By Virginia Mantouvalou

This article presents the 2024 Report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Slavery, entitled ‘Contemporary Forms of Slavery as Affecting Currently and Formerly Incarcerated People’, and assesses the regime in England and Wales on the basis of the Rapporteur's recommendations. It suggests that the Report is a welcome development for it sheds light on an issue that is not frequently investigated by human rights bodies and institutions and has the potential to influence the development of national, European and international standards in the field. Against this background, this piece argues that prison labour in England and Wales falls short of the standards set out by the Rapporteur. Working prisoners often lack meaningful work opportunities and are excluded from labour rights that other workers have. The issues raised in the Report should be considered and addressed as a matter of urgency for the United Kingdom to comply with its human rights obligations

By Michael Rempel, Krystal Rodriguez, and Kellyann Bock from the Data Collaborative for Justice at John Jay College, and Yonah Zeitz, gabriel sayegh, and Melanie Dominguez from the Katal Center for Equity, Health, & Justice.

The New York City Council established a legal deadline of August 31, 2027 for closing the jails on Rikers Island and building smaller modern jails in the City’s four large boroughs. The replacement jails, when combined with over 300 secure hospital beds for people with serious medical or mental health conditions, will hold a citywide capacity of about 4,200 people on any given day. However, since reaching a low watermark of 3,809 in April 2020, the City’s daily jail population has grown to nearly 7,000—alongside a ballooning sub-population in need of mental health treatment.  Today, Rikers is the largest mental health facility in New York City and among the largest in the country.5 The goals of the current research and policy brief are threefold: 1. Present updated data about the mental health needs of people held in the NYC jails. 2. Reveal the individuals behind these facts through select case studies. 3. Identify a continuum of safe and effective jail diversion strategies for this population. Latest Facts About Mental Health in NYC Jails Currently, close to 7,000 people are held in the City’s jails, of whom 85% have been detained before trial. Black people make up 58% of the jail population, compared to 23% of the City’s general population. In absolute terms, over twice as many Black people as the next highest racial/ ethnic group are in jail while flagging for mental health. ■ Mental Health Prevalence: Over the same 2020-to-2025 timeframe that saw a significant jail increase, overall, the fraction of the jail population receiving mental health services climbed from 44% to 60%, 6 and the fraction diagnosed with a serious mental illness rose from 17% to 22%. 7 The latest health data also indicates that 25% have an opioid use disorder, 30% have an alcohol use disorder, and 28% are homeless or “likely to be homeless” when released,8 a figure that rises to 42% for those with a serious mental illness.9 ■ Medical Conditions: As of September 2025, 28% of people held in jail were diagnosed with lung disease, 15% with cardiovascular disease, 8% with neurologic disease (e.g., epilepsy or stroke history), 6% with diabetes, 4% with hepatitis B or C, 3% with stage 3+ chronic kidney isease, 3% with HIV/AIDS, and 1% with a malignancy.10 ■ Missed Appointments: In September 2025, there were 15,823 missed medical appointments compared to 3,626 in September 2020.11 A recent monitors’ report indicated that from July to September 2024, people were produced for only 53% of scheduled mental health appointments and 77% of reentry planning appointments.12 ■ Disproportionate Gender Impact: Of close to 500 women jailed at Rikers as of October 2025, 87% have needed mental health services, compared to 58% of men.13 ■ Disproportionate Length of Stay: On average, as of October 31, 2025, people in the latest jail population needing mental health services had been held for 281 days, compared to 212 days for people not needing such services. Controlling for people’s background characteristics, a recent analysis found that flagging for mental health within ten days of jail intake predicted a total length of stay 34 days longer than people who never flagged.

By the staff of Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff and Republican Rep. Jen Kiggans

U.S. Senator Jon Ossoff of Georgia and Representative Jen Kiggans of Virginia have launched a bipartisan investigation into the incarceration of children with mental health conditions in juvenile detention facilities (“facilities”)—centers designed to detain children charged with or sentenced for delinquent offenses—across the United States. As part of this investigation, beginning in May 2024, Sen. Ossoff and Rep. Kiggans surveyed facilities about what circumstances lead to the prolonged detention of children with mental health conditions and children who have not been charged with offenses. In survey responses, 75 facilities across 25 states reported incarcerating children who could be eligible for release to mental health care programs outside the facility but remained incarcerated because the care they needed was not yet available. More than half of these facilities reported incarcerating children in these circumstances for at least one month, and some reported incarcerating children in these circumstances for up to a year. Facilities reported incarcerating children who are on the autism spectrum, who have general neurodevelopmental issues, or who engage in severe self-harm, who could be eligible for release to an external program or health facility. One facility in North Dakota reported that children “with neurodevelopmental issues sometimes are held the longest, while waiting on forensic evaluations of competency.” Twenty responding facilities in 13 states reported incarcerating children either with no charges or with charges that would not ordinarily lead to placement in juvenile detention. Many of these facilities reported incarcerating these children because they needed mental health services outside of the facility that were not yet available or needed mental health care available at the facility and not outside. One facility reported that, in the year before the survey was administered, it held as many as 29 children without charges or with charges that would not ordinarily lead to detention due to a lack of available offsite mental health care. Another facility reported that, in the year before the survey was administered, it held 10 children in these circumstances solely so that they could access internal mental health services not available outside the facility. Another reported incarcerating children in these circumstances for more than a year due to lack of offsite mental health care. Six facilities reported incarcerating children beyond their expected release dates after their charges were dropped or sentences completed, due to lack of available offsite mental health care. One facility reported that it had held roughly 50 children under these circumstances in the year before the survey was administered alone.According to experts in pediatric care, incarcerated children have high rates of physical, mental health and developmental needs that may be undiagnosed or under-addressed in custodial facilities. Incarcerated children also face limited access to evidence-based medical care and a lack of educational opportunities. Other experts warn that incarcerating children can cause adverse lifelong medical and mental health outcomes including higher rates of depression, and suicidality.

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 Ram Subramanian, Lauren-Brooke Eisen, Josephine Wonsun Hahn, Jinmook Kang, Ava Kaufman, and Brianna Seid

Most Americans don’t know what it’s like inside the United States’ 1,664 state and federal prisons. Yet even those who believe the primary purpose of incarceration is to deter crime or to inflict punishment expect that people returning home from prison should be ready to be productive, law-abiding members of their communities. Indeed, a 2025 Brennan Center poll found that more than 80 percent of likely voters think that formerly incarcerated people deserve a second chance and can be prepared to reenter society through rehabilitative, educational, or vocational programs.

Some correctional leaders are recognizing this and implementing innovative programs to set incarcerated people up for success. These reforms improve conditions for the people who live and work in prisons and, if adopted more widely, could also improve public safety.

But most prisons rarely offer such opportunities. Life behind bars is marked by social and physical isolation and punctuated by violence and brutality. People who have regular contact with U.S. prisons — law enforcement officers, correctional staff, lawyers, academics, nonprofit leaders, volunteers, and of course those who have been incarcerated and their loved ones — have referred to them as “warehouses that degrade and brutalize” and places where people have been “thrown away.” Judges have described the conditions in some U.S. prisons as objectively inhumane, with one saying such conditions have “no place in civilized society.” As of February 2026, the Department of Justice had 43 open investigations into jails, prisons, or entire state correctional systems for constitutional violations relating to physical and sexual violence, sanitation problems, staffing deficiencies, inadequate medical and psychiatric care, overuse of solitary confinement, and crowding.6 And as the Correctional Leaders Association has noted, the people who work in these systems suffer themselves.

