by Luzi Shi, Megan Denver

A common concern in hiring individuals with criminal convictions is the stigma associated with the criminal record, which can include negative consumer reactions. We provide two novel tests of courtesy stigma, or the idea of transferring negative traits from one entity to another, through a nationwide survey. Using a conjoint experiment and a follow-up open-ended question, we first establish whether the public is less likely to select a restaurant if the business has a hiring initiative for people with conviction records. Using a vignette experiment, we then test whether the same factors driving personal stigma apply to courtesy stigma and whether hiring messaging frames influence courtesy stigma. We find evidence of criminal conviction courtesy stigma in the conjoint experiment. Respondents, however, typically reported the characteristics of the business itself as influential, and when the criminal record mattered, the underlying rationale was mainly instrumental: Avoiding a criminal record–friendly business was often due to safety concerns. We find similar instrumental results in the vignette experiment; the quality of service, rather than the characteristics of the criminal record or server's race, influenced restaurant recommendations. Perhaps for this reason, messaging strategies focusing on reducing criminal record stigma did not reduce courtesy stigma.

Criminology, Volume 63, Issue 1, February 2025, Pages 89-121

By Ava Pittman

Tacoma Housing Authority (THA) envisions a future where everyone has an affordable, safe and nurturing home, where neighborhoods are attractive places to live, work, attend school, shop and play, and where everyone has the support they need to succeed as parents, students, wage earners and neighbors. THA’s mission is to provide high quality, stable and sustainable housing and supportive services to people in need. It does this in ways that help them prosper and help our communities become safe, vibrant, prosperous, attractive, and just1 . To fulfill that vision and that mission, THA attempts to make informed judgments about whether to admit or deny applicants for its housing. It seeks to balance its mission to house people who need the housing while keeping it safe and enjoyable by excluding those who pose an undue risk. Like most other landlords, THA’s screening policies consider an applicant’s criminal history as a sign of risk for this purpose. THA also uses screening policies for admission to its rental assistance programs that help clients pay the rent to private landlords on the private rental market. This paper describes THA’s review of these uses of criminal history. It recommends some changes to THA’s screening policies. These recommendations arise from the review’s answer to the following questions: ● to what extent is an applicant’s criminal history a useful predictor of future tenant behavior; ● is excluding an applicant due to criminal history otherwise excluding a qualified tenant unnecessarily; ● does the use of criminal history as a screening criterion result in an undue and disproportionate exclusion of persons of color; ● the extent to which housing persons with criminal histories make a community, the justice-involved individual, and their families more successful; ● can changes to THA’s screening policies make THA’s housing more accessible to persons with a criminal history without incurring undu To help answer these questions, THA consulted the following sources: ● the research literature; ● THA’s current practices and the results; ● current practices of other public housing authorities, and the results; ● THA residents; ● THA staff; ● THA’s Landlord Advisory Group; ● THA’s liability insurance carrier. THA’s review of its use of criminal history as a screening criterion arose from related discussions in Pierce County. In late 2016, the Center for Social Innovation, a national research and training project addressing racism and homelessness, invited Pierce County to take part in a research study to identify the nexus of race to homelessness in Pierce County. They call the project, Supporting Partnerships for Anti-Racist Communities (SPARC). It included interviews with people who have or are experiencing homelessness in Pierce County. During these interviews, participants voiced that their past criminal history was a barrier to securing housing. Nationally, research tells the same story that: people with conviction histories face discrimination in many facets of life, including housing. In September 2017, the Vera Institute of Justice invited THA to participate with other public housing authorities in a new initiative, Opening Doors to Public Housing. The U.S Department of Justice funded this initiative. The initiative sought to help housing authorities assess how to safely increase access to stable housing for people with conviction histories. The Vera Institute of Justice provided THA with technical assistance, data from national research, and valuable substantive expertise in assessing that data. THA’s Department of Policy, Innovation & Evaluation (PIE) led this review. This paper conveys PIE recommended changes to THA’s screening use of criminal history.

Tacoma, WA: Tacoma Housing Authority, 2020. 76p.

