Tag Archives: BOP

The “Closer to Home” Illusion – Update for May 20, 2019

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

BOP DOES NOT HAVE TO WALK 500 MILES

aardvark190520There is not a single inmate in the federal prison system who would not be willing to walk, roll or crawl 500 miles to be home right now. Any no one on the outside is so hard-hearted that he or she cannot concede that housing inmates close enough to family to permit visits does not help with rehabilitation.

For those reasons (if basic humanity were not enough), the First Step Act’s provision directing the Bureau of Prisons to “place the prisoner in a facility as close as practicable to the prisoner’s primary residence, and to the extent practicable, in a facility within 500 driving miles of that residence,” got a lot of coverage when the bill passed last December.

But just as the media buzz that 4,000-plus inmates were going to be dumped on America’s streets the day after the Act passed was wrong, the giddy hopes that inmates were about to be placed near to their families have been tempered by the realities of what the Act says and what the BOP is willing to do.

There is a usually a separation between promise and reality, sometimes a crack and sometimes a chasm. It is probably worthwhile, therefore, to explain just how little Sec. 601 of the First Step Act really promises families and inmates.

Sec. 601 modified 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) to read that the BOP should try to place prisoners within 500 miles of home. That placement, however, is not required. In fact, it is subject to some pretty big exceptions, being subject to

(1)   bed availability,
(2)   the prisoner’s security designation,
(3)   the prisoner’s programmatic needs,
(4)   the prisoner’s mental and medical health needs,
(5) any request made by the prisoner related to faith-based needs,
(6)  recommendations of the sentencing court, and
(7)  “other security concerns of the” BOP.

Number 7 is a doozy. The placement need not violate a rule, or a BOP program statement, or even a local rule adopted by the sending or receiving prison. It just has to be a “concern.” Whatever that is, it is clearly something to be defined by the BOP.

jello190520Prior to the First Step Act, the BOP required that an inmate be at one institution for at least 18 months, and that he or she have 18 months without a disciplinary report (the BOP called it “clear conduct”) before he or she could be considered for a transfer. Often, transfers were denied because the inmate was deemed to need programming available at his or her current location, or occasionally, because the inmate had skills (a welder, for example, or a GED instructor) the current institution believed it needed to retain. When the transfer came (if it did), the inmate seldom ended up at the institution he or she desired.

In the wake of First Step, however, the BOP is still requiring that an inmate be at one institution for at least 18 months, and that he or she have 18 months without a disciplinary report (the BOP called it “clear conduct”) before he or she could be considered for a transfer. The BOP can still deny transfers for programming needs, perceived mental health needs (which, given the state of mental health treatment in the system, is a hoot), and for lack of bed space (which inmates from years past know to be an excuse that means whatever the BOP wants it to mean). Anything not covered by the foregoing can easily fall within the as-amorphous-as-Jello “security concerns” exception.

But they can’t do that, can they? Of course not. The injured inmate can always that the BOP to court…

Not so fast. Sec. 601 of the First Step Act added a free pass to the BOP: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a designation of a place of imprisonment under this subsection is not reviewable by any court.” So you don’t like what the BOP did? You can’t sue, can’t even bring a habeas corpus action, can’t even get on Judge Judy. The directive of § 601, detailed in its mandate and limitations, is completely undone by the last line of § 601, which tells the BOP, “if you don’t follow the law, no one is allowed to call you on it.”

wendys190520Imagine a football game like that, where one team gets a yellow flag repeatedly, with each penalty being marched off for zero yards. Or, my preferred fantasy, a diet on which if you succumb to Wendy’s Peppercorn Mushroom Melt Triple with a side of Baconator Fries and large Coke, the 2,190 calories you consume would not keep you from dropping a pound a day. Sweet deal for the BOP.

If the BOP could be sued, the results would not be much different. Courts traditionally give substantial deference to the judgments of prison administrators. Even restrictive prison regulations are permissible if they are “‘reasonably related’ to legitimate penological interests. The BOP would say that its transfer restrictions – like 18 months of clear conduct – serve a legitimate penological goal. The courts, deferring to the BOP’s interpretation of the revised statute and its flexibility granted therein, would undoubtedly accept that.

chevron190520Finally, even without prison-administration deference, courts generally defer to administrative agencies “when it appears that Congress delegated authority to the agency generally to make rules… and that the agency interpretation claiming deference was promulgated in the exercise of that authority.” This is called “Chevron deference,” and – while opponents hope to see the Supreme Court undo it at some point soon – it would easily apply to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) as to how the BOP measures bed availability, security concerns, programming needs and mental and physical health needs.

So if the BOP ignores the Act’s 500-mile placement requirement, there is no remedy. Even if there were, BOP rules on transfer and the exceptions to closer-to-home would probably be unassailable.

Sec. 601, First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-015, 132 Stat. 5208, 5238 (Dec. 21, 2018)

Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987)

– Thomas L. Root

If You Want to Go Home, Die Faster – Update for May 16, 2019

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

CAN’T TEACH AN OLD DOG NEW TRICKS

die190513The Bureau of Prisons has been notorious for refusing to make sentence reduction recommendations to courts because dying inmates seemed to be in pretty good health, and surely able to finish their sentences, no matter what doctors might say. The First Step Act tried to remedy the BOP’s convenient myopia by letting inmates file for sentence reductions with district courts if the BOP refused to do so for them.

You’ll be glad to know that the government remains just as oblivious to medical reality and insensitive to impending death as ever. When Steve Brittner’s BOP doc told him that his Stage IV brain tumor was bad enough to withdraw further treatment and sign him up for hospice care, Steve filed for an 18 USC § 3582(c) sentence reduction so he could die at home.

The government opposed the reduction, arguing Steve did not have a terminal illness within the meaning of the guidelines because his medical records “do not indicate that the tumor has metastasized.” Plus, the government contended, Steve could not show “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances because his medical records did not indicate an inability to care for himself.

Last week, Steve’s district court swept aside the government’s opposition and said Steve could die at home. First, the court said, the Guidelines on sentence reduction do not require that Steve show that his tumor has metastasized for his condition to be terminal. Instead, the guidelines provide a number of examples of medical conditions that would meet the standard for a “terminal illness.”’ A metastatic solid-tumor cancer” is just example.

compassionaterelease190517

Second, to show extraordinary and compelling circumstances, an inmate does not have to show both a terminal illness and inability to care for oneself. “The Government reads a conjunctive requirement into the guideline comment where none occurs,” the district court observed. The Guidelines provide that “extraordinary and compelling” reasons exist “under any of the circumstances set forth below,” of which a terminal condition is one and inability to care for oneself is another.”

“Of importance,” the court wrote, “the treatment options available to Brittner have been exhausted. According to the last treatment note available to the Court, dated November 15, 2018… the plan… was to hold, or discontinue further therapy, and it was recommended to Brittner that he consider comfort measures, specifically hospice, which his treating oncologist “considered very reasonable due to worsening performance status… It is clear from the nature of his disease and his worsening condition as documented above, that Brittner’s prognosis is grim, his disease is terminal, and the length of his life can be measured most likely in weeks, as opposed to months.”

United States v. Brittner, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73653 (D.Mont. May 01, 2019)

Reason.com, A Terminally Ill, Wheelchair-Bound Inmate Applied for Compassionate Release. The Justice Department Argued He Wasn’t Dying Fast Enough to Qualify (May 3)

– Thomas L. Root

BOP Will Calculate First Step Extra Good Time on July 19th – Update for May 6, 2019

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

JULTEENTH

imageMost everyone knows that “Juneteenth” is an unofficial but increasingly-popular holiday commemorating June 19, 1865, the date on which slavery was abolished in Texas, the last stronghold of the dying Confederacy. When the Texan slaves were declared free on that date, slavery was no longer legal anywhere in North America. 

This year, July 19, will become “Julteenth,” the date on which BOP computers will automatically update sentence records to credit the additional seven days per year good-time that was awarded in the First Step Act last December, crediting federal prisoners retroactively to the start of their sentences. Some prisoners will receive, in one fell swoop, a six months credit on their incarceration.