By Brandon E. Beck

Beginning in the early 1990s, the Executive Branch began an era of enforcement of federal firearms crime that was different in kind and degree from the prior seventy-five years. The federal crime policies of the 1990s and 2000s led to a significant increase both in the total number of federal firearms prosecutions and in how often mandatoryminimum statutes were charged. But later, in the 2010s and 2020s, there were times when the number of firearms prosecutions stabilized, and the number of mandatory-minimum sentences decreased. This Article seeks to use federal firearms prosecutions, in this era of enforcement, as a lens through which to create a conceptual framework for thinking about Executive Branch crime policy. Specifically, it identifies and explores five essential ingredients of any effective “war on crime.” Then, and perhaps more importantly, it identifies and explores three countervailing ingredients that have shown promise in slowing or even stopping aspects of a war on crime. Its goal is to create definitional and conceptual touchstones through which to discuss¾and critique¾federal crime policy. Aspirationally, this Article will prove helpful not only to criminal and constitutional law academia but also to policymakers and reform advocates. It also carries a unique relevance as we enter the final stretch of a presidential campaign cycle, with two candidates who likely hold contrasting views on crime policy, reform efforts, and the mission of the Department of Justice.

By Rosa Gibson

In Alaska, pretrial detainees comprise much of the state’s prison population. Electronic monitoring—made possible by recent bail reforms—provides a pathway to pretrial release for those who cannot afford to pay bail. Using GPS data, the Pretrial Enforcement Division can monitor the location of a releasee’s ankle monitor for supervisory purposes. But when law enforcement seeks warrantless access to that data to investigate crimes other than the one for which a releasee is awaiting trial, that intrusion raises concerns under Alaska’s constitutional right to privacy. This Note argues that the Alaska judiciary, which is best positioned to guard the privacy of pretrial releasees in this area, should treat warrantless searches of this type as per se unreasonable, absent narrow exceptions. This Note posits that a reverse location search of pretrial electronic monitoring data for general investigative purposes constitutes a “search” under both the U.S. and Alaska Constitutions. Through the contextualization of Alaska’s use of electronic monitoring, analysis of the impact of Alaska’s constitutional right to privacy on the search inquiry, and analogy to the constitutionally suspect geofence search, this Note demonstrates that requiring a warrant for this data for investigative purposes is consistent with Alaska’s search-and-seizure jurisprudence. Acknowledging the inherent tradeoffs involved in pretrial release, this Note strives to establish a workable middle ground where law enforcement can access sophisticated tools in the interest of public safety without abandoning the privacy values the Alaskan people have enshrined in their constitution.

By Jennifer Smith and Jeremiah Bourgeois

The criminal justice system is centered around three major participants: a prosecutor, a defense attorney, and a defendant. Each plays a role in the ensuing adversarial process, and each has their own perceptual lenses and interests. The prosecutor, for instance, seeks a conviction and focuses more on evidence of guilt than on innocence. The defense attorney endeavors to bring about a verdict of not guilty or a favorable plea rather than seeking to promote public safety. As for the defendant, he often cannot perceive the factors that led to his criminality, and he has neither the insight nor the will necessary to change his life’s trajectory. After sentencing, the criminal justice system in Washington State provides very few mechanisms for any of these participants to undo the result, even after decades have passed.2A prosecutor, who “has the Jennifer Smith Jeremiah Bourgeoisresponsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate,”  may later come to question the fairness of the sentence. However, until 2020, prosecutors lacked the power to reduce the term of confinement. A defense attorney may belatedly find mitigating evidence, but procedural rules foreclose the opportunity to have the defendant resentenced.As for a defendant who underwent an incredible transformation after a substantial period of confinement, the only hope for an early release is the unlikely possibility of a sentence commutation. The absence of an effective means to undo injustice has long been the status quo of punishment in the State of Washington.

By Ohioans To Stop Executions

Ohio’s cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment sys­tem has come into sharp focus with the release of two reports that exam­ine four decades of the state’s death penal­ty record and draw stark­ly dif­fer­ent con­clu­sions about the future of Ohio’s death penal­ty. On March 30, Ohioans to Stop Executions (OTSE) pub­lished Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Confronting the Wrongful Conviction Crisis in the State of Ohio, doc­u­ment­ing the record of mis­takes and errors that result­ed in 12 exon­er­a­tions. “The death penal­ty in Ohio is a sys­tem defined more by its capac­i­ty for error than its pur­suit of jus­tice,” the report states, con­clud­ing, “It’s time for Ohio to end its death penal­ty.” Two days lat­er, out­go­ing Attorney General Dave Yost released his eighth and final Capital Crimes Report, call­ing the state’s years-long pause on exe­cu­tions “a mock­ery of the jus­tice sys­tem” and com­plain­ing that Ohio has pro­vid­ed death-sen­tenced pris­on­ers with “more than their fair share of due process.” AG Yost urges law­mak­ers to pass leg­is­la­tion that would allow exe­cu­tions to resume.

