by James A. Lockhart and Luke E. Sommer

In the relatively short history of compassionate release motions filed by prisoners, courts have consistently found that rehabilitation is an important element in determining whether or not relief is appropriate. See United States v. Johnson, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129168 (D.D.C. 2022). And where there is no supporting evidence of rehabilitation in the record, courts have denied petitioners’ requests on the grounds that they pose continuing threats to the public and a risk of recidivation. United States v. Mejia, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180206 (D. Haw. 2020). This makes some sense – having cancer or some serious medical condition that threatens your life is an extraordinary circumstance, but it does not compel a court to release a person whose release plan includes (1) checking in with probation, (2) buying a cellphone, and (3) robbing a bank.

The idea of putting someone back on the street who is likely to cause further harm is not something District Courts have embraced for what seem like obvious reasons. That said, what exactly is rehabilitation? Rehabilitation can, at a certain point, be grounds for compassionate release in and of itself. But at the opposite ...

by Luke E. Sommer and James A. Lockhart

Prior to the passage of the First Step Actof 2018, federal prisoners had to rely on the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“Director”) to file motions for compassionate release on their behalf. Weirdly enough, that rarely happened. As a result, ...