Senate Resolution Would Send Federal Offenders Back to Prison 3 Years After Being Released to Home Confinement
The Bureau of Prisons released more than 12,000 people on home confinement during the pandemic. Three years later, Republicans want to overturn a Justice Department rule allowing those still serving sentences to stay home.

A Senate resolution gaining traction among Republicans could send thousands of federal offenders back to prison three years after they were released on home confinement due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
On October 30, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R–Ten.) introduced S.J. Res. 47, which would overturn a Justice Department rule allowing some federal offenders to remain under house arrest after the end of the government's COVID-19 emergency declaration.
Congress initially approved the shift of at-risk inmates to their homes in its COVID-19 relief bill, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. Roughly 3,000 federal offenders are serving the remainder of their sentences at home. Criminal justice reformers argue that the program has been an unqualified success, and that it would be bizarre and cruel to send people who have thrived on the outside back to federal prison three years later.
"While there are certainly plenty of legitimate issues with the BOP that merit senators focusing oversight on the Bureau, CARES Act home confinement is an example of a program that is working—rehabilitating people while holding them accountable, all while driving down costs and maintaining community safety," says Kevin Ring, vice president of criminal justice advocacy at Arnold Ventures, a private philanthropy group.
The offenders released under the CARES Act have had an extraordinarily low recidivism rate. Of more than 13,000 inmates released to home confinement, who are subject to ankle monitors and strict rules, only 27 have been returned to prison for committing new crimes, according to the BOP. The average overall recidivism rate in the general BOP population is 43 percent.
Those released early to home confinement began to rebuild their lives and reconnect with their families. Among the success stories is Kendrick Fulton. After spending 17 years in federal prison for a nonviolent drug offense, Fulton has gotten his commercial drivers license and a steady job delivering soda.
"I was blessed to be home and not have to really rush to get a job, not have to rush to do certain things, because of my family and the support I had," Fulton says. "But everybody doesn't have that luxury that I have of having family."
There was uncertainty over what would happen to Fulton and others in his situation once the pandemic was over.
In the final days of the Trump administration, the Justice Department released a memo finding that once the federal government ended its COVID-19 emergency declaration, all of those former inmates with remaining sentences would have to report back to prison.
Criminal justice advocacy groups began pressing the Biden administration to reverse that decision. The White House initially declined to do so, instead announcing a clemency initiative that would have targeted only nonviolent drug offenders, leaving thousands of others, such as white-collar offenders, to return to prison regardless of their conduct. But last December the Justice Department reversed course and issued a new memo finding that the BOP had the discretion to leave them under house arrest for the remainder of their sentences.
"It would be a terrible policy to return these people to prison," Attorney General Merrick Garland said, "after they have shown that they are able to live in home confinement without violations."
This rule change angered Republicans positioning themselves as tough on crime. Sen. Tom Cotton (R–Ark.), one of the most pro-incarceration members of the Senate, wrote that the reversal "betrays victims and law-enforcement agencies that trusted the federal government to keep convicted criminals away from the neighborhoods that the offenders once terrorized."
Cotton has co-sponsored Blackburn's resolution, along with 23 other Senate Republicans, such as Mike Lee (R–Utah), Ted Cruz (R–Tx.), and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.). The GOP-controlled House would also have to pass the resolution to void the Justice Department's rule.
Fulton, who has less than 50 days remaining on his sentence, says the legislators pushing the resolution are ignoring the clear evidence of how well the program is working, noting that it cost taxpayers $40,000 a year for 17 years to keep him incarcerated.
"We're doing better than people that are all-the-way discharged, and they wanna send us back," Fulton says. "They know the program is a success. They know it's a win-win, and it's saving taxpayer dollars."
Blackburn's office did not immediately return a request for comment.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
You choose the behavior, you choose the consequences.
They did not chose to be railroaded. I've been an atty since 1977, and the DAs are as corrupt as hell. I was a gang wokers and a probation officer. Yes, some people are psychotic killers, but for the majority of young men, age is the best rehab. If 17 repeated offends out of 11,000 releases does not prove that we are unnecessarily locking up people, then hate is your guide. However, is not "Hate thy neighbor" the essence of Christianity?
Biggest problem is the name. We know Republicans don't care about anything but owning the libs. Saves money? Rehabilitates? They don't care. Politics should not be a reality show but seems to have become one.
