Sex Offenders and Supervised Release Revocation: Constitutional? (CRS Report for Congress)
| Release Date |
March 1, 2018 |
| Report Number |
LSB10087 |
| Report Type |
Legal Sidebar |
| Authors |
Alison M. Smith |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit (Tenth Circuit) recently ruled that a portion of
the
federal
supervised release statute
addressing sex offenders
violates the
Fifth
and
Sixth
Amendments
of the U.S.
Constitution
. In
a 2
-
1 decision issued in
United States v. Haymond
, the
Tenth Circuit
held
that
a provision
in the
statute
,
establish
ing
a mandatory minimum
prison
term for
convicted sex offender
s
that
commit sex
offense
s
while on
supervised release,
impermissibly
strip
s
the sentencing judge of discretion to impose
punishment
s
within the
original crime’s
statutorily prescribed range
. Moreover,
the court
faulted
the
statute
for
impos
ing
additional
punishment
s
on
a
sex offen
der
who
c
ommit
s
a
new
sex offense
while on
supervised release
,
but
not providing
for
his conviction for
the new sex offense
based on proof
beyond a
reasonable doubt.
T
he
Haymond
decision is the most recent in a series of appellate court decisions
,
discussed
here
and
here
,
that have struck down post
-
conviction measures addressing convicted sex
offenders based on pe
rceived constitutional infirmities.
