同情释放与COVID-19:分析联邦法院对第一步法案的不一致适用。

IF 1.7 4区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Helen Mooney, Kayla Larkin, Mara Howard-Williams
{"title":"同情释放与COVID-19:分析联邦法院对第一步法案的不一致适用。","authors":"Helen Mooney, Kayla Larkin, Mara Howard-Williams","doi":"10.1017/jme.2025.10127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a significant health threat to people in corrections facilities due to communal living, inability to social distance, and high rates of comorbidity among incarcerated populations. Combined with the First Step Act of 2018, which granted incarcerated individuals seeking compassionate release access to the courts, the pandemic increased the number of people in federal prisons petitioning for early release due to health risk. Analysis of federal compassionate release case law throughout the pandemic reveals inconsistent judicial reasoning related to COVID-19-based requests. Inconsistently interpreted compassionate release factors include vaccination status, COVID-19 reinfection, and the \"degree\" of extraordinary circumstances considered. Varied application among federal districts produced inequitable access to compassionate release. Therefore, this analysis provides insight into how an unclear policy can create disparate public health outcomes and considerations for compassionate release determinations in future times of uncertainty, such as a pandemic.</p>","PeriodicalId":50165,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"426-432"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Compassionate Release and COVID-19: Analyzing Inconsistent Applications of the First Step Act by Federal Courts.\",\"authors\":\"Helen Mooney, Kayla Larkin, Mara Howard-Williams\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/jme.2025.10127\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a significant health threat to people in corrections facilities due to communal living, inability to social distance, and high rates of comorbidity among incarcerated populations. Combined with the First Step Act of 2018, which granted incarcerated individuals seeking compassionate release access to the courts, the pandemic increased the number of people in federal prisons petitioning for early release due to health risk. Analysis of federal compassionate release case law throughout the pandemic reveals inconsistent judicial reasoning related to COVID-19-based requests. Inconsistently interpreted compassionate release factors include vaccination status, COVID-19 reinfection, and the \\\"degree\\\" of extraordinary circumstances considered. Varied application among federal districts produced inequitable access to compassionate release. Therefore, this analysis provides insight into how an unclear policy can create disparate public health outcomes and considerations for compassionate release determinations in future times of uncertainty, such as a pandemic.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50165,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"426-432\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2025.10127\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2025.10127","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于集体生活、无法保持社交距离以及被监禁人群的高发合并症,2019冠状病毒病大流行对惩戒机构中的人员构成了重大健康威胁。再加上2018年的《第一步法案》(First Step Act),该法案允许寻求同情释放的被监禁者向法院提起诉讼,疫情增加了联邦监狱中因健康风险而请求提前释放的人数。对整个大流行期间联邦同情释放判例法的分析显示,与基于covid -19的请求相关的司法推理不一致。不一致解释的同情释放因素包括疫苗接种状况、COVID-19再感染以及所考虑的特殊情况的“程度”。联邦地区的不同申请导致获得同情释放的机会不公平。因此,该分析提供了一项不明确的政策如何产生不同的公共卫生结果以及在未来不确定时期(如大流行)同情释放决定的考虑因素的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Compassionate Release and COVID-19: Analyzing Inconsistent Applications of the First Step Act by Federal Courts.

The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a significant health threat to people in corrections facilities due to communal living, inability to social distance, and high rates of comorbidity among incarcerated populations. Combined with the First Step Act of 2018, which granted incarcerated individuals seeking compassionate release access to the courts, the pandemic increased the number of people in federal prisons petitioning for early release due to health risk. Analysis of federal compassionate release case law throughout the pandemic reveals inconsistent judicial reasoning related to COVID-19-based requests. Inconsistently interpreted compassionate release factors include vaccination status, COVID-19 reinfection, and the "degree" of extraordinary circumstances considered. Varied application among federal districts produced inequitable access to compassionate release. Therefore, this analysis provides insight into how an unclear policy can create disparate public health outcomes and considerations for compassionate release determinations in future times of uncertainty, such as a pandemic.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics
Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics 医学-医学:法
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
4.80%
发文量
70
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Material published in The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics (JLME) contributes to the educational mission of The American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, covering public health, health disparities, patient safety and quality of care, and biomedical science and research. It provides articles on such timely topics as health care quality and access, managed care, pain relief, genetics, child/maternal health, reproductive health, informed consent, assisted dying, ethics committees, HIV/AIDS, and public health. Symposium issues review significant policy developments, health law court decisions, and books.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信