rigorous standards. “People who are serving a life sentence who come before the Parole Board assure the Parole Board that they will not commit any new crimes and will obey all the conditions of parole," Wall said. “As we see, 35 percent of those lifers who received parole were unsuccessful in completing those promises. That rate is too high." Wall also said the board will begin tracking the return rate for paroled lifers and improve its collection of information on all parolees — an area in which Massachusetts is severely lacking, especially in comparison with states such as New York.... In the course of its review, the Globe found a number of Parole Board decisions that resulted in the release of repeat, violent criminals who committed serious new crimes once they were paroled....
Other paroled lifers who ended up back in prison appeared to make genuine attempts to forge new lives before they reoffended by committing less serious crimes. Mark Jones, for instance, seemed to make progress after the board paroled him in 2006, nearly 25 years after he was convicted of second-degree murder for his role in a Roxbury shooting when he was a teenager. Jones married and found work at a Home Depot and later as an ambulance driver and a cabbie, and began building a new life, primarily in Lynn. But his marriage foundered as he and his wife fought and finally separated. Jones also failed a urine test that detected marijuana use — an infraction that could have landed him back in prison.
Jones’s parole officer and the officer’s supervisor gave him another chance. But Jones and his estranged wife had another argument, this time over a car she was using, that culminated when Jones punctured the tires of the vehicle. He has been back in prison ever since. Jones, who is now 49, said he did not blame the Parole Board for returning him to prison. But he also said that, if paroled again, he would attempt to begin his freedom under the supervision of a sponsoring organization such as a church that might provide more help than a parole officer is able to give....
Some advocates say that the reincarceration rate for lifers in Massachusetts is not alarming, noting that most went back to jail for violating the terms of their release, while only 15 percent committed new crimes. “The fact that only 30 people were returned for new crimes is a fantastic number and speaks well of parole as a public safety measure," said Leslie Walker, executive director of Prisoners’ Legal Services, which provides legal services for inmates.
But Wall, a veteran prosecutor who was Governor Deval Patrick’s pick to revamp the Parole Board in the wake of the Cinelli case, said minor criminal offenses or technical violations of parole, such as failing a drug or alcohol test, can be precursors to more serious, violent crimes. “If you know the initial offense, most likely a murder, was committed while drinking, the failure to pass a urine test is more serious than it might be for a parolee whose initial offense was larceny," he said.
Overall, the rate of reincarceration for Massachusetts lifers appears relatively high, at least when compared with New York State, which has tracked murderers and other offenders on parole for decades. Only 19.1 percent of the 1,480 convicted murderers paroled from 1986 to 2006 in New York were returned to prison. In addition, only 2.6 percent were returned for committing new crimes, while 16.6 percent were sent back to prison for committing technical violations of their parole.
The reason for the difference between the states is hard to discern, complicated by the Massachusetts Parole Board’s failure to keep detailed data on recidivism. Peter Cutler, spokesman for New York’s Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, attributed the low return rate in his state to a comprehensive effort to assess every inmate’s shortcomings when they enter prison, along with mandatory treatment and job training designed to prepare them for life outside of prison.
On the other hand, the return rate for Massachusetts lifers is lower than the return rate for all state prison inmates, including those who completed shorter sentences and those released with no post-prison supervision. A recent study by the Pew Center on the States, a nonprofit public policy research organization, found that 43.3 percent of people released from the nation’s prisons in 2004 were reincarcerated within three years.
June 19, 2011 at 05:49 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Paroled lifers pose high risk of new crimes: Serious offenders often back in jail in 3 years, review finds":
Because there are 10 crimes for everyone "prosecuted," one should assume a similar ratio of underestimate of crimes committed by parolees. One the dimwitted or the extremely busy criminal will get caught, anyway, so the rest may be getting away with murder with a modicum of common sense, and care about being discovered.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jun 19, 2011 7:32:07 PM
"...as well as less serious offenses such as assault and drunken driving."
"An additional 39, or 19.4 percent, were sent back because of parole violations such as failing a drug test."
This clearly demonstrates both the folly of some parole conditions and of drugs policy in general. It also demonstrates the cynical headline reporting of entirely misleading headlines which ignore this fact. A 66% success rate of reintegration into society is a pretty sound basis from which to improve parole practices, especially when that number is enhanced by the addition of a further 20% relating to non-violent infractions, many of which may be relatively petty. So lets claim an 80%+ success rate for a system that does the very minimum to help those people economically and socially once they leave the concrete and steel walls of incarceration.
A opportune moment to mention the film that Doug, Supremacy and myself amongst generous other readers of this blog, supported a few months back .... and which is now being shown at film festivals around the country - "June Gloom":
or click on my name.
Posted by: peter | Jun 20, 2011 4:07:18 AM
Better yet why don't we tie bonuses and continued employment of parole officials with the annual recidivism rates. A much more value added approach with personal incentives to make it work. Similar to what they want to do with teachers and test scores, hey!
Posted by: james | Jun 20, 2011 6:20:56 PM
works for me james. Maybe we can also tie laws to LAWMAKERS. if the law costs citizens MONEY, TIME OR LIVES....lawmaker pays for it!
Posted by: rodsmith | Jun 21, 2011 1:46:34 AM
Great post.Your blog is really excellent. Finally we kissed and the passion scale went sky high and I knew I was onto a good thing
Posted by: Bravers Jerseys | Jul 27, 2011 5:32:58 AM