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

Arthur Train was not merely a novelist of crime and courtroom intrigue—he was an Assistant District Attorney in New York County who understood the hidden machinery of American justice from the inside. In Justice on Trial, two of his most compelling works—Prisoner at the Bar and McCallister’s Double—are brought together in a powerful new edition edited and introduced by Graeme R. Newman.

Part legal exposé, part philosophical inquiry, part classic crime fiction, this volume explores questions that remain disturbingly relevant today: How is guilt really determined? Do courts discover truth—or construct it? Why are prisons hidden from public view? Do criminals receive justice, or merely punishment? And what of the victims left behind by the machinery of law?

In Prisoner at the Bar, Train offers a rare insider’s account of the criminal justice system of early twentieth-century America. Drawing upon his own prosecutorial experience, he exposes the realities behind arrests, grand juries, trials, sentencing, police practices, courtroom performance, and the uneasy relationship between law and morality. The result is one of the earliest and most penetrating critiques of modern criminal justice ever written.

Complementing this work is McCallister’s Double, a brilliant collection of courtroom and criminal tales filled with deception, mistaken identity, legal maneuvering, and moral ambiguity. These stories reveal Train’s remarkable ability to combine suspense with sharp observations about the fictions upon which justice itself often depends.

Graeme R. Newman’s extensive new introduction places Train’s work within the larger history of crime, punishment, and legal power, comparing the courts and prisons of Train’s era with those of the twenty-first century. The introduction examines the secrecy of prisons, the hidden social functions of trials, the mythology of “justice,” and the enduring question of whether criminal justice systems truly deliver fairness—or merely preserve authority.

Blending classic legal writing, detective fiction, social criticism, and courtroom drama, Justice on Trial is both a fascinating historical document and a strikingly modern meditation on crime, punishment, truth, and power.

For readers of true crime, legal history, courtroom drama, criminology, and classic detective fiction, this volume offers a rare and unsettling look behind the curtain of justice itself.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2026. p.362.

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

Before modern courtroom thrillers and television crime dramas, Arthur Train was bringing readers inside the strange, unpredictable, and deeply human world of criminal law. The Kid and the Camel: Stories of the Court and Criminality collects some of Train’s most memorable tales from the New York courts, blending legal realism, sharp humor, and penetrating social observation.

At the center of the volume is the celebrated story “The Kid and the Camel,” a bizarre and unforgettable courtroom case involving immigrants, conflicting testimony, cultural misunderstanding, and a camel hidden in a city attic. Around it unfolds a wider panorama of criminal justice in early twentieth-century America: ambitious lawyers, eccentric witnesses, cunning swindlers, ethical dilemmas, jury manipulation, and the uncertain search for truth inside crowded urban courtrooms.

This collection also features the famous Tutt & Tutt stories, introducing one of American fiction’s earliest and most sophisticated lawyer-heroes. Through the clever, theatrical, and psychologically astute attorney Ephraim Tutt, Train explores the law not merely as a system of rules, but as a human drama shaped by persuasion, ambiguity, and competing notions of justice.

Far more than period entertainment, these stories remain strikingly relevant today. Issues of immigration, courtroom spectacle, prosecutorial strategy, media influence, unequal justice, and the power of lawyers continue to dominate modern criminal justice systems. Train’s fiction reveals how little the essential tensions of law and society have changed.

Edited and introduced by Graeme Newman, this new Read-Me.Org edition restores an important classic of American legal literature for contemporary readers interested in true crime, courtroom drama, criminology, legal history, and the enduring complexities of justice itself.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2026. p.367.

