An Act to repeal 302.113 (8m) (b), 304.06 (3g) and 973.10 (2s); to renumber 302.113 (8m) (a) and 973.10 (2) (a) and (b); to renumber and amend 302.11 (7) (ag), 302.11 (7) (am), 302.113 (9) (ag), 302.113 (9) (am), 304.06 (3) and 973.10 (2) (intro.); to amend 302.107 (2), 302.113 (9) (b), 302.113 (9) (c), 302.114 (9) (ag), 302.33 (1), 303.08 (1) (intro.), 303.08 (2), 303.08 (5) (intro.), 303.08 (6), 303.08 (12), 808.075 (4) (g) 3. and 950.04 (1v) (vg); to create 302.11 (7) (am) 1. a. to d., 302.113 (9) (ag) 1., 302.113 (9) (am) 1. a. to d., 304.06 (3) (g) 1. to 4. and 973.10 (2) (bm) 1. of the statutes; Relating to: revocation of probation, parole, or extended supervision and sanctions for violation of a condition or rule or probation, parole, or extended supervision. (FE)
SB1135 would substantially narrow when Wisconsin may revoke probation, parole, or extended supervision for a rule or condition violation. Under the bill, revocation would generally be prohibited unless the person committed at least three independent violations that endangered another person or damaged property, violated a no-contact order, was a registered sex offender and the violation related to the sex offense requiring registration, or allegedly committed a new crime for which charges were filed. The bill also removes the current option for the Department of Corrections to impose up to 90 days of imprisonment as a sanction for a rule violation, replacing that intermediate sanction with a more limited revocation framework.
The bill revises multiple statutes governing probation, parole, extended supervision, victim notification, jail work-release, and confinement sanctions. It repeals existing provisions in the probation and extended supervision statutes, renumbers and amends related sections, and updates cross-references so that the new revocation standards apply across the corrections system. It also preserves procedures for administrative hearings and review by the Division of Hearings and Appeals or the Department of Corrections when a hearing is waived, while changing the substantive grounds on which revocation may occur.
In practical terms, the bill would reduce the number of people returned to prison or jail for technical violations alone and would likely limit DOC discretion to respond to non-criminal supervision violations with incarceration. It would affect probationers, parolees, and people on extended supervision, as well as victims who receive notice of revocations and county facilities that house people serving confinement sanctions. The bill applies prospectively to alleged violations occurring on the effective date of the new law.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available record is limited, but the bill’s structure suggests a reform-oriented approach aimed at reducing incarceration for technical violations and reserving revocation for more serious misconduct. At the same time, the exceptions for repeated dangerous violations, no-contact violations, sex-offense-related violations, and new criminal charges indicate an attempt to preserve public-safety responses in higher-risk cases. The bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, and no committee transcript or recorded vote information is available in the provided materials.
The main point of contention is likely the balance between limiting incarceration for supervision violations and preserving tools for enforcement and public safety. Supporters would likely view the bill as reducing unnecessary revocations and prison admissions for technical noncompliance, while opponents would likely argue that it restricts correctional discretion and could make supervision less enforceable. The specific carve-outs for repeated violations, no-contact orders, sex offenders, and new charges appear designed to address those concerns, but they also show where lawmakers may have drawn the line between reform and risk management.
The bill would amend Wisconsin’s probation, parole, and extended supervision statutes to sharply limit revocation authority and eliminate the 90-day confinement sanction for rule violations. It would also repeal and renumber several related provisions, update victim-notification and jail-confinement cross-references, and apply the new standards to alleged violations occurring on or after the effective date.
The available record shows no committee debate or vote history, so direct legislative sentiment is not documented. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to reflect a criminal-justice reform posture focused on reducing incarceration for technical supervision violations, while still preserving revocation for repeated, dangerous, sex-offense-related, no-contact, or new-crime situations. The bill did not advance and failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1.
The central policy dispute is whether probation, parole, and extended supervision should be revoked only for more serious or repeated misconduct, or whether correctional authorities should retain broader discretion to revoke for technical violations. Likely supporters include reform advocates and those concerned about prison admissions for non-criminal violations; likely opponents include prosecutors, corrections officials, and public-safety advocates worried about weakening supervision enforcement. The bill’s exceptions suggest an effort to address those concerns, but the elimination of the 90-day sanction and the tighter revocation rules remain the most contentious features.