By: Colin Murphy

3D printing, a technology only a few decades old, has progressed in quality and affordability. It has moved from the realm of industrial prototype, through cutting-edge design and technology, to finally end up in the homes of hobbyists and enthusiasts. This welcome and useful process has delivered new and affordable solutions to a range of subjects and fields, and has changed the shape of manufacturing from large factories to small bespoke businesses. However, this innovation has also developed a darker side and has been adopted by those with criminal intent, including for the manufacture of firearms. While converted or backstreet guns are not a new phenomenon, the advent of 3D printing has extended the range of people able to obtain a firearm to include those with no practical skills or tools or indeed any criminal connections. In the space of little over a decade, the concept of homemade guns using 3D printing techniques has evolved from a simple yet effective one-shot pistol to a semi automatic hybrid rifle. These firearms have made their way into the hands of criminals and extremists with menacing intent. They have also featured in high-profile shootings with fatal consequences. It is important to acknowledge that this nascent method of firearm production is developing at a rapid speed. Authorities and law enforcement agencies are recognising the growing threat that these firearms pose, and are adapting their understanding, approach and expertise. In addition, legislators around the world are beginning to adapt their laws to address this emerging threat. In the EU, possession of a 3D-printed firearm is an offence, but not possession of, publicity for or distribution of digital blueprints or hard copies. IN THIS BRIEFING • Introduction • 3D printing • Craft production of privately-made firearms . • Progression of 3D printed firearms • Users of 3D printed firearms • Addressing the issue

Members' Research Service PE 775.889 – August 2025

By Aaron Littman

The roughly two million people incarcerated in the United States are mostly left to advocate for themselves, aided sometimes by a sparse constellation of non-profit organizations and small firms, and accompanied by a smattering of weak oversight entities and a couple of units within the Department of Justice. But there is another entity, virtually unmentioned in the legal literature, that can—and in some jurisdictions, does—play a powerful role in advancing the rights of the large subset of prisoners with disabilities: the federally mandated protection and advocacy system, or P&A. Drawing on findings from twenty-five interviews with affiliated lawyers and other advocates, this Article presents the first scholarly consideration of the P&A’s role in ameliorating prison and jail conditions.

Congress afforded these little-known disability-rights organizations, which exist in each state, startling access authority and privileged ability to assert associational standing. The only entities in the country that provide both independent oversight and enforcement through litigation in prisons and jails, they function simultaneously as ‘lawyers with access’ and ‘oversight with teeth.’ Some P&As work to great effect on behalf of incarcerated people with disabilities, using their distinctive powers to circumvent many of the most troubling obstacles to traditional prisoners’ rights advocacy: unfavorable constitutional standards, obstructed fact discovery, the challenges of mootness and class certification, and the procedural hurdles created by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

By Ingrid V. Eagly

When criminal courts rely on virtual adjudication, one or more participants attend court on a digital screen rather than by traveling to a shared physical courtroom space. Since the 1970s, criminal courts have used live, two-way video connections to allow vulnerable witnesses to testify from remote locations and, more commonly, merely to eliminate the need to transport criminal defendants detained pretrial from the jail to the courtroom. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, many criminal courts began to hold fully virtual court sessions, with all court participants joining a shared virtual platform such as Zoom. Digital technologies are now a familiar feature of the criminal legal system. However, their use remains under close review by courts, policymakers, and researchers. Proponents cite the speed and convenience that virtual proceedings offer, often framing videoconferencing as an access-to-justice solution that preserves procedural fairness and delivers the functional equivalent of in-person courts. Yet virtual formats also raise complex technical, sociodynamic, and constitutional concerns. Chief among these concerns are that virtual proceedings suppress access to counsel and courtroom interaction, interfere with credibility assessment and cross-examination, dehumanize persons accused of crimes, and reduce public trust in the court system. 

By Emily Gwydir

A national reckoning on sexual assault began in October of 2017 when The New York Times and The New Yorker reported groundbreaking exposés on “one of Hollywood’s most powerful producers”—Harvey Weinstein. Weinstein was accused by over a dozen women of sexual harassment, assault, and rape, spanning decades. Soon, people across social media platforms began using the hashtag #MeToo to share their own stories of sexual harassment and misconduct by other powerful men, exposing the pervasive culture of sexual assault and ultimately “build[ing] a community of survivors” around the world. The viral outpouring of discourse surrounding sexual assault came to be known as the “#MeToo Movement,” which critically called attention to the pervasive gender inequities and power dynamics that shaped women’s experiences with sexual violence. By May of 2018, more than 50 women had accused Weinstein of sexual assault. That same month, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office indicted Weinstein, charging him with first- and third-degree rape, firstdegree criminal sexual act, and two counts of predatory sexual assault.

