New York’s 2022 parole reforms, championed by lawmakers who said they would reduce unnecessary re-incarceration, coincided with a large increase in parolees charged with new crimes remaining free while those cases proceed, according to state data and critics.
Of 20,968 parolees statewide who were charged with new crimes last year, 17,825 — about 85% — were not detained while facing those new charges, a New York Post analysis of Division of Criminal Justice Services data found. That is a marked rise from 2021, before the law took effect, when 10,121 of 17,633 parolees charged with new crimes — 57% — remained free pending the outcome of new criminal proceedings.
The reforms, known as "Less Is More," were authored by Assemblymember Phara Souffrant Forrest and co-sponsored by Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, who is running for mayor. Supporters said the changes were intended to curb what they described as a system built on perpetual punishment and to focus on rehabilitation and successful reentry.
Critics, including criminal-justice analysts and some law enforcement sources, say the changes have reduced the tools available to parole officers to quickly detain parolees who commit new offenses and have left some victims and communities exposed while cases wind through the courts.
The law raised the standard of proof required to revoke parole from a preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing evidence, and it instituted a three-strike provision that, in practice, tends to preclude automatic detention for a parolee’s first two alleged violations. The changes also obligate the system to keep parolees out of custody while a longer adjudicative process plays out to determine guilt or innocence on new charges.
Rafael Mangual, a legal fellow at the Manhattan Institute, said the reforms "made it very difficult to revoke someone’s release on parole" and that the changes have shifted the balance toward the interests of defendants rather than victims. "The reform has certainly eroded the potential protections for the public," he said.
Proponents say the reforms are part of a broader effort to reduce mass incarceration and to avoid returning people to prison for technical or low-level violations that do not pose a public-safety threat. Assemblymember Souffrant Forrest said at the time of passage that the system is oriented toward lifelong punishment rather than rehabilitation and called the bill a necessary step to help people remain in their communities after release.
The law was advanced in Albany with the support of Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie and Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins, and it was signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul.
The controversy over the law intensified this week after the arrest of a parolee accused in the killing and burning of an elderly Bellerose couple. Police said the suspect, who was on parole and had failed to register an address, was not detained under the prior parole regime for such a violation. Authorities arraigned the suspect in Queens Criminal Court after a two-day search. The case has been cited by opponents of the reforms as an example of the risks of keeping parolees in the community while new charges are pending.
Department of Corrections figures show fewer parole violators have been jailed since the reform took effect: the number of people locked up after violating parole fell from 2,332 in 2021 to 1,437 in 2024, a decline of about 38 percent. Advocates for stricter supervision say that decline, coupled with the higher percentage of parolees released while charged with new crimes, signals that the reforms have reduced immediate accountability for parole violations.
Several high-profile incidents cited by critics involve parolees arrested on new charges who were not detained while their new cases proceeded. Those cases include arrests on drug and violent-charges allegations and incidents that drew public attention after video or eyewitness accounts were released. Supporters of the reform argue that incarceration for every alleged technical violation contributes to recidivism and that the expanded protections aim to reserve incarceration for those who pose a demonstrable public-safety threat.
An anonymous source within the criminal-justice community told the New York Post that many offenses "may not have happened if we had violated parolees" under the old rules, noting that parole officers previously had discretion to return people to custody for drug use or failure to comply with supervision conditions. Critics note that moving to a higher burden of proof and extended adjudicative processes reduces that discretion.
Elected officials and advocates are divided on next steps. Some lawmakers and prosecutors have called for restoring certain parole-detainment powers or narrowing the circumstances under which a parolee can remain free while charged with a new crime. Others, including activists and public defenders, maintain that curbing parole revocations aligns with goals to reduce prison populations and address racial and economic disparities in the carceral system.
The debate over the parole reforms arrives amid broader political scrutiny of criminal-justice policy in the state. The issue has been seized upon by opponents of the reforms as they question whether the state’s balance between public safety and reducing incarceration has shifted too far in one direction. Backers counter that the policy changes are evidence-based efforts to reduce unnecessary returns to prison and to provide returning citizens a better chance at stable reentry.
State agencies that compile the statistics have pointed to the need for further study on outcomes, including recidivism and the effects of supervision practices on community safety. Lawmakers in Albany and city officials in New York City face pressure from constituents, advocacy groups and law-enforcement officials to consider adjustments that could address both public-safety concerns and goals for limiting mass incarceration.
As the debate continues, the state’s data show a clear change in how parole supervision is enforced and adjudicated. Whether the shift will prompt legislative revisions or policy adjustments will likely depend on ongoing review of public-safety outcomes and political pressure in coming months.