Sentences with phrase «of parole under»

Robert Dennison, the state's chairman of parole under Gov. George Pataki, said it is critical that the public understands that clemency doesn't release a person from prison but makes them eligible to be heard before the parole board sooner.

Not exact matches

Nearly one in three African American males aged 20 — 29 are under some form of criminal justice supervision whether imprisoned, jailed, on parole or probation.

But before we examine the shifting tides of correctional philosophy, let us spend a few moments to consider the old - fashioned, much - maligned, now vanishing parole system under which Liam began his sentence.

Now, the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services reports, «a large number of violent offenders are serving two, three or four times longer under truth - in - sentencing than criminals who committed similar offenses under the parole system.»

«The charge was a kilo of cocaine,» he says, «automatic life under the Rockefeller Laws, but, luckily for me, it came with parole.

Martinez is also an opely gay LGBTQ advocate and a former assistant to the chairman of the parole board under the Mario Cuomo administration.

«Meanwhile, the state Senate under my leadership will reject any Parole Board nominees put forward by Governor Cuomo who share his vision of putting the rights of violent convicted criminals ahead of the rights of law - abiding citizens,» Flanagan said in the statement on Tuesday.

«The state Senate under my leadership will reject any Parole Board nominees put forward by Governor Cuomo who share his vision of putting the rights of violent convicted criminals ahead of the rights of law - abiding citizens,» Flanagan said in a statement.

It would keep children under the age of 18 out of adult prisons, ensure the presence of a parent or guardian during questioning and sentencing and ensure a juvenile will not be imprisoned for breaking parole — given they are not a danger to others — as well as require family support centers and special care for children with significant behavioral health issues.

The legal odyssey of rapper Meek Mill has been a long and tortured one, built out of parole violations, judges under federal investigation, and the occasional hopeful highlight, as when Mill was released on bail just a few weeks ago.

It is a hell of a plight, after all, as originally sketched in Victor Hugo's 1,400 - page historical novel: Sentenced to 19 years in jail for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister's family, the stolid, pious Valjean breaks parole upon his release and goes on to become a respectable small - town mayor under an assumed name.

As Michelle Alexander noted in The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, «More African Americans are under correctional control today — in prison or jail, on probation or parole — than were enslved in 1850.»

Thus in Secretary of State for the Home Department, e x parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531, [1993] 3 All ER 92, where the issue was whether the home secretary was under a duty to give reasons for a decision relating to the prescribed period which a mandatory life sentence prisoner must serve before being eligible for parole, the House of Lords held that the decision in question was sufficiently important for it to be accompanied by reasons.

Ultimately, the court upheld Jamie Gladue's sentence of three - years imprisonment and noted that she had received parole after six months under controlled - release provisions.

Criminal Law: Parole Canada (Attorney General) v. Whaling (B.C.C.A., Nov. 2, 2012)(35024) Mar. 20, 2014 The retrospective application of delayed day parole eligibility violates the s. 11 (h) right not to be «punished... again», and is not justified underParole Canada (Attorney General) v. Whaling (B.C.C.A., Nov. 2, 2012)(35024) Mar. 20, 2014 The retrospective application of delayed day parole eligibility violates the s. 11 (h) right not to be «punished... again», and is not justified underparole eligibility violates the s. 11 (h) right not to be «punished... again», and is not justified under s. 1.

Under CJA 1991, long - term prisoners are eligible to apply for parole after half of the sentence has been served, and automatic release at the 2/3 point.

While on statutory release, an offender is still serving a «jail sentence» but in the community under direct supervision of their parole officer.

Under the original second - degree murder convictions, Jordan and Magoon had been sentenced to life in prison without parole for a minimum of 17 years.

The state of Alaska refused to permit the testing under its general post-conviction statute because DNA testing had been available, Osborne had admitted guilt to some of the crimes in an application for parole, and no constitutional right to obtain DNA post-conviction testing existed.

Under this statutory instrument, the only circumstances where legal aid was available were as follows: parole board hearings where there is the potential for immediate release, external adjudications where additional days of imprisonment can be added to the individual's sentence; and sentence calculations where internal procedures for settling disputes have been exhausted.

The appellants sought early release and had been denied an oral hearing by the Parole Board under the operation of the statutory regime (detailed in paras 3 - 17).

Significantly, Whaling was a Section 11 (h) case in which the Supreme Court of Canada was asked to consider whether automatically lengthening the incarceration period under Section 10 (1) of the Abolition of Early Parole Act constituted additional punishment.

Extended incarceration is an «objectively ascertainable effect» of changes to the parole system under the Abolition of Early Parole Act — crucially, the British Columbia Court of Appeal found that the change occurred between the time of the offences and the time of senteparole system under the Abolition of Early Parole Act — crucially, the British Columbia Court of Appeal found that the change occurred between the time of the offences and the time of senteParole Act — crucially, the British Columbia Court of Appeal found that the change occurred between the time of the offences and the time of sentencing.

Since the abolition of «accelerated parole review» constituted «punishment» (substantially increased the risk of additional incarceration), the offenders were entitled to the «lesser» punishment under Section 11 (i).

The Court of Appeal found that a change of the terms under which an already - sentenced prisoner would be eligible for parole requiring him or her to spend more time in prison was, indeed, a form of punishment, and thus a violation of the Charter, which in its view the government failed to justify under s. 1.

Under s. 2.1 of the Criminal Records Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C - 47, the Parole Board of Canada «has exclusive jurisdiction and absolute discretion to order, refuse to order or revoke a record suspension.»

Under s. 2.1 of the Criminal Records Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C - 47, the Parole Board of Canada «has exclusive jurisdiction and absolute discretion to order, refuse... [more]

The existence of measures to allow and encourage a person servicing a sentence of imprisonment for public protection imposed under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003), s 225 to progress is as inherent in the justification for his continued detention as the Parole Board reviews themselves; without them detention falls to be condemned as unlawful as if there were no such reviews at all.

Additional difficulties are also involved in prisoners being cut off waiting lists for public housing, through being incarcerated and hence under «state care» already and the fact that prisoners currently inside incarceration are often not aware of the exact time they may be released (pending parole etc) and so are unable to apply for public housing while within prison.

Over half the male Koori prisoners received under sentence in 2013 - 14 came into prison as a result of their parole being cancelled.

It makes for a terrible pathway to prison: according to Victoria's Youth Parole Board, 62 per cent of its clients are or have been under Child Protection.

Nearly seven million Americans are under some form of correctional supervision (incarceration, parole, probation).