A month-long trial in 2020 followed, where prosecutors presented evidence to a jury purporting to support these charges. All three complainants had met Weinstein through the entertainment industry. Each detailed their relationships with Weinstein and the incidents of sexual violence that led to his criminal indictment. The combined accounts of three of Weinstein’s victims depicted a consistent pattern of forcible sexual acts, including oral and vaginal rape, committed through coercion, physical restraint, and abuse of power. Over the objection of the defense, the prosecution also offered testimony from three additional women alleging how they, too, were sexually assaulted by Weinstein. In the end, the jury convicted Weinstein of third-degree rape and first-degree criminal sexual act, but acquitted him of first-degree rape and both counts of predatory sexual assault. The court sentenced him to 23 years in prison.

However, on April 25, 2024, the New York Court of Appeals in People v. Weinstein reversed Weinstein’s sexual assault convictions and ordered a retrial, partly based on the trial court having admitted testimony of the uncharged sexual misconduct alleged by the three additional women. To the court, the use of additional testimony constituted an impermissible use of uncharged evidence that violated Weinstein’s right to a fair trial. As a general rule, evidence of uncharged acts—meaning evidence of other crimes or misconduct not charged in the indictment—is inadmissible to show that a defendant acted in accordance with a particular character trait. However, in limited, expressly defined circumstances, such evidence may be admitted. The Court of Appeals rejected the trial court’s application of such an exception in People v. Weinstein—a decision that sparked widespread outrage among victims and drew sharp criticism from sexualassault advocates. The following month, New York state legislators introduced legislation to incorporate Federal Rule of Evidence 413 (“Rule 413”) into New York state law, which would have explicitly allowed admission of uncharged evidence in sexual assault trials for any relevant reason...etc.

By Avlana Eisenberg

One tends to think of mercy as something that judges and chief executives occasionally dole out to convicted offenders. This picture is seriously incomplete. Many others are in a position to be merciful—from police on the street to corrections officers in a prison. In short, anyone who has power to inflict something disagreeable on another person has the opportunity to be merciful. More broadly still, mercy—understood as an act of leniency prompted by compassion—presupposes a capacity or disposition, namely the capacity or disposition to show compassion and understanding for another. This Essay develops both of the foregoing points. First, it points out that there are opportunities for mercy at every juncture of the criminal process, from policing to prison conditions. Second, it is not only the case that acts of mercy at each of these junctures are called for to help ameliorate the harshness of our criminal justice system. More broadly and more deeply, it is vital that all actors in the system approach their roles with the sort of compassionate mindset that is exemplified by, but hardly exhausted by, acts of mercy.

By Arthur Train (Author) and Graeme Newman (Editor and Introduction)

Arthur Train was not merely a novelist of crime and courtroom intrigue—he was an Assistant District Attorney in New York County who understood the hidden machinery of American justice from the inside. In Justice on Trial, two of his most compelling works—Prisoner at the Bar and McCallister’s Double—are brought together in a powerful new edition edited and introduced by Graeme R. Newman.

Part legal exposé, part philosophical inquiry, part classic crime fiction, this volume explores questions that remain disturbingly relevant today: How is guilt really determined? Do courts discover truth—or construct it? Why are prisons hidden from public view? Do criminals receive justice, or merely punishment? And what of the victims left behind by the machinery of law?

In Prisoner at the Bar, Train offers a rare insider’s account of the criminal justice system of early twentieth-century America. Drawing upon his own prosecutorial experience, he exposes the realities behind arrests, grand juries, trials, sentencing, police practices, courtroom performance, and the uneasy relationship between law and morality. The result is one of the earliest and most penetrating critiques of modern criminal justice ever written.

Complementing this work is McCallister’s Double, a brilliant collection of courtroom and criminal tales filled with deception, mistaken identity, legal maneuvering, and moral ambiguity. These stories reveal Train’s remarkable ability to combine suspense with sharp observations about the fictions upon which justice itself often depends.

Graeme R. Newman’s extensive new introduction places Train’s work within the larger history of crime, punishment, and legal power, comparing the courts and prisons of Train’s era with those of the twenty-first century. The introduction examines the secrecy of prisons, the hidden social functions of trials, the mythology of “justice,” and the enduring question of whether criminal justice systems truly deliver fairness—or merely preserve authority.

Blending classic legal writing, detective fiction, social criticism, and courtroom drama, Justice on Trial is both a fascinating historical document and a strikingly modern meditation on crime, punishment, truth, and power.

For readers of true crime, legal history, courtroom drama, criminology, and classic detective fiction, this volume offers a rare and unsettling look behind the curtain of justice itself.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2026. p.362.

By Arthur Train (Author) and Graeme Newman (Editor and Introduction)

Before modern courtroom thrillers and television crime dramas, Arthur Train was bringing readers inside the strange, unpredictable, and deeply human world of criminal law. The Kid and the Camel: Stories of the Court and Criminality collects some of Train’s most memorable tales from the New York courts, blending legal realism, sharp humor, and penetrating social observation.

At the center of the volume is the celebrated story “The Kid and the Camel,” a bizarre and unforgettable courtroom case involving immigrants, conflicting testimony, cultural misunderstanding, and a camel hidden in a city attic. Around it unfolds a wider panorama of criminal justice in early twentieth-century America: ambitious lawyers, eccentric witnesses, cunning swindlers, ethical dilemmas, jury manipulation, and the uncertain search for truth inside crowded urban courtrooms.

This collection also features the famous Tutt & Tutt stories, introducing one of American fiction’s earliest and most sophisticated lawyer-heroes. Through the clever, theatrical, and psychologically astute attorney Ephraim Tutt, Train explores the law not merely as a system of rules, but as a human drama shaped by persuasion, ambiguity, and competing notions of justice.

Far more than period entertainment, these stories remain strikingly relevant today. Issues of immigration, courtroom spectacle, prosecutorial strategy, media influence, unequal justice, and the power of lawyers continue to dominate modern criminal justice systems. Train’s fiction reveals how little the essential tensions of law and society have changed.

Edited and introduced by Graeme Newman, this new Read-Me.Org edition restores an important classic of American legal literature for contemporary readers interested in true crime, courtroom drama, criminology, legal history, and the enduring complexities of justice itself.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2026. p.367.

By Arthur Train (Author) and Graeme Newman (Editor and Introduction)

tep into the shadowed world of early twentieth‑century justice, where truth is elusive, appearances deceive, and a single misjudgment can alter lives forever. The Lost Stradivarius and Other True Crime Classics by Arthur Train brings together some of the most compelling real cases ever drawn from the files of a New York prosecutor. Written with the authority of firsthand experience and the narrative power of a master storyteller, these accounts reveal the drama, tension, and human complexity behind headline crimes. At the heart of the collection is The Lost Stradivarius, a haunting tale of a priceless violin whose disappearance sets in motion a troubling chain of suspicion, error, and unintended injustice. Around it unfold other striking cases—of ingenious frauds, daring deceptions, and courtroom battles in which certainty proves fragile and truth stubbornly resists easy conclusions. Throughout, Train explores not only crime itself, but the deeper forces of character, ambition, and fallibility that shape the pursuit of justice. This new edition features a fresh introduction by Graeme R. Newman, placing these enduring stories in modern perspective and highlighting their continuing relevance. Timeless, unsettling, and richly human, this collection reminds us that truth is often stranger—and far more unsettling—than fiction.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2026. p.187..

By Arthur Train (Author) and Graeme Newman (Editor and Introduction)

Step inside the courtroom—and beyond it—through the eyes of a man who knew both the practice of law and the art of storytelling.

Arthur Train, a former New York prosecutor and celebrated author, offers a vivid and deeply reflective account of life in the criminal courts. Drawing on real cases, personal experience, and keen psychological insight, Confessions of a Prosecutor reveals the drama, uncertainty, and moral complexity behind the pursuit of justice. These are not merely stories of trials—they are portraits of human nature under pressure, where truth, perception, and judgment are rarely simple.

More than a legal memoir, this book is a masterclass in understanding how justice is truly administered. Train exposes the hidden tensions of courtroom life: unreliable witnesses, circumstantial evidence, the burden of decision, and the immense responsibility borne by those who prosecute in the name of society. His reflections remain strikingly relevant today, offering timeless lessons on fairness, doubt, and the ethical challenges of wielding authority.

What makes this work especially compelling is Train’s dual perspective as both practitioner and writer. With the skill of a seasoned storyteller, he shapes real events into engaging narratives—blending fact and interpretation to illuminate the deeper truths behind the law. The result is a work that is as absorbing as it is instructive, where the boundary between reality and narrative art invites thoughtful reflection.

In its later chapters, Train turns to another side of his life: the craft of writing and the realities of building a career beyond the courtroom. He offers a fascinating glimpse into the world of early twentieth-century publishing—writing for popular magazines, reaching a wide audience, and transforming professional experience into stories that endure. His journey underscores the discipline, adaptability, and persistence required to succeed as an author.

Confessions of a Prosecutor is an essential read for anyone interested in law, justice, and the power of storytelling. It is a book for lawyers and readers alike—for those who seek to understand not only how the law works, but how it feels to live within it.

Experience the courtroom as it truly is: human, uncertain, and endlessly compelling.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2026. p.381.

By Arthur Train (Author) and Graeme Newman (Editor and Introduction)

Before true crime became entertainment and courtroom drama became television spectacle, Arthur Train took readers directly inside the machinery of American criminal justice. Drawing on his experience in the New York District Attorney’s Office, Train produced one of the first and most compelling insider accounts of how criminal law actually worked—from arrest and indictment to jury trial, sentencing, and the uneasy pursuit of justice itself.

In A Popular Account of Criminal Justice from the District Attorney’s Office, Train strips away the myths surrounding crime and punishment to reveal a system shaped as much by human judgment, politics, error, and improvisation as by law. Murder cases, frauds, police practices, courtroom tactics, unreliable witnesses, legal absurdities, and the psychology of criminals all come under his sharp and often surprisingly modern scrutiny.

Far ahead of his time, Train questions whether criminal law truly reflects morality, whether prisons reform offenders, and whether society punishes the most dangerous forms of wrongdoing at all. His observations on violent crime, corruption, prosecutorial discretion, media sensationalism, and unequal justice remain startlingly relevant in the twenty-first century.

This new edition, edited and introduced by Graeme R. Newman, situates Train’s classic work within today’s debates over mass incarceration, overcriminalization, white-collar crime, police power, and the continuing struggle to balance public safety with individual rights. More than a historical curiosity, this book is a penetrating exploration of the enduring contradictions of criminal justice—then and now.

Combining legal history, criminology, courtroom drama, and social criticism, A Popular Account of Criminal Justice will appeal to readers interested in true crime, law, policing, criminology, criminal procedure, and the evolution of modern justice systems.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2026. p.334.

By Michael Rempel, Krystal Rodriguez, and Kellyann Bock from the Data Collaborative for Justice at John Jay College, and Yonah Zeitz, gabriel sayegh, and Melanie Dominguez from the Katal Center for Equity, Health, & Justice.

The New York City Council established a legal deadline of August 31, 2027 for closing the jails on Rikers Island and building smaller modern jails in the City’s four large boroughs. The replacement jails, when combined with over 300 secure hospital beds for people with serious medical or mental health conditions, will hold a citywide capacity of about 4,200 people on any given day. However, since reaching a low watermark of 3,809 in April 2020, the City’s daily jail population has grown to nearly 7,000—alongside a ballooning sub-population in need of mental health treatment.  Today, Rikers is the largest mental health facility in New York City and among the largest in the country.5 The goals of the current research and policy brief are threefold: 1. Present updated data about the mental health needs of people held in the NYC jails. 2. Reveal the individuals behind these facts through select case studies. 3. Identify a continuum of safe and effective jail diversion strategies for this population. Latest Facts About Mental Health in NYC Jails Currently, close to 7,000 people are held in the City’s jails, of whom 85% have been detained before trial. Black people make up 58% of the jail population, compared to 23% of the City’s general population. In absolute terms, over twice as many Black people as the next highest racial/ ethnic group are in jail while flagging for mental health. ■ Mental Health Prevalence: Over the same 2020-to-2025 timeframe that saw a significant jail increase, overall, the fraction of the jail population receiving mental health services climbed from 44% to 60%, 6 and the fraction diagnosed with a serious mental illness rose from 17% to 22%. 7 The latest health data also indicates that 25% have an opioid use disorder, 30% have an alcohol use disorder, and 28% are homeless or “likely to be homeless” when released,8 a figure that rises to 42% for those with a serious mental illness.9 ■ Medical Conditions: As of September 2025, 28% of people held in jail were diagnosed with lung disease, 15% with cardiovascular disease, 8% with neurologic disease (e.g., epilepsy or stroke history), 6% with diabetes, 4% with hepatitis B or C, 3% with stage 3+ chronic kidney isease, 3% with HIV/AIDS, and 1% with a malignancy.10 ■ Missed Appointments: In September 2025, there were 15,823 missed medical appointments compared to 3,626 in September 2020.11 A recent monitors’ report indicated that from July to September 2024, people were produced for only 53% of scheduled mental health appointments and 77% of reentry planning appointments.12 ■ Disproportionate Gender Impact: Of close to 500 women jailed at Rikers as of October 2025, 87% have needed mental health services, compared to 58% of men.13 ■ Disproportionate Length of Stay: On average, as of October 31, 2025, people in the latest jail population needing mental health services had been held for 281 days, compared to 212 days for people not needing such services. Controlling for people’s background characteristics, a recent analysis found that flagging for mental health within ten days of jail intake predicted a total length of stay 34 days longer than people who never flagged.

