By: Najla Alexander
NJ officials announced that the County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey (CPANJ) is strongly opposed to Assembly Bill A6206 and Senate Bill S5000, which propose wide-ranging reforms to New Jersey’s parole system.
While NJ supports efforts to promote successful reentry and reduce unnecessary reincarceration, this legislation, as drafted, raises profound concerns for victim rights, public safety, accountability, and the integrity of the parole process.
CPANJ’s principal concerns are outlined below:
First, New Jersey’s parole system is recognized as one of the most effective in the nation, which begs the question: why are “reforms” needed at all? The New Jersey Parole Board maintains a commendable track record regarding supervising individuals released on parole, ensuring their successful reintegration while prioritizing public safety. New Jersey’s structured approach with graduated sanctions prior to revocation has proven effective in reducing recidivism without compromising community well-being, according to CPANJ officials.
CPANJ officials say the New Jersey model has resulted in approximately 6% parole revocation rates, well below the national average of 10%. It should be noted that of the 6% of parole revocations that have occurred, the vast majority involved NERA (No Early Release Act) offenses and sex offenses, which are arguably the most violent in New Jersey. These offenders would be the primary beneficiaries of this lenient legislation.
Second, the proposed legislation creates potential public safety risks instead of reducing them. Limiting the ability to revoke parole for severe and persistent infractions, which, under this legislation, are defined as mere “technical violations” not subject to revocation, undermines the parole board's authority and weakens the guardrails intended to reduce recidivism and protect the public, CPANJ officials said.
CPANJ officials stated it had serious concerns about the implications of lowering oversight and consequences on individuals who have already been convicted of violent offenses (and therefore no longer enjoy the presumption of innocence), are still serving a sentence under the care and custody of the Department of Corrections, yet have demonstrated a serious pattern of non-compliance with conditions that are simply put in place to rehabilitate them.
While it is appropriate to limit incarceration for minor “technical violations” (curfew violations, failures to report, failure to pay fines, residence reporting, etc.), more substantial infractions or severe and persistent violations by violent offenders should trigger stricter and more prompt responses, CPANJ officials said.
By way of example, according to CPANJ officials, a convicted sex offender who consistently fails to report, did not report an accurate address, has a “no contact with minors” condition, and is found living with a minor child should face more severe consequences for those “technical violations.” The same would apply to a violent offender who had a “no contact” provision with a previous victim of domestic violence.
Third, A6206 and S5000 unduly shorten supervision by revising compliance credits. While incentivizing good behavior can be a sound policy tool, A6206’s and S5000’s compliance credit structure is overly broad and insufficiently tied to measurable rehabilitation. Currently, parolees receive one day of compliance credit for every six days (5 days per month). A6206 and S5000 propose one day for every two days in compliance (15 days per month), as well as adding retroactive credits for the past 12 months to reduce supervision for all parolees for up to six months, officials say.
The accumulation of credits could substantially shorten parole terms, even when the underlying offense was a serious NERA offense, officials stated. In practice, A6206 and S5000 would award compliance credits when an offender has not complied with a single condition of supervision, provided he or she has not been convicted of another crime. Compliance credits should be measured by truly making satisfactory progress toward rehabilitation.
Finally, these bills do not include meaningful provisions to ensure that victims remain informed, protected, and heard throughout the parole process. A6206 and S5000 would limit the circumstances under which violators can be swiftly returned to custody, including those with a history of domestic violence, stalking, sexual assault, or intimidation of witnesses, CPANJ officials said.
Victims rely on prompt responses to violations to maintain safety and stability; requiring additional procedural hurdles before a violator can be detained may leave victims vulnerable to renewed harassment or harm, according to CPANJ officials. The bill does not clearly protect victims' right to timely notice of violations, proposed releases, or credits that may shorten supervision periods. New Jersey has long been a national leader in victim rights. A6206 and S5000 risk eroding those protections.
CPANJ officials stated that the overall impact of this legislation undermines the deterrent effect of parole oversight. By reducing consequences for non-compliance and shortening supervision periods without individualized assessment, A6206 and S5000 risk diminishing the integrity of the parole process. The current successful system relies on clear expectations and predictable responses to non-compliance.
CPANJ appreciates the Legislature’s commitment to fair and effective criminal justice policy. However, A6206 and S5000, in their current form, would: (1) weaken public safety protections; (2) reduce accountability for parolees; (3) erode long-standing victim rights; and (4) limit the ability of parole officers to intervene appropriately in high-risk situations. For these reasons, CPANJ strongly opposes Assembly Bill A6206 and Senate Bill S5000.