By The Center for Justice Innovation

In May 2024, the New York State Unified Court System, with the Center for Justice Innovation (the Center), and in partnership with the Office of the Governor of the State of New York, launched the Family Justice Initiative: Court and Community Collaboration (FJI or the Initiative). Building on the reports and analyses that have documented statewide challenges across all case types in Family Court to date, the Initiative seeks to forge a fair, equitable, and sustainable path forward for the Court and its system partners to better serve all New Yorkers. The Initiative is solutions-focused, prioritizes areas for improvement, identifies promising programs, and explores new ideas to strengthen families, reduce unnecessary system involvement, and break intergenerational cycles of trauma. The Center’s role is to support a strategic planning process to develop a broad vision for what makes an effective family-serving system, as well as a comprehensive plan to support that vision. The goal for the initial phase was to begin to develop a shared vision and objectives for the Initiative and identify concrete solutions ready for immediate implementation. This report lays out the values and goals articulated by Initiative partners to date, and the specific recommendations that emerged from extensive discussions facilitated across New York State in the first phase of the project. It also provides a preview of the next phase of work, which will include the development of working groups to pursue longer-term areas for improvement while continuing to identify concrete opportunities for investment along the way.   

New York: Center for Justice Innovation, 2025. 31p.

By Sarah Picard, Leah Nelson, Rae Walker, Ellie Wilson

Every year, courts across the United States impose millions of dollars in fines, fees, and restitution charges on people adjudicated guilty of traffic violations, misdemeanors, and felonies. In theory, these assessments are intended to punish and deter unlawful behavior and compensate victims for financial losses incurred as the result of a crime. Despite their near ubiquitous use in criminal legal systems throughout the country, there is surprisingly little evidence that these financial penalties and assessments, collectively known as legal financial obligations (LFOs), deter criminal conduct, enhance public safety, or result in victims being compensated for their losses. In fact, some analyses indicate excessive fines and fees can have detrimental effects, eroding community trust in law enforcement, exacerbating hardships faced by individuals and families, undermining public safety and court legitimacy, and saddling community members with debt many will never be able to pay.

The Jefferson County Equitable Fines and Fees (JEFF) Project—a research–practice partnership among MDRC, the Alabama Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and the Tenth Judicial Circuit Court of Alabama—uses five years of longitudinal, case-level data and qualitative research to explore how Alabama’s fines and fees system plays out in Jefferson County, Alabama. This brief presents early results from analysis of the quantitative data collected. 

The preliminary findings highlight inequities in how LFOs are assessed and distributed and the inefficacy of LFOs as a revenue source. Analyses showed that indigent individuals across all charges were assessed higher financial penalties and paid less toward their debt than those who could afford private representation. In addition, across groups, most people did not satisfy their balances over the five-year period, and many incurred a “restitution recovery fee” due to missed payments. Furthermore, the research depicts a system in which restitution often goes unpaid because of the state’s priority disbursement schedule, which compensates law enforcement agencies that collect debt before funding victim restitution

New York: MDRC, 2024. 9p.

By Karin D. Martin

The core of the access-to-justice problem is widespread unmet civil legal needs coupled with general disuse of the civil legal system. This Essay posits that monetary sanctions are an important contributing factor to the problem of access to justice. First, monetary sanctions and the unpaid criminal legal debt they produce are engines of “legal hybridity” in people’s lives in a way that impedes access to justice by generating unmet legal needs. They conflate the criminal and civil legal systems in many people’s lives, thereby reducing access to recourse in either system. Second, by subverting the principles of proportionality, specificity, and finality, monetary sanctions structurally deprive people of just solutions and condition them to not expect justice from legal institutions

widespread disuse of the civil legal system to help solve civil legal problems lies at the core. Regardless of whether the crisis is conceptualized as people having insufficient legal assistance, legal information, or access to civil courts, a through line is the failure of people to make use of the benefits ostensibly available to them through the civil legal system. Here, “access to justice” is conceived of in terms of widespread unmet legal needs with an accompanying paucity of just solutions. Theories about the source of this deficit of just resolutions for people with civil legal problems include lack of legal knowledge and knowhow, underfunded courts, and too few lawyers.cal and structural aspects of monetary sanctions, explained in detail below, this Essay argues that it is time to include monetary sanctions as a contributing factor to the problem of access to justice.

Monetary sanctions are the fines, fees, surcharges, restitution, or any other financial liability imposed in the criminal legal system. Three factors make it easy to overlook the role of these sanctions in the access-to-justice problem: (1) Monetary sanctions originate in the criminal legal system; (2) Some people can pay them without difficulty; and (3) They are a less severe sanction than incarceration. Nevertheless, the ubiquity of monetary sanctions and the unpaid criminal legal debt they produce are engines of “legal hybridity” in people’s lives in a way that harms access to justice by giving rise to unmet legal needs. Specifically, this legal hybridity amplifies the potential for extraction in both the criminal and civil legal systems and hinders the potential for resolution in each. Further, monetary sanctions are structured in a way that violates key principles of justice, which inhibits the pursuit of just solutions. This Essay thus argues that failing to consider the role of monetary sanctions in the access-to-justice crisis will stymie efforts to solve it.

This Essay proceeds as follows. Part I explores how monetary sanctions conflate the criminal and civil legal systems in many people’s lives, thereby reducing access to recourse in either. The idea of legal hybridity is offered as a way to conceptualize this phenomenon. While both the criminal and civil legal systems ostensibly offer remedies for all manner of problems, legal hybridity highlights how they also both have the capacity to be extractive—of time, of money, of property, and of liberty. Monetary sanctions should be a point of focus because they often tilt the balance toward extraction, rather than toward recourse. Part II discusses how monetary sanctions undermine central tenets of justice: proportionality, finality, and specificity in punishment. By subverting these principles, monetary sanctions structurally deprive people of just solutions and condition them to not expect justice from legal institutions. Although these principles are typically of concern in the criminal legal setting, the aforementioned legal hybridity underscores the need to consider them more broadly, particularly in the domain of monetary sanctions.

Stanford Law Review Online , Vol. 75, June 2023, 15p.

By Beth Karp

Several widely used criminal risk assessment instruments factor a defendant’s abstract beliefs, peer associations, and family relationships into their risk scores. The inclusion of those factors is empirically unsound and raises profound ethical and constitutional questions. This Article is the first instance of legal scholarship on criminal risk assessment to (a) conduct an in-depth review of risk assessment questionnaires, scoresheets, and reports, and (b) analyze the First and Fourteenth Amendment implications of attitude and associational factors. Additionally, this Article challenges existing scholarship by critiquing widely accepted but dubious empirical justifications for the inclusion of attitude and associational items. The items are only weakly correlated with recidivism, have not been shown to be causal, and have in fact been shown to decrease the predictive validity of risk assessment instruments. Quantification of attitudes and associations should cease unless and until it is done in a way that is empirically sound, more useful than narrative reports, and consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Stanford Law Review, Vol. 75, 2023, 99p.

By Erin Jacobs Valentine, Sarah Picard

Jurisdictions across the United States are implementing reforms to their pretrial systems to reduce the number of people who are held in pretrial detention—that is, who remain incarcerated in jail while they await the adjudication of their cases. As part of this effort, many jurisdictions are moving away from money bail as a primary means to encourage people to return for future court dates, and are instead implementing pretrial supervision, which requires clients to meet regularly with supervision staff members. Jurisdictions often attempt to match the intensity or frequency of supervision with a client’s assessed risk of failing to appear in court or being rearrested, for example by requiring more intensive supervision for clients who are assessed as being at a high risk. However, while different levels of pretrial supervision impose different burdens and costs on both jurisdictions and people awaiting the resolutions of their cases, there has been little systematic research into how they differ in their effectiveness in improving court appearance and arrest outcomes.

This report contributes new evidence in this area using retrospective data from cases initiated between January 2017 and June 2019 in two jurisdictions: one populous, urban metropolitan area in the western United States and a sparsely populated, rural county from the same region. The research team employed a regression discontinuity design, comparing the outcomes of people whose risk scores were just below and just above the cutoff for a level of supervision. They did so for four supervision levels: (1) no supervision, (2) low-intensity supervision that involved only check-ins with supervision staff members after court hearings, (3) medium-intensity supervision that also required one in-person meeting a month with a supervision staff member, and (4) high-intensity supervision that required three in-person meetings per month. The analysis uses a noninferiority approach, which tests whether the less intensive form of supervision is at least as effective as (that is, no worse than) the more intensive form.

The analysis found that:

Overall, lower-intensity supervision was as effective as higher-intensity supervision in helping clients to appear in court and avoid new arrests. When comparing each level of supervision with the next level in intensity, assignment to less intensive supervision led to similar outcomes as assignment to more intensive supervision.

Risk scores were strongly correlated with rearrest rates and modestly correlated with court appearance rates. Unsurprisingly, people with higher risk scores were more likely to be rearrested, and somewhat less likely to make scheduled court appearances. However, higher-intensity supervision did not mitigate this effect.

Overall, the analysis found no evidence that requiring people to meet more intensive pretrial supervision requirements improves outcomes. These findings suggest that policymakers should consider other strategies to encourage people to appear in court and avoid arrest, especially since supervision has costs, including monetary costs to jurisdictions and time and travel costs to clients. It is possible, for example, that strategies that involve service connections rather than supervision could be more effective. At the same time, the results indicate that more research on the use of pretrial supervision is needed. Because the regression discontinuity design of this study focuses on cases at particular risk levels—those near the cutoff risk scores that determine supervision intensity—it is possible that the results would differ for cases with other risk levels. For example, high-intensity supervision could have effects among very high-risk cases, a question that this analysis was not designed to address. Given that prior research suggests that both service and supervision resources are most effective when reserved for higher-risk and -need cases, studies focusing solely on outcomes among this group could be of great benefit to the field.

New York: MDRC, 2023. 77p.

By Chloe Anderson Golub, Erin Jacobs Valentine, Daron Holman

As more jurisdictions across the country are seeking to reduce their jail populations, many view electronic monitoring (EM, the use of an electronic device to monitor a person’s movement and location) and sobriety monitoring (regular drug and alcohol testing) as potential alternatives to pretrial detention. In theory, the added layer of supervision that these special conditions provide should encourage people to appear for court dates and avoid activities that could lead to new arrests. Yet most studies of the effectiveness of special conditions have faced methodological limitations and have yielded mixed findings. Furthermore, special conditions such as electronic monitoring and sobriety monitoring carry significant costs—both personal and monetary—for those being monitored and for jurisdictions.

This report contributes cross-jurisdiction evidence on the effects of these special conditions of release using retrospective data from cases initiated between January 2017 and June 2019 in four diverse jurisdictions across the United States: one small and rural, one medium-sized, and two large and urban jurisdictions. The MDRC research team employed a propensity score matching design to test the effectiveness of EM and sobriety monitoring in maintaining clients’ court appearance rates and helping them avoid arrest. This method allowed the team to compare court appearance and pretrial rearrest outcomes for individuals released with special conditions with those of statistically comparable individuals who were released without special conditions. The analysis uses a noninferiority approach, which tests whether release without special conditions is at least as effective as (that is, no worse than) release with a special condition.

The analysis found that:

Being released on EM or sobriety monitoring did not significantly improve court appearance rates. The analyses found that the special conditions and non–special conditions groups had similar pretrial court appearance rates. These results were consistent across jurisdictions.

Being released on electronic monitoring did not significantly increase the percentage of people who avoided a new arrest during the pretrial period. In fact, the analysis found that the EM group had a higher pretrial rearrest rate than the non-EM group, a result that was consistent across the two jurisdictions in that analysis. While the factors causing the results are not definitively known, the difference may be a supervision effect: people may be more likely to be arrested if their actions are more closely monitored, compared with others who are less closely monitored. Alternatively, the result may reflect unmeasured differences between the EM and non-EM groups that could not be controlled for in the analysis.

Being released on sobriety monitoring did not significantly improve the percentage of people who avoided a new arrest, but there was variation in this effect among jurisdictions. In two of the four jurisdictions studied, people who were assigned to sobriety monitoring were more likely to avoid new arrests, while in the other two, the result was the opposite.

These findings warrant cautious reflection among policymakers and practitioners on the extent of current electronic and sobriety monitoring use, particularly considering their high personal and financial costs to those directly affected and to jurisdictions. The exploratory findings also highlight a need for additional cross-site studies—in particular, those that employ more rigorous experimental methods—on the effectiveness of special conditions at the pretrial stage. Given the site variation in findings, particularly for sobriety monitoring, more research is also needed to delineate the populations that would benefit from special conditions from those who would not benefit and to illuminate the policies and practices that are associated with the greatest success.

New York: MDRC, 2023. 51p.