When First Step passed last December 21st, Congress intended that the seven days be credited immediately. Indeed, opponents and supporters of the bill predicted an immediate flood of federal prisoners released in time for Christmas. Proponents envisioned the happiest of Christmases for many reunited families. Opponents darkly predicted vicious criminals running amok on America’s Yuletide streets. But in the back-and-forth on debating and amending the measure to please some die-hard opponents of any criminal justice reform legislation that suggested common sense, the seven days’ good time got tucked in a section of the bill addressing the new risk assessment system. A subsection of that provision gave the Attorney General 210 days (which worked out to July 19, 2019) to roll out the risk assessment proposal. Broadly written and poorly conceived, the measure hooked the seven days’ additional good time to that section as well.

unintendedconsequences190506The additional good-conduct time was granted because it was what Congress always had intended. Unfortunately, the prior good-conduct time provision in 18 USC 3624(b)(1) but had written so poorly that the Bureau of Prisons was able to interpret it in the most miserly way possible. In irony that would be appreciated had it not dashed prisoners’ hopes so badly, the good time “fix” was screwed up to, enabling the Dept. of Justice to interpret it to delay the seven days’ good time until the risk assessment – which has nothing to do with the seven days’ additional good time – was completed.

Since First Step passed, DOJ has blown through a 30-day deadline for starting the risk assessment adoption process, leading some to speculate on whether it would ignore the July 19 deadline for the seven days’ additional good-time credit as well. Fortunately, BOP last week dispelled that speculation with a welcome announcement that the additional credit would be automatically applied on that date.

Whether the Attorney General will deliver a risk assessment program on July 19th, one that will meaningfully determine risk of recidivism in an efficient and fair way, is another thing altogether. Previously, we reported on the appointment of conservative think-tank Hudson Institute to host the Independent Review Committee, the group that is to recommend a risk assessment program for adoption. In a joint statement released a week ago last Tuesday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-New York) and Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Chairwoman Karen Bass (D-California), sharply questioned the appointment, declaring that “our concerns about this decision remain” even after staff was briefed by the agency.

Under the Act, the IRC’s function is to create independent oversight of the law’s implementation and to ensure that reforms are carried out in a bipartisan and evidence-based manner. First Step directs the DOJ’s National Institute of Justice to “select a nonpartisan and nonprofit organization with expertise in the study and development of risk and needs assessment tools.”

strangelove190506“The Hudson Institute appears to have little or no expertise in the study and development of risk and needs assessment tools,” Nadler and Bass complained. “Committee staff questioned DOJ representatives charged with overseeing First Step Act implementation as to why the Hudson Institute was selected, and were told that DOJ representatives did not know. Staff asked whether the Hudson Institute has ever studied or developed a risk and needs assessment tool, and were told that DOJ representatives did not know. Staff asked on what date the Hudson Institute was selected, and were told that DOJ representatives did not know. Staff asked what process was used to select the Hudson Institute, and again were told that DOJ representatives did not know.”

The suggestion is that political sources out the DOJ (read “the White House”) dictated Hudson Institute’s appointment. “The Hudson Institute and its leadership have opposed sentencing reform and… the First Step Act’s reforms,” the joint press release said. “We are concerned that the selection of a biased organization lacking requisite expertise may reflect a lack of intent to diligently and effectively implement the bipartisan criminal justice reforms passed last Congress.”

Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project, agreed. “The Hudson Institute has no interest or expertise in criminal justice policy, and to the extent they do have any opinion about policy, they’re very hostile to the kinds of provisions that are in the First Step Act,” Mauer told Salon magazine. “It’s a strange choice when there are so many other reputable think tanks and organizations that do have experience in these issues.”

Nadler and Bass demanded that The Hudson Institute’s appointment be rescinded, but DOJ sources report that such a move is very unlikely. Of more significance is the question of whether a workable risk assessment system is in place in the next two and a half months, so the BOP can roll out programs inmates can use to earn good-time credits.

