Liman Center Research Helps Inform Proposed Federal Sentencing Guidelines on Supervised Release

A report by the Arthur Liman Center for Public Interest Law, Collecting Conditions: A Snapshot of Supervised Release in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, is helping to inform proposals for new federal sentencing guidelines.

Supervised release is a period of supervision after an individual’s release from prison. Judges may impose supervised release at sentencing, setting the duration of the period and the conditions for supervision. Under the statute that created supervised release, these conditions are intended to support rehabilitation, deter criminal conduct, and protect the public. Examples include obtaining permission to leave the district, submitting to substance testing, participating in mental health treatment, and refraining from contact with people who have felony convictions. If a probation officer believes an individual has violated conditions, the officer can request that the judge consider returning the individual to prison. 

Some have raised concerns about supervised release, including people who have experienced it and some judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, health care professionals. They and others have questioned the utility and wisdom of imposing conditions at the time of sentencing, given that individuals may spend years in prison before their release. Yet little information has been available about which conditions were regularly imposed for what kind of convictions. 

READ THE REPORT: COLLECTING CONDITIONS

The Liman Center provided some answers in Collecting Conditions by analyzing sentencing decisions in the cases of 74 defendants represented in 2023 by the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the federal court in Connecticut. The report found support for concerns expressed by other commentators. Rather than receiving individualized and tailored conditions, 97% of the 68 people sentenced to prison were also given a term of supervised release, the report found. Moreover, despite the variety of crimes of convictions, judges imposed — with minor variations — the same conditions on each defendant, according to the report.

This spring, the U.S. Sentencing Commission invited public comment on proposed revisions to its sentencing guidelines. In response, the Liman Center submitted its report and recommended that judges impose only the minimum legally required conditions at sentencing and revisit conditions before an individual is released so as to tailor them to the statutory goals.

On March 12, when the U.S. Sentencing Commission heard commentary, the public defender testifying on behalf of the Federal Public and Community Defenders raised concerns about imposing conditions without an individualized assessment and cited the Liman Report’s data. The chair of the Sentencing Commission stated that, having reviewed Collecting Conditions, he had a different perspective on some conditions, such as needing permission to travel, requiring employment, and prohibiting association with individuals who have felony convictions. 

The chair raised a question about whether an individual assessment could not be conducted post-release to determine which conditions would be appropriate at that time. The public defender responded that by “putting just a little bit more time and thought in on the front end, we will be saving a lot of time and energy on the back end.”

On April 30, the Sentencing Commission proposed to Congress changes to the sentencing guidelines. Included were amendments seeking to provide “courts with greater discretion to impose a term of supervised release that is appropriate for the individual defendant” so as to ensure that supervised release conditions support rehabilitation.   

The Liman Center has for many years aimed to do research for reform. Its website, Seeing Solitary, is another example of this work. The Liman Center is now working with other research groups to understand the role that violations of “technical” conditions — such as reporting requirements — play in the process of revocation. Through learning more, wiser choices can be made to minimize the harms and the challenges for all participants in the criminal legal system.