THE POSITION OF SUPERVISING JUDGE WAS CREATED BY A COURT REFORM MOVEMENT IN 1958, AND SUBSEQUENT REFORM INITIATIVES IN THE EARLY 1970'S EXPANDED THE DUTIES OF SUPERVISING JUDGES TO INCLUDE THE PAROLE DECISIONMAKING FUNCTION PREVIOUSLY HANDLED BY THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE IN PARIS. THE NEW ROLE, HOWEVER, MET WITH IMMEDIATE OPPOSITION, BOTH FROM SOME TRIAL JUDGES WHO SAW THE REFORMS AS INTERFERING WITH THE TRADITIONAL ROLE OF THE COURTS, AND FROM CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES, WHO SAW SUPERVISING JUDGES AS USURPING THEIR POWER. THE LACK OF A CLEARLY JUDICIAL OR CLEARLY ADMINISTRATIVE ROLE HAS EARNED SUPERVISING JUDGES MUCH CRITICISM, DUE IN PART TO A WEAK ADMINISTRATIVE INFRASTRUCTURE AND AN UPSWING IN THE NUMBER OF APPROVED PAROLES. PAROLE DATA INDICATE THAT SINCE SUPERVISING JUDGES WERE GIVEN RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTING ON PAROLE DECISION, FEWER PAROLES ARE DENIED. THIS HAS LEAD TO CHARGES THAT SUPERVISING JUDGES ARE TOO LENIENT, THAT THEY 'CODDLE' CRIMINALS. HOWEVER, THE OVERALL HIGH OFFICIAL RATE OF PAROLE APPROVAL MAY BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE FACT THAT SUPERVISING JUDGES FILTER OUT MARGINAL CASE FILES AND SEND ON TO PARIS ONLY THOSE CASES WHICH HAVE A REALISTIC CHANCE OF APPROVAL. NONETHELESS, MEASURES ARE AFOOT TO ENCOURAGE SUPERVISING JUDGES TO REDUCE THE NUMBERS OF INMATES RELEASED ON PAROLE, AND SINCE THEY HAVE LITTLE INDEPENDENCE WITHIN THE JUDICIARY, THEIR ABILITY TO RESIST GOVERNMENT PRESSURE IS LIMITED. WHILE THE POSITION DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE IN DANGER, LEGISLATIVE LIMITATION ON THE AUTHORITY OF SUPERVISING JUDGES IS EXPECTED. TABULAR DATA AND REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (KBL)