Compassionate release from prison nearly nonexistent in Pennsylvania

A Pennsylvania man who had been serving life for second-degree murder died over the weekend, 12 days after being granted a medical transfer from prison to a facility that could better treat his condition, including quadriplegia, reported The Associated Press.

Ezra Bozeman, 68, died on Saturday at the UPMC Altoona medical center, Ryan Tarkowski, communications director for the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, confirmed on Tuesday.

He had been jailed for 49 years before an Allegheny County judge granted his request for compassionate release last month.

Bozeman had been on life support. He had a back injury that had been misdiagnosed for several years, according to his lawyer, Dolly Prabhu, and he required extensive medical care after he became paralyzed from the chest down after surgery.

An aide to Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen Zappala, whose office had opposed the release, said they had no comment on Bozeman’s death.

Prabhu, with the Abolitionist Law Center, described Bozeman as “the sweetest, sweetest person.”

“He was always, always so optimistic,” Prabhu said Tuesday. “And he was confident that it wasn’t a matter of if he gets out, it was when he gets out.”

Bozeman had been convicted in 1975 in the shooting death of Morris Weitz, a dry-cleaning business co-owner, during an attempted robbery. He had maintained he was innocent.

Pennsylvania’s compassionate release law covers incarcerated people who are seriously ill and expected to die within a year. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that about 50 people have been granted compassionate release over the past 15 years.

Prabhu said it is common for prisoners seeking compassionate release to be close to death, which she said is a consequence of the terms of Pennsylvania’s law on compassionate release. She said there are “hundreds of Ezra Bozemans” in the state’s prisons, and prisons are not equipped to care for very sick, elderly people.

“We have such harsh sentencing laws, and so we have so many elderly people right now incarcerated,” Prabhu said. “And compassionate release is one of the few avenues they have in getting out and getting the care that they need.”

To read more CLICK HERE

 

Pennsylvania's 'Compassionate Release' law anything but compassionate

The current compassionate release statute in Pennsylvania purports to provide sick and aging incarcerated people with a way to spend the end of their life free from prison. In reality, it is so narrowly written that only 48 people have successfully used it in 14 years, according to Spotlight PA.

The law grants release only to those who are sick or older, cannot walk, and have less than a year to live.

Because of the narrow criteria, the state has received very few petitions since the legislature established the process in 2009. And in many cases, petitioners have died before their petitions came before a judge.

The process is obscure even to lawyers such as Trama who regularly defend clients in civil rights and defense cases. Before Caliman’s case, the attorney had never heard of it, much less represented an incarcerated person in a petition. Trama received a “huge lift,” she said, from ALC attorney Rupalee Rashatwar.

“I was terrified the entire time that we were going to be one day too late,” Trama said.

Rashatwar and the firm have driven the uptick in successful petitions in recent years. There were 24 petitions granted between 2009 and 2020, before ALC began its focused practice. Courts have granted release to 24 people in the past three years alone, with ALC representing nearly half of them. The firm now partners with Pennsylvania University law students to help file petitions.

But the small rise in successes still represents a fraction of the aging population receiving costly medical care for chronic and serious health conditions inside state prisons.

The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections incarcerates 10,300 people over the age of 50 who are considered elderly because lack of access to health care and atypical living conditions age them at a faster rate than those on the outside, according to state officials. These people account for more than a quarter of Pennsylvania’s prison population and there is a financial as well as human cost to keeping them incarcerated.

To read more CLICK HERE

 

PLW: Compassionate Release: A Broken Law That Needs Mending

Matthew T. Mangino
The Legal Intelligencer
May 5, 2022

A Pennsylvania law that allows sick inmates to be released from prison early is broken. Spotlight PA investigative reporter Danielle Ohl recently highlighted the failure of compassionate release in Pennsylvania. Spotlight PA is a collaboration of The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Harrisburg Patriot-News, Pittsburgh Tribune Review and WITF Public Media.

Although Ohl’s investigation was published in late March, a statistic she shared in a follow-up article on April 26, sums up the failure of Pennsylvania’s compassionate release statute—only 33 people have successfully petitioned to leave prison because of illness in the past 13 years. On average, a little more than two inmates released a year in a correctional system that has more than 5,500 prisoners over 55 years of age.

A “deferment of sentence” pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. 9777, allows an inmate’s sentencing judge to grant release from prison upon showing that the inmate is seriously ill and facing certain death. Typically, a decision regarding the release of an inmate serving a state sentence resides exclusively with the Pennsylvania Parole Board. The trial court has no authority to order the release of a state prisoner, unless a state statute provides an exception.

