By Kierra B. Jones Evelyn F. McCoy Natalie Lima Rod Martinez

Prosecutor-led diversion programs are growing in popularity in many jurisdictions across the country and offer a unique opportunity for prosecutors to address the impact prosecutorial decisions have in perpetuating mass incarceration and an opportunity to reduce local jail populations. Diversion programs can both hold people accused of wrong-doing accountable, while reducing the deleterious effects of incarceration. This case study, part of a series highlighting work supported by the Safety and Justice Challenge, examines how Milwaukee County, Wisconsin developed and implemented prosecutor-led diversion strategies to reduce the local jail population.

Washington DC: The Urban Institute, 2022.36p.

BY THE PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

Key Takeaways Archival research conducted for this report demonstrated that racial disparities observed in Philadelphia’s criminal court system are rooted in severe historical injustices and wealth inequality. For over a century, Black Philadelphians have been overrepresented in arrests and criminal charges, relative to their representation in the City’s broader population. Disparities have not been resolved and in many cases have been worsened by federal, state, and local laws and policies. Combining publicly-available datasets reveals that markers of systemic disinvestment such as poverty, unemployment, litter, health problems, and eviction are concentrated in formerly red-lined neighborhoods where residents are predominantly Black and Latinx. From 2015 to 2022, Black defendants were charged at disproportionately higher rates relative to other groups in seven of the eight most common criminal charge categories. Even when accounting for prior criminal record and illegal firearm charges, Black and Latinx individuals who are convicted of aggravated assault or burglary are more likely to be sentenced to incarceration than white individuals convicted of the same crime. Latinx individuals convicted of possessing drugs with intent to distribute (PWID) are more likely to be sentenced to incarceration than Black or white defendants, even when they have no prior record or illegal firearm charges. While this administration’s policies have helped to reduce disparities in supervision and probationary sentences, large racial disproportionalities remain in Philadelphia’s court system. Justice agencies and social institutions must work together to fix the structural racism that creates disparities across systems 

Philadelphia: The District Attorney's Office, 2023. 68p.

by Terry Huang, Katarzyna Wyka, Maria Khan,

The US incarcerates more people than any country in the world. Driven by racial bias in policing policies, practices and sentencing, as well as biases toward individuals of lower socio-economic background, minority groups are disproportionately exposed to police contact and incarceration. People who have a history of incarceration face elevated risk of adverse health outcomes prior to incarceration, and incarceration is likely a determinant of the racial/ethnicity disparity in health. There is strong evidence showing that criminal legal system involvement (CLI) plays a role in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and STI/HIV exposure. CLI also appears to be associated with other chronic conditions such as diabetes22, and adverse pregnancy outcomes such as miscarriage. In addition, there is evidence CLI increases exposure to violence, including homicide and suicide. Given the intersection of incarceration and a myriad of health risks, there is a critical need to develop public health programs for people released from incarceration focused on client-centered goals to best protect health and wellbeing, and promote social integration, upon return to the community. The New York City Health Justice Network (NYC HJN), an innovative health service delivery program for individuals returning from incarceration, was developed and implemented by the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH), with criminal justice reform funding from the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office (DANY) Criminal Justice Investment Initiative (CJII). NYC HJN sought to provide individuals recently released from incarceration with peer support from community health workers (CHW) with lived experience of successful reentry from the criminal legal system and access to integrated primary care and social services. As an intersectoral strategy to improve community health and well-being, NYC HJN aimed to reduce the likelihood of further contact with the criminal legal system. NYC HJN addressed a wide range of client health needs, including support with health insurance, primary care, dental care, mental and behavioral health, and social service needs such as assistance with employment, housing, food security, obtaining vital documents (e.g., identification), and legal support. CHWs provided social and emotional support and served as critical advocates to help clients navigate the healthcare system as well as a wide range of social service organizations deemed critical to successful community reentry. The NYC HJN program served people released from both prison and jail. Those served generally represented the incarcerated population in NYC. This final evaluation report aims to examine the association of NYC HJN program participation with criminal legal system re-involvement outcomes, including re-arrests, conviction/reconviction and reincarceration at 6- and 12- months post program start. For the purpose of this evaluation, a sample of HJN clients who enrolled in the program between 2020-2022 were recruited and consented into the study. Using administrative data from criminal justice agencies in New York, HJN clients were compared to a sample of controls matched on age, sex, time spent incarcerated during the last jail or prison stay, top charge for the last incarceration, and frequency of incarceration in the past 5 years. For the final analysis, 203 HJN clients were matched against 339 individuals serving as controls. Bivariate results showed that HJN clients had a lower average number of re-arrests at 6-months compared to controls, as shown in Figure 1 below. This trend was present up to 12 months after program start. Other outcomes such as rates of conviction/reconviction and reincarceration were lower among HJN program participation relative to controls but were not statistically significantly different between the two groups. After adjusting for covariates, there were no significant differences in any of the outcomes at 6- or 12-months between HJN clients and controls, except for the lower mean number of re-arrests in the HJN group. The lack of statistical significance among other variables should be interpreted with caution, as the results may have been affected by the small sample size and relative short duration of the study.

