OPINION:
Recently, the D.C. Court of Appeals upbraided a longtime federal judge in Washington for his treatment of a Jan. 6 defendant. A public rebuke of a federal judge is noteworthy enough. The issue on which an appellate court reversed Judge Reggie Walton, however, highlights a larger problem in the federal supervision system.
Last year, Daniel Goodwyn was sentenced to two months in prison for the equivalent of trespassing on federal property. Aside from a ridiculous term of incarceration for a nonviolent, first-time trespassing charge, Judge Walton added an unprecedented condition to the period of postincarceration supervision. Federal officers were ordered to monitor Mr. Goodwyn’s computer to ensure he didn’t spread “disinformation.” The Court of Appeals slammed this condition, finding that Judge Walton plainly erred.
The federal supervision system requires officers to oversee newly released offenders to help them reintegrate and become law-abiding citizens. Because conditions of supervision are not supposed to be further punishment, their imposition must be reasonably related to the underlying crime and no greater than necessary to facilitate reentry. Evidently, Judge Walton failed to grasp those nuances.
Mr. Goodwyn wasn’t convicted of anything related to computer crimes or disinformation. He was charged with being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Thus, Judge Walton willingly stepped out of his lane to restrict Mr. Goodwyn’s computer use, regardless of the content of his social media posts.
But that’s the problem with this system. Judges routinely impose extra conditions on those who are subject to federal supervision, conditions that are often disconnected from the interests of public safety or reintegration of those returning home from prison. Thankfully, Judge Walton got called on it in this case — a rare occurrence in our justice system.
Eleven years ago, I was caught up in a political scandal, and after fighting in two trials and two appeals, I was convicted of making false statements and obstructing an agency proceeding. (I was pardoned by President Donald Trump in 2020.) When I was on supervised release, I had to undergo weekly drug testing and provide all my bank statements to the probation officers. I was forbidden from opening credit accounts — despite not having been convicted of any financial or drug crimes. It simply made no sense.
Unfortunately, the government is prone to rely upon one-size-fits-all solutions to many problems facing Americans. This is certainly the case in the area of criminal justice, even though tailored pathways to success are most effective. The one-size-fits-all approach costs more than it should yet accomplishes less than taxpayers deserve in terms of curbing recidivism and helping people become contributing members of society again.
The Safer Supervision Act, now before Congress, would change how the federal government runs supervised release. Not only would the legislation make clear that supervision conditions must be related to the underlying charges, but it would also establish a system that gives people incentives to complete their education, hold jobs, undergo mental health treatment, and take programming that has been proved to cut reoffending. Those who maintain a clean record and hit their targets can earn a presumption to reduce their supervision periods. This makes sense. They are a low risk for reoffending and have demonstrated that supervision is no longer necessary.
The Safer Supervision Act’s incentive system is not unlike the incentives created in Mr. Trump’s signature First Step Act, which allowed inmates to earn credits to move from prison to home confinement sooner. The system has proved a success, lowering recidivism by 37%, according to the Council on Criminal Justice.
Why should policymakers focus on lowering recidivism? Because every repeat offense is another crime, another victim, and often another prison term, all of which have tremendous costs in terms of government spending and affliction for victims and families.
There is also another benefit to moving people through the supervision system who have demonstrated their commitment to being on the straight and narrow. As the number of Americans on supervised release has grown, probation officers have become overwhelmed. With large case files, they can’t devote the time and resources to those who need more intense supervision because they oversee so many people who are no longer threats to society.
This is what happened with Jaycee Dugard, who was kidnapped at age 11 and held captive for 18 years by someone under supervision. During that time, she was repeatedly raped and gave birth to two children in a shed. All the while, her kidnapper was visited regularly by probation officers who missed the signs because they had too many others to oversee.
The Safer Supervision Act would lower probation officers’ caseloads while offering incentives for good behavior. Because it will improve our justice system and reduce costs, the Safer Supervision Act has earned support from law enforcement and conservative policy organizations. It deserves immediate attention and action from Congress.
• David Safavian is executive vice president and general counsel for the Conservative Political Action Conference.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.