By Vera Institute of Justice

Millions of people transition into the community from jails and prisons every year but face signifcant obstacles to securing safe, affordable housing. These barriers contribute to the revolving door of homelessness and incarceration. People who were formerly incarcerated are 10 times more likely than the general public to be unhoused, with a rate of 203 people experiencing homelessness per 10,000 people. The relationship between homelessness and incarceration is cyclical, as homelessness and housing instability increase the likelihood of future criminal legal system involvement: People who are unhoused are more likely to interact with police and are 11 times more likely to be arrested than people with stable housing. Viewed another way, access to stable and affordable housing substantially increases the likelihood that a person returning home from prison or jail will be able to receive support from their family, fnd and retain employment, rebuild supportive social networks, and avoid additional convictions. These improved outcomes and living conditions are relevant and crucial to the whole community: When people who are reentering their communities are housed and supported, the community is strengthened and public safety is improved. The United States has nearly 3,300 public housing authorities (PHAs) that serve approximately 1.2 million households, yet they are often inaccessible resources for people released from incarceration and in need of a safe place to live. At present, exclusionary criteria govern much of the country’s public housing that bar people who were formerly incarcerated from moving back in with their families—families who are often eager to reconnect and to help their loved ones reintegrate into society. These admissions criteria affect local public housing developments as well as federal housing choice vouchers, commonly referred to as Section 8, which provide rental assistance to low- and moderate-income families. Following the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines, all PHAs must place permanent residency exclusions on people who are required to register on the sex offender registry for life or who have been convicted of producing methamphetamine in federally assisted housing. For other types of crimes, housing authorities exercise their individual discretion when developing their admissions criteria.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice • Office of Justice Programs • Bureau of Justice Assistance , 2022. 7p.

By  Julian Adler, Jethro Antoine, Kush R. Varshney

It is hard to know where we stand in the timeline of AI implementation in the criminal legal space. Part of the challenge is that the criminal legal “system” is in reality a multiverse of federal, state, and local jurisdictions.[1] More problematic still is the sheer ubiquity of AI and related technologies. “I think the most important thing people don't know is that tech is now working at mega scale,” observes Eric Schmidt, the former chairman and CEO of Google, cautioning—via the title of a recent Oscar-winning film—that tech is “everything everywhere all at once.”[2] What we do know is that AI is already in use in the criminal legal realm and, given the human propensity to reach for technological solutions to social problems, its further adoption is almost certainly unstoppable.[3] So how best to navigate the current moment of AI implementation? “We need a clear line in the sand: ‘these use-cases are OK, these are not,’” urges Sara Friedman of The Council of State Governments Justice Center. “The criminal legal system deprives people of their liberty. It shouldn’t be using AI to do this. There is a line when you are responsible for people’s lives; there are things you shouldn’t do.” 

New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2025. 9p.

By Lama Hassoun Ayoub, Adelle Fontanet, Suvi Hynynen Lambson, Noel Altaha, Desiree Fox, Ann Miller, Alisha Morrison, and Lina Villegas

  Decisions about what to do with people coming through the criminal court system can have long-lasting impacts on those individuals’ well-being and public safety more broadly. Will putting them in jail make things better or worse? Will offering them services help address some of the underlying issues that brought them to court in the first place? Given the complexity of these decisions, criminal justice practitioners have increasingly relied on risk assessments to help them systematically make these determinations. But assessments used in one context do not always translate well to other contexts. In particular, tribal courts—courts operated by Indian tribes under laws and procedures that the Tribe has enacted (Jones, 2000)—have found these assessments lacking and not always appropriate for their unique context and population. Because of this, there has been a desire among tribal practitioners to develop their own risk assessment tools or ensure appropriate validation of existing tools within their tribal contexts or with tribal populations. This report summarizes the first steps that the Center for Court Innovation and the Tribal Defenders of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes have taken to build knowledge and lay the groundwork for advancing risk-need assessment, data management, and technological capacity in tribal courts. Chapter 1 introduces the need for a tribal-specific assessment and provides a detailed description of the tribal-researcher partnership that was created to deepen our collective understanding around these neglected topics and building the capacities needed to embark on future projects, including validation of new or existing risk-need assessments. Chapter 2 summarizes the findings from a survey of tribal courts intended to understand existing assessment practices and technology needs--key information that would help serve as the foundation for any future work on this subject. Chapter 3 concludes with recommendations for next steps for the development, validation, and implementation of an appropriate risk assessment tool to be used in tribal courts.  

  New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2021. 37p.  