By Lucy Strang, Elle Wadsworth

RAND Europe was commissioned by the Ministry of Justice in 2022 to conduct a study exploring the lived experiences of two interventions in prisons in England and Wales: drug testing regimens and incentivised substance free living (ISFL) wings. Mandatory drug testing is routinely conducted in prisons to monitor drug trends, deter drug consumption (through sanctions), and identify individuals in need of further support. ISFLs are dedicated wings for prisoners who want to live in a drug-free environment, whether that be free from the consumption of drugs, the violence related to drugs, or the culture of drug use. Drug testing regimens and ISFLs feed into the delivery of His Majesty’s Prisons and Probation Service’s (HMPPS) drug policy for prisons, which is guided by three key aims: restrict supply, reduce demand and build recovery. This study aimed to understand how drug testing regimens are delivered, experienced, and perceived. Findings will shape the ISFL model by understanding the lived experience of staff and prisoners both on existing ISFL wings and elsewhere in the prison. Findings from this report will also be used to inform the design of a randomised controlled trial and process evaluation on ISFLs and a larger qualitative piece of work on implementation of drug testing.

By The U.S. Government Accountability Office

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), through its components U.S. Border Patrol and Office of Field Operations, detains individuals who unlawfully enter the U.S. at short-term holding facilities. CBP personnel process individuals and determine the next course of action, such as transferring them from custody or removing them from the country. For the past decade, CBP has used contracted medical personnel at facilities along the southwest border to provide health screenings and treatment of basic medical conditions to individuals in custody. 

GAO found that CBP developed policies and guidance for providing medical care to individuals in custody but has not consistently implemented them. For example, CBP requires some populations, such as children, pregnant individuals, and adults who indicated they might have an illness or injury, to receive a basic physical exam known as a medical assessment. Although CBP introduced new guidance and improved the percentage of individuals who received medical assessments, GAO found that some individuals still did not receive assessments, as required. For example, 57 percent of adults with a potential illness or injury and 20 percent of pregnant individuals did not receive medical assessments from August 2023 to August 2024, as required. Without an oversight mechanism to ensure that people in custody receive the required medical assessments, CBP may not be aware of medical needs and cannot ensure it takes the appropriate next steps for any necessary medical care. GAO also found that CBP and contracted medical personnel did not consistently implement additional care requirements for individuals in custody who had serious injuries or illnesses (i.e., those who were medically high-risk). For example, from August 2023 to August 2024, contracted medical personnel did not conduct medical monitoring checks required for medically high-risk adults and children approximately 40 percent of the time. In July 2025, CBP developed new tools to inform its oversight efforts, but did not explain how it will use them to systematically assess whether medically high-risk individuals received their medical monitoring checks on time. Developing and implementing a mechanism to monitor this requirement and others would help CBP better ensure these individuals receive required care, and personnel are monitoring their conditions. CBP did not consistently provide medical records and prescriptions—referred to as medical summary forms—as required, to individuals with medical issues leaving CBP custody. By not providing the medical summary forms, CBP can create challenges with continuity of care. GAO also found CBP’s oversight reports did not include data from facilities that do not have contracted medical personnel. These facilities send individuals to local hospitals or urgent care facilities for medical care, including medical assessments. Without these data, CBP cannot ensure all individuals in custody received required medical assessments to decrease the risk of adverse medical outcomes. Moreover, GAO’s analysis showed that CBP did not consistently manage or oversee its medical services contracts.

