In a footnote, the Court held: In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that the Report of the Study Commission on Parole (1996) “expressed its concern that the fifteen percent that remained of the original custodial term following the release of an inmate sentenced pursuant to NERA might not be an adequate deterrent to prevent the offender from returning to violent crime. It thus stressed the need for post-release monitoring and supervision.” Friedman, 209 N.J. at 119. “After this potential problem was recognized, the bill was amended to provide for mandatory fixed periods of parole supervision for NERA offenders.” Id. at 119-20.
An alternative to the conclusion of the Report of the Study Commission on Parole would be to simply abolish parole. The federal prison system requires that all inmates serve 85% of their sentences. In essence, they do not believe in parole. Abolishing parole would mean abolishing all of jobs related to parole supervision. This fact may have played in role in the Commission’s decision to allow for the indirect increase in prison sentences for those who commit new offenses during the 15% remainder of their original NERA sentences.