Recalibrate Revocations of Supervised Release

Abstract

Everyone knows what prison is and how it fits into our criminal justice system, but that is not the case with supervised release, a time-consuming and expensive part of nearly all federal sentences. Even further from common understanding is the process for revoking supervised release. The current procedure for revoking supervised release is problematic because (1) on the surface it engages in the fiction that the person whose liberty is at stake enjoys ample rights, and (2) the process results in excessive investments of time and money. To address these problems, we can recalibrate how a court works through a relatively less serious class of revocations. Specifically, we can make the process less adversarial by having the court assume that the prosecutor need not participate unless the circumstances call for it. Courts can do this now because the law does not articulate what role the prosecutor should have in a revocation hearing.

New data from the United States Sentencing Commission reveal that this less serious category of revocation accounts for over half of all supervised release violations and relates mostly to people with minimal criminal histories who were convicted of drug offenses. Streamlining these hearings will save money, ease the burden on a court’s calendar, allow the probation officer to assume a more fitting role, and maybe most importantly, accord with the rights of the person accused of violating supervision.

Keywords: criminal law, supervised release