There are different requirements for compassionate release to a hospital, long-term care nursing facility or release to hospice. Long-term care for treatment outside of a correctional facility is for inmates having less than one year to live. Release for hospice care is reserved for inmates facing imminent death.

A review of the law makes it clear why so few seriously ill inmates successfully navigate the morass of requirements to be released to die with dignity outside the prison walls. The process can be onerous for an inmate literally near death suffering from a debilitating disease.

In Commonwealth v. Folk, 40 A.3d 169 (Pa. Super. 2012) the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that an inmate must establish each of the seven factors listed under 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9777(a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(vii) to be eligible for release:

The medical needs can be more appropriately addressed at an outside facility;

The outside facility agrees to provide necessary medical care;

The inmate is seriously ill and will die within one year;

There are no writs filed or detainers or court orders requiring the inmate’s presence;

The placement does not pose an undue risk of escape or danger to the community;

The facility will notify the department and the court of any material changes in health;

All stakeholders are provided notice.

Each of the above seven factors must be proven to the sentencing court by “clear and convincing proof.”

The statute also provides that release to a hospital or long-term care nursing facility requires electronic monitoring by the Department of Corrections. A seriously ill inmate will wear an ankle bracelet that will be continuously monitored by correction staff.

The statute also provides for release of an inmate for hospice care. The purpose of hospice care is to allow people nearing death to live out their final days with dignity, purpose and comfort. The basic criteria to receive a deferred sentence for hospice care requires an applicant be unable to walk, with a terminal illness that will result in death in the near future.

An inmate facing imminent death, seeking hospice care, must prove by clear and convincing proof, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. 9777 (a) (2) (i) through (vi), the following:

The inmate is terminally ill, not ambulatory and likely to die in the near future;

The licensed hospice care provider can provide the inmate with more appropriate care;

Services will be provided by the licensed hospice care provider at the hospice care center.

Sections (iv), (v) and (vi) are consistent with the final three provision set forth above under Section 9777 (a) (1).

Through the “grace” of the Pennsylvania General Assembly those inmates receiving a deferred sentence for hospice care—who have proven that they are essentially confined to a bed, do not have to be electronically monitored by the Pennsylvania Parole Board.

As if the statutory requirements requiring clear and convincing medical proof are not stringent enough, the statute  requires a judge, in his or her discretion, to determine if sending an inmate to a hospital, long term nursing facility, or hospice would create an “undue risk of escape or a danger to the community.”

In Folk, the court changed the appellate standard of review from an error of law standard to an abuse of discretion standard, making it tougher to challenge a denial. As if a terminally ill inmate, facing imminent death had time for appellate review.

Why is it important that Pennsylvania take another look at compassionate release in an effort to expand its use? According to FAMM, a national nonpartisan advocacy organization that promotes fair and effective criminal justice policies, the proportion of prisoners 55 years old and older increased 400% between 2003 and 2013. By 2030 prisons will house more than 400,000 individuals who will be 55 and older, making up nearly one-third of the population.

Every state—with the exception of Iowa—has some form of compassionate release. Unfortunately, a number of states, like Pennsylvania, have made it virtually impossible for seriously ill inmates to get out of prison.

In neighboring Ohio, seriously ill inmates have seemingly two opportunities for the early release. Judicial release for terminally ill prisoners with less than 12 months to live and administrative release for prisoners facing imminent death—less than six months to live. However, according to FAMM, those facing imminent death cannot apply for administrative release until they have exhausted the judicial release process.

What is the likelihood that an inmate facing imminent death will survive long enough to exhaust a judicial request and manage the bureaucratic red tape involved in processing a request for administrative release? In reality, Ohio’s compassionate release process seems, not unlike Pennsylvania’s, a cruel hoax.

In Kansas to be eligible for terminal medical release, Kan. Stat. Ann. Section 22-3729 (a) (2) a prisoner’s death must be expected within 30 days. Is there anything compassionate about requiring a terminally ill patient, with presumably less than 30 days to live, to seek release from prison?

According to FAMM, Indiana will not consider terminally ill prisoners for a temporary leave due to terminal illness unless they are within seven and a half years of their release date. If an inmate has eight years remaining on her sentence she is not entitled to die with dignity.

As it exits, there is nothing compassionate about Pennsylvania’s, or many other states for that matter, so-called “compassionate release” law. A statute that is more accessible to seriously ill inmates would do two important things. One, provide dignity to a human being, albeit a flawed human being, the comfort and dignity to die with family and outside the prison walls, and two,  save taxpayer dollars that are used to treat and care for terminally ill prisoners left to die behind bars.