Yep as corrupt as any in the land of the free. It is disgusting. I once asked why are you dropping this felony first degree forcible rape to a misdemeanor instead of dropping the charges. Clearly, this is a bad case. I was told, "Because it wouldn't look good to just let him go."
Mass incarceration is a genuine problem in the country and a very expensive one. Why would we want to send these people back to jail after they have proven their ability to be productive citizens and no threat to anyone? Admittedly, circumstances dictated their release. However, logic says rewarding their good behavior will benefit everyone.
I basically make about $16,000 to $20,000 a month online, and it’s enough to comfortably replace my old job’s income. What’s even more remarkable is that I only work about 10-13 hours a week, all from the convenience of my home.”
More Infor…. http://Www.Smartwork1.Com
Still waiting to hear what the libertarian position is regarding holding people in solitary confinement for years without charging them.
They're generally against it - if indeed people are being held under the conditions you describe. Apparently there are some very gullible people under the impression that this is happening to some Jan 6 rioters.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-764100273142
Kill yourself.
But they were mostly peaceful rioters!
Cruel and inhuman punishment.
Criminal justice reformers argue that the program has been an unqualified success, and that it would be bizarre and cruel to send people who have thrived on the outside back to federal prison three years later.
Criminal justice reform for non-violent drug offenders is so Soros-like.
Legalize drugs, free speech/press, fighting authoritarian governments, fighting overzealous cops = Open Society.
Dumb rednecks --- SOROS IS EVIL!!!!
Do you think people that intentionally publish links to child porn should receive capital punishment?
They didn't lock enough of you QAnon pedo Hastert conservatives up.
That is what I think.
Do your Soros handlers know what you did in these comments?
I’ll take a guess that you oppose capital punishment for someone that would say post a link in the Reason comments to cp material for reasons known to most.
Do you really think they’d object to his behavior?
Yeah, if they're not re-offending and are complying with all conditions of home confinement, let them stay there. These were offenders already pre-screened to be the most minimal risk, and were operating on good behavior.
In fact, depending on the costs, this could be a new strategy for incarceration-good behavior, in addition to shortening a sentence, can lead to an inmate potentially earning the opportunity to finish their sentences in home confinement, assuming they meet certain other factors. But it requires actual monitoring, and shouldn't be available for most crimes of violence.
aye
So shaking a fence is off the table?
People who do that all deserve to be hung by their toenails until they starve to death, of course.
Anyone who gets caught disrupting the official business of money changers in the temple gets nailed to a cross. End of story.
I can’t wait to read what reason has to say about the latest intifada in DC.
Federal non-violent, low-risk prisoners who have been able to maintain a home while incarcerated are likely wealthy white collar criminals who have committed serious crimes. "Home confinement" likely means a life of convenience and luxury for them and doesn't seem like much of a punishment.
Because we've never seen such a thing expanded to more violent criminals or the monitoring cut back in order to create a narrative of "success" despite the truth.
So even if it’s a good idea, you’ll reject it out of fear that it gets misused. Throwing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.
Kinda presuming the conclusion there aren't you. Let's just say I've seen ample reason not to trust a word from progressives, their plans or any data they put forward. You want to blindly believe inveterate liars, that's on you. You give me someone more honest spearheading it, fine. You push to entirely legalize what they did, then at least that's honest.
I definitely have put in the appropriate caveats. I don’t want violent criminals to get this type of treatment. And it would depend on a good, honest look at the costs and difficulties of monitoring the people released.
But given appropriate caveats, this could be a beneficial policy. And if you take it on a case by case basis. If I viewed every policy based on what the absolute worst actors might do, I’d say the current policy is terrible because of all the ways innocent people can be punished.
Im definitely a “decarceration by any means necessary” advocate. I’ve posted grievances with Reason writers for that stance plenty of times-the punishments must fit the crimes.
What about your political enemies? What happens to them?
Well they apparently get to weaponize the courts against whomever they like, so I'm fucked regardless.
Politics as usual. Doesn't matter what does or does not work, it's the optics, how you look doing it.
Perhaps Blackburn, Cotton Cruz, and other senators who couldn't pass a Voight-Kampff test think that the Feds still have privately-run prisons and are hoping for campaign contributions
(1) "Voight-Kampff" is a fictional test for emotional responses.
(2) Emotional responses and empathy are not a good thing in political decision making.
(3) If you think that people like Biden, Hillary, Warren, Sanders, etc. actually possess empathy and care about people, you are a fool; those people are power hungry sociopaths.
Translation: my sociopaths are good guys, yours aren't.
The empire shrikes back.
That is indeed correct: politics always attracts sociopaths, and some sociopaths are beneficial to society, while other sociopaths are destructive and harmful.
I'm glad you are starting to acknowledge such basic facts about politics and human societies!
I'm sure lots of federal white collar criminal would "thrive" at home. It is neither "bizarre" nor "cruel" to send them back to prison.
Well, it's not bizarre anyway. Cruel is more debatable.
Perhaps it says something that we have limited types of punishment to deal with serious crimes if vastly different nature. I don’t know if it’s good or bad.
If you’re violent and beat up women, you go to prison. If you break into a home and murder the homeowners, you go to prison. If you cheat on your taxes over a certain dollar amount, you go to prison.
Maybe it’s good for uniformity and a properly equitable system. But maybe there’s some benefit to having unique punishments such as lashings or pillories for certain offenses. I don’t know.
We certainly should have lashings for the people who think hitting a child is a rehabilitative punishment. If it is good for the children it sure as hell is good for the adults. We should be instuitutig it in the workplace. Lashes for being written up and mistakes.
The "punishment" we have is actually fairly straightforward and pretty libertarian: ostracism from society for a given period. It seems pretty straightforward.
All the more imaginative punishments end up being "cruel and unusual", though perhaps we could bring back the stocks for people like SBF and Madoff.
humanitarian pause & prisoner exchange. those fucking guys for the J6 prisoners.
Fucking Reason, still clinging to emptytheprisons.
Why don’t you explain your case to this woman’s family, once they’re done trying to find her head.
https://kcra.com/article/santa-rosa-woman-decapitated-san-joaquin-valley/45738846
Isolated incident? Here’s another
https://kcra.com/article/friends-family-members-hold-vigil-woman-killed-ione-stabbings/45754677
Let’s hear the conditions of their parole, plus the pictures and addresses of where members of the parole board live:
https://kcra.com/article/goshen-shootings-central-valley-man-pleads-not-guilty/43015126
Those seem to be people released from state prison who were convicted of violent offenses. And on parole, not home confinement. Not exactly what this article is about.
Some people do need to be locked up, or otherwise removed from society. That is not an argument against the notion that maybe some people convicted of crimes don't need to be in prison.
Geez, who invited the libertarian perspective here?
But, but, he has a 420 tattoo. Potheads are peaceful
What a joke. CJ showing his true bias. The Democrats control the Senate. How could the Republicans push something through without the support of some Democrats? Yet CJ wrote this condemning only Republicans. It's like the ACLU radio commercials claiming that they don't take sides or endorse candidates, while glorifying candidates who support abortion and castigating candidates who don't.
It didn't *pass* the Senate. It was just introduced a week ago; the only thing the bill has done so far is get referred to a committee.
And the bill cosponsors are Mitch McConnell (KY); John Thune (SD); John Cornyn (TX); Shelley Moore Capito (WV); Joni Ernst (IA); Steve Daines (MT); Tom Cotton (AR); Cindy Hyde-Smith (MS); Bill Hagerty (TN); Mike Crapo (ID); James E. Risch (ID); Ted Cruz (TX); Mike Lee (UT); Josh Hawley (MO); John Hoeven (ND); J. D. Vance (OH); Ted Budd (NC); Katie Boyd Britt (AL); Thom Tillis (NC); Deb Fischer (NE); Roger Marshall (KS); Marco Rubio (FL); Pete Ricketts (NE). I think those are all Republicans.
So calm down a little.
As I have said, the only people dumber than the DEMS are the GOP. Just when the nation is fed up with the Woker Dems and their support for Hamas, the GOP decides to lock up people who have proven that they do not need to be locked up. Both parties are run by blithering idiots who think that only their own asinine thoughts are valid.
I see only one solution, and I know that it is not emotionally satisfying for either Dems or GOP who are fed up with the sheer idiocy of their political party. De-register from your party and re-register as No Party e.g. Independent, Non-Affiliated. Different states have different names. Please do NOT register with the other party because it is run by the same type morons who run the party you just left.