Beyond Reasonable Doubt cen­ters on data OTSE argues Ohioans can no longer ignore: since the state rein­stat­ed cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment in 1981, it has exe­cut­ed 56 peo­ple and exon­er­at­ed 12 oth­ers from death row — mark­ing one exon­er­a­tion for every five exe­cu­tions car­ried out. Collectively, OTSE notes that these 12 men lost 245 years of their lives to wrong­ful impris­on­ment. “It turns out that Ohio has a mas­sive wrong­ful con­vic­tion prob­lem, far worse than any­one imag­ined,” said Kevin Werner, Executive Director of OTSE. Mr. Werner added that “[a]ttempts to restart exe­cu­tions will result in the exe­cu­tions of inno­cent peo­ple, and no one wants that.”

In addi­tion to the 12 indi­vid­u­als who have been wrong­ful­ly sen­tenced to death, Beyond Reasonable Doubt iden­ti­fies an addi­tion­al 12 “shad­ow exon­er­a­tions,” or cas­es in which indi­vid­u­als faced cap­i­tal indict­ments and were sen­tenced to life in prison rather than death and were lat­er proven inno­cent. The same issues are present in both groups of 12 cas­es: pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al mis­con­duct, coerced tes­ti­mo­ny, false eye­wit­ness iden­ti­fi­ca­tions, and false or mis­lead­ing foren­sic evi­dence. “The records of the 24 men exon­er­at­ed after cap­i­tal indict­ments are no ‘suc­cess sto­ries’ of the legal sys­tem; they are indict­ments of it,” the report states. “They prove that in Ohio, the dif­fer­ence between a free man and a dead man is often noth­ing more than a lucky pub­lic records request or the per­sis­tence of postconviction counsel.”

By Pierfrancesco Moscuzza

Over the last two decades, Mexico has experienced a substantial increase in violence and insecurity, leading to its classification as one of the world's less secure countries. While the origins of this insecurity can be traced back to Mexico's turbulent history, the current surge in violence is a more recent development, primarily stemming from a lack of regional and national coordination among government entities and their respective security agencies. This chapter seeks to delve into the complexities of the Mexican security problem, offering an exploration of its historical context. Additionally, through a comparative analysis with the Italian case, where organized crime posed a significant threat to national security, this chapter aims to propose a set of comprehensive strategies to mitigate the impact of violence and insecurity on both the population and the country's overall development.

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.

With a focus on discriminatory and ethnic profiling.

By Anna Öström, Lars Lewenhagen, Emma Patel and Sara Jonsson

This is a complex subject to study. To address the questions in the study, Brå has therefore used several different types of data and methodological approaches, both qualitative and quantitative. One important contribution is the large number of interviews and conversations held with managers at different levels within the organisation, and with police officers on patrol duty. Significant parts of the report are thus based on what employees at both strategic and operational levels deem to be important in the work in connection with profiling and equal treatment.

The study has a particular focus on discriminatory ethnic profiling, which involves the police relying solely or primarily on an individual’s ethnic origin when assessing who they check or suspect of crimes. The profiling work examined in this study mainly relates to suspected drug offences. This is a typical search and intervention offence in which the police have a relatively wide scope for action

English summary of Brå report 2023:12

By M. D. Vattel. Introduction by Graeme R. Newman

A foundational work of international law, still resonant today.

First published in the eighteenth century and issued in authoritative English editions throughout the nineteenth, The Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel shaped how statesmen, jurists, and diplomats understood the rights and duties of sovereign powers. In this monumental treatise, Vattel applies the principles of natural law to the real conduct of nations, addressing war and peace, treaties and alliances, commerce and neutrality, diplomacy, and the limits of lawful power.