New York: NYU-CUNY Prevention Research Center , 2025. 45p.

By Roland Neil and Beau Kilmer

As policymakers and criminal justice agencies review how they have addressed problems related to illegal drugs over the past decade, it is useful to examine relevant data and policy changes from this period. This paper first analyzes trends in multiple criminal justice indicators related to drugs, focusing primarily on the period from 2010 onward. It then highlights a handful of noteworthy policy changes that have been implemented, accelerated, or in some cases reversed during the ongoing overdose crisis. Finally, it presents some key findings from the analysis and offers some recommendations to policymakers and criminal justice practitioners. KEY FINDINGS Trends in criminal justice indicators ■ From 2010 to 2019, drug offenses accounted for 12%-16% of all reported arrests nationwide, making them the largest category of arrests during that period. ■ Data from the Uniform Crime Reporting system show a decline in drug possession arrests from 2010 to 2019, primarily driven by a reduction in cannabis-related arrests. When excluding cannabis, drug possession arrests increased, largely due to the “Other − dangerous nonnarcotic drugs” category, which includes methamphetamine. ■ More recent trends are harder to track due to changes in how the Federal Bureau of Investigation collects and reports arrest data. However, our analysis of data from 17 states with reliable National Incident-Based Reporting System coverage suggests that drug arrests—even excluding cannabis— generally declined from 2017 to 2022. ■ While caution is advised when interpreting drug seizure data for insights into law enforcement or drug seller behavior, the data show a sharp increase in fentanyl seizures and a noticeable decrease in heroin seizures. Methamphetamine seizures surged for much of the period but appear to have reversed in recent years. ■ As with most offense types, more individuals convicted of drug offenses are supervised in the community (e.g., via probation or parole) than incarcerated. ■ The number of individuals on probation or parole for drug offenses dropped by approximately 22% and 15%, respectively, between 2011 and 2021. However, due to incomplete data on offense types, these figures are rough estimates. ■ The federal and state prison populations for individuals serving sentences for drug offenses have also declined substantially over the past decade. Notably, the most significant drop in state prison populations was among Black individuals, whose numbers decreased by more than 50% between 2010 and 2019. ■ There are limited data on drug prices over the past decade, though one study found that the purity-adjusted price of fentanyl powder in the lower-wholesale market dropped significantly from 2016 to 2021, despite the sharp increase in seizures. Changes in drug policies and practices ■ A growing number of jurisdictions have implemented police-led diversion or deflection programs aimed at facilitating treatment and reducing arrests and criminal justice consequences. However, the evidence base for these emerging programs remains thin. ■ At the same time, there has also been an increase in the application of drug-induced homicide laws and Good Samaritan laws. While both Oregon and Washington have relaxed their drug possession laws in recent years—Oregon through a ballot initiative and Washington via a court decision—both states’ legislatures later passed laws recriminalizing possession. ■ Carrying naloxone to respond to overdoses is now a common practice among U.S. police. Though less common, some law enforcement agencies have also made efforts to follow up with individuals who have overdosed. RECOMMENDATIONS ■ Improve data infrastructure: Although data collection on drug-specific arrests has improved significantly, major gaps remain in many criminal justice indicators related to drugs, particularly regarding jail admissions, the role of drugs in probation and parole revocations, and drug prices (especially purity-adjusted prices). Data infrastructure and access should be improved to enable comprehensive analysis and informed policymaking. ■ Refrain from using drug-induced homicide laws: Jurisdictions should avoid enacting or applying drug-induced homicide laws, as there is no empirical evidence supporting their effectiveness and they run counter to what we know about how deterrence works. These laws may also deter individuals from calling authorities during an overdose. ■ Pilot and evaluate police-led diversion and deflection programs: Police-led diversion and deflection programs should be piloted and rigorously evaluated. We must also recognize that the success of these programs will likely vary depending on the outcomes measured (e.g., overdose deaths versus rearrests) and the availability and quality of services in the community. ■ Consider context and evidence when evaluating alternatives to criminal penalties for drug possession: The liberalization of drug possession laws in Oregon and Washington coincided with a surge in fentanyl use. In Oregon, the substance use disorder treatment infrastructure was already weak and there were serious implementation issues related to the rollout of Measure 110. While drug possession arrests have clearly declined, many other outcomes remain uncertain and lack consensus. Jurisdictions exploring alternatives to criminalizing possession should consider the experiences of Oregon and Washington, the emerging research on these policies, and evidence from other countries on decriminalization. ■ Reconsider how criminal justice resources are allocated: In areas heavily affected by fentanyl, law enforcement agencies currently focused on supply-reduction efforts—in the hope that such efforts will increase fentanyl prices and thus curb consumption in the long run—may want to consider reallocating some of these resources to other strategies. Depending on the jurisdiction, these can include addressing open-air drug markets that create disorder and trauma in neighborhoods, partnering with service organizations to pilot diversion and deflection programs, training and equipping officers to respond to overdoses, and combating the violence, corruption, and money laundering tied to illegal drug markets. While the evidence base for some alternative approaches to traditional drug law enforcement remains limited, this sometimes reflects their novelty rather than their potential. Meanwhile, current efforts are not often grounded in evidence-based best practices. Given the severity of the overdose crisis and the widespread and increasingly entrenched presence of fentanyl in much of the country, policymakers and criminal justice practitioners must think outside the box. Experimenting with promising new approaches, even when evidence is scarce or unavailable, is urgently needed to improve upon the status quo. As these models are implemented, it is crucial to rigorously evaluate them to determine what works and establish best practices for law enforcement’s response to fentanyl and the overdose crisis.

Washington, DC: Foreign Policy at Brookings, 2024. 41p.

By Leora Yedida Bilsky

Can Israel be both Jewish and democratic? Transformative Justice, Leora Bilsky's landmark study of Israeli political trials, poses this deceptively simple question. The four trials that she analyzes focus on identity, the nature of pluralism, human rights, and the rule of law-issues whose importance extends far beyond Israel's borders. Drawing on the latest work in philosophy, law, history, and rhetoric, Bilsky exposes the many narratives that compete in a political trial and demonstrates how Israel's history of social and ideological conflicts in the courtroom offers us a rare opportunity to understand the meaning of political trials. The result is a bold new perspective on the politics of justice and its complex relationship to the values of liberalism. Leora Bilsky is Professor of Law, Tel Aviv University.

Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004. 393p

By Adam Ali, Anita Dockley, Stephen Farrall, Sarah Lewis, Jake Phillips and Kam Stevens

Hope, efficacy, optimism and positive expectations are connected to greater levels of psychological and physical wellbeing (Alarcon et al., 2013) and peoples’ ability to change (Bartholomew et al., 2021). Hope is important for people who have a desire to change following a period of punishment or criminalisation (Burnett and Maruna, 2004; Farrall et al., 2014). However, research on the concept of hope in criminology has tended to focus on prisons and – to a lesser degree – desistance from offending. Little research has focused on hope in the context of probation despite facilitating change being one of probation’s central aims. We thus undertook research to look at: • how people on probation supervision and people who have experience of working in probation conceptualise hope • how the Probation Service in England and Wales might facilitate hope • what people hope to get from probation and what ‘gets in the way’ of probation supporting them to achieve those hopes • what needs to happen to make probation a more hopeful experience for people on probation. The most widely used definition of hope is the ‘perceived capability to derive pathways to desired goals and motivate oneself via agency thinking to use those pathways’ (Snyder et al., 2002: 249). So people need goals that are, at least to some degree, achievable and that they think or believe can be achieved. It is as a ‘way of thinking’ (ibid.) and is thus relevant to probation practice because it ‘may be helpful in fostering adaptive rehabilitation processes through the use of intervention techniques aimed at creating clearer and more sustainable goals, increasing pathways thoughts, and instilling greater agency’ (Snyder et al., 2006). Moreover, to have hope one must feel like one has the agency to work towards and achieve those hopes (see Miceli and Castelfranchi, 2015:161-3). Considering the links between agency and desistance (Healy, 2013), we can further see the potential importance of hope for people on probation supervision. Hope has been variously conceptualised in imprisonment studies. Institutional hope was seen as an adaptive strategy to cope with the challenges of imprisonment, as a ‘key mechanism of psychological survival’ (Crewe et al., 2020:126). It can also be a protective factor against the adverse effects of imprisonment (Wai-Ming Mak et al., 2021), that supports higher levels of wellbeing. While deep hope is transformational and involves moving away from previous ways of living. Seeds (2022: 241) suggests hope is ‘sparked by the absence of an institutional apparatus, hope is a process of reorientation’. In turn, hope might lead to a ‘re-narration’ in which people in the criminal justice system reconstruct their own identities and commit to being better people (Seeds, 2022). There are clear links with desistance research which emphasises the role of redemption scripts enabling people to actively re-tell their lives and, crucially, their future (Maruna, 2001). Elsewhere, Farrall et al. (2014) point to the changing nature of hope that people experience as they desist from offending. Hope has been incorporated into some models of criminal justice practice such as the Good Lives Model (GLM) (Ward and Brown, 2004) which focuses on developing peoples’ ‘goods’ and creating a more hopeful outlook. The GLM asks practitioners to practice in a way which ‘adds to … personal functioning’ rather than removing or managing problems (Ward et al., 2007). For example, research with women in prison constructed hope as a belief in a better future and was ‘heavily dependent upon outside sources that would provide structure and discipline’, demonstrating the potential for probation services to provide strengths-based re-entry programmes, mentorship and goal-setting strategies (Stearns et al., 2018). Whilst these strategies can support people to be more hopeful, they tend to be specialist interventions and so are not widespread. In this Academic Insights paper, we share the ideas, perceptions and possibilities found in our research for probation practice if hope were to be incorporated into its thinking and practice. A more detailed discussion of the research and findings can be found in Phillips et al. (2025)

Manchester, UK: Inspectorate of Probation, 2025. 18p.

By The Justice Policy Institute

Despite the limited evidence base for its effectiveness and the significant burden it imposes on those under supervision, jurisdictions across the United States have expanded the use of electronic monitoring (EM) – technology that tracks and sometimes restricts a person’s movements – to supervise justicesystem-involved people released to the community. EM presents an appealing alternative to judges and prosecutors who want to limit jail or prison use but seek additional security to ensure public safety. This is true in Maryland, where the use of EM to supervise pretrial clients has grown significantly over the past decade and increased sharply following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, due in part to a one-time federal allocation of resources to fund supervision by private providers. However, despite this increase, there is very little information about the use of EM to supervise people awaiting trial in Maryland. We have no idea how many people have been monitored by the technology, its impact on their lives, or how effective it is with various populations. To inform these decisions, the Justice Policy Institute conducted a study on the use of EM to supervise pretrial clients in Maryland. This report explores the day-to-day realities of electronic monitoring, its effects on individuals under supervision, and offers recommendations to enhance service delivery based on proven best practices. Research on the efficacy of pretrial EM suggests that: • EM Does Not Reliably Reduce Failure to Appear (FTA) or Recidivism in Pretrial Populations. Although the use of EM has skyrocketed across the country, there is no clear and convincing evidence that EM effectively reduces FTA rates or recidivism for pretrial supervisees. This contrasts with other strategies like court notification and reminder systems, which have much stronger evidence of efficacy in reducing FTA rates. • Best Practices in Pretrial Release, Supervision, and EM Are Grounded in Validated Risk and Needs Assessment. The central elements that comprise an evidence-based approach to pretrial justice involve: • Expanding citation and diversion options; • Implementing a legal framework with a presumption of least restrictive release; • Ensuring due process in all hearings; • Grounding all decision-making in the use of a validated pretrial risk and needs assessment instrument (PRAI); and • Strictly limiting the use of pretrial detention and other restrictive measures, including electronic monitoring, to instances where an individual is at high risk of failing to appear or reoffending. EM Imposes a Significant Burden That Must Be Considered in Policy and Practice Decisions. EM surveillance presents serious challenges for individuals and severely limits their freedom. If EM is assigned to those at low risk of FTA or recidivism and drives net-widening in the corrections system, it is likely to cause unnecessary harm. However, when implemented and monitored effectively and humanely, it can be a useful strategy when used as a true alternative to jail and to increase the number of people released to their homes. 

Baltimore, MD: The Abell Foundation, 2025. 48p.

By William J. Sabol and Thaddeus L. Jjohnson

Although significant gaps remain, disparities between Black and White people continued to narrow at nearly every stage of the criminal justice process between 2016 and 2020. In some cases, the pace of the decline slowed; in others, the disparity gap closed entirely.

These trends extend patterns from 2000 to 2016 that were identified in CCJ's first report on correctional control by race and sex. Subsequent reports will explore trends in disparity among female populations and by ethnicity, assess trends in multiple states, and seek to identify what, if any, policy changes may have contributed to reductions in racial disparities.

Washington, DC: Council on Criminal Justice, 2022. 36p.

By Guyora Binder,and Ekow Yankah

The widely applauded conviction of officer Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd employed the widely criticized felony murder rule. Should we use felony murder as a tool to check discriminatory and violent policing? The authors object that felony murder—although perhaps the only murder charge available for this killing under Minnesota law—understated Chauvin’s culpability and thereby inadequately denounced his crime. They show that further opportunities to prosecute police for felony murder are quite limited. Further, a substantial minority of states impose felony murder liability for any death proximately caused by a felony, even if the actual killer was a police officer, not an “agent” of the felony. In these “proximate cause” jurisdictions, felony murder is far more often used to prosecute the (often Black) targets of police violence, than to prosecute culpable police.

Previous scholarship on prosecution of felons for killings by police criticized such proximate cause rules as departures from the “agency” rules required by precedent. But today’s proximate cause felony murder rules were enacted legislatively during the War on Crime and are thus immune to this traditional argument. The authors instead offer a racial justice critique of proximate cause felony murder rules as discriminatory in effect, and as unjustly shifting blame for reckless policing onto its victims. Noting racially disparate patterns of charging felony murder, and particularly in cases where police have killed, the authors call on legislatures to reimpose “agency” limits on felony murder as a prophylactic against discrimination. Finally, the authors widen this racial justice critique to encompass felony murder as a whole, urging legislatures to abolish felony murder wherever racially disparate patterns of charging can be demonstrated.

17 Harv. L. & Pol'y Rev. 157 (2022).

By The ACLU of Northern California

California was once the nation’s leader in public defense. Long before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the state must provide a lawyer to poor people charged with crimes, many counties in California already did so. Yet today, after years of neglect by the state, California is in the midst of a decades-long public defense crisis. A main cause is the reliance on “flat-fee” contracts with for-profit private attorneys and firms, where lawyers are paid a set amount for a limitless number of cases. These agreements lock attorneys and their clients in a financial conflict of interest where the lawyers’ fees are pitted against quality, zealous representation for those accused of crimes. Flat-fee systems have a well-documented history of providing worse representation and fueling mass incarceration and California has been called out, decade after decade, for allowing them to flourish.

This report examines the actual contracts California counties use and finds that they are woefully deficient in providing necessary resources to private contractors in order for them to adequately represent their clients, they uniformly fail to limit the number of cases attorneys can handle at once, and they provide little to not oversight or supervision for the lawyers who defend people when their lives are on the line. We synthesize the decades of research from within the state and around the country that show these systems should be eliminated and recommend that California finally do just that

San Francisco: ACLU of Northern California, 2025. 27p.

By David Spencer

New guidelines produced by the Sentencing Council for judges and magistrates to follow when sentencing offenders are both significant and controversial. The Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline, due to come into effect on the 1st April 2025, sets out the considerations for judges and magistrates when sentencing an offender who has been found or pleaded guilty in the criminal courts. The Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline instructs courts to request and consider, prior to sentencing, a pre-sentence report before forming an opinion about sentencing. Pre-sentence reports enable the court to have as much information as possible about the offender, including the risk they pose to the public, before passing sentence. Judges and magistrates are instructed that they need not order a pre-sentence report only if they consider it unnecessary. The new guideline requires that from the 1st April 2025 a presentence report will “normally be required” when sentencing offenders from one of a whole host of different and specified groups – while some groups are included, others are excluded. In particular, those within the cohort where a pre-sentence report will “normally be required” include individuals who are from an ethnic, faith or cultural minority group. While there is nothing specifically preventing a court requesting a pre-sentence report for other offenders, those who are white or male will not, unless they can fit themselves into one of the other groupings available, qualify under the criteria that “a pre-sentence report will normally be considered necessary”. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood MP, has made clear that she does not agree with the new Imposition guideline and, given the Sentencing Council have refused to withdraw it, she is willing to legislate to prevent “two-tier justice”. On the 28th March 2025 the Lord Chancellor said: “I have been clear in my view that these guidelines represent differential treatment, under which someone’s outcomes may be influenced by their race, culture or religion. This is unacceptable, and I formally set out my objections to this in a letter to the Sentencing Council last week. I am extremely disappointed by the Council’s response. All options are on the table and I will legislate if necessary.” The Lord Chancellor is right. There must be no two-tier justice – which the new guideline represents – and the government should legislate without delay to correct the Sentencing Council’s error. In conversation with the authors at Policy Exchange, the Rt Hon Jack Straw – the former Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice who created the Sentencing Council – has expressed his strong support for Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood MP. He said: “I strongly support the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Shabana Mahmood MP, in the position she is taking relating to the new Imposition Guideline that the Sentencing Council have published. It is clear that the Government will need to take steps to correct the error. Given the crossparty support for this to be resolved, as shown by the position of the Shadow Secretary of State, Robert Jenrick, I hope that this can be done quickly.” Pre-sentence reports, typically written by a probation officer, are key to judges and magistrates deciding whether to sentence an offender to prison or to a non-custodial community order – particularly in borderline cases. As a result, deciding which defendants are to be included in the cohorts where a pre-sentence report will “normally be required”, and which don’t, can be key in deciding who goes to prison and who doesn’t. The Sentencing Council, which produced the new guideline, is an independent non-departmental body that is sponsored by the Ministry of Justice. The Labour government, under Prime Minister the Rt Hon Gordon Brown, created the Sentencing Council through section 118 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The Council commenced operations in April 2010. The framework for the creation of sentencing guidelines evolved during the period of Labour in office between 1997 – 2010. Two bodies associated with the production of guidelines for the sentencing of offenders – the Sentencing Advisory Panel and Sentencing Guidelines Council – were created (and subsequently abolished). We outline the history of this period in chapter 2 of this report. The Sentencing Council is responsible for the preparation of sentencing guidelines for judges and magistrates to follow when sentencing offenders. Section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 specifies that the Sentencing Council must prepare: “(a) sentencing guidelines about the discharge of a court’s duty under section 73 of the Sentencing Code (reduction in sentences for guilty pleas), and (b) sentencing guidelines about the application of any rule of law as to the totality of sentences” and may prepare sentencing guidelines about any other matter. We outline how the Sentencing Council is required to operate, under statute, in chapter 3 of this report. The membership of the Council is made up of both judicial and non-judicial members. Eight members of the Council are appointed by the Lord Chief Justice with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor (“judicial members”) and six members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice (“non-judicial members”). We outline the current membership of the Sentencing Council, how members (continued_

London: Policy Exchange, 2025. 43p.

