Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 25, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:54 pm
Time: 9:54 pm
Results for supervised release
5 results foundAuthor: Bender-Olson, Katie Title: Supervised Release and Discharge of Sexually Violent Persons Summary: This Staff Brief describes the standards that must be met in order for a person who has been civilly committed as a sexually violent person to be released to supervised release or discharged from the commitment. Chapter 980, Stats., governs civil commitments of sexually violent persons. Wisconsin was one of the first states to enact such a law. Currently, 20 states civilly commit certain sex offenders. These laws have been challenged on the basis of due process, double jeopardy, and equal protection and have generally been held to be constitutional. This Staff Brief summarizes sections of ch. 980, Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Persons, Stats., related to initial commitment under the chapter and to petitions for discharge and supervised release. The Brief also summarizes case law relevant to the constitutionality of ch. 980 civil commitments and to discharge and supervised release procedures. Part I describes sections of ch. 980 related to initial commitment of sexually violent persons and summarizes case law related to the constitutionality of civil commitments. Part II describes sections of ch. 980 related to supervised release from civil commitment and summarizes Wisconsin case law regarding supervised release. Part III describes sections of ch. 980 related to discharge from civil commitment and summarizes Wisconsin case law regarding discharge. Details: Madison, WI: Wisconsin Legislative Council, 2012. 22p. Source: Staff Brief, SC-2012-06: Internet Resource: Accessed September 24, 2012 at http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lc/publications/sb/sb_2012_06.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lc/publications/sb/sb_2012_06.pdf Shelf Number: 126416 Keywords: Civil Commitment of Sex Offenders (Wisconsin)Sex Offenders (Wisconsin)Supervised ReleaseViolent Offenders (Wisconsin) |
Author: U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Office of Inspector General Title: Supervision of Aliens Commensurate with Risk Summary: This report addresses the effectiveness of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s decisionmaking process on whether to detain aliens in an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility or place them in supervised release. It is based on interviews with employees and officials of relevant agencies and institutions, direct observations, and a review of applicable documents. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s mission is to protect the security of the American people by enforcing the nation’s immigration and customs laws. This includes the identification, apprehension, detention, and removal of deportable aliens from the United States. Aliens undergoing removal proceedings are either held in an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility or placed in one of five supervised release options. On September 30, 2009, 31,306 aliens were in detention facilities, an estimated 153,000 were incarcerated in federal prisons or state and local jails, and 1.5 million were released through a variety of supervision options. Our audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s decisionmaking process on whether to detain aliens in an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility or place them in supervised release. Immigration and Customs Enforcement generally has an effectively designed decisionmaking process for determining whether to detain or release aliens. In most of the cases we assessed, officers made reasonable decisions and complied with requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Supreme Court decisions, and prescribed policies and procedures. However, personnel could not always provide evidence that all aliens were screened against the Terrorist Watchlist; current policy for screening aliens from specially designated countries is not effective; and personnel did not always maintain accurate and up-to-date information in the case management system. The agency has taken action to correct deficiencies in its data quality. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials concurred with two of our three recommendations. Details: Washington, DC: Office of Inspector General, Department of Homeland Security, 2011. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 13, 2013 at http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/OIG_11-81_Dec11.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/OIG_11-81_Dec11.pdf Shelf Number: 127268 Keywords: Immigrant DetentionRisk ManagementSupervised Release |
Author: Solomon, Freda F. Title: CJA's Queens County Supervised Release Program: Impact on Court Processing and Outcomes Summary: This report by the New York City Criminal Justice Agency (CJA) presents the results of an examination of CJA's Queens County (NY) Supervised Release Program. The supervised release program is offered by judges at arraignment to selected offenders arrested for certain non-violent felonies who have satisfied a number of conditions during a rigorous pre-arraignment screening process. This report provides an overview of the program as well as data on completed program cases, case and defendant characteristics, court outcomes in completed program cases, comparison of exited program and pre-program groups of cases, and comparison of baseline and program cases arraigned on felony drug and property crime charges. The evaluation found that to date, the majority of the program's clients (87.4 percent) have left the program under successful conditions of participation. The evaluation also found that defendants sentenced to pretrial release were less likely to receive a conditional discharge sentence compared to defendants not released before trial. In addition, those defendants that were received pretrial release were more likely to have shorter case processing times with prosecutors still able to successfully obtain convictions in these cases. Program limitations are discussed. Details: New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency, 2013. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 26, 2015 at: http://www.pretrial.org/download/research/Queens%20County%20Supervised%20Release%20Program-%20Impact%20on%20Court%20Processing%20ad%20Outcomes%20-%20CJA%202013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.pretrial.org/download/research/Queens%20County%20Supervised%20Release%20Program-%20Impact%20on%20Court%20Processing%20ad%20Outcomes%20-%20CJA%202013.pdf Shelf Number: 129686 Keywords: Case ManagementCommunity SupervisionPretrial ReleaseSupervised Release |