Rejecting both utopian idealism and brute realpolitik, Vattel argues that true national interest is inseparable from justice, restraint, and respect for sovereignty. Nations, like individuals, are bound by moral obligations arising from their coexistence in a shared international society. His careful analysis of war, intervention, and treaty obligations established enduring standards that influenced constitutional debates, foreign policy doctrine, and the development of modern international law.

This edition preserves a work that continues to illuminate contemporary conflicts and global challenges. Clear-eyed, systematic, and profoundly influential, The Law of Nations remains essential reading for anyone seeking to understand how lawful order, moral principle, and power intersect in the affairs of nations.

The theses advanced in The Law of Nations remain strikingly relevant to contemporary international disputes, particularly those involving intervention, recognition of governments, and claims of humanitarian necessity. Vattel’s insistence on sovereignty as the cornerstone of international order places clear limits on the legitimacy of external interference in the internal affairs of states. While he allows that extreme cases—such as manifest tyranny threatening the very existence of a people—may raise difficult moral questions, he consistently warns that powerful states are prone to disguise ambition and interest under the language of justice.

This caution is especially pertinent when considering recent controversies surrounding efforts by the United States to promote regime change in Venezuela, including diplomatic, economic, and political measures aimed at displacing the government of Nicolás Maduro. From a Vattelian perspective, such actions raise fundamental questions about lawful authority, the limits of collective judgment, and the distinction between moral condemnation and legal right. Vattel argues that no nation may unilaterally assume the role of judge over another sovereign without undermining the mutual independence on which international society depends. To do so, he suggests, risks converting international law into a mere instrument of power.

At the same time, Vattel’s framework does not deny the reality of gross misrule or humanitarian suffering. Rather, it demands rigorous scrutiny of motives and means. Economic coercion, diplomatic isolation, and recognition of alternative authorities would, in his analysis, need to be justified not by ideological preference or strategic advantage, but by clear evidence that such measures genuinely serve the common good of nations and do not erode the general security of the international system. His emphasis on proportionality, necessity, and respect for established sovereignty stands in tension with modern practices of intervention that rely on contested doctrines of legitimacy.

Viewed through this lens, contemporary debates over Venezuela illustrate the enduring force of Vattel’s central warning: that the stability of international relations depends less on the moral claims of individual powers than on shared restraint. His work reminds modern readers that the erosion of sovereignty in one case—however rhetorically justified—sets precedents that may ultimately weaken the legal protections upon which all nations, strong and weak alike, rely.

P.H. Nicklitn etc. Philadelphia. 1829. Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2026 p.424.

By Sheldon Glueck (Author), Graeme Newman (Introduction)

Sheldon Glueck’s Probation and Criminal Justice (1931), a collection of papers from world wide experts, stands as one of the earliest systematic examinations of probation within the American penal system. Published at a time when probation was still consolidating its place as a regularized judicial practice, the book sought both to describe the institution as it existed and to evaluate its possibilities as a rational and humane alternative to imprisonment. Glueck, already well known as a criminologist and later famed for his longitudinal studies on criminal careers, approached probation with the same empirical rigor and critical balance that defined his scholarship.
The work provides a historical account of probation’s origins, tracing its roots to the nineteenth-century innovations of John Augustus in Boston, and situates its emergence within the broader reform movements of the Progressive Era. By the early 1930s, probation had spread widely across American jurisdictions, yet it lacked the uniformity, resources, and professional standards necessary for consistent success. Glueck’s central argument was therefore twofold: probation held genuine promise as an instrument of rehabilitation and social reintegration, but its potential could only be realized through careful administration, adequately trained personnel, and an honest reckoning with its limitations.
To read Probation and Criminal Justice today is to encounter both a historical document and a surprisingly contemporary critique. The themes Glueck emphasized—the professionalization of probation officers, the dangers of excessive caseloads, the necessity of balancing rehabilitation with accountability—are still at the heart of debates over community supervision. The persistence of these concerns is a testament both to the enduring complexity of probation as a penal tool and to the prescience of Glueck’s analysis.
In this sense, the book is more than a relic of early twentieth-century criminology. It is a reminder that penal reform, however well intentioned, remains fragile unless supported by adequate resources, clear objectives, and sustained public commitment. Probation has advanced since Glueck’s time in terms of reach, sophistication, and legitimacy, yet the paradoxes he identified continue to shape its practice.
For scholars, practitioners, and students of criminal justice, this volume offers not only a window into the early years of probation but also a mirror reflecting ongoing challenges in community-based corrections. Glueck’s careful and critical study thus retains its relevance: a classic text that still speaks to the unfinished project of building a fair, effective, and humane system of criminal justice.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2025. 211 p.

