Phillip Garrido was a drug addict and a sexual predator. Despite being labeled a “time bomb” by mental health professionals, he was released on federal supervision in 1988. Three years later, while still under federal supervision, Garrido kidnapped 11-year-old Jaycee Dugard and kept her locked in a shed for 18 years. He repeatedly raped her, resulting in two pregnancies. Jaycee gave birth to the children in that same shed.
Federal officers visited Garrido’s home on dozens of occasions while he was on supervision. Because of heavy caseloads largely comprising people who didn’t need intensive supervision, U.S. probation and parole officials failed to see what was really going on. They missed Jaycee Dugard altogether because they couldn’t give Garrido and others like him the attention they required. Sadly, the problem has only gotten worse.
Federal supervised release is still overused. And it often fails to advance the goals of rehabilitation and increased community safety.
Many are surprised that the longer someone is on supervision, the more likely it is that he or she becomes entangled again in the justice system. This is backed by numbers. Research published in 2013 by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts shows that only 10% of people who had their supervision terminated early were rearrested in three years, compared to 19% of individuals who completed a full term of federal supervision. It is paradoxical, but the U.S. Courts’s own study established that shorter periods of probation increased public safety.
Making the problem worse is the fact that under current law and practice, almost everyone caught up in the federal criminal justice system gets a period of community supervision as part of their sentences, whether they need it or not. With ever-growing caseloads, federal probation and parole officers are often unable to focus resources and attention on those who really need it. People such as Garrido can fall through the cracks, with potentially devastating consequences.
The better approach is to do away with the current one-size-fits-all probation system. Instead, we need a strategy that provides a meaningful and tailored approach to supervision. By reserving long-term oversight for those most at risk of reoffending, we can save a lot of taxpayer money. More importantly, we can free up probation officers to give attention to those who need it the most.
Tailoring the probation system also helps with employment. One of the most predictive factors for recidivism is whether someone on probation has a meaningful job. Unfortunately, employers are often reticent about hiring people on supervision. Why? Because they have to deal with the disruption of unannounced visits by probation officers and employees who miss work because they have to check in or take a drug test.
Another strategy is to put in place incentives for offenders to do the hard work of self-improvement while on probation. This approach was used in former President Donald Trump’s First Step Act. Allowing people to earn time off probation by finishing their education, undergoing addiction treatment, seeking mental health counseling, and other activities proven to lower recidivism can dramatically slow the revolving door in and out of prison and cut crime. Indeed, 17 states allow “earned time credits” because evidence has shown that such incentives can make communities safer.
We also need to recognize that people make mistakes. A minor transgression, such as being late for an appointment or having a beer, shouldn’t trigger a return to prison. Unfortunately, that is exactly what we often do at the federal level despite data showing that the swift, certain, and proportionate sanctions are the surest way to ensure good behavior. The “one strike and you’re out” approach does little more than fill prison cells.
Some will argue against this approach because it benefits those who broke the law. But that is exactly the point. Giving people incentives to make a course correction in life helps them get back on the straight and narrow — and stay there. Reforming the system also makes it easier for employers to hire ex-offenders. And it allows for the federal supervision system to focus on those who require the most oversight. Taken together, these outcomes can make us all safer and help prevent the next Phillip Garrido.
David Safavian is the general counsel of the American Conservative Union Foundation. Matt Whitaker is a senior fellow of the American Conservative Union Foundation and former acting attorney general of the United States.