By: Arto Arman, Andreas Beerli, Aljosha Henkel, Michel André Maréchal

We study how incarceration experience shapes preferences for criminal justice policies. In collaboration with a newly opened prison, we conducted a randomized field experiment that offered citizens the opportunity to experience up to two days of incarceration, closely replicating the real-life journey of inmates. Providing citizens with a chance to gain firsthand incarceration leads to a significant shift in punitive attitudes, with participants becoming less supportive of harsh criminal justice policies and donating more money to organizations advocating more moderate justice policies. Although individuals overestimated the wellbeing of actual prisoners, the intervention did not alter these beliefs. This suggests that the observed changes in policy preferences are driven more by personal experience than by revised beliefs about the burden of confinement. By randomizing institutional exposure outside the laboratory, our study highlights the causal role of personal experience in the formation of policy preferences.

By the staff of Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff and Republican Rep. Jen Kiggans

U.S. Senator Jon Ossoff of Georgia and Representative Jen Kiggans of Virginia have launched a bipartisan investigation into the incarceration of children with mental health conditions in juvenile detention facilities (“facilities”)—centers designed to detain children charged with or sentenced for delinquent offenses—across the United States. As part of this investigation, beginning in May 2024, Sen. Ossoff and Rep. Kiggans surveyed facilities about what circumstances lead to the prolonged detention of children with mental health conditions and children who have not been charged with offenses. In survey responses, 75 facilities across 25 states reported incarcerating children who could be eligible for release to mental health care programs outside the facility but remained incarcerated because the care they needed was not yet available. More than half of these facilities reported incarcerating children in these circumstances for at least one month, and some reported incarcerating children in these circumstances for up to a year. Facilities reported incarcerating children who are on the autism spectrum, who have general neurodevelopmental issues, or who engage in severe self-harm, who could be eligible for release to an external program or health facility. One facility in North Dakota reported that children “with neurodevelopmental issues sometimes are held the longest, while waiting on forensic evaluations of competency.” Twenty responding facilities in 13 states reported incarcerating children either with no charges or with charges that would not ordinarily lead to placement in juvenile detention. Many of these facilities reported incarcerating these children because they needed mental health services outside of the facility that were not yet available or needed mental health care available at the facility and not outside. One facility reported that, in the year before the survey was administered, it held as many as 29 children without charges or with charges that would not ordinarily lead to detention due to a lack of available offsite mental health care. Another facility reported that, in the year before the survey was administered, it held 10 children in these circumstances solely so that they could access internal mental health services not available outside the facility. Another reported incarcerating children in these circumstances for more than a year due to lack of offsite mental health care. Six facilities reported incarcerating children beyond their expected release dates after their charges were dropped or sentences completed, due to lack of available offsite mental health care. One facility reported that it had held roughly 50 children under these circumstances in the year before the survey was administered alone.According to experts in pediatric care, incarcerated children have high rates of physical, mental health and developmental needs that may be undiagnosed or under-addressed in custodial facilities. Incarcerated children also face limited access to evidence-based medical care and a lack of educational opportunities. Other experts warn that incarcerating children can cause adverse lifelong medical and mental health outcomes including higher rates of depression, and suicidality.

By Colleen M. Berryessa

Objectives This study examines US popular support for mechanisms that provide early release and “second chances” for individuals serving long-term prison sentences. Methods An experiment using a national sample of US adults (N=836). Results Data showed moderate, consistent levels of general support for using a range of commonly available “second chance” mechanisms that also extended to offenders convicted of both violent and non-violent offenses. Levels of support significantly varied by race, gender, and age. There was significantly more support for using certain mechanisms in response to the trafficking of serious drugs, which was fully mediated by participants’ views on the importance of the cost of incarceration. Conclusions Members of the public appear open and supportive to utilizing “second chance” mechanisms in a variety of contexts. Yet the cost of incarceration to taxpayers appears to particularly motivate increased public interest in using such mechanisms for offenders convicted of the trafficking of serious drugs.