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

tep into the shadowed world of early twentieth‑century justice, where truth is elusive, appearances deceive, and a single misjudgment can alter lives forever. The Lost Stradivarius and Other True Crime Classics by Arthur Train brings together some of the most compelling real cases ever drawn from the files of a New York prosecutor. Written with the authority of firsthand experience and the narrative power of a master storyteller, these accounts reveal the drama, tension, and human complexity behind headline crimes. At the heart of the collection is The Lost Stradivarius, a haunting tale of a priceless violin whose disappearance sets in motion a troubling chain of suspicion, error, and unintended injustice. Around it unfold other striking cases—of ingenious frauds, daring deceptions, and courtroom battles in which certainty proves fragile and truth stubbornly resists easy conclusions. Throughout, Train explores not only crime itself, but the deeper forces of character, ambition, and fallibility that shape the pursuit of justice. This new edition features a fresh introduction by Graeme R. Newman, placing these enduring stories in modern perspective and highlighting their continuing relevance. Timeless, unsettling, and richly human, this collection reminds us that truth is often stranger—and far more unsettling—than fiction.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2026. p.187..

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

Step inside the courtroom—and beyond it—through the eyes of a man who knew both the practice of law and the art of storytelling.

Arthur Train, a former New York prosecutor and celebrated author, offers a vivid and deeply reflective account of life in the criminal courts. Drawing on real cases, personal experience, and keen psychological insight, Confessions of a Prosecutor reveals the drama, uncertainty, and moral complexity behind the pursuit of justice. These are not merely stories of trials—they are portraits of human nature under pressure, where truth, perception, and judgment are rarely simple.

More than a legal memoir, this book is a masterclass in understanding how justice is truly administered. Train exposes the hidden tensions of courtroom life: unreliable witnesses, circumstantial evidence, the burden of decision, and the immense responsibility borne by those who prosecute in the name of society. His reflections remain strikingly relevant today, offering timeless lessons on fairness, doubt, and the ethical challenges of wielding authority.

What makes this work especially compelling is Train’s dual perspective as both practitioner and writer. With the skill of a seasoned storyteller, he shapes real events into engaging narratives—blending fact and interpretation to illuminate the deeper truths behind the law. The result is a work that is as absorbing as it is instructive, where the boundary between reality and narrative art invites thoughtful reflection.

In its later chapters, Train turns to another side of his life: the craft of writing and the realities of building a career beyond the courtroom. He offers a fascinating glimpse into the world of early twentieth-century publishing—writing for popular magazines, reaching a wide audience, and transforming professional experience into stories that endure. His journey underscores the discipline, adaptability, and persistence required to succeed as an author.

Confessions of a Prosecutor is an essential read for anyone interested in law, justice, and the power of storytelling. It is a book for lawyers and readers alike—for those who seek to understand not only how the law works, but how it feels to live within it.

Experience the courtroom as it truly is: human, uncertain, and endlessly compelling.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2026. p.381.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Colleen M. Berryessa

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

By 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 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: Mike Nellis, Emeritus Professor of Criminal and Community Justice, University of Strathclyde

Abstract

The 2025 Independent Sentencing Review (the Gauke Report) famously placed great emphasis on the use of technology in what has traditionally been called “community supervision”, to provide a way out of the capacity crisis in England and Wales’ prisons. In favours a significant expansion of electronic monitoring (EM) and markedly more punitive forms of remote regulation – dubbed “prison outside prison” in press releases. It further encourages the use of emerging forms of AI to make monitoring and supervision more efficient. In this, the Review was largely elaborating the Ministry of Justice’s own emerging view of the penal future. Its call for EM to be more integrated with the Probation Service, may have gone further, but the Review’s vision of the future Probation Service is of a punitive-surveillant agency with a rather ambiguous commitment to rehabilitation. Whether this imagined future is realised remains to be seen.

By: The JABBS Foundation for Women and Girls – Eliza Ogden Barnsley, Dr Tom McNeil and Lizzie Humphreys

Abstract

The Independent Sentencing Review represents a once in a generation opportunity to make the criminal justice system fairer and more effective. This article suggests how several recommendations for women might be implemented, drawing on pioneering research and evidence of ‘what works’. This includes, first, the important role of gender-responsive tools, in particular the Women’s Risk Needs Assessment (WRNA), recently validated in the UK for the first time by the University of Birmingham. Adopting tools that meet these standards is essential for ensuring pre-sentence reports identify a much wider range of needs and are gender- and trauma-responsive. Through this, practitioners are better able to tailor appropriate support for women to improve wellbeing against numerous metrics, while reducing re-offending (linked to Recommendation 6.3). Secondly, it discusses lessons from the Birmingham women’s Intensive Supervision Court (ISC), with emerging evidence showing great promise through its use of the WRNA and strong partnerships with women’s centres and numerous agencies, to inform the Government’s ISC expansion (Recommendation 6.1). Thirdly, we emphasise the importance of early intervention through women’s centres (linked to Recommendation 6.2) and other integrated and multi- disciplinary support, preventing the need for sentencing altogether. Combined, this article highlights evidence and opportunities for ‘how’ we capitalise on the Independent Sentencing Review’s momentum.

Introduction

The Corston Report (2007) was pivotal in advocating for the radical change that is needed for women in the criminal justice system. At its core, it highlighted the vital need for a holistic, wrap-around approach that aligned with women’s unique needs and pathways into crime. Whilst this sentiment was largely well received and a number a great steps towards progress were made, there were several missed opportunities, both in terms of policy, and ensuring effective long-term stability (Gelsthorpe and Russell, 2018). In the wake of the Independent Sentencing Review (2025), which we believe is ambitious given the current social and political climate, it is critical such opportunities are not again missed. Whilst the review makes a number of recommendations that we believe have the potential to genuinely improve the lives of many women in the criminal justice system (CJS), careful implementation is required, learning from the existing and growing evidence of ‘what works’. This article first highlights some of the most pertinent recommendations for women in the review, outlines the key contemporary evidence before suggesting some opportunities for effective implementation.

By: Dave Nicholson and Helen Codd

The Independent Sentencing Review highlights the potential of AI for supporting behavioural change in criminal justice involved people and identifies SherlockAI as deserving further exploration and evaluation to realise that potential (p.135). SherlockAI was co-founded by criminal justice involved people in partnership with the authors, and in this article, we explain how SherlockAI offers a distinctive and innovative resource. Both the authors are part of the SherlockAI team and this short article offers insights into why the innovative approach of this particular app resonates with the findings of the review at a time when there are ongoing emergent developments in mobile-based technologies to encourage and support desistance (Bartels, 2023; Knight et al., 2024; McGreevy, 2017; Morris and Graham, 2019) and ongoing interest in Hilary Cottam’s work on radical help and radical care (Cottam, 2018; Cottam, 2021).

By: Rob Allen, Independent Researcher, and former Director of the International Centre for Prison Studies, King’s College, London

Abstract

The Gauke review was primarily commissioned in response to a crisis in prison capacity. Despite a series of emergency measures to reduce demand for prison places and a planned increase in the supply of those places, the incoming Labour government recognised that future sustainability required a recalibration if not of sentencing, then at least of the way sentences are implemented.

This paper considers the extent to which the review’s core recommendations and the measures proposed in the government’s response are likely to bring about long-term sustainability and efficiency.

It will examine

• the credibility of the impacts on prison numbers made for the four of Gauke’s five

  core recommendations accepted by the government; the reduction of short sentences, extended scope of suspended sentences, earned release provisions and a new model for recall and

• the extent to which the current supply of prison places can be maintained and expanded to the required level.

  It concludes with suggestions about further steps which could be taken to limit the growth of prison numbers and enable investment in more constructive ways of preventing and responding to crime.

  Keywords: Gauke, prison, sentencing; early release, probation.

  Introduction

  In its 2024 election manifesto, under a section entitled A justice system that puts victims first, the Labour Party promised to ‘carry out a review of sentencing to ensure it is brought up to date’ (Labour Party, 2024). But the real driver of the Gauke review was not a desire

for modernisation but the need to address the urgent lack of custodial capacity to meet current and projected demand, something described by incoming Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood as ‘a prison system in crisis, moments from catastrophic disaster’ (Mahmood, 2024a).

When introducing emergency early release measures to avert that disaster, Mahmood confirmed a commitment to longer-term reform and cutting reoffending, and that a forthcoming review would make sure ‘our sentencing is consistent and coherent, and that our sentences do actually work’ (Ibid).

It was only when the Independent Sentencing Review (ISR) was announced in October 2024 that its primary purpose was revealed – ‘ensuring we never run out of prison places again’ (Mahmood, 2024b). Injecting a rare dose of realism into penal policy, the Justice Secretary told MPs that despite the creation of 14,000 new prison places, ‘we cannot build our way out of this crisis. However fast we build, increasing demand will outstrip supply’.

The total adult prison population - 87,294 on 6 October 2025 - is projected to increase steadily to reach between 97,300 and 112,300 prisoners by November 2032, with a central estimate of 104,100 (MoJ, 2024b). The prison expansion programme aims to produce a usable capacity of about 99,000 by 2032 (MoJ, 2024a). To meet the clear objective of balancing supply of and demand for prison places, the ISR was advised that ‘that aiming to reduce demand by 9,500 prison places would help ensure there were sufficient places for the most serious offenders’ (ISR, 2025a).

The final report of the Gauke review, published in May 2025, proposed five core recommendations designed to reduce prison numbers to meet that requirement (ISR, 2025b). Gauke estimated that the combined effect of these would be to reduce the prison population by 9,800. His report also contained a number of other proposals that might lead to reductions in prison numbers but unlike the core recommendations the effects were not specified. Even for the core recommendations, the review provided no details about how the estimated effects had been calculated and failed to indicate over what timescale the reductions would take effect. This is important given the short period in which the demand for prison places is projected to exceed demand, perhaps as early as 2026 (PAC, 2025).

Four of Gauke’s five core recommendations have in large part been accepted by the Government and are contained in a Sentencing Bill published in July 2025 and whose Second Reading was held on 16 September 2025. The Bill’s Impact Assessment (IA) provides lower estimates for the deflationary effects of the Gauke proposals on prison numbers than did the ISR. This reflects the outright rejection of one recommendation - an ‘earned progression’ model for those serving Extended Determinate Sentences (EDS) - and modifications to others. The best estimate for prison place impacts of the Bill’s measures is 7,500 although this figure includes the impact of measures designed to reduce the use of custodial remand which did not emerge directly from the ISR (MoJ, 2025a).

Before assessing these, it is worth noting that the ISR did not consider all of the ways in which pressures on the prison population might be reduced.

First, although the ISR was intended to be a comprehensive re-evaluation of the sentencing framework, arrangements for young people under 18, wholesale reform of sentences for murder and the management of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) were excluded from its scope.

Of these perhaps the most significant in terms of impact on the prison population, albeit indirectly, is the murder sentencing framework. In his preliminary report on sentencing trends, the Gauke review identified the principal cause of the increasing prison population ‘is that prison sentences have been lengthened substantially by successive governments’ (ISR, 2025b). In particular, it concluded that the introduction of statutory starting points for minimum terms for offenders convicted of murder ‘had an impact on wider sentencing and the prison population more broadly, subsequently inflating sentence lengths for other serious offences’ (ibid). Gauke’s terms of references did permit him to consider the impact of sentencing for murder on the wider sentencing framework, but other than recommending that the Law Commission should look at the minimum sentence tariffs for murder, the final report did not propose ways of limiting the effects of increasing sentence lengths for murder on other offences in order to put a brake on sentence inflation.

Indeed, more generally, Gauke’s final report and proposals shied away from addressing head on the reduction of the length of sentences imposed by the courts for example by reducing maximum penalties, or recalibrating sentencing guidelines. Nor did the review make recommendations to remove the minimum sentences for certain offences or the requirements on courts to treat previous convictions as aggravating factors, both of which have contributed to making sentences more severe. Gauke suggests that maximum and minimum penalties should be looked at, but his review itself does little to address the rampant sentence inflation which the first part of his review identified as the main cause of the capacity crisis.