Author: Clark, Valerie A. Title: An Evaluation of Minnesota's Second Chance Act Adult Demonstration Grant: The High-Risk Revocation Reduction Reentry Program Summary: This research assessed whether a reentry program targeted towards high-risk short-term prison inmates significantly reduced recidivism. Adult male release violators serving incarceration periods of two to six months in two Minnesota state prisons were randomly assigned to either the control group (n = 77) or the High-Risk Revocation Reduction (HRRR) program (n = 162). The latter group was provided with enhanced case planning, housing assistance, employment assistance, mentoring services, cognitive-behavioral programming, and transportation assistance, while the former group was given standard case management services. After one to two years of post-release follow-up time, event history analysis was used to predict the following four measures of recidivism: supervised release revocation, rearrest, reconviction, and new offense reincarceration. The Cox regression analyses revealed that participation in the HRRR program significantly lowered the risk of supervised release revocations and reconvictions by 28 and 43 percent, respectively. Regardless of treatment or control group membership, receiving more reentry assistance significantly reduced supervision revocations as well as rearrests. Analyses also revealed that employment assistance, including subsidized employment, was especially effective at reducing recidivism. Targeting resources towards this previously under-served population may be useful for lowering recidivism as well as promoting public safety. Details: St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2014. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 22, 2016 at: http://www.doc.state.mn.us/PAGES/files/8214/1340/4401/Evaluation_of_HRRR_Program_-_October_2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.doc.state.mn.us/PAGES/files/8214/1340/4401/Evaluation_of_HRRR_Program_-_October_2014.pdf Shelf Number: 138362 Keywords: Parole RevocationsPrisoner ReentryRecidivismSecond Chance ActSupervised Release |
Author: Solomon, Freda F. Title: Community Supervision as a Money Bail Alternative: The Impact of CJA's Manhattan Supervised Release Program On Legal Outcomes and Pretrial Misconduct Summary: The New York City Criminal Justice Agency (CJA), Inc., is a non-profit organization, working under a contract with the City of New York to provide pretrial services to defendants prosecuted in the City's Criminal Court system. The Agency's primary mission is to reduce unnecessary pretrial detention in New York City. As part of that mission, CJA has advocated for community supervision as an alternative to money bail for defendants posing a medium risk of failure to appear (FTA) if released on unsupervised personal recognizance. CJA created a pilot program after extensive consultation with, and the support of, the New York City Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator (since renamed the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice). The program was designed to offer judges at Criminal Court arraignment the option of supervised release as a bail alternative in selected non-violent felony cases with a high likelihood of having bail set. In August 2009, CJA introduced its first Supervised Release (SR) program in the Queens Criminal Court. Based on the success of that program, the City contracted with CJA to develop a similar three-year demonstration project in the New York County (Manhattan) Criminal Court, which was implemented in April 2013. Owing to the success of the CJA programs the City, through the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice, developed a proposal to introduce a more expansive program of pretrial release under supervision citywide. In March 2016, CJA's program was replaced in Manhattan by this new City initiative. CJA's Manhattan Supervised Release (MSR) program, like its Queens counterpart, offered judges a pretrial community-based supervision program as an alternative to setting bail at the Criminal Court arraignment in cases arraigned on selected non-violent felony charges. In Manhattan, these have been felony charges involving drug, property, or fraud/theft crimes, plus a comparatively small number of other types of non-Violent Felony Offense (VFO) crimes (e.g., D-felony robbery). Cases involving domestic violence, or where the defendant was scheduled for a hospital arraignment, were excluded even if charge eligible. Beyond the charge criteria, the program had additional restrictions used to screen potentially eligible cases and defendants that could be actively pursued by program staff. These included a review of adult criminal conviction histories, factors affecting risk of pretrial failure to appear (FTA) based on criteria used in CJA's release recommendation system, and supplemental criminal history information. Program court staff also was required to collect and verify community ties information necessary to maintain contact with defendants if released to the program. This has been an essential program component for ensuring that clients released under supervision in lieu of bail and pretrial detention would appear at all regularly scheduled court dates and comply with program requirements. In this research study we analyze case processing and court outcomes, and investigate the pretrial misconduct - failure to appear and in-program re-arrests - of MSR clients. We also examine the jail displacement effect of community supervision as an alternative to money bail and pretrial detention. In order to assess the potential impact of the MSR program on these activities, we create for comparison purposes a data set of felony cases arraigned in the downtown Manhattan Criminal Court during the first twenty-one months of the MSR program (April 2013 - December 2014) in which defendants appeared to be eligible for MSR, to the extent that could be determined, but were not screened by MSR court staff. Details: New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency, 2016. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 18, 2016 at: http://www.nycja.org/ Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.nycja.org/ Shelf Number: 139073 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationBailCommunity SupervisionPretrial ReleaseSupervised Release |