Court Opinion

ID: 9627502
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:46:13.543848+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:44:23.115339
License: Public Domain

BRIGHT, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the opinion in this case but I write separately to call attention to the *915Second Chance Act of 2007. Pub. L. No. 110-199, 122 Stat. 657 (April 9, 2008). In this Act, the Congress has directed a shift from policing those on parole to rehabilitating them. The parole system now bears an increasing special obligation to help federal offenders successfully reenter into society.
Any time a person serves a prison sentence, begins parole or supervised release, and then, as in this case, violates a provision of release that may justify re-imprisonment, the correctional system has failed. In making this statement, I do not mean to comment adversely on probation officers. I do, however, call attention to this new wind that is refreshingly blowing into the correctional systems in this country.
Title 11(C)(1) of the Second Chance Act aims to improve the reentry of federal offenders into society with the help of probation officers. Specifically, § 231 requires that the Attorney General and the Director of the Bureau of Prisons establish a comprehensive prisoner reentry program. The Bureau must assess each prisoner’s skill level at the beginning of imprisonment to identify areas in need of improvement, create a skills development plan for each prisoner, coordinate with other agencies to ease a prisoner’s reentry to society, and collect information on family relationships to encourage these relationships. Furthermore, § 231 permits a direct-release prisoner to request the help of a representative of the United States Probation System in developing a release plan.
It is clear that the spirit of the Second Chance Act of 2007 intends that the entire penal systems, state and federal, work towards the rehabilitation of prisoners for the purpose of reducing recidivism. Title I, § 101 amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 197 et seq. so as to prioritize funding to those local governments that can deliver continuous and appropriate drug treatment, medical care, job training and placement, educational services, or any other service or support needed for reentry.
Furthermore, as a condition of receiving financial assistance under Title I, § 101, local governments must develop a comprehensive strategic reentry plan for inmates. In developing such a plan, local governments must coordinate with communities and stakeholders that can provide reentry services, which includes people in the fields of public safety, juvenile and adult corrections, housing, health, education, substance abuse, victims services, and employment.
Finally, the Second Chance Act’s authorization to appropriate significant sums of money illustrates the Act’s commitment to rehabilitating inmates and facilitating their reentry into society.
The Second Chance Act of 2007 therefore revises the duties of parole and probation officers, focusing much of their attention to the rehabilitation of those who have served prison sentences. Such a recent but important development must be underscored so that the Act may change the attitudes and focus of probation from policing parolees and probationers to rehabilitating them.
Indeed, if the Second Chance Act had been in effect during Ms. Wessels’s supervised release, with proper assistance and supervision she may well have successfully served her probationary (supervised release) period of time.