Angela R. Riley & Sarah Glenn Thompson

The Double Jeopardy Clause guarantees no individual will be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense. But, pursuant to the dualsovereignty doctrine, multiple prosecutions for offenses stemming from the same conduct do not violate the Clause if the offenses charged arise under the laws of separate sovereigns, even if the laws are otherwise identical. The doctrine applies to tribal prosecutions, but its impact in Indian country is rarely studied. Such an inquiry is overdue, particularly as the scope of crimes potentially subject to dual tribal and federal prosecutions has broadened in recent years. This Article is the first to undertake a preliminary examination of the dual-sovereignty doctrine in the tribal–federal context and describe the complex interplay between the doctrine and the rest of the criminal law fabric in Indian country. Perhaps most significantly, it includes an original typology highlighting when a defendant may be subject to the doctrine, which sovereigns have the authority to prosecute, pursuant to what source of power each sovereign operates, and when and how the sequence of prosecutions matters, if at all. This leads to the Article’s central thesis: Indian tribes are separate sovereigns with inherent sovereignty, and, under current conditions, the dual-sovereignty doctrine plays a central role in ensuring safety in Indian country. The doctrine’s application in Indian country, however, creates unique complexities that may threaten tribal sovereignty and raise issues of unfairness for defendants. This Article offers numerous reforms—some highly ambitious and others more modest—to address these issues.

122 Colum. L. Rev. 1899 (2022).

By Hayli Millar, Megan Capp, Raelyn O’Hara

Bail law reform has become a highly politicized issue in Canada, reflecting polarizing demands to both lessen and increase restrictions in granting bail. While some scholarly literature assesses and critiques bail and remand law and processes, there is exceptionally limited gender-disaggregated data and research on adult women’s bail and remand experiences.1 When assessing women’s interactions with the criminal justice system (CJS), most scholarly research and government publications speak about women’s unique offence patterns and gendered pathways to criminalization and then jump to assessing women’s imprisonment experiences, largely excluding any consideration of women’s pre-trial and trial experiences. In 2023-2024, we gathered and assessed the available literature on women and bail and women and remand in Canada. We engaged with primary data in the form of government-published statistics, select case law and secondary research, reviewing more than 250 sources including some comparative international research. With this literature review, we present our key findings. The annotated bibliography below captures some of what we know about women’s bail and remand experiences within the Canadian context. Our contribution builds on the work we have previously done through the International Center for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy (ICCLR) on the rights of criminal justice-involved parents, especially women and their children. In brief, the 31 annotations focus attention on the urgent need for primary research on how seemingly neutral bail laws and practices uniquely impact women, especially due to intersecting identities such as race, parenthood, and other social factors. Our contribution is crucial and timely. In Canada, the national remand rate for women now surpasses that of men, with women making up over 75% of provincial and territorial custody admissions in 2022/2023. Our literature review and the annotations illustrate the importance of not only addressing the social determinants of women’s criminal justice involvement but also investing in more effective community-based alternatives for women, with a focus on mental health and substance use services. This is of particular importance when one considers the mainly non-violent offences that women commit and that many justiceinvolved women have complex, overlapping, and unmet social, economic, parenting, and physical and mental health needs, which are often compounded by trauma.

Vancouver, BC: International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy , 2025. 59p.

By David C. Baldus, George Woodworth, Catherine M. Grosso, Michael Laurence, Jeffrey A. Fagan, and Richard Newell

The Eighth Amendment’s “narrowing” requirement for capital punishment eligibility has challenged states since it was recognized in Furman v. Georgia in 1972. This article examines whether California’s death penalty scheme complies with this requirement by empirically analyzing 27,453 California convictions for first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and voluntary manslaughter with offense dates between January 1978 and June 2002. Using a 1,900-case sample, we examine whether California’s death penalty statute fails to comply with the Eighth Amendment’s narrowing test. Our findings support two conclusions. First, the death-eligibility rate among California homicide cases is the highest in the nation during that period and in the ensuing decade. We find that 95 percent of all first-degree murder convictions and 59 percent of all second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter convictions were death eligible under California’s 2008 statute. Second, a death sentence is imposed in only a small fraction of the death-eligible cases. The California death sentencing rate of 4.3 percent among all death-eligible cases is among the lowest in the nation and over two-thirds lower than the death-sentencing rate in pre-Furman Georgia.

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Volume 16, Issue 4, 693–730, December 2019

By Jennifer Mason McAward

This largest-ever study of adjudicated violations of Brady v. Maryland provides a detailed and nuanced understanding of who suppresses material evidence in criminal cases, why, how, where, and how often. Its findings complicate the conventional wisdom that Brady violations are the work of nefarious prosecutors who intentionally withhold material evidence from criminal defendants. While it is true that bad faith permeates this area of constitutional non-compliance, a substantial minority of Brady cases stem from good faith errors and suppression by law enforcement officers. Most Brady violations occur in a small number of states, and most often state courts provide relief. And while there is not quantitative evidence of an epidemic, the individual effects of Brady violations are severe. On average, a defendant whose Brady rights are violated spends more time in prison than a defendant who is later exonerated. When government officials routinely violate a clearly established constitutional right like Brady with such negative consequences, the time is ripe for evidence-based interventions to enhance constitutional compliance. The insights from this study point to a new range of strategies. For example, focusing on preventing good faith Brady errors, especially in non-homicide cases, may be substantially more productive than focusing on punishing bad faith Brady violationsa tactic that has proven to be frustratingly unsuccessful. Relatedly, working with law enforcement officers to better identify and submit potential Brady evidence to prosecutors may create a smoother pipeline for the eventual production of material evidence to defendants. Ultimately, by providing unprecedented detail about historical Brady violations, this study will serve the cause of future overall Brady compliance.