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly and George in New Castle, Pennsylvania. He is the author of “The Executioner’s Toll.” You can follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino or contact him at mmangino@lgkg.com.

To visit the PLW CLICK HERE

Pennsylvania's anything but 'compassionate' release from prison

“The statute is drafted so narrowly that it forces you to make decisions like forgoing lifesaving treatment in order to get even the possibility of medical transfer,” 

If Bradford Gamble wanted to leave state prison, he had to decide to die, reported Spotlight PA.

He found out about his late-stage cancer diagnosis unceremoniously: A guard dropped a piece of paper into his cell without a word. After months of pain, confusion, and waiting he had answers: metastatic colon cancer that had already spread to his liver.

Gamble spent his entire adult life inside the walls of Pennsylvania state prisons. He was sentenced in 1976 for a murder he committed when he was 19 years old, an action he’s come to deeply regret.

His cancer diagnosis at age 65 gave him an opportunity to use a little-known Pennsylvania law that allows terminally ill people to leave prison, but only if they have less than a year to live. For people serving life, it’s one of the only ways out.

So Gamble had a decision to make: get treatment to prolong his life and stay in prison, or come home for good and die.

He chose to die. He has six months to a year left to live, he told Spotlight PA during an interview.

“I’m not even concerned about the time because God, you know, got his hands in that,” he said. “I’m here, and we really need help. … We need somebody to speak up for us.”

In 2018, former President Donald Trump signed a law expanding the number of people who qualify for release from federal prisons due to age, illness, or other extraordinary circumstances.

Many states have their own versions of “compassionate release” laws that allow older people and those with serious medical issues to leave prison for better care. But in Pennsylvania, the law is so narrowly written it creates a life-or-death decision for people like Gamble.

The statute, established in 2009, allows older and sick people to transfer from prison to a hospital or long-term care facility if they have less than a year to live, or to a hospice if they are terminally ill and unable to walk. If the person gets better, the Department of Corrections or a state prosecutor can ask a court to send them back to prison.

“The statute is drafted so narrowly that it forces you to make decisions like forgoing lifesaving treatment in order to get even the possibility of medical transfer,” said Rupalee Rashatwar, an attorney with the Abolitionist Law Project, a public interest law firm that represented Gamble in his transfer petition.

Gamble is one of only 33 people who have successfully petitioned to leave prison in the past 13 years because of illness. Two more petitioners have been successful since Spotlight PA investigated the law in March.

Gamble didn’t know about the process until he met an incarcerated activist, Bryant Arroyo, who helped him scour the prison law library for any means of getting out. They called dozens of state lawmakers, attorneys, and activists on the outside before discovering the compassionate release statute.

“He was so adamant about not dying here under these particular circumstances that he was willing to do exactly what he needed to do in order to try to obtain his release,” Arroyo said over the phone. “And I told him that there was no guarantee.”

Rashatwar filed Gamble’s petition in February. He left the state prison in Coal Township nearly three weeks later.

Bradford Gamble now lives with his nephew in West Philadelphia. During the interview, he sat under a wall of art that spelled out “HOME,” surrounded by photos of family that grew up without him.

A shirt Gamble designed hangs next to him. It features an image of Arroyo, standing with a book and smiling, wreathed by the words “Fight for Justice” and “One Heartbeat.” Under the text, the shirt also displays the bill number for legislation that would replace the current compassionate release law and establish more flexible parole opportunities based on age or illness.

“I came up with that because it’s many men and women, but we all had the same heartbeat as far as getting home to our loved ones,” Gamble said.

To read more CLICK HERE

 

PLW: Addressing the COVID-19 Pandemic in Pennsylvania’s Prisons

Matthew T. Mangino

The Legal Intelligencer

April 30, 2020

A week after the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) announced that a prisoner had tested positive for COVID-19, Rudolph Sutton died in his cell at the State Correctional Facility (SCI) at Phoenix in Montgomery County. Sutton, 67 years old, died from pneumonia caused by COVID-19. He was the first inmate, and as of this writing, the only state inmate to die from the virus.

There are stories like Sutton’s all across the country. Sixty-year-old William Garrison died at the Macomb Correctional Facility in Michigan. He spent 44 years in prison and died of COVID-19 only 24 days before he was to be released from prison.