In the midst of the flying political fur over Hudson Institute’s involvement, no one is speculating about that.

House Judiciary Committee, Nadler & Bass Statement on DOJ’s Selection of the Hudson Institute to Host First Step Act Independent Review Committee (Apr. 23)

Salon, Is the Trump Justice Department trying to sabotage the First Step Act? (Apr. 28)

– Thomas L. Root

You Leave When I Say You Can Leave – Update for March 12, 2019

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

WHO SAID YOU COULD GO HOME?

Winning immediate release doesn’t necessarily get you anywhere. That was Darren Golson’s experience a week or so ago.

noleave190312His judge granted Darren’s retroactive Fair Sentencing Act motion and ordered his release on Feb. 25. But when he showed the halfway house the judge’s order, it called some unnamed Bureau of Prisons employee, who ordered them to refuse to let Darren leave.

Darren whipped up a quick emergency motion, essentially asking his judge to figuratively plant his size 12 in the halfway house’s butt. The irate judge got on the phone, asking the halfway house who there would accept service of the “show cause” order the court was fixing to issue.

The answer was that no one wanted to see such an order. The halfway house hustled Darren out the door at 3:57 pm on the 27th, only two days late.

Motion, US v Golson, Case No. 2:01-cr-47 (E.D.Va. Feb. 27, 2019)
Order, US v Golson, Case No. 2:01-cr-47 (E.D.Va. Feb. 28, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

Shutdown Grinds on Federal Prisons – Update for January 18, 2019

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

FEDERAL PRISON CONDITIONS NOT GOOD FOR STAFF OR INMATES AS SHUTDOWN CONTINUES

shutdown190118The partial government shutdown, about to enter its fifth week, has led to the furloughing of up to half of the BOP’s 36,000-person staff, including many who provide therapeutic programs and other services considered not to be “essential.” The agency is asking its remaining employees to keep working unpaid, focusing on maintaining security even if that’s not usually their primary job.

“It’s an absolute disaster,” said the president of the union chapter in Victorville, California, home to one of the nation’s largest concentrations of federal prison guards. “I have staff that are resorting to getting second employment – like Uber driving.”

Union officials reached by The Washington Post reported last week that the number of employees who are not showing up for work has at least doubled since the shutdown began. As a result, those showing up are routinely working double shifts, correctional officers and other prison staff members say. “There has been a rise in people calling in sick and taking leave during the shutdown,” said Richard Heldreth, president of the corrections officer union at Hazelton prison in West Virginia. “The staff who are showing up are dealing with this violence, long hours and extra overtime with the uncertainly of when we will be compensated.”

The BOP said only that the lack of funds from Congress means that only those employees whose duties involve “the safety of human life or the protection of property” are permitted to work.

The shutdown is having other consequences as well, including canceled visiting hours and empty commissary shelves. Also, applications of terminally-ill inmates awaiting “compassionate release” are going unread.

A more urgent problem, said Robert Hood, former warden of the ADMAX Florence, is the possibility of mental-health staff being furloughed. “Most BOP facilities will run without the myriad of programs normally offered” to address the needs of dangerous or mentally ill prisoners, Hood said.

emptyprison190118The U.S. courts are equally affected. Federal courts are funded only through next week. Beyond that, there is a likelihood of serious delays for many cases, but even experts and government officials are uncertain exactly how a prolonged shutdown might play out. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) now says that federal courts can continue paid operations using “court fee balances and other ‘no-year’ funds” until Jan. 25.

If the court system runs out of reserves, according to AOUSC, the Anti-Deficiency Act kicks in. Involved parties can expect delays in discovery, briefing and other communications from the DOJ and other federal agencies.

Civil litigation, generally, will be the first casualty of the shutdown. Criminal cases will be prioritized, as they are matters of public safety, according to the Administrative Office. Every court will be affected, though it remains uncertain to what extent. Judges remain responsible for managing their cases, even during the shutdown, and will generally address stays, delays and important date changes on a case-by-case or district-by-district basis.