Instead, the review concentrates on how prison sentences are implemented, proposing much greater use of suspension of prison terms so that they are served in the community; a structure for most prison sentences which involves shorter periods in custody; and limitations to the use of imprisonment as a response to failures to comply with post release supervision. While these may prove useful ways of reducing the numbers in prison in the short to medium term, they do not necessarily provide the basis for a proportionate, transparent, and sustainable sentencing framework suitable for a modern liberal democratic state.

This article starts by discussing each of the Gauke proposals which are designed to reduce prison numbers before addressing the overall impact they are likely to have on demand for prison. It continues with an assessment of the supply side of the equation- how more prison places are being created - before concluding with some observations about what further action might be needed to restrain the use of prison in an unpromising political climate.

By: Phoebe Lil, Advance Charity

The publication of the Independent Sentencing Review (ISR) in May 2025 provoked a diverse range of reactions from the specialist women’s sector. For some, particularly those delivering services responding to Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG), there was trepidation about the impact of measures designed to ease the prison capacity crisis on victim/survivors. Specialist organisations working with justice-experienced women welcomed the range of measures that would have an overall positive impact on criminalised women.

But what do the women affected by these recommendations think? This article explores several thematic ISR recommendations, subsequently accepted by the Government, in the context of women’s experiences of existing interventions. Drawing on Advance’s experience – a leading women’s charity that supports women in contact with the criminal justice system and those who have experienced, or are at risk of, domestic abuse and other forms of gender-based violence – we will examine how the recommended measures can be implemented to best meet the needs of women who have been victimised, criminalised or – as is often the case – both.

The article will begin by demonstrating how a lack of adequate victim response can result in women committing offences, including examples from Advance’s services for criminalised women. As is well documented, women who offend are much more likely than the general population to have experienced some form of abuse, domestic or other.

Drawing on insights from services and best practice by Advance and partners, we then highlight how ISR recommendations should be implemented to ensure women’s safety. Finally, we consider where gaps in recommendations remain, and where the Government must invest to deliver a truly whole-system reform of a CJS that works for women, enabling

both the successful implementation of the ISR and other government ambitions, including the Women’s Justice Board and halving VAWG in a decade.

By Alison Siegler and Grant Delaune

Although the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s drug guidelines were intended to align punishment with culpability, decades of sentencing practice reveal a different reality. Outcomes are primarily driven by drug type and quantity, which have proved to be poor proxies for assessing culpability. We put forward a new approach to drug sentencing that instead focuses on a person’s function in a drug enterprise. We also propose anchoring base offense levels to pre-Guidelines sentencing data. To illustrate this model, we present a rewritten version of Guideline § 2D1.1 incorporating our proposed framework. Focusing on function rather than drug type and quantity will ensure that sentences are calibrated based on culpability and better fulfill the core purposes of punishment.

University of Chicago Law School, Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper No. 25-38,  2025,

The Sentencing Council (UK}

The breach guidelines evaluation looks at seven guidelines covering breaches of court orders by adult offenders: 

• Breach of a community order 

• Breach of a suspended sentence order 

• Breach of a protective order

• Failure to surrender to bail

• Breach of a criminal behaviour order

• Fail to comply with notification requirements

• Breach of a sexual harm prevention order  

The Sentencing Council for England and Wales was set up in 2010 and produces guidelines for use by all members of the judiciary when sentencing after conviction in criminal cases. The Council promotes a clear, fair, and consistent approach to sentencing by issuing sentencing guidelines and explanatory materials. It has a statutory duty to monitor these sentencing guidelines and to draw conclusions from the information obtained (s128 Coroners and Justice Act 2009). In 2018, the Council issued a comprehensive package of guidelines covering 11 types of breach to consolidate and improve guidance for breach of court orders. These guidelines apply to sentences for adult offenders (those aged 18 or over at the time of sentence). Compliance with court orders is important to ensure public confidence in the justice system, and in many cases to protect individuals or the wider public from harm, either from specific types of offending or continuing criminal behaviour. Legislation provides that court orders can be enforced by the courts to ensure appropriate sanctions are imposed where the purpose of the order is undermined by noncompliance, or the ‘breach’ of an order. The development of the breach guidelines followed the implementation in 2017 of the Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline (‘Imposition’ guideline). This was published in response to an observed trend of decreasing volumes of community orders (COs) and increasing volumes of suspended sentence orders (SSOs), rather than a decrease in volumes of immediate custodial sentences, which was the expected consequence of introducing the suspended sentence provisions in 2005. Evidence considered at the time indicated that a potential reason for this was that, in some cases, suspended sentences were being imposed as a more severe form of community order. The Council therefore considered it necessary to first develop a guideline for the imposition of these sentences. This came into force in February 2017. A package of breach guidelines was then developed to include breach of COs and SSOs, as well as other breaches of court orders to provide comprehensive, consolidated guidance for sentencers in court and a consistent approach to sentencing

