By Laura Carlson  

American criminal jurisprudence relies on confidential informants: those individuals who agree to assist police in exchange for leniency. Facing little regulation by legislatures, law enforcement has raised an informant system premised on the exploitation of vulnerabilities and free from basic safeguards that would help to mitigate the moral, mental, and physical harm informants face in the field. While this is generally problematic, the issue becomes more pronounced when considering law enforcement’s use of juveniles to combat crimes perpetrated against and among children. A juvenile’s brain is developmentally distinct from an adult’s. During late adolescence, the brain goes through major maturation processes that significantly affect a juvenile’s ability to assess risk, make forward-thinking decisions, override emotions with logic, and resist social pressures. In other words, the juvenile brain is predisposed to act adverse to self-interests. Within the context of the modern informant system, juveniles engage with police on seriously disadvantaged ground; and because agreeing to assist police has proven to be a death sentence for some, the urgency with which this must be addressed cannot be overstated. America’s tolerance of police discretion with respect to the use of juvenile informants must end. Legislatures can facilitate change by implementing safeguards aimed at mitigating the risks posed by a juvenile’s physiological predispositions. Namely, legislatures should consider implementing mandatory cooling-off periods, a statutory right to counsel, mandatory parental and judicial consent, prescribed documentation and recordkeeping requirements, and enforced training regimens. Absent empirical data that youth at large are better protected by the abolition of the use of juvenile informants, legislatures looking to implement these suggestions or otherwise restrict the practice should be careful to balance proposed legislation with the needs of law enforcement. 

Arizona Law Review, 2023. 26p.

By Christina Billhartz

In 1987, the U.S. Sentencing Commission created its first federal sentencing guideline for child pornography offenses. As Congress grappled with dynamic technological advances that changed the child pornography landscape, the Commission continually revised and amended these guidelines, creating the last significant amendment in 2009. For the past 12 years, these guidelines have been considered by federal court judges tasked with sentencing child pornography offenders, yet little has been done to determine whether or not these guidelines actually diminish the amount of children victimized by child pornography. While acknowledging that child pornography victimizes and harms children in countless ways and must be criminalized to account for these egregious harms, this Note argues that the sentencing guidelines fail to deter the production, distribution, and consumption of child pornography, and fail to fulfill congressional goals of protecting children from victimization. Rather, the guidelines have resulted in the mass incarceration of child pornography offenders and a system that punishes viewers of child pornography more severely than it does child rapists. If the government truly wants to protect children from being victimized through child pornography, then the sentencing guidelines, as written, cannot stand, and they must be replaced by a system that allows child pornography offenders to access rehabilitative resources both inside and outside of the federal prison system.

Arizona Law Review, 2021. 32p.

By John H. Boman IV & Owen Gallupe 

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, state-level governments across the United States issued mandatory stay-at-home orders around the end of March 2020. Though intended to stop the spread of the COVID-19 virus, the lockdowns have had sweeping impacts on life in ways which were not originally planned. This study’s purpose is to investigate the extent to which governmental responses to COVID-19 have impacted crime rates in the U.S. Compared to the pre-pandemic year of 2019, crime – as measured by calls for service to law enforcement – has decreased markedly. However, there are multiple indications that the crime drop is being driven by decreases in minor offenses which are typically committed in peer groups. At the same time, serious crimes which are generally not committed with co-offenders (namely homicide and intimate partner violence) have either remained constant or increased. As such, the crime drop appears to be hiding a very disturbing trend where homicides remain unchanged and intimate partner batteries are increasing. Since many offenders would presumably be committing less serious crimes in a non-pandemic world, we raise attention to the possibility that mandatory lockdown orders may have taken minor offenders and placed them into situations where there is rampant opportunity for intimate partner violence, serious batteries, and homicides. While crime in the U.S. appears to be down overall, this good news should not blind us to a troubling co-occurring reality – a reality that paints a dim picture of unintended consequences to public health and criminal justice finances as a result of COVID-19 lockdowns.

American Journal of Criminal Justice, 2020. 9p.

By Steven James Lee and  Daniel Augusto

  In the latter half of 2020, Los Angeles was dubbed by the media and academicians as the latest epicenter of COVID-19 in the United States. Using time-series analysis on Los Angeles Police Department crime data from 2017 through 2020, this paper tests the economic theory of crime, routine activities theory, social isolation theory, and structural vulnerability theory to determine whether they accurately predicted specifc crime rate movements in the wake of COVID-19 in the city of Los Angeles. Economic theory of crime was supported by the data, and social isolation theory and structural vulnerability theory were partially supported. Routine activities theory was not supported. Implications for policymakers and academics are also discussed.  

Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 2022. 21p.

By J. Andrew Hansen, Gabrielle L Lory 

Rural criminal justice organizations have been overlooked by researchers and underfunded in the United States, exacerbating problems caused by the coronavirus pandemic. Access to victims' services has been a longstanding issue in rural communities, but has become more difficult due to stay-at-home orders and changes in daily activities. Requirements such as social distancing, necessitated by COVID-19, have increased the risk of domestic violence and rural service providers are less prepared than those in more populated areas. Rural law enforcement agencies, on the other hand, have traditionally operated with smaller budgets and staffs-conditions that have complicated the response to the unprecedented event. Many of the recommended practices for policing during a pandemic have been more applicable to larger urban and suburban departments with more resources and officers extended across many units. The strain on rural victims' services and law enforcement has been felt only a few months into the coronavirus pandemic, while the long-term effects are not yet known.

Southern Criminal Justice Association, 2020. 12p.

 By David Yerger, Brandon Vick, Robert Orth, and Charles Gartside, 

The project’s primary goal was to investigate whether shocks stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic either triggered or heightened human suffering in two crimerelated areas: murder and abuse. A secondary goal was to identify rural-urban differences in these outcomes both before and during the pandemic. An analysis of homicides and protection from abuse orders over time provided valuable insights regarding crime trends and rural-urban differences, but it did not suggest large, long-term effects due to the COVID-19 pandemic throughout the state. The statewide homicide rate rose 21 percent from 2019 to 2020, but the increase was specific to a certain group and location: Black, male victims in Philadelphia County, murdered with a firearm, with most of these incidents being homicides, with no known relationship between the victim and offender (Philadelphia County’s murder rate increased 36 percent in 2020). In rural counties, the 2020 murder rate rose 24 percent, and in non-Philadelphia urban counties, there was a 3 percent increase. It should be noted that these upward trends came after homicides steadily rose from 2014 to 2018, before falling significantly in 2019, and then rising in 2020. The exploratory analysis on county-levels of COVID case and death rates found no statistical evidence that high COVID-rate counties were more likely to experience high levels of protection from abuse orders or homicides. However, the analysis found that counties with higher unemployment rates and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participation also experienced higher murder rates and protection from abuse order prevalence in 2020 (a relationship that holds when tested across other years). 

Harrisburg, PA: Center for Rural Pennsylvania, 2022.  42p.

By Brandon Vick, Robert Orth, Charles Gartside

Information on the prevalence and cost of firearm injury is difficult to find and typically lacks important details. Using a rich dataset from the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council (PHC4), researchers from PCCD/IUP performed a statistical analysis of non-fatal firearm injuries from 2016 to 2021, finding the following: • Initial injury totals and costs: Over the five-year timeframe, an estimated 10,640 new, non-fatal firearm injuries occurred in Pennsylvania for which patients received treatment. The medical cost of initial treatment for these injuries was $308.4 million, or over $51 million per year. The average cost of treatment was $34,837 in 2020. • Rising medical costs and injuries: The number of total injuries increased by 20 percent and the medical cost for these injuries increased by 107 percent from 2016 to 2020. The number of accidental injuries increased by 46 percent (to over 1,000 per year in 2020), with a cost increase of 195%. Assault injuries increased by 5%, with the medical costs of these injuries increasing by 81%. • Rises with COVID: The number of firearm injuries rose dramatically immediately after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting shutdowns. Both accidental and assault injuries rose to their highest levels over the timeframe studied. • Economic and Racial Disparities: The poorest one-fifth of zip codes incurred nearly 60 percent of the total medical costs of firearm injuries. Two-thirds of all patients of firearm injuries were Black, although Black people make up only 11 percent of the Pennsylvania population. • Long-term costs: 16 percent of new injuries require additional hospital visits and incur nearly four times the medical costs, averaging over $70,000 per patient. Over 3 percent of new firearm injuries result in paralysis, increasing costs over the first year to over $100,000. • Full Economic Losses: If values are placed on lost work and lower quality of life, the total economic losses of firearm injury increase by six-fold to an estimated $300 million per year and $1.5 billion. Estimates here should be considered conservative, as they do not consider full costs to society (i.e. disability and unemployment payments) and are limited to costs only incurred during the time of visits for treatment (i.e. not counting long-term rehabilitation). Additionally, they do not include fatal injuries or shootings – for instance, over 600 people are victims of homicide by firearm and at least double that number die by firearm suicide per year. The nonfatal injury findings here are in line with estimates for U.S. injuries made separately by the Government Accountability Office and the Center for Disease Control. 

Harrisburg:  Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency , 2022.  48p.

By The Joint State Government Commission (PA) and the Pennsylvania  the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD) 

The specific statute under review by the TFCP is the section relating to “Sexual Abuse of Children” and is codified at 18 Pa.C.S. § 6312. 9 There are three subsections within that offense and each address a different type of behavior perpetrated by the offender: Subsection (b) of § 6312 relates to “Photographing, videotaping, depicting on computer or filming sexual act” and may be described as manufacturing or creating child pornography. This subsection criminalizes individuals who cause or knowingly permit a child under 18 to engage in a prohibited sexual act10 or simulation of said act, knowing or intending the act to be photographed or filmed. Manufacturing child pornography under subsection (b) is generally a felony of the second degree11 but is graded as a felony of the first degree12 if indecent contact13 with a child is depicted or the child is under the age of 10 or prepubescent. Subsection (c) of § 6312 relates to “Dissemination of photographs, videotapes, computer depictions and films” and may be described as distributing or selling child pornography. This subsection criminalizes individuals who knowingly sell, distribute, deliver, disseminate, transfer, display or exhibit to others images depicting a child under 18 engaged in or simulating a prohibited sexual act. Distributing child pornography under subsection (c) is generally a felony of the third degree; 14 however, it is graded a felony of the second degree if it is a second or subsequent offense, or if the images depict indecent contact with a child or the child is under the age of 10 or prepubescent. Subsection (d) of § 6312 relates to “Child Pornography” and may also be described as possession of child pornography. Subsection (d) criminalizes individuals who intentionally view, knowingly possess or control images depicting a child under 18 engaged in a prohibited sexual act or simulation of such act. Possessing child pornography is generally a felony of the third degree however, it is graded a felony of the second degree if it is a second or subsequent offense, or if the images depict indecent contact with a child or the child is under the age of 10 or prepubescent. 

Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, 2022. 284p.

By Terra Wiens

In 2001, the United States experienced a historic demographic change. For the first time, Hispanics became the largest minority group in the nation, exceeding the number of Black residents.2 With a population in 2020 of 62.1 million, Hispanics represent 18.7 percent of the total population of the United States.3 This study is intended to report on Hispanic homicide victimization and suicide in the United States, the role of firearms in homicide and suicide, and overall gun death figures. Recognizing this demographic landscape, the importance of documenting such victimization is clear. Indeed, studies have found that Hispanic individuals are more likely to die by firearm homicide compared to white, non-Hispanic individuals.  

Washington, DC: Violence Policy Center, 2023. 23p.

By Marty Langley and VPC Executive Director Josh Sugarmann.  

To educate the public and policymakers about the reality of black homicide victimization, each year the VPC releases Black Homicide Victimization in the United States (follow this link to download the study as a pdf). This annual study examines black homicide victimization at the state level utilizing unpublished Supplementary Homicide Report data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The study ranks the states by their rates of black homicide victimization and offers additional information for the 10 states with the highest black homicide victimization rates.

Washington, DC: Violence Policy Center, 2023. 18p.

By Kristin M. Tennyson, Lindsey Jeralds, Julie Zibulsky

Congress requires courts to consider several factors when determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed in federal cases, among them the “history and characteristics of the defendant.” The sentencing guidelines also specifically authorize judges to consider an offender’s age when determining whether to depart from the federal sentencing guidelines. In this report, the Commission presents information on a relatively small number of offenders who were aged 50 or older at the time they were sentenced in the federal system. In particular, the report examines older federal offenders who were sentenced in fiscal year 2021 and the crimes they committed, then assesses whether age was given a special consideration at sentencing. This report specifically focuses on three issues that could impact the sentencing of older offenders: age and infirmity, life expectancy, and the risk of recidivism.

Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission, 2022. 68p.

By Courtney Semisch

This publication provides data on the broad variety of economic crime sentenced under §2B1.1.  The Commission undertook a project to systematically identify and classify the myriad of economic crimes sentenced under §2B1.1 using offenders' statutes of conviction and offense conduct. The Commission used this two-step methodology to assign the 6,068 offenders sentenced under §2B1.1 in fiscal year 2017 to one of 29 specific types of economic crime. This publication provides, for the first time, data from this new project as well as a brief description of the study's methodology.

Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission, 2019. 87p.

By Courtney Semisch

For the first time, this report provides in-depth criminal history information about federal economic crime offenders, combining the most recently available data from two United States Sentencing Commission projects. Key findings are that the application of guideline criminal history provisions differed among the different types of economic crime offenders. Also, The extent of prior convictions differed among the different types of economic crime offenders. Federal economic crime offenders did not “specialize” in economic crime. The severity of criminal history differed for offenders in the specific types of economic crime. Only about one-quarter of federal economic crime offenders with prior convictions were not assigned criminal history points under the guidelines.

Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission, 2020. 56p.

By Tracey Kyckelhahn, Tiffany Choi

This study expands on prior Commission research by examining the geographic mobility of federal offenders. For this report, mobility is defined as having convictions in multiple states, including the location of the conviction for the instant offense. This report adds to the existing literature on offender criminal history in two important ways. First, the report provides information on how mobile federal offenders are, as measured by the number of offenders with convictions in multiple states. Second, the report provides information on the proportion of offenders with convictions in states other than the state in which the offender was convicted for the instant offense. The report also examines the degree to which out-of-state convictions in offenders’ criminal histories contributed to their criminal history score and their Criminal History Category.

Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission, 2020.  24p.