By Ram Subramanian, Lauren-Brooke Eisen, Josephine Wonsun Hahn, Jinmook Kang, Ava Kaufman, and Brianna Seid

Most Americans don’t know what it’s like inside the United States’ 1,664 state and federal prisons. Yet even those who believe the primary purpose of incarceration is to deter crime or to inflict punishment expect that people returning home from prison should be ready to be productive, law-abiding members of their communities. Indeed, a 2025 Brennan Center poll found that more than 80 percent of likely voters think that formerly incarcerated people deserve a second chance and can be prepared to reenter society through rehabilitative, educational, or vocational programs.

Some correctional leaders are recognizing this and implementing innovative programs to set incarcerated people up for success. These reforms improve conditions for the people who live and work in prisons and, if adopted more widely, could also improve public safety.

But most prisons rarely offer such opportunities. Life behind bars is marked by social and physical isolation and punctuated by violence and brutality. People who have regular contact with U.S. prisons — law enforcement officers, correctional staff, lawyers, academics, nonprofit leaders, volunteers, and of course those who have been incarcerated and their loved ones — have referred to them as “warehouses that degrade and brutalize” and places where people have been “thrown away.” Judges have described the conditions in some U.S. prisons as objectively inhumane, with one saying such conditions have “no place in civilized society.” As of February 2026, the Department of Justice had 43 open investigations into jails, prisons, or entire state correctional systems for constitutional violations relating to physical and sexual violence, sanitation problems, staffing deficiencies, inadequate medical and psychiatric care, overuse of solitary confinement, and crowding.6 And as the Correctional Leaders Association has noted, the people who work in these systems suffer themselves.

By Rosa Gibson

In Alaska, pretrial detainees comprise much of the state’s prison population. Electronic monitoring—made possible by recent bail reforms—provides a pathway to pretrial release for those who cannot afford to pay bail. Using GPS data, the Pretrial Enforcement Division can monitor the location of a releasee’s ankle monitor for supervisory purposes. But when law enforcement seeks warrantless access to that data to investigate crimes other than the one for which a releasee is awaiting trial, that intrusion raises concerns under Alaska’s constitutional right to privacy. This Note argues that the Alaska judiciary, which is best positioned to guard the privacy of pretrial releasees in this area, should treat warrantless searches of this type as per se unreasonable, absent narrow exceptions. This Note posits that a reverse location search of pretrial electronic monitoring data for general investigative purposes constitutes a “search” under both the U.S. and Alaska Constitutions. Through the contextualization of Alaska’s use of electronic monitoring, analysis of the impact of Alaska’s constitutional right to privacy on the search inquiry, and analogy to the constitutionally suspect geofence search, this Note demonstrates that requiring a warrant for this data for investigative purposes is consistent with Alaska’s search-and-seizure jurisprudence. Acknowledging the inherent tradeoffs involved in pretrial release, this Note strives to establish a workable middle ground where law enforcement can access sophisticated tools in the interest of public safety without abandoning the privacy values the Alaskan people have enshrined in their constitution.

By  Beth Colgan and Jordan B. Wood

This Article provides a comprehensive statewide study of a practice by which courts order defendants to pay financial sanctions—fines, costs, and probation fees—by serving terms of incarceration. Though several states authorize these practices, to date, very little is known about the extent to which payment via incarceration occurs and the different ways it is employed. This Article examines the use of the practice in Nebraska, where it is colloquially referred to as “sitting out.” Our study specifically focuses on all misdemeanor cases in Nebraska county courts with judgments (an adjudication of guilt and/or sentencing) during the year 2019.

This study examines the ways in which payment via incarceration is consistent with and diverges from the archetypal “modern debtors’ prison,” in which penalties related to the nonpayment of fines are widespread, imposed against people of limited means and particularly people of color, and which carry the risk that the inherent revenue-generating qualities of financial sanctions will pervert crime policy.

We find that Nebraska’s practices are consistent with that archetype in that payment via incarceration is deeply integrated into the jurisdiction’s legal systems as evident through its widespread use. We discover that courts ordered 10,027 defendants to pay financial sanctions via incarceration in over a quarter of all misdemeanor cases in our dataset, an alarmingly high rate. Those defendants also sat out a notably high amount of financial debt—$2,105,462 in the aggregate. At $150 per day (the rate at which Nebraska credits incarceration against financial debt), the defendants in our study spent a minimum of 14,036 days in Nebraska county jails to pay off fines, costs, and probation fees.

