Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS OVERSIGHT HEARING: THE BUREAU OF PRISONS’ SHOULD FULLY IMPLEMENT AMELIORATIVE STATUTES TO PREVENT WASTED RESOURCES, DANGEROUS OVERCROWDING, AND NEEDLESS OVER-INCARCERATION

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS OVERSIGHT HEARING: THE BUREAU OF PRISONS’ SHOULD FULLY IMPLEMENT AMELIORATIVE STATUTES TO PREVENT WASTED RESOURCES, DANGEROUS OVERCROWDING, AND NEEDLESS OVER-INCARCERATION

Ratings: (0)|Views: 15 |Likes:
Published by mary eng
.
.

More info:

Categories:Topics, Art & Design
Published by: mary eng on Apr 09, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/14/2014

pdf

text

original

 
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
STEVEN T. WAXSTEPHEN R. SADYFederal Public Defender Chief Deputy
MAIN OFFICE:BRANCH OFFICES:101 SW Main Street, Suite 1700151 West 7 Avenue, Suite 510
th
Portland, OR 97204Eugene, OR 97401(503) 326-2123/FAX (503) 326-5524(541) 465-6937/FAX (541) 465-697515 Newtown StreetMedford, OR 97501(541) 776-3630/FAX (541) 776-3624
United States House of RepresentativesCommittee on the JudiciarySubcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
F
EDERAL
B
UREAU OF
P
RISONS
O
VERSIGHT
H
EARING
:T
HE
B
UREAU OF
P
RISONS
 
S
HOULD
F
ULLY
I
MPLEMENT
A
MELIORATIVE
S
TATUTES
T
O
P
REVENT
W
ASTED
ESOURCES
,D
ANGEROUS
O
VERCROWDING
,
 
A
 ND
 N
EEDLESS
O
VE
-
INCARCERATION
Prepared Statement of Stephen R. SadyChief Deputy Federal Public Defender for the District of OregonJuly 21, 2009
 
United States House of Representatives Committee on the JudiciarySubcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland SecurityFederal Bureau of Prisons Oversight HearingPrepared Statement of Stephen R. SadyChief Deputy Federal Public Defenderfor the District of OregonJuly 21, 2009The Bureau of Prisons’ Should Fully Implement Ameliorative Statutes To Prevent WastedResources, Dangerous Overcrowding, And Needless Over-Incarceration
 Good morning Chairman Conyers, Chairman Scott, and Members of the Subcommittee:Thank you for the opportunity to address some of the issues that directly affect the freedomand safety of prisoners that I, as a federal public defender, have represented over the years. Theissues do not involve the fact of their convictions or length of their sentences, but rather the Bureauof Prisons’ (BOP) rules that deny to them the opportunities Congress has deemed important inhelping prisoners avoid unnecessary incarceration and achieve successful transitions into thecommunity.Over-incarceration of federal prisoners takes a huge societal toll: the hundreds of millionsof taxpayer dollars wasted; the human costs of individual freedom lost and families broken; and theredefinition of our society as one willing to incarcerate more than is necessary to accomplishlegitimate goals of sentencing. The overarching philosophy of the Sentencing Reform Act – “asentence sufficient but not greater than necessary” to accomplish the goals of sentencing – shouldapply to the imposition
and execution
of the sentence. The sooner a prisoner begins communitycorrections, then supervised release, the sooner community-based rehabilitative programs, with their lesser costs, employment, and family reunification, go into effect. Congress has given the BOPauthority to ensure that prisoners are not serving more time of actual incarceration than is necessary.But, the BOP has failed to fully implement available statutory mechanisms to ameliorate sentences.There are six areas where the BOP has failed to follow the law or use available programs:the Second Chance Act (SCA), the second look statute, good time credit, the residential drugtreatment program (RDAP), the boot camp program, and the sentence calculation statutes. The problem lies not with the BOP’s statutory authority, but rather with its failure to administer the lawas intended. These Congressionally approved mechanisms do not present generalized communitysafety concerns because the BOP has the discretion – indeed the obligation – to ensure the public’s1
 
safety on a case-by-case basis. However, categorical failures to fully implement ameliorative programs deprive thousands of prisoners the benefits that would spare the public millions of dollarsand alleviate overcrowding that is dangerous to inmates and correctional officers alike.
The Second Chance Act
In Section 251 of the SCA, Congress doubled the BOP’s required consideration of prereleasecustody in the community from a maximum of six months to twelve months. Congress also
1
instructed the BOP to promulgate regulations within 90 days to ensure 1) consideration of the fivefactors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), 2) individualized rather than categorical assessment, and 3) placement in the community for a “sufficient duration to provide the greatest likelihood of successfulreintegration into the community.” Implementation of the SCA’s plain language should normally
2
lead to transfer to a halfway house starting at twelve months from the projected release date, withup to the final six months in home detention, unless less time in the community was justified byindividual factors that overrode the greater opportunities for work in the community, for familyreunification, and for other community-based programming to ease reentry from prison to home.In response to the SCA, the BOP repeatedly violated the statute’s plain intent by clinging tothe former rules that effectively limited community corrections to six months, absent undefinedextraordinary and compelling circumstances. The Director of the BOP claimed that research
3
supported the six-month limitation. Despite this claim and the SCA’s emphasis on evidence-based
4
approaches, discovery obtained in litigation established that no such research exists. Thus, a keyaspect of the SCA has become a dead letter. With no empirical support, the BOP failed to adopt thecommon sense position of Congress that, in general, more time in community transition programsincreases the fiscal and individual benefits of employment, family reunification, and less stringentcustody.The BOP’s six-month presumption violates the relevant statutes. Their plain text as well astheir context belies the BOP’s rule that – in effect – retains the pre-SCA six-month standard. DespiteSecond Chance Act, Pub.L. 110-199, § 251, 122 Stat. 657 (Apr. 9, 2008); 18 U.S.C.
1
§3624(c)(2008).18 U.S.C. §3624(c)(6)(2008).
2
 
 Pre-Release Residential Re-Entry Center Placements Following The Second Chance Act 
3
of 2007,
Memorandum From Joyce Conley and Kathleen Kennedy to Chief Executive Officers(Apr. 14, 2008).United States Sentencing Commission,
Symposium on Alternatives to Incarceration
at
4
267 (July 14-15, 2008) (statement of Harley Lappin, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons).2

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->