ESCAPES FROM PERMISSIVE RELEASE PROGRAMS DIFFER FROM THOSE INVOLVING OTHER TYPES OF CONFINEMENT. WHILE AN OFFENDER IN A PRISON WOULD LIKELY ENDANGER HIMSELF OR OTHERS IN AN ESCAPE, AN OFFENDER WHO HAS BEEN PERMITTED A LIMITED MOBILITY OUTSIDE THE INSTITUTION DOES NOT ENDANGER ANYONE DURING AN UNLAWFUL DEPARTURE. WHETHER FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT OR FAMILY VISITING, THE RELEASED IS CONSIDERED A SITUATION OF TRUST INVOLVING RESPONSIBLE AND NONDANGEROUS INMATES. THE VIOLATION OF THIS TRUST IS NOT IDENTICAL TO THE SUDDEN, DANGEROUS ACTION OF A PRISON ESCAPE, YET BOTH SITUATIONS ARE PROSECUTED UNDER THE SAME STATUTES. ALTHOUGH CUSTODY BY THE STATE IS A NECESSARY PENALTY FOR THE CRIME OF ESCAPE, PERMISSIVE RELEASE OFFENDERS ARE NOT HELD IN TOTAL CUSTODY PREVIOUS TO UNAUTHORIZED DEPARTURE AND THUS SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO LESS STRINGENT PROSECUTION THAN PERSONS WHO ESCAPE FROM PRISON. MODIFICATION OF THE ESCAPE LAWS TO REFLECT THE ATTENUATED CONTROL OVER PERMISSIVE RELEASE OFFENDERS IS RECOMMENDED. LEGISLATURES SHOULD EITHER EXPAND THE ESCAPE LAWS TO MAKE THEM APPLICABLE TO THE RELEASED OFENDERS' 'CRIME OF OMISSION,' OR SHOULD APPLY THE PRISONS' ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS TO THE PUNISHMENT OF PERMISSIVE RELEASE VIOLATIONS. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (TWK)