Michigan Department of Corrections officials have confirmed about 600 inmates, just over 40% of the prison population at Lakeland Correctional Facility in Coldwater, have tested positive for COVID-19.

Lakeland houses about 1,400 inmates, half of which are over the age of 55 or have chronic health conditions, said Chris Gautz, a Department of Corrections spokesperson.

He told WWMT-TV that the number of infected prisoners at Lakeland will grow as hundreds more test results return in the coming days.

In Ohio, 3,762 inmates have tested positive and nine have died in state correctional facilities. At the Marion Correction Facility alone, in north central Ohio, of 2,500 inmates, 2,011 have tested positive. The staff of 350 has had 154 test positive for COVID-19.

In North Carolina, 330 inmates out of 700 in a single facility tested positive. In Tennessee, 666 inmates have tested positive.

Pennsylvania has 42 infected inmates out of about 46,600 inmates. The Pennsylvania prison system doesn’t appear to have a problem with COVID-19. What the state does have a problem with is testing. As of April 22, the number of inmates tested by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections was 103—with 31 positives tests or about one in three.

Maybe the tests just haven’t ramped up yet. Well as April 28, the last day that data was available for this column, the number of tests increased by only 34.

DOC staff isn’t getting much better attention. As of April 28, 299 correction employees have been tested.

Besides the obvious need for more testing, what is Pennsylvania doing to protect inmates and staff from COVID-19?

To start with, the DOC has temporarily designated SCI Retreat as the new intake site for all newly committed prisoners and parole violators. The facility, near Wilkes-Barre, has capacity for 350 inmates and will be the only way inmates can enter the system. With a bolstered medical staff and thorough screening the DOC hopes to limit the virus’s entry into the system.

In addition, Gov. Tom Wolf, exercising his authority under the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Emergency Management Services Code, 35 Pa.C.S.A. 7102, ordered the Department of Corrections to establish a Temporary Program to Reprieve Sentences of Incarceration to help aid the DOC in transferring qualified individuals to community corrections facilities or home confinement amid the pandemic.

“We can reduce our nonviolent prison population and leave fewer inmates at risk for contracting COVID-19 while maintaining public safety with this program,” Wolf said in a press release. The Temporary Program to Reprieve Sentences of Incarceration only applies to state prison inmates who have been identified as non-violent and who otherwise would be eligible for release within the next nine months or who are considered at high risk for complications of COVID-19 and are within 12 months of their release.

Vulnerable inmates include inmates aged 65 or older; anyone with an autoimmune disorder; pregnant inmates; anyone with a serious, chronic medical condition, such as, heart disease, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease, bone marrow or organ transplantation, severe obesity, kidney disease, liver disease, cancer or other medical condition that places the inmate at higher risk for complications of COVID-19.

Under the temporary reprieve program, the DOC estimated approximately 1,500 to 1,800 inmates may be released. As of April 23, 118 inmates have benefited by the Temporary Program to Reprieve Sentences of Incarceration.

What else is there?

The courts have the authority through Pa. C.S.A. Section 9777 to release extremely ill inmates. The law permits a judge to grant a temporary deferment of a prison sentence due to terminal or serious illness. Compassionate release, as the deferment program is generally known, has been interpreted by state courts to apply only to terminally ill inmates who have less than one year to live.

The process requires a letter from a treating physician which must include the medical prognosis and a certification that it is the doctor’s opinion that death is near.

Angus Love, executive director of the Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project, told the Pennsylvania Capital-Star, “Few doctors are willing to say with certainty when someone will die. That makes it hard for inmates to get the documents to petition a judge for release.”

In 2008, the legislature revoked the ability of a terminally ill inmate to pass his final days at home with family. Since then families had to find and pay for a hospital, nursing facility or hospice care to get their dying loved one out of prison.

Once the legislature took action the concept of compassionate release essentially disappeared. The law’s stringent guidelines are time-consuming and costly. The arduous process causes low risk inmates who were otherwise eligible for release to die alone behind bars.

What can the legislature do?

House Bill 642 introduced by state Reps. Stephen Kinsey and Danilo Burgos seeks to authorize medical parole. The legislation would authorize the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, in consultation with the Department of Corrections, to grant early medical parole under certain circumstances to eligible nonviolent offenders.

In February, before Pennsylvania realized the magnitude of COVID-19, Pennsylvania Corrections Secretary John Wetzel testified at a state budget hearing in support of medical parole. Besides touting the compassionate aspect of release for those who are ill and a low risk, he also touted the economic value of medical parole. Wetzel estimated that medical parole could save the state at least $22 million a year.