By Jordan Conan and Jeffrey Sharlein

Infants and toddlers (aged 0-3) are overrepresented in the child welfare system and are more likely than older children to be removed from their original caregiver and placed in out-of-home care. Implementation of our Strong Starts Court Initiative in a New York City courtroom led to a decrease in removal rate for program-eligible subject children from their original caregiver and was associated with an increase in children residing with that caregiver a year later. This program seeks to support families of children aged 0-3 through direct services, judicial and attorney education, and a more collaborative court process.

The findings from this study complement results from an earlier evaluation that showed a decrease in subsequent child welfare court episodes for Strong Starts participants. Together, these studies paint a picture of an intervention that improves outcomes at both the individual case and courtroom levels—creating more stability for children, improving family court outcomes for their respondent caregivers, and preserving attachment relationships.

New York: Center for Court Innovation, 29p.

By Julian Adler, Jethro Antoine, Laith Al-Saadoon 

There was but one passing reference to “core values” over the course of a recent U.S. Senate Judiciary hearing on artificial intelligence [AI] in criminal investigations and prosecutions.[1] This is typical. Even in spaces like the criminal legal system, where the specters of racial injustice and inhumanity loom so large, the technological sublimity of AI can be awfully distracting. People have long looked to technology to duck the hard problem of values. “[W]e have tended to believe that if we just had more information, we could make better policy,” observes University of Nevada’s Lynda Walsh in Scientists as Prophets. “But no matter how much data we could lay hands to—even if it were LaPlace’s Demon itself—values would still stand in the way.”[2] If anything is clear about advanced AI, it is that there is much we don’t know and even more that we can’t begin to predict. Consider that the “generative AI” we have witnessed over the past 18 months—AI which produces autonomous human-impersonating content—was largely unforeseen. It’s now being attributed to AI’s “emergent abilities.”[3] Across sectors, most observers acknowledge that AI is a game-changing technology. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is illustrative: using AI, it now processes “a peak volume of 600 billion transactions every day to detect potential abuses,” making the regulator “one of the largest data processors in the world.”[4] Tell  ingly, many of the people closest to the leading edges of AI development are sounding the loudest alarms about its capabilities. “Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war,” warned the Center for AI Safety in 2023.[5] AI has the potential to supercharge, not mitigate, the uglier sides of humanity, much like, as one journalist puts it, “a fun-house-style… mirror magnifying biases and stripping out the context from which their information comes.”[6] Advanced AI is “not just another technology,” contends Nick Bostrom, Director of the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford. It is not “another tool that will add incrementally to human capabilities.”[7] Echoing countless dystopian projections of the future, the Center for AI Safety predicts AI systems will likely “become harder to control” than previous forms of technology; among other disquieting scenarios, these systems could “drift from their original goals” and “optimize flawed objectives.”[8] 

New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2024. 8p.

By Sruthi Naraharisetti

In the wake of several high-profile systemic failures of justice for Black people in the last decade, there have been widespread demands for change against pervasive racial inequities throughout the criminal legal system. These failures include the killings by law enforcement1 of Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, George Floyd, and Breonna Taylor; the excessive use of confinement and untimely deaths of Sandra Bland and Kalief Browder; and the determination of the wrongful convictions of the Central Park 5. While much of the public discourse has focused on how law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and correctional officers perpetuate racial biases, far less attention has been on how public defense attorneys do, as well. Recently, scholars have started examining how race affects legal representation in public defense. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to counsel in criminal cases and the Supreme Court has held that the government will provide a lawyer if a person cannot afford it. Each decision point of a public defense lawyer’s assistance is vulnerable to racial bias and the potential for long-lasting harm to clients. Despite calls from the American Bar Association's Standards for the Defense Function4 for defense counsel to be proactive in detecting, investigating, and eliminating improper biases, with particular attention towards historically persistent biases like race, achieving this standard has proven difficult. Often operating with limited time, resources, and information, public defense attorneys must make critical decisions relating to bail requests, case investigations, social service needs, plea negotiations, and trial strategies, among others. Recognizing the pivotal role that public defense attorneys play in addressing racial disparities that their clients face, our exploratory study seeks to create a basis of understanding for how attorneys consider race when working with clients, conceptualize their role in addressing racial inequity, and experience the impact of their own racial/ethnic identities in the workplace. By shedding light on these issues, we hope to encourage public defense attorneys to reflect on and discuss how racial bias within their field perpetuates systemic harm, ultimately paving the way for improvement in racial equity across the field. 

