N.Y. officer's killing puts parole system under scrutiny

ROCHESTER, N.Y. — The fatal shooting of Rochester Police Officer Daryl Pierson this month both shocked and united a community, reminding us in brutal fashion of the daily dangers of police work while creating a rare togetherness evident by the thousands who mourned the slain policeman.

And there have been ripples from the slaying, perhaps none so significant — and perhaps none with the possibility of so lasting an impact — as the discussions about just how the man accused of the killing was on the streets that fateful night of Sept. 3.

Thomas Johnson III, who was wanted on a parole violation when Pierson tried to chase him down, is now charged with six criminal counts, including aggravated murder in the Pierson homicide. Johnson had been free for a month, jailed for more than three years on an attempted robbery conviction and subsequent parole violation.

In the aftermath of the killing, legislators and citizens alike have railed against a criminal justice system that they maintain is releasing too many offenders to the streets. But, as often happens in the immediacy of a tragedy of this sort, the facts of Johnson's conviction, imprisonment and release have been drowned out by the cacophany.

While Johnson's alleged crime may spur changes — already legislators are pushing tougher measures — the facts behind his incarceration and subsequent release are not particularly unusual.

His plea agreement was the kind of plea agreement made every day in jurisdictions across New York; his imprisonment was apparently uneventful, with a clean disciplinary history after an earlier parole violation; he did serve most of his time, and was released by corrections officials who say the law required the move; and he was being sought by parole officials when he failed to return to the Salvation Army shelter where he was staying. The Parole Board, despite common misperceptions, had nothing to do with his release.

But his alleged crime comes on the heels of accusations that another parolee raped a 14-year-old girl in Rochester a day after his release.

The clamor for tougher sentencing and parole measures is indicative of the constant tug with the issue of criminal justice. There are typically two camps: Those who think society can do more to rehabilitate offenders, and those who think the criminal justice system is too lax, and needs more severe sanctions for criminals.

That tension has long existed, said Martin Horn, a former executive director for the New York state Division of Parole who now is a distinguished lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

"Historically it has happened as far back as I can remember, and I've been in this business for over 30 years," he said.

Just this year alone, we have seen the current hunger for stricter sentences and parole restrictions and a decision by the city of Rochester that prohibits employers from asking prospective workers on job applications about whether they've committed a crime.

"Whatever system you have, people are going to get out" of prison, Horn said.

----

On Aug. 11, Johnson left the Wyoming Correctional Facility in Attica.

Within 24 hours, Johnson appeared at the state parole office in Rochester, as required. He knew the drill; he had been released on parole in 2013, only to be returned to prison on a violation.

Within a month of his 2014 release, Johnson allegedly shot and killed Pierson.

As a violent felon with an attempted robbery conviction, Johnson received what is known as a "determinate" sentence — one crafted to provide more certainty in sentencing. His sentence was three years; by law, he had to serve six-sevenths of it.

Had Johnson's disciplinary record been spotty, he could have been held for the full sentence. But, records show, he had no disciplinary infractions while in prison. So the state Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, which oversees the prison and parole systems, released Johnson. He did not go before a parole board.

Supporters of determinate sentencing say the process provides more certainty with punishment, while also presenting inmates with an incentive to behave while incarcerated.

"Determinate sentencing also allows for more informed plea bargaining, with both the parties and the court having a clearer picture of the actual time the defendant is likely to spend under custody on the agreed-to sentence, and virtually eliminates the possibility that an inmate who has 'followed the rules' and earned the maximum good time and merit time allowances while in custody will be inappropriately or inexplicably denied release by the Board of Parole," a 2009 state commission on sentencing reform reported.

In cases like Johnson's, there is a constant confusion that he went before the state Parole Board and the three-member panel decided to release him. Instead, corrections officials decide when the six-sevenths imprisonment time is upon them and, using an equation that looks at an inmate's "good time" for behavior and disciplinary infractions, decide whether he must be released.

"That's a very rigid process," Horn said.

"Good time and parole release are completely separate. Good time affects your maximum sentence or your eligibility for release and it's entirely based on history."

The system can lead to instances in which corrections and parole, though unified as the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, can seem to be working from separate playbooks. Such was the case with Michael Caruthers, accused of raping a 14-year-old girl.

Caruthers was convicted of a nonviolent felony — third-degree robbery — and his sentence was "indeterminate." Because of that, he could be released after serving two-thirds of his maximum sentence, and was. He was released a day before the alleged sexual assault.

Yet the year before, the Parole Board denied an earlier release on parole, saying, "your release is incompatible with public safety and welfare."

However, his in-prison disciplinary infractions, including smoking, were not serious enough to count against his "good time" accumulation for good behavior.

The Parole Board looked at earlier crimes, such as drug possession and auto theft, committed while Caruthers had been on parole. Those crimes played no role in the Corrections Department math for his release.

"Corrections is looking at your in-prison behavior," Horn said.

Still, Horn said, the public perception often is that parole is behind every release decision.

The debate about who we let out of prison and how is always a hot-button item.

New York has lurched back and forth for years — creating long sentences for drug crimes in the 1970s, only to ease them decades later as the prisons filled with nonviolent offenders.

There have often been sparks for significant legislative changes.

The next legislative session that begins in January will likely show whether the death of Officer Daryl Pierson is one of those sparks.

Contributing: David Andreatta of the Democrat and Chronicle