The title of this post is the title of this notable recent Law360 piece that provides a great review of a program and research led by SDNY US District Judge Richard Berman that I reported on here a few years ago. Here is the start of the piece, which is worth reading in full:
A critical component of the criminal justice system is examining alternatives to incarceration and considering programming that can help successful reintegration into society for former offenders.
One promising alternative is court-involved supervised release programs, which involve support from the sentencing judge, prosecutors, defense counsel and probation officers during the supervised release period, successful completion of which can reduce the duration of supervised release and lead to better outcomes.
Supervised release has recently received greater attention as it is currently on the U.S. Supreme Court’s docket. On Feb. 25, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Esteras v. United States.
The issue before the court in the Esteras case is whether a court may consider factors related to punishment under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Section 3553(a)(2)(A) — namely, “to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment for the offense” — when revoking supervised release and imposing a prison sentence, even though the sentencing provision that governs supervised release, Title 18, Section 3583(e), does not reference those factors.
Especially given the potential for harsher sentences following violations of supervised release if the Supreme Court holds that consideration of Section 3553(a)(2)(A) factors is proper, successful models of supervised release should be of particular interest to all parts of our criminal justice system.
One such model is a groundbreaking court-involved supervised release program created by the U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
In June 2024, Judge Berman published a report examining data obtained from this program, which highlights the overwhelmingly positive effects of judicial involvement in post-incarceration supervision and reintegration, including lower rates of violations of supervised release and terms of imprisonment. Judge Berman’s report provides a blueprint for those interested in improving reintegration outcomes, and particularly for defense counsel who may seek to advocate at sentencing for such a program.
Prior related post: