Open Access Publisher and Free Library
CRIMINAL JUSTICE.jpeg

CRIMINAL JUSTICE

CRIMINAL JUSTICE-CRIMINAL LAW-PROCDEDURE-SENTENCING-COURTS

Posts in Deaths
How people die inside: Fact patterns in civil litigation for in-custody deaths 

By Taleed El-Sabawi, Shelly Weizman, Regina LaBelle

Civil litigation provides a novel and underutilized source of information about deaths in U.S. jails, particularly when official data are incomplete. This study systematically analyzes verdicts, settlements and judgments to explore patterns in practices linked to preventable mortality in U.S jails. Results: Content analysis of facts alleged in 90 cases filed between 2015 and 2020 revealed thematic patterns related to inadequate or delayed medical care. Alleged facts routinely included observable signs of serious medical need—such as incoherence, convulsions, or pleas for help—followed by failures to provide timely or medically appropriate care. In cases of suicide, allegations commonly describe known mental health conditions, discontinued medication, and lapses in monitoring or suicide prevention protocols. Despite repeated warnings—by the individuals themselves, fellow incarcerated persons, or family members—jail staff frequently failed to act. A small subset of cases resulted in judgments for the defense, often where some care was provided or protocols were followed, even if outcomes were still fatal. Conclusion: These findings suggest that in cases resulting in reported settlements, verdicts or judgments incustody deaths in the U.S. could be prevented through improved intake screening, timely medical monitoring, care coordination, and adherence to established protocols. Litigation records offer important insight into how systemic failures contribute to jail mortality, with implications for policy, public health, and correctional practice.

The Dangers of Shooting First: “Stand Your Ground” Laws Are a License to Kill

By Everytown for Gun Safety, Everytown Research & Policy

For centuries, self-defense laws have given people the right to protect themselves. Shoot First laws, also known as Stand Your Ground laws, go beyond these long-standing principles, aggressively altering criminal law to shield a person who claims self-defense from being arrested, prosecuted, or convicted for using deadly force. In 2005, Florida enacted the first modern Shoot First law, an effort backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), during a time when they were making concerted efforts to reverse declining gun sales.2 Working with the gun lobby, the American Legislative Exchange Council pushed to turn Florida’s law into a template for a national campaign.3 Now in 29 states,4 these laws change the nature of self-defense, turning everyday disputes into deadly confrontations. Far from empowering victims, Shoot First laws lower the threshold for justifiable homicide, encouraging the escalation of petty arguments and armed vigilantism. 

Although the gun lobby created these laws under the pretense of empowering and protecting victims of crime, the data overwhelmingly shows that the statutes have failed at this. Research on Shoot First laws indicates that they increase gun deaths, leading to hundreds of deaths every year that would not have occurred otherwise. These laws also consistently fail to protect vulnerable communities; in addition to increased risk of victimization in Shoot First states, convictions are unfairly skewed against people of color and women. 

In the decades since the first Shoot First law was enacted, no research shows that these laws lead to better outcomes for anyone. Shoot First was created to solve a problem that does not exist—and Americans are paying the price.