Why expanding eligibility for compassionate release is just and necessary

Paralyzed, wheelchair-bound, and on life support. This describes 68-year-old Ezra Bozeman’s existence during the final months of his life. Because of a 50-year-old conviction, Ezra spent the vast majority of his last days behind bars, unable to receive quality healthcare or be surrounded by family. Ezra’s circumstances are not unique; Pennsylvania rarely allows elderly, seriously ill incarcerated people to be released, even though no one can argue they pose a continuing safety threat. While Pennsylvania eventually freed Ezra, it came far too late. He died a mere 12 days after leaving prison.

For over 30 years, I worked in Pennsylvania’s correctional system, serving as superintendent of five different correctional institutions. During my time, I saw the state waste precious resources incarcerating ailing elderly people like Ezra, who posed no danger to the community and had already served decades in prison. Resources spent on incarcerating Ezra could have been used to improve compensation and reduce staggering workloads for correctional staff. It is time that Pennsylvania reorders its values and releases far more aging, sick people from prison.

Thankfully, Pennsylvanians are demanding change. At a recent rally in Harrisburg, advocates and elected officials pushed for the passage of HB 150, a bill that would increase the number of elderly and sick prisoners eligible for release. While Pennsylvania has a compassionate release statute, it is so narrowly written that only people facing imminent death qualify. That standard is virtually impossible to meet. Since the statute’s inception in 2009, only 55 people have been released, despite the fact that nearly 11,000 people held in Pennsylvania's prisons are over 50, with many of them suffering from chronic health issues. HB 150 would expand eligibility for compassionate release by allowing people with debilitating conditions, serious functional or cognitive impairments, or physical or mental deterioration to request release.

In a time when Pennsylvania goes four months without a budget and federal shutdowns are a common occurrence, greater fiscal responsibility should be a priority; yet, Pennsylvania still incarcerates those who are in dire health, thus wasting millions. The average yearly costs of incarcerating elderly individuals with serious medical needs can exceed $100,000 per person, with medication alone costing nearly $3,000. By comparison, the state spends under $60,000 a year to incarcerate those who are younger, and the average medication costs are below $2,000. Altogether, Pennsylvania spends over $400 million a year on medical care for those who are in prison, the bulk of which is dedicated to elderly individuals. To make matters worse, under federal law, those in custody are ineligible for Medicaid, forcing Pennsylvanians to shoulder allthe costs.

Opponents of compassionate release reform argue that no matter their age or health, people convicted of serious crimes deserve to die behind bars. This punishment-centered approach serves no one and weakens our ability to improve public safety. 

We can respect victims’ rights, while also recognizing that incarcerating elderly, dying individuals does not automatically make our communities safer. The millions spent on incarcerating sick people could be invested in programs proven to actually reduce crime, such as Head Start or summer youth employment. And study after study has shown that individuals like those eligible for release under HB 150 rarely go on to commit new crimes. 

States across the nation are fixing their compassionate release programs. California, Delaware, and Maryland passed bills expanding the criteria for compassionate release. To my knowledge, none of these bills resulted in elderly people in wheelchairs or on ventilators going on crime sprees. And these bills could save taxpayers a small fortune.   

If the goal is unending retribution, our current system operates quite effectively. But if we recognize that people evolve beyond their worst decisions, and deserve dignity and appropriate care, then we must change our approach to release. If we know that spending millions to lock away debilitatingly sick individuals is a giant waste of money, then we must change our approach to release. If we can admit that forcing people to die in prison does not make us safer, then we must change our approach to release. Compassionate release has lacked compassion for far too long. The Pennsylvania legislature can correct this misnomer by passing HB 150.