People v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 27 December 1963
• Citation: 245 N.Y.S.2d 534,20 A.D.2d 170
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lawrence Adelbert JACKSON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 534

245 N.Y.S.2d 534

20 A.D.2d 170

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lawrence Adelbert JACKSON, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

Dec. 27, 1963.

Donald L. Slater, Cortland, for appellant.

Leslie E. Briggs, Dist. Atty., Cortland County, Cortland, for respondent.

Before BERGAN, P.J., and GIBSON, HERLIHY, REYNOLDS and TAYLOR, JJ.

BERGAN, Presiding Justice.

Defendant was convicted in Cortland County in 1951 of carnal abuse of a child between the ages of 10 and 16 years, as a felony, and was sentenced to an indeterminate term of one-day-to-life under one of the alternatives set forth in Penal Law, § 483-b. After more than eleven years in prison, defendant succeeded in having that sentence vacated. He was resentenced on January 4, 1963 in the Cortland County Court, again to one-day-to-life.

This is a direct appeal from the last sentence and it raises the question whether the term of one-day-to-life should have been imposed in this case or whether the alternative provisions of Penal Law, § 483-b, authorizing imprisonment for a maximum of 10 years ought to be invoked.

The People properly point out on this appeal that the one-day-to-life sentence for sex offenses was evolved as part of a progressive method enacted in 1950 of treating certain offenders. The amending and implementing statute (L.1950, ch. 525) was entitled 'An act to amend the mental hygiene law, the correction law, the penal law and the code of criminal procedure, in relation to the sentence, study, diagnosis and treatment of persons convicted of certain crimes.'

The statute provided for psychiatric and psychological services for the Correction Department and the Division of Parole to be furnished by the Department of Mental Hygiene and for the enlargement of services in existing psychiatric and diagnostic clinics in penal institutions. It provided for the new kind of sentence of one-day-to-life for certain sex offenders and vested in the Division of Parole broad authority to release such prisoners at any time after sentence.

The enactment of the statute was on the recommendation of the Governor to the Legislature on March 15, 1950 and was based on a comprehensive examination and report by a committee under whose supervision an intensive study of 102 sex offenders then confined in Sing Sing Prison had been conducted. (N.Y.Legis.Doc., 1950, No. 56, p. 12).

The committee consisted of the Commissioners of Correction and of Mental Hygiene, the Chairman of the Board of Parole and other leading figures in this field. The studies resulted in the recognition of several main categories of sex offenders, classified from the viewpoint of possibility of treatment in penal institutions.

One group was described as predisposed to crimes of violence, likely to commit new attacks if released, and not amenable to treatment by present known methods. Another group was described as unsuitable for treatment at present because of personality make-up, age, or alcoholism and who would be likely to continue, if release, to be a danger to public morals and to women and children.

A third group was recognized as amenable to treatment 'with a good prospect of improvement before release'. This group constituted almost 50% of those studied. A last group was described as one which could be released on parole and treated on an outpatient basis (N.Y.Legis.Doc., 1950, No. 56, p. 23).

The most important of several recommendations of the committee which were incorporated in the statute of 1950 was the entirely new kind of sentence having marked flexibility in detention. As an essential concomitant to this type of sentence, however, this recommendation was made by the committee:

'We recommend further that, whenever an offender shall be sentenced to such a term of from one day to life, the law shall impose upon the Department of Mental Hygiene, the Department of Correction and the Board of Parole the solemn duty of giving his case prompt and intensive study, to be followed where feasible by therapeutic treatment, to the end that such offender may be rehabilitated and released whenever it may appear that he is a good risk on parole. When serving under this form of sentence, it should be required that a prisoner receive thorough psychiatric examination not less than once every two years, and consideration by the Parole Board.' (p. 44).

It was envisioned, therefore, as the title of the statute itself suggests, that treatment was an integral and essential part of a program to be followed in the penal system. Where the offender could be treated with some reasonable chance of improvement, it was contemplated that under a sentence so flexible that it might last for his natural life, he would be able to receive adequate treatment and would be discharged if improved to the extent it would be safe to release him.

As a necessary concomitant of this public policy, of course, it was realized that some offenders would not yield to any treatment and that when such cases were clearly identified and professionally evaluated, it would be expected that the dangerous offenders be held until the situation changed. Sometimes this would be for their whole lives. The reason for this was not because life imprisonment was...