New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2024. 14p.

By Daniel Ades Center for Justice Innovation Jessica Kay 

3,026 New Yorkers lost their lives as a result of a drug overdose in 2022, a 12% increase from the prior year and the highest number since reporting began in 2000. This increase in overdose deaths was evident across all five boroughs, and it expanded inequities based on race, age, income, and geography.[1] Throughout the process of conducting quarterly meetings, the RxStat[2] Overdose Fatality Review Committee (OFR) realized that many individuals who fatally overdosed in New York City had previous contact with the criminal justice system. A brief review of the 20 OFR cases examined since June 2021 indicated that only one of them had no recorded criminal justice interaction.[3] According to the New York State Office of Addiction Services and Supports (OASAS), persons with criminal justice involvement account for 47% of all treatment admissions to OASAS-certified programs.[4] However, for the reasons discussed below, criminal courts are not always the optimal setting for individuals struggling with problem drug use to access treatment services. Ideally, preventive community-based treatment providers would intervene in an individual’s problem drug use before the related behavior leads to criminal court involvement. Even so, given the reality of increased overdose deaths and the prevalence of problem substance use among individuals caught up in the criminal justice system, there was a clear need to explore the role of the courts in responding to individuals with substance use issues and preventing overdose fatalities. On September 19, 2023, RxStat and the Center for Justice Innovation facilitated Substance Use, Overdose Prevention, and the Courts: A Citywide Collaboration at New York Law School to address issues related to this epidemic of overdose fatalities. The all-day event[5] focused on the role of the courts as an intercept point in addressing substance use disorder and preventing fatal overdoses, with an emphasis on communication among stakeholders in the criminal justice system, across boroughs, and between the many disciplines and agencies reflected in the event’s participants. Indeed, a primary inspiration for the event was bringing together the court-based perspectives with those of clinical and public health professionals to deepen the dialogue and establish connections between participants who struggle daily with the same issues but may not be aware of each other’s challenges. This report not only documents the differing viewpoints and major themes from the day, highlights critical questions raised, and summarizes innovative approaches being employed throughout the city—it is also intended to serve as a catalyst for continued dialogue between participants and make recommendations for court stakeholders to consider in trying to expand the number of individuals who could access potentially life-saving treatment as a result of their court involvement  

New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2024. 20p.  

By Brittany R. Davis, Rebecca Thomforde Hauser, Heaven Berhane, Gene Johnson, Saloni Sethi, Bea Hanson, Devin Deane, and Karolin Betances

Many responses to intimate partner violence (IPV), especially work to engage those who have caused harm through IPV have remained relatively unchanged over the past few decades despite the widespread, long-lasting, and devastating impact IPV continues to have on communities. Engaging people who cause harm is a crucial part of supporting survivors, fostering healthy relationships and communities, and ending violence. In response to a need to develop more effective programming, New York City implemented a comprehensive citywide approach to people who cause harm, developing multiple programming options for people who cause harm both within and outside of the criminal legal system. This concept paper outlines these programs and proposes several practice implications for the field. 

New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2024. 24p...

By Samantha Plummer, Timothy Ittner, Angie Monreal, Jasmin Sandelson, Bruce Western

Data from a unique survey of court- involved New Yorkers collected during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 provides evidence for a cycle of disadvantage involving penal control, material hardship, and health risk. We find evidence of chaotic jail conditions from March to May 2020 in the early phase of the pandemic, and high levels of housing and food insecurity, and joblessness for those leaving jail or with current criminal cases. The highest levels of material hardship—measured by housing insecurity, unemployment, shelter stays, and poor self- reported health—were experienced by those with mental illness and substance use problems who had been incarcerated

RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, Volume 9, Issue 3, May 2023, pp. 232-251 pages

By Sara K. Rankin

The criminalization of homelessness refers to the enactment and enforcement of laws and policies that punish unsheltered people for surviving in public space, even when those individuals have no reasonable alternative. The constitutional and civil rights issues stemming from criminally charging unsheltered people for public survival are clear, albeit not uncontested. But cities often skirt legal challenges to criminalization by pursuing means other than criminal charges to punish homelessness. Many cities “civilly criminalize” homelessness through civil enforcement, which extends from infractions or fines to “invisible persecution,” such as the persistent policing and surveilling of unsheltered people. While courts, legislatures, and advocates largely focus on criminal charges, those punishments are just the tip of the criminalization iceberg: civil enforcement is arguably more extensive and damaging. However, courts and legislatures largely do not protect people experiencing homelessness from civil criminalization. This Article argues for greater attention to the devastating impact of civil punishments, drawing from other critiques that expose how civil tools punish poor and vulnerable people. It also examines how punishment operates outside of both criminal charges and civil sanctions, severely penalizing unsheltered people and requiring reform.

Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review [Vol. 56 , 2021. 46p.

By Abel Rodriguez

Increasingly, U.S. immigration law and policy perpetuate death. As more people become displaced globally, death provides a measurable indicator of the level of racialized violence inflicted on migrants of color. Because of Clinton-era policies continued today, deaths at the border have reached unprecedented rates, with more than two migrant deaths per day. A record 853 border crossers died last year, and the deadliest known transporting incident took place in June 2022, with fifty-one lives lost. In addition, widespread neglect continues to cause loss of life in immigration detention, immigration enforcement agents kill migrants with virtual impunity, and immigration law ensures courts routinely order people deported to their deaths. As these preventable deaths persist, particularly among migrants of color, the Supreme Court has all but foreclosed causes of action against individual federal agents for wrongful death. It has done so most notably in its recent 2022 decision Egbert v. Boule, further limiting judicial remedies for constitutional violations and sanctioning use of force as a routine function of immigration enforcement.

This Article provides a novel perspective on law enforcement and race. It is the first to provide a comprehensive examination of lethal immigration enforcement, arguing that racialized policy rationales, impunity instituted by courts, and prevailing political paradigms have coalesced to render migrants of color expendable. Therefore, the enforcement system must be reimagined. While scholars have begun to analyze the immigration system in terms of “slow death,” or harms that occur over time, a holistic view of “spectacular deaths,” those readily perceived, is lacking. After mapping how the immigration enforcement system takes migrant lives, this Article interrogates the policy rationales for lethal enforcement in light of largely unexamined data, finding that anti-Blackness drives punitive immigration detention and the perceived dangerousness of Latinx migrants fuels lethal border policies. It then turns to an analysis of wrongful death actions and recent Supreme Court doctrine, poised to impede remedies for excessive force in courts further and escalate racialized violence against noncitizens. Ultimately, given the urgency of addressing rising migrant mortality, it calls for a paradigm shift beyond liberal reforms to end lethal enforcement and its racial subordination.

CORNELL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 109:465, 2024, 71p

By Michael Kagan

In theory, the Department of Homeland Security bears the burden of proof  when it seeks to deport a person from the United States. But the government rarely has to meet it. 

This Article presents original data from live observation in Immigration Court, documenting that almost all respondents in deportation proceedings admit and concede the charges against them, even when they have attorneys, without getting anything in return from the government. 

Focusing especially on the role of immigrant defense lawyers, the Article explores why this is happening. 

It critiques the legal standards of proof used in Immigration Court, while also exploring normative ambiguities about the role of 

immigration lawyers in deportation proceedings. Together, these factors are effectively depriving many immigrants of the vigorous legal defense that they deserve.  

UC IRVINE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 14:163 2024, 49p.

By Tasseli McKay and William A. “Sandy” Darity Jr.

Social scientists continue to declare that mass incarceration, a defining social force of the last half century, is on its way out. Lifetime risks of imprisonment are indeed in decline, as are absolute and relative imprisonment risks for Black Americans. But whether we consider mass incarceration to be over, or even on its way out, depends a great deal on what we believe mass incarceration is and what it does.

Scholarship on the “collateral consequences” of mass incarceration, leaving concerns with political etiology to political scientists, is curiously absent a broader concept of how such consequences function. Even as the field rigorously documents the vast social, political, economic, and health fallout of mass incarceration, it remains largely agnostic on a central theoretical concern: Do we conceive of mass incarceration as a policy mistake with negative consequences for us all, or as a well-running engine of racial stratification that has enriched some Americans at others' expense? How we answer this question, or do not, has tremendous implications for how we study the harms of mass incarceration and what policy moves we deem capable of confronting it.