By David Grant

Political systems across much of the West are now subject to populist disruption, which often takes an anti-Constitutional form. This interdisciplinary book argues that the current analysis of anti-Constitutional populism, while often astute, is focused far too narrowly. It is held here that due to an obscured complex of dynamics that has shaped the history of the West since its inception and which remains active today, we do not understand the present. This complex not only explains the current disruptions across the fields of contemporary religion, politics, economics and emerging artificial intelligence but also how these disruptions derive each from originary sources. This work thereby explains not only the manner in which this complex has functioned across historical time but also why it is that its inherent, unresolvable flaws have triggered the shifts between these key fields as well as the intractability of these present disruptions. It is this flawed complex of factors that has led to current conflicts about abortion reform, political populism, the failure of neoliberalism and the imminent quantum shift in generative artificial intelligence. It is argued that in this, law is heavily implicated, especially at the constitutional level. Presenting a forensic examination of the root causes of all these disruptions, the study provides a toolbox of ideas with which to confront these challenges.

London; New York: Routledge, 2025. 274p.

Edited by Henrique Sousa Antunes • Pedro Miguel Freitas • Arlindo L. Oliveira • Clara Martins Pereira • Elsa Vaz de Sequeira • Luís Barreto Xavier

This open access book presents an interdisciplinary, multi-authored, edited collection of chapters on Artificial Intelligence (‘AI’) and the Law. AI technology has come to play a central role in the modern data economy. Through a combination of increased computing power, the growing availability of data and the advancement of algorithms, AI has now become an umbrella term for some of the most transformational technological breakthroughs of this age. The importance of AI stems from both the opportunities that it offers and the challenges that it entails. While AI applications hold the promise of economic growth and efficiency gains, they also create significant risks and uncertainty. The potential and perils of AI have thus come to dominate modern discussions of technology and ethics – and although AI was initially allowed to largely develop without guidelines or rules, few would deny that the law is set to play a fundamental role in shaping the future of AI. As the debate over AI is far from over, the need for rigorous analysis has never been greater. This book thus brings together contributors from different fields and backgrounds to explore how the law might provide answers to some of the most pressing questions raised by AI. An outcome of the Católica Research Centre for the Future of Law and its interdisciplinary working group on Law and Artificial Intelligence, it includes contributions by leading scholars in the fields of technology, ethics and the law.

Cham: Springer Nature, 2024. 456p.

By Tyson Singh Kelsall and Jasmine Veark and Molly Beatrice a d

This commentary explores a recent shift in British Columbia's drug policy under a novel drug “decriminalization” framework. We focus on the province's move toward "recriminalization" under this framework. In short, recriminalization was a shift in BC's drug decriminalization framework to only apply in private residences, and be removed from essentially all outdoor spaces. This policy change was completed through an agreement with the federal government amid a public health emergency. Since 2016, BC has faced a severe crisis of drug-related overdoses and poisonings, driven by a toxic and unregulated drug supply compounded by prohibitionist policies. Expert recommendations for increasing access to a regulated drug supply have repeatedly dismissed as solutions by the governing BC New Democratic Party, opting instead for measures that do not undercut the toxic drug supply. We examine the sociolegal context of the BC government decision to recriminalize drug use in 2024, including attempts to criminalize recent drug use and police suspicion of substance use. These drug law reforms, understood here as forms of biopolitical violence, reflect a broader trend of using drug policies as tools for social and spatial regulation. By analyzing the sociolegal implications of these policies, the commentary situates the BC government's actions within a framework of sanctioned biopolitical massacre, highlighting the tension between purported decriminalization efforts and the actual enforcement strategies that perpetuate harm and exclusion. This examination underscores the complex interplay between drug policy, public health crises, and state power in the context of systemic colonial and racialized control that may be adaptable to other regions considering drug law reform.

International Journal of Drug Policy

Volume 136, February 2025, 104688

By BRANDON L. GARRETT, ERIC TUCKER & NICHOLAS SCURICH

Firearms violence results in hundreds of thousands of criminal investigations each year. To try to identify a culprit, firearms examiners seek to link fired shell casings or bullets from crime scene evidence to a particular firearm. The underlying assumption is that firearms impart unique marks on bullets and cartridge cases, and that trained examiners can identify these marks to determine which were fired by the same gun. For over a hundred years, firearms examiners have testified that they can conclusively identify the source of a bullet or cartridge case. In recent years, however, research scientists have called into question the validity and reliability of such testimony. Judges largely did not view such testimony with increased skepticism after the Supreme Court set out standards for screening expert evidence in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Instead, the surge in judicial rulings came more than a decade later, particularly after reports by scientists shed light on limitations of the evidence. In this Article, we detail over a century of case law and examine how judges have engaged with the changing practice and scientific understanding of firearms comparison evidence. We first describe how judges initially viewed firearms comparison evidence skeptically and hought jurors capable of making firearms comparisons themselves— without an expert. Next, judges embraced the testimony of experts who offered more specific and aggressive claims, and the work spread nationally. Finally, we explore the modern era of firearms case law and research. Judges increasingly express skepticism and adopt a range of approaches to limit in-court testimony by firearms examiners. In December 2023, Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence was amended, for the first time in over twenty years, specifically due to the Rules Committee’s concern with the quality of federal rulings regarding forensic evidence, as well as the failure to engage with the ways that forensic experts express conclusions in court. There is perhaps no area in which judges, especially federal judges, have been more active than in the area of firearms evidence. Thus, the judging of firearms evidence has central significance for the direction that scientific evidence gatekeeping may take under the revised Rule 702 in federal, and then state courts. We conclude by examining lessons regarding the gradual judicial shift toward a more scientific approach. The more-than-a-century-long arc of judicial review of firearms evidence in the United States suggests that, over time, scientific research can displace tradition and precedent to improve the quality of justice.

97 S. Cal. L. Rev. 101, 2024.

By Roland Neil, and Michael Zanger-Tishler

There is great concern about algorithmic racial bias in the risk assessment instruments (RAIs) used in the criminal legal system. When testing for algorithmic bias, most research effectively uses arrest data as an unbiased measure of criminal offending, which collides with longstanding concerns that arrest is a biased proxy of offending. Given the centrality of arrest data in RAIs, racial differences in how arrest proxies offending may be a key pathway through which RAIs become biased. In this review, we evaluate the extensive body of research on racial differences in arrest as a measure of crime. Furthermore, we detail several ways that racial bias in arrest records could create algorithmic bias, although little research has attempted to measure the degree of algorithmic bias generated by using racially biased arrest records. We provide a roadmap to assist future research in understanding the impact of biased arrest records on RAIs.

Annual Review of Criminology, Vol. 8:97-119 January 2025)

By Christine Reynolds, et al.

On July 1, 2014, changes proposed to Indiana’s Criminal Code were officially implemented, affecting the criminal justice system. The Indiana Criminal Justice Institute (ICJI) is statutorily obligated to monitor and evaluate the impact of the criminal code reform, reporting results to state legislators on an annual basis. Findings from the Evaluation of Indiana’s Criminal Code Reform reports1 suggest that local criminal justice professionals are concerned with the lessened severity of sentences associated with drug crimes. They suggest that this reduction in severity may have increased recidivism, perpetuating the revolving door of the justice system, and is negatively impacting an offender’s ability to recover from substance use disorder—a commonly identified association with a drug offense. In an effort to operationalize changes in severity of sentencing, this report compares drug conviction data from nine Indiana counties from a period in time before the reform to a like period after the changes set in. Results indicate that dealing and possession convictions increased, where dealing of marijuana and possession of methamphetamine had the starkest increases. Findings also displayed that felons and misdemeanants alike are being convicted differently than offenders under the legacy code. There was a 50% decrease in both dealing and possession offenses’ advisory sentence. In addition, while jail is the most common sentence placement across both time periods, alternative sentencing is utilized far more often than pre-reform, indicating that penalties for drug crimes have generally decreased. This work adds to literature concerning the effects of the criminal code reform in Indiana, and may lay the groundwork for further analysis, such as the reform’s impacts on recidivism and offender rehabilitation.

Indianapolis: Indiana Criminal Justice Institute, 2020. 26p.

By Grant Duwe and Valerie Clark

Using a sample of nearly 2,100 people incarcerated in Minnesota’s prison system, this study examined the concurrent and predictive validity of a needs and responsivity assessment system. For concurrent validity, we evaluated the relationship between the 13 needs and responsivity domains with assessed recidivism risk levels. For predictive validity, we analyzed the association between the domains and recidivism for a subsample that had been released from prison prior to 2023. The hypothesized needs domains—anti-social thinking, anti-social peers, education, employment, substance use disorder, housing/homelessness, and family/domestic—were significantly associated with assessed and observed recidivism, while most of the hypothesized responsivity domains—mental health, religiosity, motivation and learning style—were not. The results suggest self-identity is a distinct criminogenic need. Gender and racial/ethnic differences for concurrent and predictive validity were relatively minimal across the 13 domains.

St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2023. 33p.

