The letter ("Right decision by parole board," May 2) criticizing The Advocate column on the Hank Morris parole decision ("Parole board that thinks it's judge and jury," April 21) reflects the widespread misconception that parole release determinations should reflect the seriousness of the offender's crime. This is not what New York law provides.
Indeed, it was a court decision, not the opinion in the column, that stated the parole board initially ignored the proper standard for Mr. Morris' release, i.e. his documented readiness to return to the community.
Judgment of Mr. Morris' wrongdoing, and the appropriate punishment for it, was determined by the sentencing court and Mr. Morris has served his sentence. Because he has been a model prisoner and is demonstrably remorseful for what he did, he may very well serve as a role model on the outside, an example for others who may be veering close to crossing an ethical line.
Keeping people incarcerated longer than necessary in situations such as this is counterproductive and expensive. There is legislation currently pending (A4108/S1128) that will clarify the role of the parole board and enable the parole process to fulfill its proper role: to facilitate re-entry of offenders who are ready, not needlessly prolong their punishment.
Karen Kaufmann
Parole Reform Campaign
Schodack