Scholarship on mass incarceration's consequences is often introduced with reference to racial inequality. Such scholarship has identified an array of mechanisms by which mass incarceration appears to contribute to racial stratification, particularly through a longstanding line of inquiry on the disproportionate impact of incarceration-related constraints on Black men's workforce participation, income, and wealth. Yet most such research frames these phenomena as an unfortunate artifact of racially disproportionate criminal legal system contact, rather than situatingthe impetus and functioning of the criminal legal system within a broader theory of structural racial inequality.

Critiquing the failure to engage questions of structural racism in empirical research on mass incarceration's consequences, two of the field's preeminent scholars argue,

While most studies that explore the consequences of mass incarceration for American families are motivated by racial inequality within the carceral system--rightfully so, given the massive racial disparities in incarceration rates and criminal justice involvement--the work often fails to engage this important issue in meaningful ways .... We neither interrogate why we see racial disparities in mass incarceration nor do we investigate why we might see racial disparities in outcomes due to mass incarceration.

Indeed, with important exceptions, collateral consequences research inventories the implications of mass punishment for individuals, neighborhoods, and nations rather than examining how a racially targeted punishment system functions within a broader set of national and subnational institutions that systematically privilege whiteness. Further, the possibility that mass incarceration produces systematic benefits, in addition to or even as an impetus for its systematic harms, receives very limited scholarly attention. Such research, if it aims to confront racial injustice, must “move beyond description of racial inequality [and] think critically about how our society's raced institutions interact with one another to stratify the experiences of American families”.

Toward that end, the current review applies the theory of stratification economics to consider whether and how the broad criminalization and intensive punishment of Black Americans have advanced or advantaged their White contemporaries. First, the review briefly revisits key theoretical perspectives on the consequences of mass incarceration and proposes stratification economics as a meta-theoretical framework for understanding the production and functioning of those consequences. Next, it applies stratification economics to available social scientific evidence on the consequences of mass incarceration, analyzing the implications of that evidence for the relative standing of White Americans. Finally, the review advances an agenda for future research and policy capable of confronting and redressing the ill-gotten gains of mass incarceration.

20 Annual Review of Law and Social Science 309 (2024), 22p.

By Tashayla Sierra-Kadaya Borden

xisting literature does little to address the unique victimization of Black women in the law. Studies looking through a racial lens may ignore Black women by failing to address gender. Alternatively, gender analysis may center around issues specific to white women. White feminist scholars promote carceral feminism, a “neoliberal law-and-order agenda pursued by a coalition of secular anti-prostitution feminists and white evangelicals.” Carceral Feminism focuses on white womanhood and harms marginalized communities, actively pushing Black women into prison. To address this, Black feminist scholars have developed key theories to understand Black women's experiences. One such scholar, Moya Bailey, coined the term misogynoir to describe “the uniquely co-constitutive racialized and sexist violence that befalls Black women as a result of their simultaneous and interlocking oppression at the intersection of racial and gender marginalization.” Misogynoir operates as a form of implicit or explicit bias that informs how and why the state views Black women as dual victims and victimizers.

In 2019, the New York State Legislature passed the DVSJA. The DVSJA amended New York's existing Penal Law § 60.12 and created Criminal Procedure Law § 440.47 to provide resentencing for currently incarcerated individuals. This statute permits a judge to change a domestic violence survivor's initial sentence if the abuse was a “significant contributing factor” to the crime. The DVSJA is the first legislation of its kind in the United States. Advocates and survivors promoted this statute to decriminalize trauma and help individuals who commit crime while suffering abuse. Other states have enacted similar laws, but Black women still face lingering issues that exacerbate coercive abuse, racism, and gendered violence.

This Note examines the impact of New York's revolutionary DVSJA on Black woman survivorship while proposing solutions and improvements for other states aiming to replicate the statute. Part I summarizes the DSVJA and contextualizes the case law that preceded its passing. Part II describes the unique impact of domestic violence on Black women, the challenges of qualifying for relief under the statute, and the limitations of resentencing. Lastly, Part III offers noncarceral solutions that replace sentencing and help Black women share their experiences as abuse survivors.