Geriatric inmates cost a lot of money. Pennsylvania’s geriatric prisoner population grew to about 6,500 inmates in 2018, according to the DOC.

Pennsylvania has units in several facilities that actually serve as prison nursing homes. There are inmates in Pennsylvania prisons who need dialysis, chemotherapy or other life-sustaining treatment.

Those people don’t belong in prison. Today they’re at a high risk of contracting COVID-19, they are at low, or no, risk of re-offending, and they cost Pennsylvania taxpayers a whole lot of money.

So, what is the argument for keeping the ill and infirm in prison?

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His weekly column on crime and punishment is syndicated by GateHouse Media. He is the author of “The Executioner’s Toll,” 2010. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino.

To visit the column CLICK HERE

GateHouse: Compassionate release of inmates a moral imperative

Matthew T. Mangino

GateHouse Media

April 3, 2020

The coronavirus is particularly hard on elderly and infirm people. There are a lot of elderly and infirm people in prison.

Prison inmates age at an accelerated rate when compared to people living outside the prison walls. The health of a 50-year-old person in prison is comparable to the health of a 65-year-old. That is not a good thing - especially in the midst of a pandemic.

Compassionate release, sometimes called medical or geriatric parole, is a process that allows for the release of prisoners who are elderly or sick. Some form of compassionate release exists in 49 states, the District of Columbia and with the federal government.

Prison demographics have changed dramatically in the last several decades. According to The Pew Charitable Trust, in Virginia for instance, 822 state prisoners were age 50 and over in 1990, about 4.5% of all inmates. By 2019, that number had grown to more than 8,000, or 21% of all inmates.

The Boston Globe recently reported that prisons are “Petri dishes for disease in the best of times, but they could become incubators for COVID-19 now.”

In prison, social distancing is impossible. Inmates are elbow to elbow when eating, showering and engaging in recreational activity. Besides the “graying” of inmates, many suffer from diabetes, cardiovascular disease, asthma, cancer and other conditions that, according to the Globe, make them more susceptible to COVID-19 which will likely result in intensive care, isolation and quite possibly death.

Compassionate release was created as a safety valve for elderly and infirm inmates. Unfortunately, even in the throes of a national health emergency, the release of ailing inmates has been anything but compassionate. As a result of the slow and cumbersome nature of the compassionate release process and its high denial rates, many infirm and terminally ill inmates die waiting on decisions - and many more will die as a result of COVID-19.

According to an investigation by The Marshall Project and the New York Times, from 2013 to 2017, the Federal Bureau of Prisons approved 6% of the 5,400 applications for compassionate release, while 266 inmates who applied died in custody awaiting a decision.

Congress created compassionate release as a way to release certain elderly and sick inmates when it becomes “inequitable” to keep them in prison any longer. Supporters viewed the program as a humanitarian measure and a sensible way to reduce health care costs by releasing inmates who pose little risk to public safety, reported the Times.

Last week, 14 United States Senators wrote to the Federal Bureau of Prisons seeking to ramp up the use of the Elderly Home Detention Pilot Program which permits terminally ill and elderly inmates to serve a portion of their sentence on home confinement.

The governor of Kentucky has reduced the sentences of 186 inmates who have been screened based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines and determined to be most susceptible to the COVID-19. The governor has signaled that there may be more to come. There are about 24,000 prisoners in Kentucky state prisons.

In California, where 10,500 inmates are age 60 or older, lawyers told a judicial panel overseeing prison conditions that 17,000 prisoners are a medically high risk. According to the Los Angeles

Times, lawyers argued that without immediate action, “COVID-19 will spread like wildfire in (the state’s) crowded prisons ... overwhelming hospital capacity and needlessly infecting thousands.”

This week California Governor Gavin Newsom stopped all new prison admissions, but said he had “no interest in ... releasing violent criminals from our system.”

Unfortunately, too many governors and lawmakers share Newsom’s sentiments, even if those elderly and unhealthy inmates have about zero chance of reoffending. A lengthy sentence, even a life sentence, should not be turned into a death sentence.

Compassionate release can save lives and is morally the right thing to do. Terminally ill, handicapped and infirm inmates are generally not a threat to society and are susceptible to the wrath of this terrible virus. The early release of at-risk inmates can help flatten the curve and save the lives of other inmates and prison staff.

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book “The Executioner’s Toll, 2010” was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter at @MatthewTMangino.

