Two bills gaining momentum in Albany would rewrite New York's parole rules so broadly that some of the state's most notorious convicted killers, including David Berkowitz, Mark David Chapman, and a man who murdered a rookie NYPD officer on orders from a drug kingpin, could walk free within two years, according to a law enforcement source and policy analysts tracking the legislation.
The measures, known as the Elder Parole bill and the Fair and Timely Parole bill, are backed by Democratic lawmakers from Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens. Together, they would lower the threshold for parole hearings, strip the parole board of discretion over the severity of the original crime, and guarantee new hearings every two years for inmates who are denied release. The New York Post reported that both bills could pass as soon as this year.
The people who would benefit are not petty offenders. They are convicted murderers serving sentences of 25 years to life, and the families of their victims would be forced back before the parole board every two years to relive the worst days of their lives.
The Elder Parole bill, sponsored by Sen. Cordell Cleare (D-Manhattan) and Assemblywoman Maritza Davilla (D-Brooklyn), would allow parole hearings for any inmate who has turned 55 and served at least 15 years. If denied, the inmate would automatically receive another hearing in two years. Denied inmates must be told in writing "the factors and reasons for the denial." Anyone released under the measure would enter community supervision as if they had served their full sentence.
The Fair and Timely Parole bill, led by Sen. Julia Salazar (D-Brooklyn) and Assemblyman David Weprin (D-Queens), goes further. It would require the state parole board to release convicts regardless of the severity of their crimes unless they pose a "current" danger to the public.
That single word, "current", does the heavy lifting. A killer who has been locked up for decades and has behaved inside prison walls could argue he poses no present threat. The original crime, no matter how savage, would carry diminished weight.
Raphael Mangual, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, said he believes both measures are gaining steam and could pass this year. He pointed to New York City's recent decline in crime as the political cover lawmakers may need.
"I think it's a real risk, especially given the recent decline in crime in New York City. I think that might have led to a space where people might be more tolerant than they were five years ago of engaging in this kind of experiment."
Mangual was blunt about the premise behind the legislation. He rejected the notion that good behavior behind bars should erase a conviction for murder.
"It really shouldn't matter how well somebody behaves in prison. You should have behaved before you got there."
A law enforcement source warned that the bills' passage would open the door for some of the most infamous inmates in New York history.
"Consider some of the most heinous and noteworthy people in... prison today, they will undoubtedly be released within the next two years if these bills are signed into law."
Among them: David Berkowitz, the "Son of Sam" serial killer, and Mark David Chapman, who assassinated John Lennon. Both have been behind bars for decades. Both meet the age and time-served thresholds in the Elder Parole bill. Under the Fair and Timely bill, the parole board would have to let them go unless it could demonstrate they remain a "current" danger, a standard that favors release for aging inmates with clean disciplinary records.
Then there is David McClary, now 60, serving 25 years to life at Wende Correctional Facility in Erie County. In 1988, McClary killed rookie NYPD officer Edward Byrne, who was sitting in his car guarding the home of a witness in a Queens drug case. The hit was ordered by New York City drug kingpin Howard "Pappy" Mason. McClary has been denied parole eight times since becoming eligible in 2013. Under the proposed bills, the board's ability to keep saying no would be sharply curtailed.
The Police Benevolent Association has been fighting what it describes as a wave of 43 cop-killer releases since parole guidelines were modified in 2017 to place greater emphasis on an inmate's "progress" in prison rather than the severity of the original crime. PBA President Patrick Hendry left no room for ambiguity about where his organization stands.
"Passing either of these bills would be a cruel and despicable blow to the families of our fallen heroes. There is no age and no formula that can absolve cop-killers of their heinous crimes or entitle them to rejoin society."
Hendry added that the PBA would "fight tooth and nail alongside the families of our murdered police officers to ensure [these two bills] do not become law."
Michael Pravia, 34, knows exactly what these bills would mean for his family. His brother Kevin, a 19-year-old Pace University student, was murdered in 2008. Kevin was living near Union Square when he invited a homeless drifter named Jeromie Cancel into his home. Cancel choked him with an electrical cord.
Cancel was sentenced to 25 years to life. At his 2010 sentencing in Manhattan Criminal Court, he smiled and laughed. Michael Pravia screamed at him from the gallery: "I'll f---ing kill you, mother------!"
Cancel is now incarcerated at Auburn Correctional Facility. A law enforcement source said Cancel is likely to get out if the Fair and Timely bill passes and he has a clean prison record.
