Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote that “justice too long delayed is justice denied” in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” which was smuggled out of jail in 1963 and written into the history books.
While King was referring to the plight of African Americans in their struggle to gain true equality in America, the phrase also seems appropriate when discussing another situation making headlines recently.
Namely, prison inmates who suffer from terminal illness and could be helped by a government program designed to provide them with a “compassionate release” in the final phase of their lives actually now are suffering more because of the program, according to a new government study.
A study released last week by the U.S. Department of Justice found that the Federal Bureau of Prisons Compassionate Release Program has been “poorly managed and implemented inconsistently,” thus resulting in terminally-ill inmates being overlooked and dying before their releases are granted.
Lack of compassion
In the report, Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz examined compassionate releases from 2006 to 2011.
The report recommends that the bureau make greater use of its ability to release inmates who are taking up bed space — and using costly medical services — but who pose relatively little risk to the public because of factors such as their age or poor health.
“We concluded that an effectively managed compassionate release program would result in cost savings for the BOP, as well as assist the BOP in managing its continually growing inmate population and the resulting capacity challenges it is facing,” it said. “We further found that such a program would likely have a relatively low rate of recidivism.”
The recidivism rate within three years for all former federal inmates is around 41 percent. By contrast, just 5 of the 142 inmates released for compassionate reasons — or 3.5 percent — in the studied period were rearrested within three years, it said.
Also the report revealed that the Bureau of Prisons did not maintain consistent standards on who is eligible for the program. For example, some prisons said it had to be someone who was likely to die within six months, while others said within 12 months.
Mismanagement leads to injustice
Another case of mismanagement mentioned in the report is the rejection of an inmate who was serving a life sentence for distributing cocaine and heroin from the release program by the Deputy Attorney General’s office.
The inmate had a “massive stroke” while incarcerated, which left him existing in a nearly vegetative state. Prison officials fed him through a feeding tube and had to turn and reposition him every two to three hours, in addition to helping him go to the bathroom and bathing him.
While the Bureau of Prison’s director had made the recommendation that this inmate be released “due to [the inmate’s] totally debilitated medical condition and near vegetative condition with no hope of recovery,” the Office of the Deputy Attorney General did “not concur” with the recommendation, and so this prisoner remains incarcerated.
He is partially paralyzed, cannot speak, and in need of “total assistance with his activities of daily living,” according to the report.
Between 2006 and 2011, 28 terminally-ill inmates died and their cases had been approved by a warden or regional director, but the Bureau of Prisons had failed to act and make a decision in these cases. In contrast, an average of 24 gravely-ill prisoners were freed each year from 2006 to 2011.
According to recent Bureau of Justice statistics, the vast majority, or 48 percent of inmates in federal prison, were serving time for drug offenses in 2011.
“We concluded that the BOP could realize additional cost savings, as well as receive assistance in addressing its population management difficulties, from appropriately expanding the use of the compassionate release program,” the report stated.
DOJ recommends overhaul of the program
The report recommended 11 ways that the program could be improved, including an examination of how much it costs to keep seriously ill prisoners in custody.
Additional recommendations included considering expanding the use of the compassionate release program to cover “both medical and non-medical conditions for inmates who do not present a threat to the community and who present a minimal risk of recidivism.”
And updating written national policies to accurately reflect the Bureau of Prison’s criteria for determining eligible medical and nonmedical requests was determined to be needed, along with establishing timeframes for processing requests at each step of the review process.
“We also recommend the BOP require that all inmates be informed about the compassionate release program and that the BOP track each compassionate release request, its status and final disposition,” the report found.
In addition to the moral benefit of such a program, the economic benefits were noted by the report.
“We concluded that an effectively managed compassionate release program would result in cost savings … as well as assist the [bureau] in managing its continually growing inmate population,” the report said.
The way the program has been run “has likely resulted in potentially eligible inmates not being considered for release,” it also concluded.
In response to the report, the Office of the Inspector General said that it “believes the care for inmates associated with compassionate release is unique and must be identified individually to fully understand the per-inmate cost, as well as the savings realized by the release of these inmates.”
But for those suffering and dying behind bars, will calculating cost-effectiveness come at the expense of delaying compassion and justice?
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Mint Press News’ editorial policy.