New York State Parole Board decision denying early release to Judith
Clark
DECISION:
Denied. Hold 24 months. Next
appearance 4/2019.
The Board of Parole commends your personal growth and productive
use of time, however, discretionary release on parole shall not be
granted merely as a reward for good conduct or efficient performance
of duties while confined, but after considering if there is a reasonable
probability that, if you are released, you will live and remain at liberty
without violating the law, and that your release is not incompatible
with the welfare of society and will not so deprecate the seriousness of
your crimes as to undermine respect for the law.
The significant time spent with your records and interviewing you
enabled us to learn a great deal about your crimes and about you.
Following written procedures, we considered information regarding
relevant factors and applied the standard above. Upon deliberation, we
unanimously voted to deny your release to community supervision at
this time. We learned that you had a criminal history in Illinois of
aggravated battery, aiding escape, mob action and resisting arrest
prior to your crimes in New York that resulting in convictions for
multiple counts of murder in the second degree and robbery in the first
degree. You were attracted to violence to demonstrate total
commitment to revolutionary ideas and objectives for a period that
spanned more than a decade between your twenties and thirties. By
the time of the crime you were not “a young idealistic innocent, by any
means.” In fact, you described yourself as a “single-minded fanatic …
at war with America”, a “blinded revolutionary”, “cut off” from your
“humanity.”
In part, you described the crimes as “policemen completely outgunned, out-maneuvered and overwhelmed by people intent on killing
them.” Further you admit that you did not question your participation
before, during, or for a significant period after the crime, or allow
yourself to feel the remorse and shame you would feel years later.
At sentencing, District Attorney Kenneth Gribetz and Judge David
Ritter, noted your statements and behavior during trial and did not
believe you could be rehabilitated. Your original sentence was intended
to serve the goals of deterrence and protection of society. Upon being
incarcerated you began to participate in programs, but continued to
correspond with people you described as “fugitives” and received two
years in special housing between 1985 and 1987 for giving
descriptions of the correctional facility to these persons to “break” you

 out. You would also spend about a year in Federal custody for what you
told us were unrelated reasons.
Your rehabilitative efforts and institutional record include: Down on
Violence, Alternatives to Violence, Aggression Replacement (ART),
helping to create AIDS Counseling and Education (ACE) and college
programs for female inmates.
You earned Bachelor and Master degrees, trained eleven dogs for
service, law enforcement and therapeutic purposes, received Clinical
Pastoral Education and worked with mothers and their children within
the correctional facility. We considered a favorable risk and needs
assessment and stated goals within a recent case plan. Your release
plans include solid employment offers, residence with a physician
friend who is one of few former associates from your days in the May
19th collective, and the continuation of some of the efforts described
above. We noted that when you began to become accountable for your
role as getaway driver and “opened up” to others, you “eliminated the
idea that there are enemies,” and understood that at “the center of
this story and tragedy, and all the years since, are the families” of the
victims.
We reviewed boxes of public support and boxes of public opposition.
These records included significant submissions from attorneys on your
behalf, clemency and parole exhibits and letters from your family,
friends and supporters. Being governed by the law, while we
considered and weighed support, we were persuaded against release
by opposing information that includes statements from former and
current officials, and statements from survivors and affected parties
found in pre-sentence records, sentencing minutes and other public
records.
We noted that you want to apologize directly to any interested victims
or family members. While you believe that personal apologies would be
most credible once you are released, apologies extended before you
are released may be beneficial to all parties.
In any event, the Board of Parole does not mandate or facilitate such
meetings or dictate the terms or circumstances, and any such meeting
would only be possible if desired by survivors of the crimes or victims'
family members.
We also noted your appreciation for the Governor's commutation of
your sentence and for our independent process. We respect and
understand the Governor's lawful decision to exercise his unique
discretion in your case. By the time of our interview, we had

 substantial additional information that was created and submitted
pursuant to our unique process.
Finally, it is noteworthy that you said that you would not change if you
weren't released, but would hold true to your asserted values, continue
to encourage positive change in others and try to get released.
We do not depart from your favorable risk assessment; however, we do
find that your release at this time is incompatible with the welfare of
society as expressed directly by relevant officials and thousands of its
members, and that it would deprecate the seriousness of your crimes
as to undermine respect for the law. You are still a symbol of violent
and terroristic crime.
Perhaps the transcript of our interview will allow parties, whose
statements we must consider, to read about your ongoing personal
evolution for the first time.
Until your next appearance, we urge you to continue to “communicate
nonviolence and respect for the law”
and to believe and warn others in your own words that “everyone has a
right to life” and “violent rhetoric can lead to terrible consequences”
and to share what it feels like to “bear responsibility for the loss of life,
the injuries and the terror” caused by violent criminal actions.
(All commissioners concur.)