By Paul Guerin

This study reviews felony court cases in the Second Judicial District Court with a Public Safety Assessment (PSA) and a pretrial detention (PTD) motion filed between July 2017 and June 2023. The dataset of 6,698 cases includes court data and jail data that is used to study the cases from the filing of the case to the court disposition. It is important to note this review includes the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic likely had some impact on case filings, time to case dispositions, and jails admissions and lengths of stay. This review found that a slightly higher percent of court cases on which a preventive detention motion was filed was granted compared to denied motions. The study confirms other research that cases with higher FTA and NCA scores are more likely to have granted motions and that motions were most likely to be filed on cases with violent charges. We found 55% of closed cases had a conviction and were sentenced and that 43.5% were dismissed or nolled and so did not result in a conviction. Cases with denied preventive detention motions spent few days in the MDC regardless of their disposition. Cases with a granted motion that were eventually dismissed or nolled spent slightly more than 120 days in the MDC and a similar number of days in the court system. Dismissals and nolles occur at the case level for a variety of reasons including uncooperative witnesses, lack of probable cause, and because some cases might be refiled in the Federal court system. Various criminal justice system level reasons may also exist. This includes the volume of crime and arrests with resulting court case filings, the complexity of cases, and staffing among the various agencies. This preliminary review of preventive detention motion cases in the Second Judicial District Court is the first of its kind to report on the disposition of cases with a preventive detention motion. In the future more sophisticated and detailed analyses and reporting could occur that further detail the relationship between PSA scores, preventive detention motions and results, and court case dispositions.

Albuquerque: Center for Applied Research and Analysis, Institute for Social Research, University of New Mexico , 2024. 13p.

By Alex Severson,  Elise Ferguson,  Cris Moore, Paul Guerin, 

This study analyzes the costs and benefits of pretrial detention in Bernalillo County, New Mexico, examining 16,500 felony cases filed between January 2017 and March 2022. The analysis evaluates the relationship between pretrial detention length and failure outcomes, including failure to appear (FTA), new criminal activity (NCA), and new violent criminal activity (NVCA), both during the pretrial period and post-disposition. The study found that longer detention periods (8-30 days) were associated with significantly higher odds of pretrial failure compared to shorter stays, particularly for failure to appear, though this relationship varied by demographic groups. For post-disposition outcomes, moderate detention lengths (4-30 days) were associated with increased odds of general recidivism but decreased odds of violent recidivism. Using marginal cost estimates rather than average daily jail costs, we estimate that reducing detention length to two days for eligible low-risk defendants who did not fail pretrial could yield cost savings of approximately $259,722 annually. The study contributes to ongoing debates about pretrial detention policies by demonstrating that extended detention periods may increase certain failure rates while generating substantial system costs. However, the analysis notes important limitations, including inability to fully control for post-disposition sentencing outcomes and the challenge of establishing causal relationships between detention length and failure rates. 

Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, Institute for Social Research, 2024.40p.

