Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsCriminal IssuesCriminal Justice ReformPrison reformNew York StateElder ParoleParole EligibilityStates: New York•••Started 4mos agoActive 2wks ago

Should prisoners aged 55 and older who have served at least 15 years automatically receive a parole hearing?

The 'Elder Parole' bill is a specifically contested piece of New York legislation that addresses the state's aging prison population, which has doubled in the last decade. Proponents argue that recidivism rates for people over 50 are essentially zero and that the state spends millions on geriatric medical care for inmates who pose no threat. Opponents, including police unions and victims' rights groups, argue that releasing violent criminals early retraumatizes victims and undermines the concept of justice for serious crimes.

+
Expand

Knowledge quiz

How much do you know about Criminal Issues?

See if you know more than the average American.

Test your knowledge!

28 Replies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...4mos4MO

No

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...4mos4MO

Yes, but violent criminals convicted of murder or sexual assault should never be eligible.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...4mos4MO

No, a life sentence means life, and releasing criminals just because they aged is an insult to victims' families.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...4mos4MO

Yes

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...4mos4MO

No, the parole board needs full discretion and this law overrides the authority of the original sentencing judge.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...4mos4MO

Yes, prisons have become expensive nursing homes and keeping the elderly incarcerated provides zero public safety benefit.

 @BDVLRM5 from New York  answered…2wks2W

If murder or sex offender they should not receive it automatically

 @BDM64QR  from New York  answered…1mo1MO

Yes, but it depends on the person and how they changed.

 @BDLZKRW  from New York  answered…1mo1MO

Sure, but 55 is too low of an age and it should not ever be an option for thsoe convicted of murder or sexual assault.

 @BD9PG97 from New York  answered…1mo1MO

Stop locking people up, it's more harmful than helpful. Instead, get them the mental health support they need. Those who commit crimes lack guidance, a support system, and suffer from trauma.

 @BD63LBF from New York  answered…2mos2MO

it depends on what they do

 @BD5L2FG from New York  answered…2mos2MO

yes but violent criminals who commit sexual assault should never be eligible. I think murder is debatable

 @BCYQXBR from New York  answered…2mos2MO

No. These broken people, accustomed to living only by the "prison rules," will be unable to integrate into society. They are potentially dangerous due to the logic of "there's nothing left to lose."

 @BCVPLCFRepublican from New York  answered…2mos2MO

depends what there crime is

 @BCV4JKZ from New York  answered…2mos2MO

Depends on the charge.

 @BCTBFFJ from New York  answered…2mos2MO

Depending on what they were convicted for

 @BCT5Y2P from New York  answered…2mos2MO

I agree, but for a longer time that 15 years/55+ (eg. 70 year olds)

 @BCQL9G2 from New York  answered…2mos2MO

No, if they murdered at age 30 they should stay in prison for they took a life and they should't live a life that they took.

 @BCNR9TX from New York  answered…2mos2MO

Yes, but certain crimes should be determinded more specifically.

 @BCMZXBF from New York  answered…2mos2MO

Yes depending on the crime

 @BCMPNW3Republican from New York  answered…2mos2MO

No, ONLY if they have disabilities

 @BCJW4MH from New York  answered…3mos3MO

Yes, and heavily reform the prison system and allow prisoners minimum wage and the same benefits as citizens and also allow them to vote.

 @BC9RN3N from New York  answered…3mos3MO

Yes, but the original sentencing judge should be present to be able to consider the proceedings of the original hearing.

 @BC2P46S from New York  answered…3mos3MO

No, but this should happen if 1) They have served at least 25 years and 2) If they have not been sentenced to death.

 @BBYSCNV from New York  answered…3mos3MO

Yes and No because if someone is in jail for a life sentence, then they should stay there, or if they have charges of murder or sexual assault, but if someone were to be in jail for other reasons that don't make someone a truly bad person, and has served a good amount of years that are over or are the age of 55, they should be released.

 @BBVH52N from New York  answered…3mos3MO

I don't think they should automatically receive this but they should all get the chance to be considered.

 @BBQTKXK from New York  answered…3mos3MO

if its self defense and you murderer someone but they were trying to kill you first you should go to jail but get out on parole. if your convicted with murder and its not self defense or commit sexual assault you should not be eligible

 @BBJGF7XProgressive from New York  answered…4mos4MO

Yes, but provided that the person is of worthy quality to responsibly be on parole, and not re-offend in some heinous crime like theft, assault, drug pushing, rape, murder, etc.

Engagement

The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

Israeli Bombings Kill 2,300 In Lebanon in 3 weeks

Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.The Israeli military has ordered people living in more than a quarter of Lebanon to flee, according to a UN calculation, as its fight with the Iran-backed Shia militant group Hizbollah threatens to engulf the Mediterranean country.Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.More than 1mn people have fled their homes in Lebanon in under a month, according to its government, a dramatic forced movement of the population in a country of only about 5mn inhabitants with a land mass smaller than the US state of Connecticut. Israeli forces began a ground offensive in south Lebanon two weeks ago, in their fourth invasion of the country in under five decades. They had already destroyed large parts of the densely populated southern Beirut suburb where Hizbollah had its headquarters, and killed many top militant commanders in air strikes, including former leader Hassan Nasrallah.Rema Jamous Imseis, Middle East director of UNHCR, told journalists in Geneva that “over 25 per cent of [Lebanon is] under a direct Israeli military evacuation order”. “People are heeding these calls to evacuate and they’re fleeing with almost nothing,” she added, saying that 80 per cent of the shelters opened by the Lebanese government — mostly in schools — were now full.

▲  1012 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

A Moment of Darkness': Washington Post's No-Endorsement Decision Ignites Media Firestorm

Even though the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is neck and neck, The Washington Post has decided not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in 36 years, the publisher and CEO announced Friday."We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates," Will Lewis wrote in an opinion piece published on the paper's website. He referenced the paper's policy in the decades prior to 1976, when, following the Watergate scandal that the Post broke, it endorsed Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter. The last time the Post did not endorse a presidential candidate in the general election was 1988, according to a search of its archives.Colleagues learned the news from the editorial page editor, David Shipley, at a tense meeting shortly before Lewis' announcement. The meeting was characterized by someone with direct knowledge of discussions on condition of anonymity to speak about internal matters.Shipley said that he told other editorial board leaders Thursday by management that there would be no endorsement, though he has known for weeks. He added that he "owns" this decision. The reason he cited was to create "independent space" where the newspaper does not tell people for whom to vote.Colleagues were said to be "shocked" and uniformly negative. Post corporate spokespeople have not responded to multiple messages left by NPR on the subject.Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump's presidency, denounced the decision starkly."This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."A similar decision by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong led this week to the resignations of the paper's editorials editor and two editorial board members. Soon-Shiong said that he had asked the editorial board to draft a "factual analysis" of Trump and Harris' policies and plans. In her resignation letter, editorials editor Mariel Garza said the decision made the paper look “craven and hypocritical,” given its past reporting and editorials on Trump.

▲  1013 replies