The Marshall Project, What the Government Shutdown Looks Like Inside Federal Prisons (Jan. 7)

Washington Post, Tensions rise in federal prisons during shutdown as weary guards go without pay and work double shifts (Jan. 10)

Law360, What Attorneys Need to Know About the Shutdown (Jan. 10)

Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, Judiciary to continue funded operations until Jan. 25 (Jan. 16)

– Thomas L. Root

BOP Guards Union Scams Media – Update for January 17, 2019

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

THAT REALLY SUMPTUOUS CHRISTMAS STEAK BOP PRISONERS ENJOYED WAS FAKE NEWS…

Last week, we reported how NBC had run a story that inmates were eating shrimp and steak while making fun of the Federal Bureau of Prisons staff who were forced to serve the inmates without pay.

prisonfood190118It turns out that the story was not only fake (which our readers already knew), but it was successfully planted in the gullible national media by the correctional officers’ union.

Reason.com reported last week that in order to express their unhappiness with the federal shutdown, representatives of federal prison employee unions decided to act as though any tiny morsel of mercy granted to inmates is an insult to BOP employees:

While the holiday meals sound nice, the food prisoners receive every other day of the year is generally awful and frequently doesn’t contain enough nutrients to meet inmates’ dietary needs. But in order to make themselves look like the victims in this government shutdown, union officials shopped around a story to multiple media outlets about criminals being treated like kings while prison guards have to freelance as Uber drivers.

Lawandcrime.com reported that the “story appears to be largely based on information straight from the American Federation of Government Employees – the largest national correctional officers union. The story does not contain a firsthand quote from one single prisoner… [but] does provide ample opportunities for the president of the national prison workers union and the union chief at a federal prison in Florida to kvetch and moan about their employees being forced to feed inmates holiday meals.”

Reason.com reported that “many outlets ran with this tale in exactly the form union reps likely preferred. Over at USA Today, Kevin Johnson described these meals as a “display of culinary largesse.” Cleve Wootson, Jr., at The Washington Post called it an example of the “hypocritical” or “ironic” moments of the federal shutdown.

prisonfoodA190118NBC’s reporting included guards and union representatives describing it as “despicable” that inmates received a holiday meal. NBC described the letters and complaints it cited as having been mysteriously “obtained,” despite the fact that a Florida BOP union leader was quoted in all of these stories, suggesting that the union “shopped” the story to reporters like a normal PR pitch.

The union leader provided the media outlets with the contents of two inmate emails talking about the meal, which Reason said had been obtained from BOP staff who had screened the emails. the emails were “obtained” by prison staff who screened the emails.

Prison staff are on record complaining that inmates are still getting paid for their prison work. Reason notes that “inmates typically make pennies per hour. And unlike [COs], these inmates cannot find better working conditions elsewhere.”

Reason.com., Prison Guards Orchestrate Media Campaign to Complain About Inmates Getting Edible Food for Christmas (Jan. 7)

Lawandcrime.com, Viral Story About Prisoners’ Holiday Meals During Shutdown Reeks of Propaganda (Jan. 7)

– Thomas L. Root

BOP Officers Union Fakes Out NBC, Washington Post, With Inmate Luxury Story – Update for January 10, 2019

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

UNPAID BOP WORKERS CLAIM THAT INMATES HAVE IT SWEET TURNS OUT TO BE “FAKE NEWS”

NBC News reported last Sunday that the partial government shutdown that continues without an end in sight has “created a delicious irony at federal prisons — inmates dining on lavish holiday meals in front of disgruntled staffers forced to work without pay.”

prisonfood190110Several BOP food service employees complained to NBC News that the Christmas and New Year’s Day meals inmates traditionally receive “aggravate[ed] staffers who were already fretting about bills to pay and children to feed.: The report cited steak and shrimp served Jan. 1 at FCI Pekin, Cornish hen and Boston creme pie at MDC Brooklyn, and “heaping plates of chicken wings” served at an unidentified federal prison in Minnesota.