By Michael Palmieri and Valerie Clark

Across the United States, a significant proportion of people in jails and prisons suffer from some form of substance use disorder. In recent years, opioids have become a concern as the country has entered an epidemic in which opioid overdoses occur with relative frequency. Given that drugs have a significant impact on all aspects of crime, some jails and prisons in the U.S. have started implementing medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) programs to, one, save lives, but also help address one criminogenic need associated with criminal behavior. This study used a retrospective quasi-experimental design to generate a comparison group (357 incarcerated persons) to a group of individuals who received treatment for opioid use disorder (357). Using competing risks models, results provide evidence that MOUD does reduce recidivism among those who have received it. Results also suggest that when paired with traditional substance use disorder treatment, MOUD can have a somewhat higher magnitude of effect. These results suggest that the use of MOUD should be expanded across the U.S.

St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2024. 35p.

By Australia. Parliament. Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade

Detailing the inquiry into Australia’s advocacy efforts against the death penalty, this report finds that Australia’s advocacy strategies must be reevaluated and revamped in order to be effective in a contemporary human rights environment.

The inquiry reviewed progress since the committee's 2016 report on the same issue, taking into consideration the current global landscape and challenges to abolition. It examines Australia's strategy for abolition, international cooperation, and engagement with civil society, finding that Australia has a role to play globally in advocating for the abolition of the death penalty through every avenue possible.

Recommendations

The Australian Government continues to advocate for the abolition of the death penalty in all retentionist countries through bilateral, multilateral and regional forums, and with a particular focus on the Asia-Pacific region.

In addition to advocating for abolition, the Australian Government should advocate for a reduction in the categories of crimes that carry the death penalty in retentionist countries and for discretion in sentencing.

Provide an annual statement against the death penalty, to be delivered in Parliament and across multiple platforms.

Consider the development of a strategy for domestic education and awareness raising.

Consider providing adequate funding for civil society organisations to more accurately gather data on trends and current areas of concern regarding the use of the death penalty.

The Attorney-General’s Department should consult Capital Punishment Justice Project to ensure the competency and qualifications of the local lawyers engaged to represent Australian nationals in capital cases.

The Australian Government should undertake annual reviews of the mechanisms and operations of the Australian Federal Police’s Sensitive Investigations Oversight Board.

Canberra: Australia. Parliament. Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade2025.

By Gabriele Paolini, Elena Kantorowicz-Reznichenko, Stefan Voigt

Over the last three decades, plea bargaining has been adopted by many jurisdictions worldwide. However, a comprehensive account of both its adoption as well as its use is still missing. We survey 174 jurisdictions, finding that 101 allow plea-bargaining. For 52 jurisdictions, we also compute plea-bargaining rates, as the percentage of convictions imposed through plea bargaining over all criminal convictions. Relying on this novel dataset, we find that Muslim-majority populations and the French and Scandinavian legal origins are associated with lower probabilities of formalizing plea bargaining, while democracies are associated with higher probabilities. The Spanish and Socialist legal origins, a looser regulation of the procedure, and jury trials are associated with higher plea-bargaining rates, while higher income levels correlate with higher plea-bargaining rates only up to a certain point.

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, Volume22, Issue1, March 2025, Pages 27-75

By The Arizona Statistical Analysis Center

As part of the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission’s (ACJC) work as required by A.R.S. §41-2405, section A, the Commission is to: - Monitor the progress and implementation of new and continuing criminal justice legislation; - Analyze criminal justice programs created by the legislature in the preceding two years; and, - Analyze the effectiveness of the criminal code, with a discussion of any problems and recommendations for revision if deemed necessary This report is an update to the original felony code review report released in 2018 and adds an additional five-year period. ACJC’s Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) and policy staff reviewed those Arizona Revised Statutes containing a felony criminal penalty to determine the frequency of statute charges at the time of arrest across five-year, ten-year, 15-year, and 20-year periods. Staff reviewed an extract of the Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH) repository, maintained at the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS), to capture arrest charging frequency across Arizona Revised Statute criminal codes. Key Findings The resulting data span from Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 to FY 2024 for a total of 20 years provided the following key findings (see overview on page 3): 􏰀 1,557 individual statutes contain a felony criminal penalty currently enforceable by Arizona law enforcement across nearly every A.R.S. Title. This is an increase of 71 new felony charges over the last five years 􏰀 545 of the 1,557 statutes (35 percent) have no arrest charges recorded. This

