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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Colleen M. Berryessa

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

By Redden, J., Banks, D.,   

Key Takeaways ¡ AI has the potential to transform many aspects of the court system in the years to come. Although not yet ubiquitous, AI-enabled tools are already being used in various applications relevant to the court system. ¡ AI-enabled tools may address pressing needs within the court system—including managing staffing and resources, processing digital information, improving court operations, managing cases, maintaining accountability, and creating partnerships and collaboration. ¡ AI systems that provide recommendations or predictions in the context of the court system should be approached with caution and evaluated carefully. ¡ Deploying AI-enabled tools effectively requires investing in a strategy for the operational, procedural, and change management efforts required for successful implementation. This technology brief is the third in a four-part series that examines artificial intelligence (AI) applications in the criminal justice system. This brief focuses on AI applications within criminal courts, with particular emphasis on AI’s role in addressing prosecutorial needs. These AI applications and associated needs may also be relevant to other types of courts, such as traffic and civil courts, as well as to other officers of the court—including defense counsel, judges, and court administrators. It also introduces frameworks for evaluating AI applications and highlights critical risks to consider when deploying AI systems. Although many of the examples in this brief have not yet been widely adopted, AI has the potential to address various needs within the court system. Additional briefs include a high-level overview of AI within the criminal justice system and AI topics specifically related to law enforcement and corrections

  The courts play a critical role in the criminal justice system in ensuring the fair and impartial administration of justice for all. As AI becomes more prevalent across society, many criminal justice leaders are asking if AI-enabled technologies can help improve the court system. In other industries, AI has dramatically increased efficiency, expanded capabilities, and automated repetitive or mundane tasks. In the years ahead, AI will likely impact many aspects of the court system, including the prosecution and defense of crimes and the practice of law in both private and public service settings. This brief (1) offers mental models for leaders in the criminal court system to use when evaluating AI applications, (2) presents example AI applications and use cases, and (3) highlights key risk considerations within the criminal courts context.

Criminal Justice Testing (and Evaluation Consortium . 2020. 11p.

By James Redden; Molly O'Donovan Dix

This technology brief is the first in a four-part series that explores artificial intelligence (AI) applications within the criminal justice system. This first brief frames AI, defines common AI terms, and offers a mental model for identifying AI use cases within the criminal justice system. While this brief provides examples of how AI might bring significant benefit to the criminal justice system, it also highlights risks that decision makers should consider when developing or deploying AI tools. Additional briefs provide greater consideration of AI in law enforcement, the criminal courts system, and corrections.   

  Key Takeaways ¡ AI will transform our personal, industrial, commercial, and civil realities in the years to come— enabling and challenging individuals involved in the justice system as well as in criminal activity. ¡ AI tools have the potential to improve efficiency, reduce costs, and expand capabilities across many criminal justice use cases; however, technical feasibility and operational realities need to be considered. ¡ AI systems carry inherent risk that decision makers need to understand. For example, AI technologies raise ethical and civil liberties questions that the criminal justice system and society at large will have to wrestle with in the years ahead. AI will bring changes to nearly every industry over the next decade. In fact, AI is already impacting our daily lives and is being built into the background of many of our daily activities—from facial recognition technologies that unlock our smartphones, to algorithms that recommend movies we might like, to virtual chatbots that handle our customer service inquiries. Forthe criminal justice system, AI presents opportunities along with significant risks. AI tools have the potential to improve efficiency, reduce costs, and expand capabilities across many criminal justice use cases. Yet many criminal justice leaders have misconceptions about the capabilities and the level of investment required to create or deploy AI solutions for specific use cases

Research Triangle Park, NC:RTI International.,   . 

2020. 10p.

By Charlie Brooker, et al.

This study presents the first cross-European investigation into occupational stress and morale among probation staff across member jurisdictions of the Confederation of European Probation (CEP). Using a mixed-method design, data were collected from 357 individual probation officers across 20 European countries and organisational directors from 22 jurisdictions during summer 2025. The Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) was used to assess emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation, and personal accomplishment, while a complementary organisational questionnaire examined structural provisions for staff well-being, including primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention measures. Results revealed moderate levels of burnout across the sample, with mean MBI scores of 21.3 (emotional exhaustion), 6.8 (depersonalisation), and 30.7 (personal accomplishment). Approximately one-third of respondents (34%) were engaged, 32% ineffective, 23% overextended or disengaged, and 12% met the criteria for full burnout. Burnout was most prevalent among staff with high caseloads and longer tenure, but demographic variables such as age and gender were not significant predictors. Organisational analyses identified three national clusters—advanced, emerging, and minimal protection—based on the degree of institutionalisation of staff support systems. Jurisdictions such as Austria, the Netherlands, and Norway demonstrated comprehensive, multi-tiered prevention frameworks, while others relied on informal, ad hoc measures. Cross-mapping of individual and organisational data indicated that higher engagement levels corresponded closely with robust institutional prevention systems. The findings affirm that staff morale in probation work is primarily an organisational outcome rather than an individual trait. Sustainable well-being depends on formalised policies for workload governance, confidential support access, and structured reintegration after burnout. The report concludes that embedding well-being within probation systems’ governance and evaluation frameworks is essential for maintaining professional efficacy, reducing turnover, and safeguarding the rehabilitative function of community corrections across Europe.

Utrecht: Confederation of European Probation, 2025. 32p.

By The Criminal Justice Alliance

Recommendations from the Women’s Justice Reimagined partnership and the APPG on Women Affected by the Criminal Justice System.

Key points • Racial disproportionality underpins deep disparities within the criminal justice system. Radical and systemic change is urgently needed to address this. Antiracist practices must be embedded in the criminal justice system. • Black, Asian, racially minoritised, and migrant women face systemic racism and intersectional discrimination throughout the criminal justice system, including over-policing, harsher sentencing, and limited access to support. • Improved, disaggregated, and publicly available data on race and ethnicity in the criminal justice system is needed. It is essential that this data is disaggregated by gender. Data analysis should use an intersectional lens to capture nuanced identities.• The Women’s Justice Board and policy makers must ensure that women with lived experience have a central role in their work. This must include attention to communication, access barriers, and diverse representation. • Many Black, Asian, racially minoritised, and migrant women in the criminal justice system are victim/survivors of violence against women and girls (VAWG), human trafficking, and trauma. This often underpins their offending, however there is inadequate support. A woman-centred model and improved use of protective legislation are needed to address this. • Women’s offending is often linked to socioeconomic factors and support needs. However, these needs are not addressed within the criminal justice system. Sustainable and ring-fenced funding is needed for culturally competent, trauma-informed, and specialist services.

London: Criminal Justice Alliance, 2025. 15p.