By Catalina Franco Buitrago, David J. Harding, Shawn D. Bushway, and Jeffrey D. Morenoff

We find that people involved in low-level crime receiving a prison sentence are more likely than those with non-prison sentences to be re-imprisoned due to technical violations of parole, rather than due to new crimes. We identify the extent and cost of this incapacitation effect among individuals with similar criminal histories using exogenous variation in sentence type from discontinuities in Michigan Sentencing Guidelines. Technical violations disproportionately affect drug users and those first arrested as juveniles. Higher re-imprisonment adds one-quarter to the original sentence’s incapacitation days while only preventing low-severity crime, suggesting that prison is cost-ineffective for individuals on the margin.

NHH Dept. of Economics Discussion Paper No. 03/2022, 79p.

By Naomi Delap and Liz Hogarth,

Our justice system, designed for men, is not working for women. Our prisons are full of trauma: over 60 per cent of women in prison have experienced domestic violence and more than half have experienced abuse as a child. Our prisons are bad at rehabilitating and deterring women from further offending; instead, they actively harm them and their children. Racially minoritised women are further disadvantaged: overrepresented at every point in the system and more likely than white women to be remanded and receive a sentence in the Crown Court. The human and financial cost of the system’s failure is significant.

The Labour government has announced a bold approach to respond to these issues. The creation of a Women’s Justice Board and its new strategy will, it is stated, reduce the number of women in prison and tackle the root causes of women’s offending by driving early intervention, diversion and alternatives to custody. If these outcomes are achieved, there will be less crime and fewer victims; and women, their families and their communities will benefit.

This new direction is a cause for celebration. If the initiative is to work, however, it is imperative we learn from the lessons of the past in order to avoid making the same mistakes; and look to other models for solutions in order to deliver, finally, a justice system that works for women.

London; Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, 2025. 24p.

By Kristine Denman and Ella Siegrist  

The New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center received funding from the Bureau of Justice Statistics to complete a multi-phase study assessing New Mexico’s bail reform efforts. The current report examines the impact of bail reform in six New Mexico counties. This study first explores the use and amount of bond judges ordered as recorded in criminal court cases where conditions of release were set, using data from the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). The data includes cases disposed between 2015 and 2019, and consists of misdemeanor and felony cases, both pretrial and post-disposition. Second, using data from New Mexico county detention centers and the AOC, the study explores the impact of bail reform among defendants booked between 2015 and 2019 for a new felony offense. This allows us to examine the impact of bail reform on pretrial practices among felony defendants—the target of New Mexico’s constitutional amendment on bail reform. Specifically, the study examines four outcomes: pretrial detention practices, the use of bond, failure/success rates among those released pretrial; and court efficiency. By analyzing pre- and post- bail reform data, we found that the amendment has been successful in reducing the average amount of bond ordered and the frequency with which it is ordered. Judges, however, ordered temporary no-bond holds when issuing a warrant for arrest more frequently after bail reform. Overall, defendants involved in new felony cases were detained for a shorter period of time. However, this was not true across the board: a slightly greater percentage were subject to a short period of detention (rather than immediate release), and those detained during the entire pretrial period spent more time in jail post-reform. During the pretrial period, new violent offenses increased slightly by 2%; new offenses overall increased by 1%. Failures to appear were more common after bail reform, with a 5% increase, but this varied significantly by county. In general, time to case resolution decreased post-bail reform, though cases involving defendants detained the entire pretrial period took slightly longer to resolve. 

Albuquerque: New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center   2022. 57p.

By Daniel Loehr

They are widely understood to have emerged from the “tough-on-crime” movement in the 1980s and 1990s. During this time period, a number of states passed these laws, often in the form of “Three Strikes and You’re Out” laws, which require judges to impose life sentences for third convictions for certain offenses. Washington state passed such a law in 1993, California amended a prior version of its law in 1994 adding a number of violent and non-violent crimes that would qualify for life sentences, and the federal government included a three strikes law in the 1994 Crime Bill. Despite these prominent examples of “habitual offender” laws enacted during this time period, the origination of these laws extends back much further. “Habitual offender” laws first spread across the country in the early 1900s as part of the eugenics movement, which grew in the 1880s and reached its peak in the 1920s. The aim of the eugenics movement was to create a superior race in order to address social problems such as crime and disease, which the movement assumed had a biological basis. Applying pseudoscience, laws and policies were created to prevent those who were deemed inferior, such as the mentally ill, those convicted of criminal offenses, or the physically frail, from reproducing. Eugenics and racism are deeply entwined, and the “projects” of eugenics supported “racial nationalism and racial purity.” One example of the relationship between race and eugenics is found in Nazi Germany, where "Nazi planners appropriated and incorporated eugenics as they implemented racial policy and genocide.  

The report reveals that many of the United States’ “habitual offender” laws, are rooted in eugenics – a widely discredited theory once deployed by Nazis during World War II, that humans can be improved through selective breeding of populations, deeming certain groups as inferior and inhibiting their ability to reproduce. “Habitual offender” laws first spread across the United States in the early 1900s as part of the eugenics movement, and many endure today in 49 states and the federal government.    

American eugenicists promoted “habitual offender” laws – laws that impose longer sentences based on an individual's past convictions – because they believed that certain people who committed crimes were genetically predestined to commit those crimes and could spread their criminality to their children. Although the country shifted away from eugenics after World War II, states like California continue to enforce “habitual offender” sentencing laws that emerged from the eugenics movement.

The report provides a list of current “habitual offender” laws in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government and highlights the eugenic principles used to advocate and pass these laws in states like California, Vermont, and Colorado. 

• California’s “Three Strikes and You’re Out” law results in life sentences for offenses that typically would not warrant such extreme punishment. The law’s origins can be traced to 1923. Leading up to its passage, California eugenicists called for a sentencing law that would prevent reproduction.

• Colorado’s “habitual offender” law retains the same operative core as its eugenics-era version from 1929. After vetoing the state’s sterilization bill in 1927, Colorado's Governor noted that long-term sentences would be the better option, noting that “the end sought to be reached by the [sterilization] legislation can be obtained by the exercise of careful supervision of the inmates, without invoking the drastic and perhaps unconstitutional provisions of the act.”

• Vermont passed its first “habitual offender” law in 1927. The then-Governor proposed sterilization or long sentences for “habitual criminals” in order to “restrict the propagation of defective children.” That law remains in force today with only minor textual changes. 

The history of "habitual offender" laws in America is deeply rooted in the racist and pseudoscientific eugenics movement which has left a lasting legacy of irreparable harm to Black and brown communities. These laws were never about justice – they were based on exclusion and false, dangerous belief in hereditary criminality. Dismantling "habitual offender" laws is not just a matter of policy – it is a moral imperative.

Washington, DC: Sentencing Project, 2025. 20p.