By Kate Weisburd

The day-to-day operation of criminal court supervision—including probation, parole, and electronic ankle monitoring—is understudied and undertheorized. To better understand the mechanics of these systems, this study comprehensively analyzes the rules governing people on criminal court supervision in the United States. Drawing on the analysis of 187 public records from all fifty states, this study documents how criminal court supervision functions and impacts daily life. In particular, this study examines the various ways that supervision rules limit or restrict privacy, bodily autonomy, liberty, dignity, speech, and financial independence. This study also explores the nature and prevalence of supervision rules across the United States. Ultimately, the analysis of the rules offers empirical evidence that court supervision imposes significant restraints on people’s ability to thrive and, in doing so, risks legitimating the subordination of historically marginalized groups.

58 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 1, 2023.

By Gina Jurva

In 2020, the United States judicial system faced unprecedented challenges as it was required to quickly adapt to an ever-evolving virus, new health mandates, and court closures, all while ensuring that litigants had access to the court system. People are entitled to their day in court, as they say, and this has been no easy feat. Where there is a challenge, however, there is also opportunity. Judges, court staff, and attorneys have risen to the occasion, finding new and innovative ways to keep the daily operations of civil and criminal court moving. In this “new normal”, courts used short- and long-term solutions to ensure that the public has continuous access to the U.S. justice system, while also reducing the danger to public health and maintaining safety. However, these solutions still didn’t meet all the needs to ensure access to justice and elimination of backlogs. As a result, we saw an increased reliance on technology in almost all aspects of court proceedings, from virtual or remote pre-trial hearings to remote jury selection and even digital evidence sharing. Many judges found this to be challenging, but many also embraced the opportunity to act as a salve against further case backlogs. While many courts relied on social distancing and were involved in some aspect of remote hearings, they now plan to continue to do so in hybrid-fashion into the future, whether by using social media and remote meeting tools like Zoom, YouTube, Microsoft TEAMS and even Facebook Live.  

Toronto: Thomson Reuters, 2021. 12p.