The results of the study are also consistent with a second archetype— that in modern debtors’ prisons, people of limited means, and particularly people of color, are subjected to financial sanctions they have no meaningful ability to pay and punished for their poverty when payment is not forthcoming. Our findings illustrate that many defendants who were subjected to sitting out were convicted for offenses frequently linked to poverty and many were declared indigent by the court for the purposes of appointing counsel. Further, the cases in our database exhibit troubling racial disparities.

Other findings, however, complicate the narrative surrounding modern debtors’ prisons, especially with regard to revenue-generation incentives of government actors. On its face, sitting out appears to undermine the idea that government actors are motivated by revenue generation. Unlike systems in which the debt remains outstanding, when a defendant is ordered to sit out financial sanctions, the debt is paid off by the incarceration. This ensures that revenues are never secured, while leaving the jurisdiction to bear the expense of incarceration. To investigate this issue and track how money moves into and out of government coffers when sitting out is employed, we create an original typology of the various forms of payment via incarceration useful for studying Nebraska’s system and those in other jurisdictions. What we find is geographic diversity in the mechanisms for sitting out that carry different fiscal implications.

After presenting the study’s results, we conclude by discussing the key takeaways of our research, its limitations, and several law and policy implications that open potential avenues for future research.

By Ohioans To Stop Executions

Ohio’s cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment sys­tem has come into sharp focus with the release of two reports that exam­ine four decades of the state’s death penal­ty record and draw stark­ly dif­fer­ent con­clu­sions about the future of Ohio’s death penal­ty. On March 30, Ohioans to Stop Executions (OTSE) pub­lished Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Confronting the Wrongful Conviction Crisis in the State of Ohio, doc­u­ment­ing the record of mis­takes and errors that result­ed in 12 exon­er­a­tions. “The death penal­ty in Ohio is a sys­tem defined more by its capac­i­ty for error than its pur­suit of jus­tice,” the report states, con­clud­ing, “It’s time for Ohio to end its death penal­ty.” Two days lat­er, out­go­ing Attorney General Dave Yost released his eighth and final Capital Crimes Report, call­ing the state’s years-long pause on exe­cu­tions “a mock­ery of the jus­tice sys­tem” and com­plain­ing that Ohio has pro­vid­ed death-sen­tenced pris­on­ers with “more than their fair share of due process.” AG Yost urges law­mak­ers to pass leg­is­la­tion that would allow exe­cu­tions to resume.

Beyond Reasonable Doubt cen­ters on data OTSE argues Ohioans can no longer ignore: since the state rein­stat­ed cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment in 1981, it has exe­cut­ed 56 peo­ple and exon­er­at­ed 12 oth­ers from death row — mark­ing one exon­er­a­tion for every five exe­cu­tions car­ried out. Collectively, OTSE notes that these 12 men lost 245 years of their lives to wrong­ful impris­on­ment. “It turns out that Ohio has a mas­sive wrong­ful con­vic­tion prob­lem, far worse than any­one imag­ined,” said Kevin Werner, Executive Director of OTSE. Mr. Werner added that “[a]ttempts to restart exe­cu­tions will result in the exe­cu­tions of inno­cent peo­ple, and no one wants that.”

In addi­tion to the 12 indi­vid­u­als who have been wrong­ful­ly sen­tenced to death, Beyond Reasonable Doubt iden­ti­fies an addi­tion­al 12 “shad­ow exon­er­a­tions,” or cas­es in which indi­vid­u­als faced cap­i­tal indict­ments and were sen­tenced to life in prison rather than death and were lat­er proven inno­cent. The same issues are present in both groups of 12 cas­es: pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al mis­con­duct, coerced tes­ti­mo­ny, false eye­wit­ness iden­ti­fi­ca­tions, and false or mis­lead­ing foren­sic evi­dence. “The records of the 24 men exon­er­at­ed after cap­i­tal indict­ments are no ‘suc­cess sto­ries’ of the legal sys­tem; they are indict­ments of it,” the report states. “They prove that in Ohio, the dif­fer­ence between a free man and a dead man is often noth­ing more than a lucky pub­lic records request or the per­sis­tence of postconviction counsel.”