144 Columbia Law Review 2065 (2024), 40p.

By Andrew Howard

Almost every county in the United States elects its chief Prosecutor, but the chief Public Defender, if there is one, is generally an appointed position. In four states, however, some or all of the Public Defender offices have elected leaders. Although prosecutorial elections have been heavily studied and criticized, relatively little attention has been paid to the elections of their counterparts. This Note sheds light on how Public Defender elections impact a criminal justice ecosystem. A series of interviews with elected Public Defenders reveal these elections can enhance the independence and stature of the position. Additionally, the interviews and additional research rebut the primary criticism of these elections: that voters may elect someone who wanted to work against indigent defendants. There are simply very few examples relative to the many counties that have these elections. These qualitative findings are supported in part by further quantitative analyses. First, this Note found a correlation of increased Public Defense experience amongst the state judiciary in jurisdictions where there the chief Public Defender is elected. Second, this Note found a correlation between these elections and increased salary parity between Public Defenders and Prosecutors in the same state.

Accordingly, this Note argues that some counties should explore making their chief Public Defender an elected position. While far from a panacea for the many issues facing the American criminal justice system, these elections could help enhance the quality of indigent defense where implemented.

Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 2020, 40p.

By Ben Finholt

For decades, the North Carolina Supreme Court—like many other state supreme courts—largely ignored its own state constitution’s ban on harsh criminal punishments and deferred entirely to federal case law on the constitutional limits of excessive sentences. The result has been near-total deference to the state legislature and a discriminatory mass incarceration crisis that has ballooned without meaningful constitutional checks.

This approach has been a serious mistake of constitutional law. As Justice Harry Martin once noted, “the Constitution of North Carolina . . . is the people's timeless shield against encroachment on their civil rights,” and it provides uniquely broad protections of civil rights and personal liberty. Yet sentencing law has been the exception, despite a specific provision that bans “cruel or unusual punishments,” and whose text and original meaning are distinct from the Eighth Amendment.

The North Carolina Supreme Court finally revived this clause, Article I, Section 27, in two recent cases involving children sentenced to serve decades, recognizing that it should not be interpreted in lockstep with its federal counterpart. This Article argues that these cases provide a crucial moment of doctrinal clarity and opportunity to articulate the independent meaning of Section 27 and unleash its power as an essential tool in the urgent project of dismantling mass incarceration. While previous scholarship has noted that state analogs to th

e Eighth Amendment can and should bear their own independent meaning, this Article provides a full analysis of Section 27 specifically, looking to its text and history, related constitutional provisions, and other factors to show that it provides broader protections against excessive punishments than does current Eighth Amendment case law. This Article also sketches a doctrinal framework that state courts can apply in all challenges to excessive punishment, not just those involving children.

Finally, the Article places this constitutional analysis in the specific context of North Carolina’s criminal legal system, explaining how other mechanisms of reducing needless incarceration have proven wholly inadequate.

Duke Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Series No. 2023, 49p.

By Erin Thorvaldson and Kendric Holder

In 2015, Rhode Island had the country’s second-highest probation population rate, with high probation revocation rates and lengthy probation terms contributing to an increasing prison population. To address these challenges, Rhode Island requested support through the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI). As a result of JRI, Rhode Island amended the superior court’s Rules of Criminal Procedure and Sentencing Benchmarks in 2016, limiting probation periods for nonviolent offenses to 3 years and allowing for early termination of probation for people satisfying specified requirements. Subsequently, 6 JRI bills were passed in 2017. Among other things, these new laws and amendments to the superior court’s Rules of Criminal Procedure and Sentencing Benchmarks created policies that centered on reducing the prison population, launching a diversion program with an alternative to traditional conviction and sentencing, and screening cases for eligibility for early discharge from probation. This brief highlights the results of these measures.

New York: The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2024. 5p.

By Erin Thorvaldson and Kendric Holder

In 2016, Georgia used the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI) to focus on community supervision, as the state had the highest rate of adults on probation in the country. The JRI analysis showed that Georgia’s large probation population was due to widespread use of probation sentences for misdemeanor offenses, as well as lengthy felony probation sentences that were used in lieu of and in addition to prison sentences. Additionally, an estimated 50,000 people in Georgia had been on supervision for more than 2 years, despite the risk of recidivism dropping by half after an individual’s first year on supervision. In 2017, the governor signed Act 226, codifying the JRI policy framework. It featured policies to reduce lengthy probation terms and large probation caseloads, enhance the cost-effectiveness of responses to probation and parole violations, and improve the handling of legal and financial obligations for people on felony probation. This brief explores the effects of this legislation.

New York: The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2024. 5p.