« Oregon drug decriminalization initiative would produce "significant reductions in racial/ethnic disparities" according to state commission | Main | A global look at pandemic-driving decarceration realities »

August 9, 2020

"Supervised Release Is Not Parole"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new paper authored by Jacob Schuman just posted to SSRN. Here is its abstract:

The United States has the largest prison population in the developed world.  Yet outside prisons, there are almost twice as many people serving terms of criminal supervision in the community — probation, parole, and supervised release.  At the federal level, this “mass supervision” of convicted offenders began with the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, which abolished parole and created a harsher and more expansive system called supervised release.  Last term in United States v. Haymond, the Supreme Court took a small step against mass supervision by striking down one provision of the supervised release statute as violating the right to a jury trial.  But the Justices did not consider all the differences between parole and supervised release, which have far broader consequences for the constitutional law of community supervision.

The current consensus among the courts of appeals is that supervised release is “constitutionally indistinguishable” from parole and therefore governed by the same minimal standard of due process.  Closer inspection, however, reveals three significant differences between parole and supervised release.  First, parole was a relief from punishment, while supervised release is an additional penalty. Second, parole revocation was rehabilitative, while supervised release revocation is punitive.  Finally, parole was run by an agency, while supervised release is controlled by courts.  Because of these differences, revocation of supervised release should be governed by a higher standard of due process than revocation of parole.  In particular, defendants on supervised release deserve more protection against delayed revocation hearings, which may deny them the opportunity to seek concurrent sentencing.

August 9, 2020 at 10:35 PM | Permalink


Why is there supervised release (probation) when an inmate served the time imposed (even though innocent)? The Court was bias and greedy don't you think?

Posted by: LC in Texas | Aug 10, 2020 11:45:37 AM

This is not about the court being greedy. Probation is a sentence in of itself. Supervised release is a second part of a sentence that a defendant serves after they have completed a prison sentence. The length of supervised release varies depending upon the crime but can be as high as life for some sex offenders. It gives the defendant an opportunity to reintegrate back into the community with the assistance of the US Probation Office. They must follow the court ordered conditions of supervised released, eg. participate in mental health, substance abuse, alcohol abuse treatment, job training, etc. If you think that makes the court bias and greedy, I and many others would tend to disagree.

Posted by: atomicfrog | Aug 10, 2020 12:16:49 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB