By Micere Keels

There is increasing pressure for the juvenile criminal legal system to address trauma; this is in response to advances in the science of trauma and adversity, evidence from interventions showing promising outcomes for juveniles coping with trauma, and development of systemic frameworks for providing trauma-informed care. This review details how exposure to potentially traumatic events can create primary, secondary, and tertiary effects that are relevant to how the criminal legal system engages with juveniles coping with trauma. Associations that could be dismissed on methodological challenges can no longer be ignored as an increasingly sophisticated body of prospective studies replicate previous cross-sectional and retrospective studies, which found a higher prevalence of trauma among system-involved juveniles and show that exposure to potentially traumatic events and trauma symptoms play causal roles in engaging in behaviors that can be classified as criminal offending. Additionally, several examples are used to illustrate how racialized exposure to systemic trauma across generations underlies racialized disparities in persistent criminal offending—over exposure to potentially traumatic events and underexposure to coping resources. A broad range of developmental and criminological research is drawn upon to provide frameworks for implementing trauma-informed care as a systemic intervention aimed at minimizing retraumatization and using every interaction that juveniles have with the criminal legal system to contribute to recovery and prevent recidivism.

Annual Review of Criminology, Volume 7, Page 329 - 355

By The Virginia Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

On February 18, 2021, the Virginia Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) adopted a proposal to undertake a study of police oversight and accountability in the Commonwealth. The focus of the Committee’s inquiry was to examine law enforcement accountability and oversight structures in Virginia to better understand their effectiveness and impact. From a civil rights perspective, the Committee sought to consider the role such accountability structures have in ensuring equal protection of the laws and in the administration of justice, and the impact they may have on any disparities in police contact and use of force based on race, color, sex, disability, and national origin. As part of this inquiry the Committee heard testimony via video conference held in a series of eight public meetings that took place between July 2021 and May 2022.1 The following report results from a review of testimony provided at these meetings, combined with written testimony submitted during this timeframe. It begins with a brief background of the issues to be considered by the Committee. It then identifies primary findings as they emerged from this testimony. Finally, it makes recommendations that address related civil rights concerns. This report focuses on civil rights and police accountability structures in Virginia. While other important topics may have surfaced throughout the Committee’s inquiry, matters that are outside the scope of this specific civil rights mandate are left for another discussion. This report and the recommendations included within it were adopted by a unanimous vote of the Committee members present at the Committee meeting on May 31, 2023. 2

Washington, DC: USCCR, 2023. 57p.

By Delores Jones-Brown, Joshua Ruffin, Kwan-Lamar Blount-Hill, Akiv Dawson and Cicely J. Cottrell

In a five-to-four decision announced in February of 2020, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the parents of an unarmed fifteen-year-old Mexican national killed by a U.S. Border Patrol agent in a cross-border shooting, cannot sue for damages in U.S. civil court. Here, we critique the majority and dissenting opinions and attempt to reconcile the strikingly different approach each used to resolve the case. Using a publicly available data set, we examine the homicide in Hernández v. Mesa, against the circumstances and context in which underage youth were killed by police within the United States over a five year period before, during and after the death of Michael Brown. The circumstances of the 121 cases suggest a greater need for police accountability if the justice system is to remain true to the protective “child saving” ideology that launched the founding of the juvenile court.

Criminal Law Bulletin. 56(5): 833-871, 2020.

By JohannaSprenhrt and DominikBrodowski

In ever more areas, it becomes evident that the transformative power of information technology – and so-called ‘artificial intelligence’ in particular – affects the administration of criminal justice in Germany. The legal framing of issues relating to the use of ‘AI technology’ in criminal justice lags behind, however, and is of high complexity: In particular, it needs to take the European framework into account, and has to cope with the German peculiarity that the prevention of crimes by the police is a separate branch of law, which is regulated mostly at the ‘Länder’ (federal states) level, while criminal justice is regulated mostly on the federal level. In this report, we shed light on the practice, on legal discussions, and on current initiatives relating to ‘predictive policing’ (1.), ‘predictive justice’ (2.) as well as evidence law and the use of ‘artificial intelligence’ in the administration of criminal justice (3.) in Germany

e-Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal .2023. 57p.