Opinion ID: 6340581
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Consequences

Text: The majority defends the constitutionality of the current supervised release revocation scheme in part by citing to concerns about the chaos that might result if constitutional rights were extended to revocation proceedings. See ante at 46-49; see also Haymond, 139 S. Ct. at 2388 (Alito, J., dissenting) (“[I]f every supervisedrelease revocation proceeding is a criminal prosecution . . . the whole concept of supervised release will come crashing down.”). I do not dispute that if supervisees’ constitutional rights were properly recognized, the consequences would be significant. We do not, however, make determinations about the scope of constitutional rights in order to avoid disruption or based on what would be 31 expedient or convenient. 12 Cf. Booker, 543 U.S. at 244 (quoting 4 Commentaries on the Laws of England 343–344 (1769)) (“However convenient these new methods of trial may appear at first, (as doubtless all arbitrary powers, well executed, are the most convenient) yet let it be again remembered, that delays, and little inconveniences in the forms of justice, are the price that all free nations must pay for their liberty in more substantial matters.”) (cleaned up). Surely, it would be most efficient to permit a judge to determine guilt by a preponderance of the evidence in every criminal prosecution, without going to the trouble of obtaining an indictment, empaneling a jury, calling witnesses, and requiring proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But “the Constitution’s guarantees cannot mean less today than they did the day they were adopted,” and the protections of the Fifth and Sixth Amendment cannot be denied merely because they are inconvenient or burdensome. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. at 2376 (plurality opinion). A statute that establishes a system of criminal justice that violates defendants’ constitutional rights cannot stand. See Booker, 543 U.S. at 226. The supervised release system was intended to serve a rehabilitative purpose; it 12 Although the majority recognizes that the potential burden of affording additional protections to supervisees should play no role in our determination of whether the statute is constitutional, its arguments against extending those constitutional rights rest in significant part on the potential consequences that might result. 32 should be used to do so, not to provide an expedient means of returning people to prison.