The only chance we have to save ourselves from the lunatic MAGA and the vicious Wokers is to be Independent. The more Independent voters, the more both parties have to listen to the sensible middle. When you join a party, they instantly take you for granted and deceive their pea brains into think that you support every horrid idea that promote.
noting that it cost taxpayers $40,000 a year for 17 years to keep him incarcerated.
Found it ! Private Jail isn't getting it's sweet, fat, paycheck from Daddy Government. Jails only get paid if the inmates are housed in the jail; can't have a silly thing like results get in the way of a government dole paycheck.
As always, there's a reasonable compromise to be found between the two extremes. How about we just incorporate this idea into the prison system, rather than just going full tilt one way or the other.
Meaning we identify a certain criteria of convictions (ie. NOT murder, rape, kidnapping, any crimes involving harm against minors/elderly/handicapped, and the like) that become eligible for home confinement AFTER a period of mandatory prison incarceration.
The idea being that they get a taste of REAL prison for a meaningful period of time, and hopes that it convinces them to peacefully and lawfully serve out the rest of their term in home confinement.
And then we don't screw around when it comes to home confinement. No half-measures. These guys are geofenced, get random drug tested at least once a week, daily reporting, etc. And if they commit ANY crime whatsoever, they go back into real prison with their sentence doubled and forfeit any future eligibility for home confinement.
If home confinement is really as practical as CJ says, with minimized costs - then this is a fair trade so that we don't sacrifice the reality of the threat of prison in retributive justice.
We already have that: supervised release and post-release community supervision.
This is not that. It's not "release" at all. This is, "your home is now your prison."
Yes, "this is that". The conditions you list are the kinds of conditions courts impose as part of supervised release.
The issue we will have is that if it is a financial crime, then home confinement is not a punishment of any real degree.
Take SBF. Do you think home confinement would cause him any discomfort whatsoever?
Perhaps not, but again - it's not like he's going straight to home confinement. He's got to do some hard time first. And, again, we can condition home confinement however we please. In his case, his new home doesn't have electricity or cellular service. And if he's caught using the internet, right back to hard prison for a doubled sentence.
No electricity would not stand up to any legal challenge as an acceptable restriction.
Why not? We lived for thousands of years just fine, utterly content without it. Many still do, all across the world. We're not reliant on it for survival. Heck, modern cosmopolitans actually SEEK IT OUT as a form of vacation - a place to unplug and get away from everything for awhile.
Maybe this is just what a guy like him needs. There's actually something kind of poetic about it, that's personalized to his particular crimes.
Remember - this is a prison sentence that wouldn't be in an actual prison. If he wants electricity, he can go back to the cell.
"Not using the Internet" is a restriction that can already be imposed under supervised release.
As for the rest of it, it sounds like you are trying to impose a sentence by forcing defendants to build their own special-purpose jails. That is neither realistic nor constitutional.
Why not?
Would you prefer a prison of your own construction, or of someone else's?
"...they go back into real prison with their *sentence doubled* and forfeit any future eligibility for home confinement. "
So that first part would not work under the double jeopardy clause. You would need some kind of formula. For example, if the offense is non-violent, once they have served 50% (or some other number) of their original sentence and have good behavior while in prison - they may be released onto home confinement like these folks for the other 35% time then once they hit 85% of the total original sentence, they are switched to normal 'parole.' [fed prisoners typically serve 85% of their sentences before going onto supervised release.]
Numbers are just representative but something like that would make sense and would very likely 'get the message across' to the offender and give them a chance to turn their life around.
It'd be fine. Just articulate it as a sentencing guideline. You're not charging him with the same crime twice. You're upping the penalty for misbehaving while convicted (especially after being thrown a bone).
Or you could just wing it and leave it to judicial discretion. I mean, who cares. The alternative is they do their entire statutory sentence in prison anyway. I'm perfectly OK with that. I'm just saying, there's room for compromise so long as we're not undercutting the retributive aspect of retributive justice.
The more important principle here is not about home confinement being a good or bad policy, but about who makes the decision. It ought to be elected representatives who make the decision, not unelected permanent bureaucrats.
That's insane. Vote for me and I'll let you/your family members out of jail?
No. We already saw how that's ruined literally every blue city in America.