includes 28 statutes passed and signed into law since 2018 with no arrest charges. 􏰀 Many A.R.S. Titles have a very high percentage of statutes with a felony penalty that have not been charged in the past 20 years: o Title 06 – Banks and Financial Institutions (4 out of 6) o Title 08 – Child Safety (2 out of 3) o Title 16 – Elections and Electors (30 out of 43) o Title 20 – Insurance (20 out of 32) o Title 32 – Professions and Occupations (86 out of 107) o Title 35 – Public Finances (8 out of 12) o Title 38 – Public Officers and Employees (16 out of 20) o Title 36 – Public Health and Safety (20 out of 31) o Title 38 – Public Officers and Employees (14 out of 20) o Title 40 – Public Utilities and Carriers (7 out of 7) o Title 41 – State Government (30 out of 39) o Title 43 – Taxation of Income (1 out of 1) o Title 44 – Trade and Commerce (63 out of 90) o Title 45 – Waters (3 out of 3) o Title 49 – The Environment (47 out of 53) Expected Outcomes The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission hopes that this report, outlining the Arizona Revised Statutes that contain a felony criminal penalty and their use over the past twenty years, will spark a dialogue among Arizona’s legislators and policymakers about the increasingly complex landscape that has been created for Arizona citizens and law enforcement to navigate regarding illegal activities. Possible activities that could occur might include: 􏰀 Convening of stakeholder groups that deal with specific issue areas to review existing statutes that contain felony penalties to determine if they are still applicable and necessary 􏰀 Review by the legislature to determine if penalties contained in one statute are duplicative of penalties contained in another (for example is A.R.S. §5-115A2, Bribe of a Racing Personnel is a class 4 felony and has not been charged in the past 20 years, but A.R.S. §13-2309, Bribery of Participants in Professional or Amateur Games, Sports, Horse Races, Dog Races, Contests is also a class 4 felony and is regularly being charged) 􏰀 Action by the legislature to repeal statutes that are determined to be duplicative or have not been utilized after a specific period of time has elapsed

Phoenix: Arizona Statistical Analysis Center, 2024. 40p.

By The Center for Justice Research and Evaluation.

In response to feedback from Illinois Correctional Officers (COs) seeking stronger consequences for occurrences of indecent exposure and harassment by inmates within the confines of their correctional facilities, the Illinois legislature amended the Criminal Code of 2012, 750 ILCS 5 (Illinois Senate Democrats, 2023). The criminal offense of “lewd sexual display in a penal institution” became effective January 1, 2024 (Public Act 103- 283), with support from the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police and staff at Illinois correctional facilities (Kluver, 2023). This is defined specifically in 720 ILCS 5/11-9.2-1: (Section scheduled to be repealed on January 1, 2028) Sec. 11-9.2-1. Lewd sexual display in a penal institution. a) A person commits lewd sexual display in a penal institution when he or she is in the custody of a penal institution and knowingly engages in any of the following acts while he or she is confined in a penal institution: engages in a lewd exposure of the genitals or anus, for the purpose or effect of intimidating, harassing, or threatening one whom he or she believes to be in the presence or view of such acts. For purposes of this Section, "penal institution" does not include a facility of the Department of Juvenile Justice or a juvenile detention facility. b) Sentence. Lewd sexual display in a penal institution is a Class A misdemeanor. A person convicted of a second or subsequent violation for lewd sexual display in a penal institution is guilty of a Class 4 felony. c) A person charged with a violation of this Section shall be eligible for an evaluation for a mental health court program under the Mental Health Court Treatment Act, the provisions of Section 20 of that Act notwithstanding, and shall be given an eligibility screening and an assessment, pursuant to the provisions of Section 25 of the Mental Health Court Treatment Act, administered by a qualified mental health court professional independent of the penal institution where the individual is in custody. d) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (e) of Section 25 of the Mental Health Court Treatment Act, a person who has been charged with a violation of this Section shall not be liable for any fines, fees, costs, or restitution unless the person fails to successfully complete that person's court-ordered mental health court treatment program. e) All charges against a person for a violation of this Section shall be dismissed upon the court's

determination that the person has successfully completed the person's court-ordered mental health court treatment program. Unwillingness to participate in a court-ordered mental health court treatment program may result in prosecution under this Section. Failure to complete a mental health treatment court program shall have the consequences prescribed by the rules and regulations of that treatment court program. f) A person is not guilty of a violation of this Section for engaging in the conduct prohibited by this Section, if any of the following are true: a. The person is under 18 years of age or not confined to a penal institution. b. The person suffered from a behavioral health issue at the time of the prohibited conduct and that behavioral health issue was the direct cause for the person having engaged in the prohibited conduct. c. The person was not in the actual presence or view of another person. (g) This Section is repealed on January 1, 2028.

Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. 2025. 12p.

By Lauren Knoth-Peterson, Whitney Hunt

The purpose of this resource is to identify whether states have established unique sentencing policies for individuals convicted of a sex offense authorizing community supervision for life. In states where lifetime supervision policies were identified, we also examined whether the state has an established pathway off of lifetime supervision status. This resource highlights each state’s relevant statutes to lifetime supervision policies with the green text emphasizing the pathway off of supervision (when applicable). There are limitations to this resource. First, we looked only for unique sentencing policies for individuals convicted of a sex offense. In some instances, states may have general

indeterminate sentencing structures by which convicted defendants may end up under supervision orders for life. For example, states may allow defendants sentenced to life in prison to apply for parole. If granted, parole may include community supervision for life, consistent with the underlying life incarceration sentence. Since these parole policies are not unique to sex offenses, but instead are applicable only when the court explicitly imposes a life sentence, we did not include these statutes in this report. For example, Idaho is an indeterminate sentencing state with a parole system. In some cases, individuals convicted of a sex offense may receive a sentence of life incarceration with the possibility of parole. If paroled, those individuals would be under parole supervision for the remainder of their sentence, which is for life. The Board of Correction in Idaho may submit a request to the Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole for early termination of parole after serving at least 5 years on parole. However, since these parole policies do not apply to all sex offenses and are related to the underlying life imprisonment sentence and standard parole processes, we do not include these statutes in this report. State laws frequently change. Please note that any statutory language included in this document may be subject to change over time, and readers should verify that statutes have not been amended after publication of this resource.

Olympia, WA: Washington State Office of Financial Management, Public Safety Policy & Research Center. 2025. 96p.

By Nicole D. Porter

The United States has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. Nearly two million people – disproportionately Black – are incarcerated in the nation’s prisons and jails. In the early 1970s, 360,000 persons were incarcerated in correctional facilities.

Criminal legal reform trends in 2024 were divergent at a time when politicians used punitive-sounding talking points to move voters fearful of a recent uptick in crime. However, stakeholders, including formerly incarcerated activists and lawmakers, saw some success in scaling back mass incarceration. Advocacy organizers and officials in at least nine states advanced reforms in 2024 that may contribute to decarceration, expand and guarantee voting rights for justice impacted citizens, and advance youth justice reforms.

Highlights include:

Decarceration Reforms: State lawmakers enacted legal reforms to reduce prison admissions and to adjust penalties to criminal sentences to more fairly hold persons convicted of certain crimes accountable. During 2024, policymakers in Oklahoma and Michigan adopted or expanded second look and compassionate release policies authorizing reconsideration of certain criminal legal sentences after a term of years.

Guaranteeing Voting Rights: While over 4 million people are ineligible to vote because of a felony conviction, voting rights reforms have expanded the vote to over two million people since 1997. This year, officials in Nebraska and Oklahoma approved measures to expand voting rights to persons after incarceration while lawmakers in Colorado passed legislation requiring all county jails to establish polling stations guaranteeing access to the ballot for incarcerated voters.

Youth Justice: Lawmakers in Indiana and Pennsylvania adopted policies that demonstrated a commitment to supporting young defendants including eliminating automatic charging of youth as adults for certain offenses and establishing practices that may reduce length of detention stays.

Highlights include:

Decarceration Reforms: State lawmakers enacted legal reforms to reduce prison admissions and to adjust penalties to criminal sentences to more fairly hold persons convicted of certain crimes accountable. During 2024, policymakers in Oklahoma and Michigan adopted or expanded second look and compassionate release policies authorizing reconsideration of certain criminal legal sentences after a term of years.

Guaranteeing Voting Rights: While over 4 million people are ineligible to vote because of a felony conviction, voting rights reforms have expanded the vote to over two million people since 1997. This year, officials in Nebraska and Oklahoma approved measures to expand voting rights to persons after incarceration while lawmakers in Colorado passed legislation requiring all county jails to establish polling stations guaranteeing access to the ballot for incarcerated voters.

Youth Justice: Lawmakers in Indiana and Pennsylvania adopted policies that demonstrated a commitment to supporting young defendants including eliminating automatic charging of youth as adults for certain offenses and establishing practices that may reduce length of detention stays.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2024.