Federal Prisons

Judge Frees 76-Year-Old Woman Sent Back to Federal Prison After Missing a Phone Call from Officials

Controversy highlights punishing responses to mundane mistakes during post-release monitoring of felons.


A judge's mercy has kept the federal Bureau of Prisons from needlessly sending a 76-year-old Baltimore woman back behind bars because she left home to attend a computer class and missed a call from authorities looking for her.

Gwen Levi served 16 years of her federal sentence for dealing heroin before being released last summer to home confinement as part of the Trump administration's effort to reduce the federal prison population to slow the spread of COVID-19. She was one of 4,500 federal prisoners to be sent home.

In late June, the Washington Post reports, Levi attended a class in-person to learn word processing. This trip triggered her ankle monitor. When prison officials called her, she didn't answer the phone, and so this was all treated as an "escape." She was picked up and taken back to jail for transfer back to federal prison for this minor, nonviolent violation.

But Levi was doing the exact sort of thing we want prisoners to do when we release them early—learn skills that will help them become gainfully employed. Dragging her back to prison is a particularly egregious example of how post-release monitoring sometimes leads to people being punished for technical rule violations which are completely disconnected from harmful, illegal behavior. There's been a push by criminal justice activists, supported by some friendly politicians, to reform the system by which people under supervised release get thrown back in jail for "technical violations" of rules that aren't criminal in nature.

On Tuesday, the Post reports, Judge Deborah K. Chasanow of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland ordered Levi freed under compassionate release guidelines, writing, "the court concludes it would do little to serve the goals of sentencing to require her to return to full custody." She'll still have to serve five years of parole, though she can request that her parole be suspended after one year.

"Sending her back to prison for going to a computer class was shameful," Kevin Ring, president of justice reform organization FAMM, said in a prepared statement. "She deserves to be home. But this fight is far from over. It's time for the Biden administration to ensure that the 4,000 people on home confinement get to stay home with their families, too."

Ring is referring to the unclear future of all those other federal prisoners sent home last year. The COVID-related early releases were not intended to be permanent; as the Trump administration ended, the Justice Department announced that those prisoners would have to return back to prison after the pandemic has concluded.

It's been a year since these releases, and so far, according to the Post, only 185 of these released prisoners have been returned to federal custody, and only five of them had committed new crimes. Now criminal justice reformers are attempting to pressure the Justice Department under President Joe Biden to rescind the memo and allow these people to remain on monitored release after the pandemic ends.

So far, the administration has been reluctant to commit to this. A spokesperson for the Department of Justice told The New York Times that the Bureau of Prisons would have the discretion to allow released inmates to remain at home if they are close to the end of their sentences.

But does "discretion" actually mean anything given what happened to Levi? If the vast majority of these released inmates have been causing no problems on supervised release, is there any criminal justice purpose served by forcing them back into jail cells that isn't just a punitive response? If the goal of prison is rehabilitation, the appropriate response to those who have been released, but who continue to abide by the law, is to continue this experiment. Perhaps there's even a valuable lesson here about the excessive lengths of some of our federal sentences.

NEXT: How Big Business Uses Big Government To Kill Competition

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Well, as Joe Biden said, “Rules are the rules, everybody knows what the rules are going in.”

    1. And irrespective of whether it’s stupid to send her back to prison for it, it’s mendacious to claim that she was being sent back “for attending a computer class”, even if that was the proximate cause. She was being sent back to prison for *violating the terms of her parole*.

      I don’t think she should go back to prison. I don’t think she should have been in prison in the first place. But it doesn’t help anything to fucking lie about the events here.

      1. Making money online more than 15OOO$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its DSA earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..VISIT HERE

      2. it’s mendacious to claim that she was being sent back “for attending a computer class”, even if that was the proximate cause. She was being sent back to prison for “violating the terms of her parole”.

        Par for the course, as of late, for Reason headlines.

    2. So the Justice Dept can finally give us the number of federal statutes with criminal penalties?

  2. “It’s time for the Biden administration to ensure that the 4,000 people on home confinement get to stay home with their families, too.”

    “But those people still in prison for weed, well, screw *them*.”

  3. But Levi was doing the exact sort of thing we want prisoners to do when we release them early

    No she wasn’t. What we want is for them to learn humility, submission to the state. So they must do what the are told.

    Anyway, she doesn’t need to learn a new skill – that breeds independence and independence is the opposite of humility. She can sit in her boarding house room and live off the SS check the government sends her.

  4. Blame the process. Her monitor showed that she wasn’t where she was supposed to be. A person monitoring them saw that and followed the next step which was a phone call. When she didn’t answer things started happening. Welcome to bureaucracy. Public sector union drones rule. If they follow the process, they can’t be held accountable. There’s no incentive to have maybe call her back a bit later and find out what was going on.

  5. And yet neither Biden or Obama commuted her sentence when they had the chance. i guess they hate black people.

  6. Did she need permission in advance to leave home?

    1. Yes, she had an ankle monitor for being out of prison.

      1. There are two cases I can imagine.

        1. She has a list of preapproved exceptions that include attending classes.
        2. She needs permission in advance to leave the house.

        In the first case the system failed. In the second case she failed.

        1. The system can also (and probably does) fail by withholding permission for reasonable requests, and by taking so long to grant permission that the time has gone by.

  7. Did I miss the part in the article where she contacted her PO to inform them of the class and that they might be required for in-person classes at specified times? If not this seems like more agitation for no consequences for anything that the modern left demands to the detriment of society.

  8. “If the goal of prison is rehabilitation…”

    So is there any agreement that this actually is the goal of prison? Academic papers might say so, but how many of the actors involved in running the justice system actually believe this is the goal and work towards it?

  9. Word processing? They still have classes for Word Processing? That wasnt even a necessary skill 16 years ago when she went in. Now, at 76, she is going to get a job as Word Processor? Join the steno pool and take dictation and type up memos?

  10. Huh? Really? A 76-year-old woman left house arrest in order to attend a computer processing class? And this is what this author believes the government wants this woman to do so she can become “gainfully employed”? Sorry, but I don’t buy any of this.
    I doubt very much that she had any reason to attend a word processing class as there is virtually no one who would hire a 76-year-old ex-felon for any reason and there is no reason to expect a person that age to be “gainfully employed”.

    Maybe, just maybe, the people in charge of sending her back to prison did not swallow the whole story and also had no authority to excuse individual sentences due to advanced age. It would take an idiotic judge to do that.

  11. Took me time to read all the comments, but I really enjoyed the article. It proved to be Very helpful to me and I am sure to all the commenters here! It’s always nice when you can not only be informed but also entertained.engagement rings

  12. “So far, the administration has been reluctant to commit to this.”

    I’m shocked.

Please to post comments