Michael Pravia spoke Thursday about what that possibility means to him.
"My brother was brutally tortured to death throughout the night. There is not one ounce of me that thinks he is rehabilitated or has the ability to be rehabilitated. I think he is truly a sociopath. He's bragged that he would do it again."
He directed a warning at the lawmakers pushing the legislation.
"They will have blood on their hands."
Pravia described the broader push in stark terms: "I just feel like we're living in a time where it feels like it's another form of corruption, you know, letting these devils out of prison to harass the masses."
That sense of institutional betrayal, the feeling that the system protects wrongdoers instead of victims, is not confined to criminal justice. It echoes across New York governance, from Albany's statehouse culture that shielded a predator for decades to fiscal decisions that leave taxpayers wondering whose side their leaders are on.
The advocacy campaign behind both bills is run by groups including Release Aging People in Prison and the People's Campaign for Parole Justice. Olivia Murphy, a violent crime survivor and policy and communications associate for Release Aging People in Prison, defended the measures. She described the targeted inmates as people "who have taken accountability for their crimes and done the hard work of transforming their thinking and behavior."
"The evidence is clear that forcing completely rehabilitated elders to spend their final years in prison costs a fortune and delivers zero public safety benefit. They have the lowest rates of reoffending once released and the highest incarceration costs."
Murphy's advocacy campaign is funded by George Soros' Open Society Foundations and other groups. The People's Campaign for Parole Justice says the Salazar-Weprin legislation would "provide more meaningful parole reviews."
Mangual challenged the advocates' core claim head-on. He said the assertion that reoffending rates drop to near zero for older released prisoners is simply wrong.
"You hear people who will say with very full confidence, including the advocates, that the likelihood of a person reoffending zeros out in older age. No it doesn't. A majority of state prisoners who are released will reoffend."
The state is already grappling with the consequences of policy choices that prioritize ideology over public safety and fiscal discipline. New York City recently allocated $500,000 to a reparations network while staring down a $5.5 billion budget hole, a pattern of misplaced priorities that makes the parole push feel less like an outlier and more like a governing philosophy.
It remains unclear whether Gov. Kathy Hochul would sign or veto either bill. A representative for the governor offered only a boilerplate statement: the "governor is committed to ensuring the safety of New Yorkers and will review any bill that passes both houses of the Legislature."
That non-answer did not satisfy Bruce Blakeman, the Nassau County executive and presumptive Republican gubernatorial candidate. He accused Hochul of already enabling the release of dangerous convicts.
"Kathy Hochul has fast-tracked the release of violent criminals, even those who've killed police officers, and will certainly grant 'get out of jail free' cards to even more dangerous thugs. The Hochul pro-criminal era ends the day I take office."
The broader legislative landscape in Albany reinforces the concern. Fox News reported that New York lawmakers are considering four criminal justice bills that critics say could lead to earlier release opportunities for violent offenders, including serial killers and mass murderers. One proposal would retroactively cut sentences shorter than life in prison by half. Suffolk County District Attorney Ray Tierney warned the measures could cause the immediate release of thousands of dangerous inmates.
"While these bills are often framed as reforms and have innocuous titles, in reality, they will push thousands of New York's most violent criminals out onto our streets. We're talking about the worst of the worst."
Another bill in the package would prevent the parole board from considering the severity of the original crime when deciding parole, a provision that would directly benefit murderers and rapists. Taken together, the four bills represent a systematic effort to dismantle the principle that violent crime carries lasting consequences.
New York's leadership class has shown a persistent inability to match its priorities to the concerns of ordinary residents. Whether the issue is a record budget gap met with policy reversals or parole bills that treat convicted killers as the system's real victims, the pattern is the same: the people who bear the cost are never the people making the decisions.
Neither bill has a confirmed vote date. But Mangual's assessment, that the political window is opening, should alarm anyone who believes that a sentence for murder ought to mean something. The 2017 modification of parole guidelines already shifted the board's focus away from the crime and toward the inmate's self-reported progress. These bills would finish the job.
Every two years, families like the Pravias would return to a hearing room to argue, again, that the person who killed their loved one should stay locked up. Every two years, advocates funded by the same progressive donor networks reshaping New York policy would push for release. The burden falls entirely on the victims.
And the killers? They wait. They behave. And under these bills, that would be enough.
When a state's laws make it harder to keep a cop-killer in prison than to keep a family in its home, the priorities are not just misplaced. They are inverted.