London: The Sentencing Council, 2025. 54p.

By The Office of the General Counsel, United States Sentencing Commission - USSC

The Commission’s legal staff publishes this document to assist in understanding and applying the sentencing guidelines. The information in this document should not be considered definitive or comprehensive. In addition, the information in this document does not necessarily represent the official position of the Commission on any particular issue or case, and it is not binding on the Commission, the courts, or the parties in any case. To the extent this document includes unpublished cases, practitioners should be cognizant of Fed. R. App. P. 32.1, as well as any corresponding rules in their jurisdictions.  

Washington, DC: USSC, 2025. 65p.

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 Diarmuid Griffin

Existing research on life imprisonment focuses on interrogating the sentence from a human rights perspective, exploring lived experiences, and examining release processes. There are few studies that analyse the judicial practice of imposing life imprisonment. This article examines judicial rationales in imposing and upholding discretionary sentences of life imprisonment in Ireland, from 1987 to 2022. The findings indicate that it is selectively imposed (primarily for sexual or homicide offences). Sentence selection is frequently influenced by the multiplicity of offending, the exceptional nature of the crime(s) and the vulnerability of the victim(s). Factors such as the risk of reoffending and previous criminal history also appeared to influence sentence outcomes. The indeterminate nature of the sentence was viewed as beneficial in addressing concerns relating to public protection. Author: Diarmuid Griffin

IRISH JUDICIAL STUDIES JOURNAL , 2024. 18p.

By The Sentencing Council for England and Wales

The Sentencing Council for England and Wales was set up in 2010 and produces guidelines for use by all members of the judiciary when sentencing after conviction in criminal cases. The Council promotes a clear, fair, and consistent approach to sentencing by issuing sentencing guidelines and explanatory materials. It has a statutory duty to monitor these sentencing guidelines and to draw conclusions from the information obtained (s129 Coroners and Justice Act 2009). On 1 October 2018, the Council published the intimidatory offences guidelines, which are a package of five guidelines covering 11 offences, including harassment and stalking offences. The five guidelines are for use in all courts and apply to all adult offenders (those aged 18 or over at the time of sentence). The guidelines came into force on 1 October 2018 and cover: • a combined guideline covering the offences of harassment, stalking and racially or religiously aggravated harassment/stalking • a combined guideline covering the offences of harassment (putting people in fear of violence), stalking (involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress), and racially or religiously aggravated harassment (putting people in fear of violence)/stalking (involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress) • threats to kill • disclosing private sexual images • controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship The Council developed guidelines to replace the Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Guidelines (MCSG) for harassment, harassment (putting people in fear of violence), racially or religiously aggravated harassment, racially or religiously aggravated harassment (putting people in fear of violence) and threats to kill, to provide more detailed guidance as these guidelines were only applicable to the magistrates’ courts. Additionally, the package introduced new guidelines for stalking, stalking (involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress), racially or religiously aggravated stalking, and racially or religiously aggravated stalking (involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress), as there were no guidelines previously covering these offences. The guidelines also covered the newer offences of disclosing private sexual images and controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship which were introduced in 2015. The aims of the guidelines are to ensure that all sentences are proportionate to the offence committed and in relation to other offences.

London: Sentencing Council for England and Wales, 2025. 93p.