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 Joanna R. Lampe

Federal law generally prohibits the production, distribution, and possession of marijuana for both medical
and recreational purposes. In April 2024, news outlets reported that the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA) planned to change the status of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) by moving
it from Schedule I to the less restrictive Schedule III. Such a move would relax some controls over
marijuana but would not immediately legalize medical or recreational use of marijuana under the CSA.
Notwithstanding the strict federal control of marijuana, in recent years, many states have repealed state
law criminal prohibitions on some marijuana-related activities, and medical and recreational cannabis
businesses now operate openly in some parts of the United States.
In response to the disparity between state and federal law, Congress has enacted appropriations legislation
prohibiting the Department of Justice (DOJ) from expending appropriated funds to prevent states from
implementing their own medical marijuana laws. Federal courts have interpreted the appropriations rider
to prohibit DOJ from bringing criminal drug prosecutions against certain persons and entities involved in
the state-legal medical marijuana industry, but they have differed as to the scope of conduct the rider
shields from prosecution.
This Legal Sidebar first outlines the legal status of marijuana under federal and state law. It then discusses
the medical marijuana appropriations rider and analyzes how federal courts have interpreted the
provision. The Sidebar closes with key considerations for Congress related to the appropriations rider and
the disparity between federal and state marijuana policy more generally.
Federal and State Marijuana Regulation
The plant Cannabis sativa L. and products derived from that plant have a number of uses and may be
subject to several overlapping legal regimes. In recent years, a significant divide has developed between
federal and state marijuana laws. On the federal side, the CSA imposes stringent regulations on the
cannabis plant and many of its derivatives. Activities involving controlled substances not authorized
under the CSA are federal crimes that may give rise to large fines and significant prison sentences.
Unless an exception applies, the CSA classifies cannabis and its derivatives as marijuana. Congress
classified marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance when it enacted the CSA, reflecting a legislative

Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2024. 5p.

By Megan Comfort, Jenn Rineer, Elizabeth Tibaduiza, and Monica Sheppard

The “pretrial process” refers to the events that happen between the time that one is suspected by law enforcement of violating the law and the time that charges are dismissed, the case is otherwise resolved, or the trial process begins. During the pretrial period, people are considered innocent under the law. The U.S. Supreme Court1 has stated, “In our society, liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception.” The only two constitutionally valid reasons for holding someone in jail during the pretrial period are (1) to prevent flight or (2) to prevent harm to people in the community. Judges make decisions every day about whether to detain or release people going through the pretrial process, as well as about what conditions of release may be needed to help people succeed. Pretrial release assessments are designed to inform their decisions. Unlike assessments that involve a clinician or other professional drawing on their subjective expertise to make a recommendation, actuarial pretrial release assessmentsa rely on mathematical processes. Using large data sets with information about people who previously went through the pretrial process, researchers identify factors related to appearing for court hearings and not being arrested again if released. The researchers then create a sequence of instructions for a computer to follow (called an algorithm) that uses these factors to calculate an estimated likelihood that a person will appear in court and remain arrest free while their case is being resolved. This calculation—referred to as a “score”—is provided to the judge as information to consider when making decisions about pretrial release. A person’s score is also often provided as information to other courtroom actors, such as prosecutors, defense attorneys, and pretrial services officers. When thinking about actuarial pretrial release assessments, it is important to understand the history of the criminal legal system in the United States, which is deeply rooted in the legacy of slavery. Read Race and the Criminal Justice System2 by the Equal Justice Initiative to learn more. No actuarial pretrial release assessment tool or instrument is considered standard. Numerous assessments have been developed, and they vary in terms of the factors and instructions entered in the algorithm. Some use factors that are available through criminal legal system records, such as whether someone has been arrested before or has previously missed a court date. Others include factors like whether someone has a job, is enrolled in a substance use treatment program, or has a place to live. This information is usually obtained by talking with the person who has been arrested. At the time of this writing, pretrial release assessments use algorithms that are created by humans as opposed to ones that are generated by machine learning or artificial intelligence (AI). It is possible that future assessments will rely on AI, which would raise a different set of issues to consider. The use of actuarial pretrial release assessments is growing across the United States. Often, they are an element of broader system change aimed at reducing or eliminating the use of cash bonds, which require people to post money to be released from jail. Judges may consider the actuarial pretrial release assessment score when deciding what conditions of release—for instance, electronic monitoring or mandatory check-ins with pretrial services—are appropriate for a person. In systems that retain money bond as a potential release condition, assessments are sometimes used to inform decisions about bond amounts, but the impact on release is lessened if people remain in jail because they cannot afford to pay their way out. Judges may also use the score as part of their decision about whether to keep someone in jail or release them while their case is pending

APPR Research Brief, April 2024. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International, 2024. 5p.