Massive Jailbreak Slipped Into COVID-19 Relief Bill

A broad range of criminals would be released from federal prison regardless of how heinous their crimes were or how many they committed if the latest coronavirus relief bill just introduced in the House becomes law. This is cynical, “never waste a good crisis” politics at its worst. If enacted, it will be paid for in the trauma and death of innocent victims.

The bill is titled the HEROES Act of 2020, for Helping Emergency Responders Overcome Emergency Situations. No doubt there will be a massive campaign to play up the assistance for emergency responders and play down the fact that it defeats justice in a great many cases where our peace officers nabbed very dangerous criminals at great personal risk.

Title XI of the bill, sections 191101 and following, provides what amounts to get-out-of-jail free cards to a breathtakingly broad swath of “covered individuals.” The list includes every prisoner over 50 years of age. It includes every prisoner who is 17 years, 364 days old or younger. It includes every prisoner with any one of a list of broadly defined health conditions. The list includes every prisoner with diabetes. Diabetes is a fairly common condition. A great many people manage this condition well. It includes every prisoner with cancer. That conjures up images of bedridden patients in the oncology ward, but it also includes people with minor skin cancers that can be easily excised by a general practitioner in the office. The list includes every prisoner with “a weakened immune system,” with no limitations on how serious that weakening needs to be. I could go on, but you get the idea.

Notice what is missing from the definition of covered individuals in §191102(b)(2). There is no mention at all of the number or seriousness of the crimes the prisoner committed. Theodore Kaczynski, the “Unabomber” who murdered three people and injured 23 others with his mail bombs, is a “covered individual.” A sizable portion of federal prisoners are drug gangsters. No matter how many people a gang boss has had murdered in the course of his operations, he would be a “covered individual” if he turned 50 yesterday.

So, what does a criminal get for being a “covered individual”?

First, the Bureau of Prisons is ordered to place every covered individual on community supervision unless “determined, by clear and convincing evidence, to be likely to pose a specific and substantial risk of causing bodily injury to or using violent force against the person of another ….” What is a “specific risk”? What is meant by “substantial”? Why the daunting burden of “clear and convincing evidence”? Prediction of future behavior is generally a shaky proposition. Even though we know that releasing a large number of violent criminals is going to kill or injure a large number of people, proving specific risk in individual cases by a high standard of proof will often not be possible.

Second, district courts are ordered to place every covered individual in the custody of the Marshal Service (e.g., pretrial detainees) on community supervision unless a similar showing is made.

Aside from covered individuals, the bill also has a provision that comes close to eliminating bail and other conditions of release for pretrial detainees. Again, given the number of gangsters prosecuted in federal court, these are dangerous innovations.

How do the authors purport do justify these drastic measures? The “findings” section of title has the usual blather about the U.S. incarceration rate, and then it drops this nugget:

Studies have shown that individuals age out of crime starting around 25 years of age, and released individuals over the age of 50 have a very low recidivism rate.

Really? Criminals released over 50 only recidivate at a rate of one or two percent? We can release the over-50 prisoners who would not otherwise be released with only minimal additional crimes being committed? Hardly.

First, consider what studies of “recidivism rate” actually measure. The U.S. Sentencing Commission report The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders (2017) notes at page 6, “Recidivism ‘refers to a person’s relapse into criminal behavior, often after the person receives sanctions or undergoes intervention for a previous crime.'” So how do we measure that? The most common measure, and the one primarily used in that report, is arrest for a new crime. That measure contains two errors: (1) people arrested for crimes they did not commit, and (2) people not arrested for crimes they did commit. Only about one out of five Part I crimes are cleared by arrest,* so error (2) is vastly greater than error (1). (Wrongful arrests happen, to be sure, but nowhere near four out of five.) So using re-arrest rate for recidivism rate vastly underestimates the true recidivism rate.

Second, what is this “very low” recidivism rate for gray-haired released criminals? From the same report, criminals released from federal prison in their fifties are rearrested within eight years 26.8% of the time. Considering the low clearance rate, if over a quarter are arrested for a new crime, it is very likely that a majority commit new crimes.

Breaking down into 5-year cohorts yields these results:

50-54: 30.1%    55-59: 22.2%    60-64: 18.9%    65+: 13.4%

Not even in the Medicare-eligible cohort can the re-arrest rate be properly described as “very low.” If we factor in the low clearance rate to take a stab at the true recidivism rate, it remains quite substantial. Simply put, the “finding” in the bill is a patent falsehood.

But we are not done yet. These figures are for prisoners released under the current system. The issue before the House is releasing prisoners who would not be released under the current system, either because the seriousness of their offenses warranted a long sentence or because they are not deemed suitable for release where the prison authorities have discretion. Can we just assume the released and not-released groups will have the same recidivism rates? That would be a completely unjustified assumption.

The way to deal with COVID-19 in prisons is through extensive testing and sharply limited access. Isolate those already infected and do not allow any more infection in. The pandemic is not a reason to release criminals early to prey on innocent people.

This bill may well be rammed through the House of Representatives in its present form, but I expect it will be dead on arrival in the Senate. Let us hope so.

* FBI, Crime in the United States (2018), calculated from the data in Table 25, which gives separate results for violent and property offenses.

Update: Hans Bader has this post at Liberty Unyielding on this bill and also on reports of inmates intentionally contracting COVID-19 in the hope it will get them released.