“You’re giving a gift to somebody who committed a crime, but yet you won’t pay the people who are supervising them?” NBC quoted a food service foreman at FMC Rochester complaining. “It’s frustrating and maddening.” In addition to working without pay, many of the prison staffers, including correctional officers, were ordered to cut vacations short or face a loss in wages and possible administrative punishment, including suspensions.

fakenews190110Well, it turns out that the “several BOP food service employees” who complained were part of a well-orchestrated union campaign, one the news outlets swallowed hook, line and sinker. Reason.com reported on Monday that in order “to make themselves look like the victims in this government shutdown, union officials shopped around a story to multiple media outlets about criminals being treated like kings while prison guards have to freelance as Uber drivers.” Reason said

It’s a bit amazing (and disappointing) how many outlets ran with this tale in exactly the form union reps likely preferred. Over at USA Today, Kevin Johnson described these meals as a “display of culinary largesse.” Cleve Wootson, Jr., at The Washington Post called it an example of the “hypocritical” or “ironic” moments of the federal shutdown. NBC called it a “delicious irony” that unpaid staffers had to feed “fancy” food to the inmates. Characterizing this series of parallel-but-unrelated events as a role reversal suggests that we should be treating prisoners poorly. The reporters can take solace in knowing that, generally, we do.

Adding to the staffers’ bitter feelings, NBC News said, “the working inmates were still drawing government paychecks for their prison jobs, which include painting buildings, cooking meals and mowing lawns.”

NBC News, Hard to digest: Inmates eat holiday steak during shutdown while prison workers go unpaid (Jan. 6)

Reason.com, Prison Guards Orchestrate Media Campaign To Complain About Inmates Getting Edible Food for Christmas (Jan. 7)

– Thomas L. Root

BOP’s Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Week – Update for November 29, 2018

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

BOP WALKS INTO BAD PRESS BUZZSAW

baddayA181130BOP Acting Director Hugh J. Hurwitz probably felt more like the dinner than the diner by the time Thanksgiving rolled around a week ago, after the beating his agency took in the media in the preceding days.

First, the New York Times published a long story detailing the sexual harassment suffered by female BOP staff. “For women who work in federal prisons, where they are vastly outnumbered by male colleagues and male inmates,” the Times wrote, “concealing every trace of their femininity is both necessary and, ultimately, futile… Some inmates… stare… grope, threaten and expose themselves. But what is worse, according to testimony, court documents, and interviews with female prison workers, male colleagues can and do encourage such behavior, undermining the authority of female officers and jeopardizing their safety. Other male employees join in the harassment themselves.”

The Times found that women who reported harassment “face retaliation, professional sabotage and even termination,” while the careers of many male BOP harassers and those who protect them flourish. The Times named names.

But The Gray Lady wasn’t done with the BOP. Two days later, the paper ran a detailed piece questioning how Whitey Bulger ended up at Hazleton general population, where he was promptly murdered. The Times reported, “Several prison workers questioned why so many people at Coleman and in the Texas office would have approved a transfer of Mr. Bulger to Hazelton, a facility that houses some inmates tied to organized crime and that has a reputation for being dangerous for snitches. The workers also questioned why staff members at Hazelton would have approved placing Mr. Bulger in the prison’s general population. Mr. Bulger was the third inmate to be killed at Hazelton this year.”

The paper quoted one unnamed worker who said, “That was a monumental failure and a death sentence for Whitey.”

The Times said the BOP issued a statement saying that Bulger’s transfer to Hazelton was made in accordance with its policy, including a review of whether inmates there were known to be a threat to him.

mental181130Meanwhile, The Marshall Project suggested that the BOP’s 2014 policy that promised better care and oversight for inmates with mental-health issues was a fraud. “Data obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request shows that instead of expanding treatment, the bureau has lowered the number of inmates designated for higher care levels by more than 35 percent.” TMP says prison staff are determining that prisoners—some with long histories of psychiatric problems—don’t require any routine care at all. As of last February, the BOP classified just 3% of inmates as having a mental illness serious enough to require regular treatment. By comparison, more than 30% of California state prisoners receive care for a “serious mental disorder.” In New York, its 21%, and In Texas, it’s about 20%.