Vanderbilt Law Review (forthcoming April 2025), 67p.

By Jonathan Gu

Between 2016 and 2023, the number of young people aged 10 to 13 years found guilty of an offence fell markedly. This paper examines if this decline and other trends can be explained by the 2016 High Court of Australia decision (RP v R (‘RP’)), which clarified the application of doli incapax. We examine trends in: (1) the volume of court appearances for 10-13 year olds, (2) whether these court appearances resulted in a proven offence, (3) for proven matters, the severity of the penalty, (4) the extent to which prosecutors withdrew all charges, and (5) the extent of guilty pleas. METHOD We analyse NSW and national data on outcomes from Children’s Court cases involving 10-17 year olds, finalised between 2010 and 2023. Using these data, we investigate whether and why the five outcomes have changed over time for 10-13 year olds. Possibilities examined include: the RP decision; trends in the nature of the offence children have been accused of; the increased use of specialist Magistrates in the NSW Children’s Court; and demographics of defendants. RESULTS There is little evidence to suggest that the RP decision had any impact on the volume of court appearances involving a 10-13 year old. However, among 10-13 year olds that NSW Police proceeded against to court, there has been a dramatic decline in the proportion with a proven court outcome; the percent proven fell from 76% in the 2015-16 financial year to 16% in 2022- 23, which temporally coincides with the RP decision. Among the proven matters, the RP decision had no clear impact on the penalty imposed. The decrease in the proportion of proven charges cannot be explained by changes in the types of offences committed by 10-13 year olds (i.e., they are not increasingly committing types of crimes that are harder to prosecute), nor by specialist Magistrates, or the demographic characteristics of individuals proceeded against. The drop in proven matters is, however, linked with prosecutors increasingly withdrawing all charges (growing from 12% to 53% from 2015-16 to 2022-23) and 10-13 year olds pleading guilty less frequently (falling from 54% to 14% from 2015-16 to 2022-23). Similar shifts occurred in Victoria and South Australia. CONCLUSION By stipulating what is required to rebut doli incapax, the 2016 High Court of Australia’s decision RP v R likely reduced the number of young people aged 10-13 found guilty of a criminal offence. 

(Crime and Justice Bulletin No. 268). 

Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research 2025. 38p.

By HM Prison and Probation Service and Ministry of Justice (UK)

Why should the Criminal Justice System be concerned with the mental health of those passing through the system? We know that rates of mental ill-health are high among those who pass through the CJS. Around a third of people11 who find themselves in police custody have some form of mental health difficulty, as do 48 per cent of men and 70 percent of women in prison. Some 38 per cent: of people on probation supervision are recorded as having a mental health issue. But why does this matter? First, because people with a mental illness need and deserve treatment. Entry into the CJS can provide a second chance for people who have been missed by other services to access that treatment and an incentive for them to take up that offer. Second, because mental illness and the symptoms associated with it can trigger criminal behaviour and therefore bring a person into contact with the CJS. Decisions then need to be made on whether a criminal charge is in the public interest or whether an alternative disposal (such as diversion into mental health treatment) would be more appropriate. Third, mental illness, particularly the more severe forms, can affect an individual’s ability to understand and participate in the criminal justice process. They may need additional support to understand the questions put to them during an investigation or at trial or they may lack the mental capacity to plead or stand trial. Fourth, the criminal justice process itself, for example the experience of custody, can have a severe and negative impact on someone’s mental health, particularly if they are already suffering a mental illness. In these circumstances, there is a duty of care to try to mitigate these wherever possible. This includes a duty to reduce the risks of suicide and self-harm, which we know to be high in criminal justice populations. For all these reasons, it is essential that those with a mental health condition or disorder are identified as early as possible in their journey through the CJS, particularly where that problem is severe. Once the mental health issue is identified, information relevant to that issue must be shared between agencies so that appropriate support and treatment can be offered, and the right decisions made at each step of the journey from arrest to sentence and post-sentence supervision in custody or in the community. This inspection, the first on this topic to involve all of the criminal justice inspectorates, and to consider post-sentence supervision, as well as the period leading up to trial, focuses on these critical issues: • Are people with a mental illness identified when they first come into the CJS? • Is this information passed on through the rest of the system from the police and defence lawyers to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the courts or from the courts to the probation and prison services so that the right decisions can be made about next steps? • Are people with a mental illness entering the CJS being properly assessed and then referred for help or treatment where this is identified as necessary? • What is the quality of support they are getting? Is it timely and adequately resourced or are people having to wait many months to get it? • Are the most seriously mentally ill people being looked after in appropriate settings and places of safety, or is custody still having to be used?