To visit the column CLICK HERE

GateHouse: Few prisoners benefit from compassionate release

Matthew T. Mangino

GateHouse Media

March 9, 2018

Prison inmates age at an accelerated rate when compared to people living outside the prison walls. The health of a 50-year-old person in prison is comparable to the health of a 65-year-old. That is not a good thing, especially when you consider nearly every state and the federal government are seeing an increase in elderly prisoners.

According to The Pew Charitable Trust, in Virginia for instance, 822 state prisoners were 50 and over in 1990, about 4.5 percent of all inmates. By 2014, that number had grown to 7,202, or 20 percent of all inmates.

The aging population and increasing number of inmates with chronic health conditions in prisons have led states and the federal government to adopt measures that could result in the compassionate release of some of those prisoners.

Unfortunately, the release of ailing inmates has been anything but compassionate. Due to the slow and cumbersome nature of the process and high denial rates, many infirm and terminally ill inmates die waiting on decisions.

According to a recent investigation by The Marshall Project and the New York Times, from 2013 to 2017, the Federal Bureau of Prisons approved six percent of the 5,400 applications for compassionate release, while 266 inmates who applied died in custody awaiting a decision.

Congress created compassionate release as a way to release certain inmates, such as the terminally ill, when it becomes “inequitable” to keep them in prison any longer. Supporters view the program as a humanitarian measure and a sensible way to reduce health care costs for ailing and elderly inmates who pose little risk to public safety, reported the Times.

In 1984, the federal government abolished parole. Instead of indeterminate sentences, with a minimum and maximum, the feds adopted determinate sentencing or a flat sentence of specific duration. After abolishing parole, according to the Times, Congress created compassionate release as a safety valve, giving judges the power to retroactively cut sentences short in “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances.

A 2015 study entitled “The United States Compassionate and Geriatric Release Laws,” found of the 50 states, District of Columbia and federal government 47 have some legal procedure or precedent for incarcerated people or their families to petition for early release based on advanced age or health. Only five corrections systems — Illinois, Massachusetts, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah — do not have statutory schemes for early release.

California is one of those states with compassionate release. Inmates who are terminally ill and have six months or less to live, or those inmates who are incapacitated or in a vegetative state and require 24-hour skilled nursing care, are eligible.

According to the Monterey Bay Justice Project, during a period of 12 months between 2016 and 2017, in California’s only correctional hospice unit, 53 qualified inmates applied for compassionate release. “We had six granted but some died before release,” said Reverend Keith Knauf, director of Pastoral Care in the Hospice Unit.

The failure to utilize compassionate release to its full potential has particular importance today.

The U.S. prison population continues to age — the number of prisoners age 55 or older has more than doubled, while at the same time the overall prison population has declined by three percent.

At the same time, older prisoners generate about three to nine times the cost of younger prisoners, as national prison costs have exceeded more $80 billion a year.

Compassionate release is not only economically sound it is morally the right thing to do. Terminally ill, handicapped and infirm inmates are generally not a threat to society and although they have been convicted of a crime they are entitled to some dignity as they, and their families, deal with the anguish of failing health and the end of life.

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book The Executioner’s Toll, 2010 was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino.

To visit the column CLICK HERE

Federal compassionate release of ailing inmates 'a failure'

     The compassionate release system for federal prisons is "broken," a series of witnesses told the U.S. Sentencing Commission during a recent public hearing, according to Capitol News Service.
     But while the panels of witnesses generally agreed the program is in need of a fix, they proposed starkly different solutions and laid the blame at the feet of a number of different organizations and agencies.
     The compassionate release program is meant to release elderly inmates, those with terminal illnesses and others who meet certain conditions, though as the witnesses at Wednesday's hearing said, the program does not necessarily cover all of the inmates in federal prison it is meant to.
     The public hearing was meant to evaluate a proposed set of changes to the compassionate release program, including lowering the age at which an inmate can be considered for release, reducing the amount of their prison term they must serve before qualifying for release, and adding more circumstances that would allow an inmate to go free early.
     The current program allows the director of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to motion for the early release of inmates deemed not a danger to their communities who are least 70 years old and have served at least 30 years of their sentence, or those who have "extraordinary and compelling reasons."
     Under the current rule "extraordinary and compelling reasons" are limited to debilitating or terminal physical or mental illnesses or a death in the inmate's family that would leave a minor without care.
     The proposed amendment to the program expands these circumstances further and would allow the BOP director to motion for the release of a prisoner who is 65 or older and has served at least 10 years or 75 percent of their sentence, regardless of their medical condition.
      
To read more CLICK HERE