TMP says that when BOP changed its rules, “officials did not add the resources needed to implement them, creating an incentive for employees to downgrade inmates to lower care levels.”

The New York Times, Hazing, Humiliation, Terror: Working While Female in Federal Prison (Nov. 17, 2018)

The New York Times, The Whitey Bulger Murder Mystery: Two Assailants and a Prison Full of Suspects (Nov. 19, 2018)

The Marshall Project, Treatment Denied: The Mental Health Crisis in Federal Prisons (Nov. 20, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

#themtoo: BOP Not Doing Right By Female Inmates, DOJ Says – Update for September 26, 2018

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

LISAStatHeader2small

A LITTLE BIT OF NOTHING FOR THE LADIES

womenprison170821Sure, they’re all inmates. But only the most callous observer would suggest that forcing female inmates to undergo strip searches in front of male Bureau of Prisons personnel is all right, because, after all, “if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime…” and all that claptrap. It turns out that a critical shortage of BOP correctional officers is having a disparate effect on the 10,567 female inmates held in the system, the Dept. of Justice Inspector General reported last Thursday. “The lack of sufficient staff is most noticeable at larger female institutions,” the OIG Report said.

As of September 2016,  female inmates represented 7% of the BOP sentenced inmate population of 146,084. The OIG review was sparked in part by Congress and public interest groups raising concerns with DOJ about deficiencies in BOP’s current management of female inmates.

magicrabbit180927Although BOP policy requires that female prisoners can only be searched by female correctional officers, the BOP is unable to ensure a female officer is available at each post where such searches are required, the report says. The report also concluded that 90% of the female inmate population would benefit from trauma treatment, but staffing shortages make it nearly impossible to provide eligible inmates with the care they need, according to the report.

In a response attached to the report, Hugh Hurwitz, acting BOP director, said he agrees with the IG’s recommendations and vowed to improve both staffing and training.  How he is going to pull that off in light of the BOP’s budget reductions ought to be a neat trick.

Washington Times, Staffing shortages blocking female inmates from critical services (Sept. 18, 2018)

Dept. of Justice Office of Inspector General, Review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Management of Its Female Inmate Population (Sept. 17, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

We’ve Got the Shorts – Update for September 7, 2018

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues. Today, a couple of short takes from last week’s federal criminal news…

LISAStatHeader2small

AND YET THEY LOCK UP THE INMATES…

Frank Lara, BOP’s Assistant Director for Correctional Programs until his resignation earlier this year, is now working at director of operations of private prison-owner The GEO Group. The company is one of the largest private prison contractors housing federal inmates, having received $147 million in BOP awards during fiscal 2017.

conflictmix180907In a January 24, 2018, memo entitled “Increasing Population Levels in Private Contract Facilities,” Lara directed wardens to identify inmates for transfer to private facilities, saying it would “alleviate the overcrowding at Bureau of Prisons’ institutions and maximize the effectiveness of private contracts.” The memo mentioned only one facility by name, Rivers Correctional Institution in Winton, N.C., which is owned and operated by the GEO Group.

Government Executive magazine reported that The GEO Group did not respond to several emails, and when asked about the hiring over the phone, a company official hung up.

A correctional officers’ union local leader called Lara’s move “the biggest damn conflict of interest that I’ve ever seen.”

Government Executive, Federal Official Boosted Use of Private Prisons; Now He Has a Top Job at One (Aug. 29, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

STUDY UNCOUPLES SENTENCE LENGTH FROM RECIDIVISM

recividists160314A Dept. of Justice-funded study published last month found that the average length of a federal sentence could be reduced by 7.5 months with a small impact on recidivism. The authors concluded from the data that “length‐of‐stay effects do not vary by criminal history, offense seriousness, sex, race, and education level.”

The study concluded that reducing the average length of stay for the federal prison population by 7.5 months could save the BOP 33,203 beds once the inmate population reaches steady state.

Criminology & Public Policy, Relationship Between Prison Length of Stay and Recidivism: A Study Using Regression Discontinuity and Instrumental Variables with Multiple Break Points (Aug. 8, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small