Manchester, UK: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation November 2021 117p.

By Saba Kassa

Politics matters for the success of anti-corruption and asset recovery efforts. This report discusses the political and governance factors that affect the performance of the justice system in relation to anti-corruption and asset recovery. It also provides guidance on assessing these factors systematically with the goal of developing adaptive strategies to strengthen the justice chain in line with changing contexts. The Assessment and Monitoring Framework presented here is a state-of-the-art methodology to think and work politically to strengthen rule of law systems. It draws on the experience and insights of ICAR staff working with anti-corruption institutions across the globe. It responds to a gap in the existing toolbox of anti-corruption practitioners, given that existing political economy methodologies have not sufficiently focused on the contextual factors that impinge on the performance effectiveness of the different anti-corruption institutions constituting the justice chain.

Working Paper 52,

Basel, SWIT: Basel Institute on Governance, 2024. 24p.

By Jonathan Fisher

. At its most simple, the disclosure of unused material is the process whereby information gathered during an investigation is passed from the prosecution to the defence. The information disclosed should assist the defence in arguing the most compelling version of their case. The obligation placed upon the prosecution to disclose certain pertinent material acts as an essential safeguard. We have learnt through bitter experience that disclosure errors, whether deliberate or through negligence, can lead to cases collapsing or worse, a miscarriage of justice. Such events are lamentable and erode the public’s trust in the criminal justice system.. When in the autumn of 1981 I started practice at the Bar, my Opinions, Advices and Pleadings were written in manuscript or dictated into a hand-held tape-recording machine. They were then typed by a professional typist, using an Imperial typewriter with carbon paper to produce a copy. Similarly, most business records were kept on paper and retained manually in files. Rules regarding disclosure of unused material generated in a criminal investigation were governed by the innate fairness of the common law which required a prosecutor to pass information to a defendant where the material assisted the defence case.. Fifteen years later, it was recognised that a more sophisticated approach to disclosure was required. This followed a series of cases in which failure to disclose information to a defendant was responsible for some grievous miscarriages of justice. At the same time, reliance on documentary evidence and expert witness testimony increased. When the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA)1 was enacted, the new statutory based rules of disclosure were regarded as state of the art, providing a sound foundation for criminal trials to proceed on a sure footing in the new millennium. Since then, the technological revolution has brought radical changes in work practices, and the position now looks rather different. Nearly 30 years have passed since the CPIA was enacted. At that time, internet connections were typically made via dial-up modems, with downloading speeds sufficient for basic web browsing and email, but little more. As technology improved and information could be stored electronically, the volume of unused material generated in a criminal investigation grew exponentially. This development occurred against a background in which the CPIA did not directly address the way in which digital information should be reviewed by a prosecutor and made available to a defendant when the test for disclosure of unused material was satisfied. Concern regarding the operation of this process is the reason why previous Reviews were established. Yet the world has not stood still since the last Independent Review on this subject over a decade ago. Indeed, society in the United Kingdom continues to embrace technological advancements, including artificial intelligence, in many aspects of our lives. Furthermore, the very nature of criminal offending, as it has done throughout history, continues to evolve, taking advantage of new online enablers. The rise in digital material across the whole gamut of criminal cases, and its implications for the disclosure regime, is the very reason why I was tasked to consider, once again, whether the regime is fit for the modern age. Today, the largest investigation case on the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) system has 48 million documents (6.5 terabytes of data). With this volume of digital material, it is inconceivable that the totality of unused material generated in the investigation can be accurately reviewed and scheduled by investigating officers manually, in the traditional way. It is also a gross waste of resource for investigating officers to spend time on banal and unproductive activity. Electronic material has become commonplace in even the smallest of cases. Body camera material features (or should feature) in every case where a motorist is stopped by the police, and it is estimated that on average there are 7.4 digital devices in every home. Each of these devices can retain thousands of pieces of information which might be relevant to a prosecutor or defendant in a criminal case.

London: Home Office, 2025. 224p.

By Oscar Solórzano

This Working Paper explores the wide variety of non-conviction based (NCB) forfeiture laws in Latin America, with a special focus on the region’s predominant model, Extinción de dominio.

It argues that NCB forfeiture legislation, which allows for the recovery of stolen assets outside of criminal proceedings, can contribute significantly to a state’s criminal policy response to rampant economic and organised crime.

The paper emphasises the importance of critically reviewing and harmonising domestic practices of NCB forfeiture around emerging standards, so that they can reach their large potential in asset recovery. Ensuring their alignment with international human rights and other recognised norms and procedural rules ultimately builds trust, lends legitimacy and fosters judicial cooperation in international NCB forfeiture cases.

Working paper 54.

Basel, SWIT: Basel Institute on Governance, 2024. 61p.