ALBANY, N.Y. (CBSNewYork) — Parole was denied Friday for Judith Clark, a radical who was imprisoned in connection with the infamous Brinks robbery of 1981 in Rockland County.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo commuted Clark’s sentence this past New Year’s Eve. She had been sentenced to 75 years to life in prison for being the getaway driver in the Oct. 20. 1981 doomed armored truck heist.

The governor reduced her sentence to 35 years to life to give her a chance at parole.

On Friday, the New York State Parole Board said it commended Clark’s “personal growth and productive use of time.” But the board also said it must consider whether someone’s release “is not incompatible with the welfare of society and will not so deprecate the seriousness of (their) crimes as to undermine respect for the law.”

The board ruled that Clark failed that test.

“Judith Clark deserved the opportunity to make her case for parole based on her extensive prison programming, her excellent disciplinary record while incarcerated, and impressive self-development over the past 35 years,” the governor’s press secretary, Dani Lever, said. “The commutation afforded her that opportunity and we respect the parole board’s decision.”

The Parole Board noted that Clark – a University of Chicago graduate who was arrested in the 1969 “Days of Rage” protests in Chicago – had a prior criminal history in Illinois of aggravated battery, aiding escape and mob action. The board said Clark was “attracted to violence to demonstrate total commitment to revolutionary ideas” for more than a decade between her 20s and 30s.

“By the time of the crime, you were not a ‘young idealistic innocent, by any means,’” the board said. “In fact, you described yourself as a ‘singleminded fanatic… at war with America,’ a ‘blinded revolutionary,’ ‘cut off’ from your ‘humanity.’”

At the time of the Brinks heist, Clark was a member of the Weather Underground and Black Liberation Army, CBS2’s Lou Young reported in January. The group involved in the robbery claimed to be “appropriating” funds in Nyack – in a bloody failure that left Brinks security guard Peter Paige, and police officers Waverly Brown and Edward O’Grady II, dead.

The Parole Board said Clark described the 1981 crimes as “policeman completely out-gunned, out-maneuvered and overwhelmed by people intent on killing them,” and said she admitted she never questioned her participation “before, during, or for a significant period after the crime” and only felt remorse and shame years later.

Further, the Parole Board said while Clark participated in programs while incarcerated, she also corresponded with people she described as “fugitives” and received two years in special housing from 1985 until 1987 “for giving descriptions of the correctional facility to these persons to ‘break’ you out.”

The board noted that Clark went on to earn her bachelor’s and master’s degrees in prison, received clinical pastoral education, and worked with mothers and their children within the correctional facility. The board also noted that Clark later did feel remorse for her acts and came to understand that at “the center of this story and tragedy, and all the years since, are the families” of the victims.

The board also said it has not departed from a favorable risk assessment for Clark, but still, her crimes were too serious for her to be released.

“(W)e 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,” the board said. “You are still a symbol of violent and terroristic crime.”

In response to the ruling, attorney Steve Zeidman said the Parole Board ignored “Ms. Clark’s extraordinary record of achievement and transformation and instead elevates calls for interminable punishment.”

“Ms. Clark is one of the longest serving and oldest women in New York prison. She long ago accepted responsibility and expressed genuine contrition for the deaths of Peter Paige, Edward O’Grady, and Waverly Brown,” Zeidman said in the statement. “Hers is a testament to the human capacity for change as well as to the potential for the Department of Corrections to fulfill its ultimate goal of ‘correction.’ She is an ideal candidate for parole.”

Clark’s daughter, Harriet, also said she believed her mother should be allowed to come home.

“My mother did not kill anyone and it’s hard for me to understand who is served by making her die in prison, which is what decisions like this eventually amount to,” Harriet Clark said in a statement. “The Parole Board sent a discouraging message today to people on the inside and their families on the outside so I want to send a different message and say how proud I am of the men and women I know inside who work so hard to transform their lives and who, like my mother, deserve to come home to their families.”

As with any Parole Board decision, Clark may appeal the ruling and reappear before the Parole Board in the future, the New York State Department of Corrections said.

Clark’s next scheduled appearance before the Parole Board is in 2019.

Comments (6)
  1. By this reasoning there will never be parole in serious cases, no possibility for prisoners to show remorse and change. How will there ever be a way to compensate those who lost their loved ones and live “life sentences of grief and pain.” Why imagine that justice is served by only keeping someone locked up forever. No second chances, ever, for anyone? Why could the families so terribly wronged by the shooting in Charleston be willing to forgive the killer of their families? Judith Clark didn’t even pull a trigger. Why cannot we imagine there can be justice by letting her give back to her family and to the world outside prison walls? Susan Reverby

  2. Carol Soto says:

    I have worked with women that have turned their entire life around despite being in prison which offers no real rehabilitative plans. This is something that she did on her own, she came to an understanding that what she did was wrong, she found ways inside of the prison walls to help others and better herself in the process for many many years. How many years must a person suffer after having been rehabilitated? Other societies do not condemn people that actually pulled the trigger to more than 35 years. Our law and order social system ranks among the most unjust worldwide. I have spoken with her Rabbi who has verified her genuine repentance. I think that if the families of the victims met with her that they would understand that she came from a time when society was in upheaval over REAL injustices and that she realizes that she was wrong and that she has paid a terrible price already for her actions.

    1. Jim Moriarty says:

      You’re advocating mercy for this woman. You’re calling for compassion. I want to say upfront that these qualities are fundamental to creating a better world.

      I believe that Ms. Clark has been, and continues to be the recipient of mercy and compassion. She was not put to death; a sentence that also exists in many other nations. She actively participated in the taking of lives, before and after the fact, and yet for the past thirty some odd years has had her own life to live. She has had the freedom to choose the nature of that life would entail.

      The life she continues to live is mercy and compassion enough. The families of her victims have spoken out strongly against the commutation, and some have had to reopen those wounds at her parole hearing to have their voices heard. How compassionate towards those people is Ms. Clark in applying for parole? How merciful to the survivors of her attack is she?

  3. Pat Quan says:

    The parole board made the right decision to keep her behind bars. She may not have pulled the trigger, but she was part of the crime. She belongs in prison for the remainder of her life. At the same time, I commend her for the work she has done in prison to better herself and others.

  4. Jim Moriarty says:

    The families of the victims of that crime serve life sentences of grief and pain. Her staying behind bars is justice. She’s been afforded opportunities to better herself, which she’s taken advantage of and I commend her. However, her release would be an insult to the families of her victims. She is imprisoned for what she’s done. While I have sympathy for her child who grew up without her, I would point out that perhaps this woman should put the responsibility for the prisoner’s situation where it belongs- at the feet of her mother.

    1. what about all the others the parole board let go! how come that wasnt an insult to others!

Leave a Reply to Susan Reverby Cancel reply