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.

By Beatrix Immenkamp with Greta Baltikauskaite, Graphics: Samy Chahri

The European arrest warrant (EAW) is a judicial decision issued by a Member State with a view to the arrest and surrender by another Member State of a requested person for the purposes of a criminal prosecution or a custodial sentence. Between 2005 and 2022, some 231 005 EAWs were issued, and 69 688 persons were surrendered. The functioning of the EAW system – as set out in this infographic – requires a high level of trust between the judicial authorities of the issuing and the executing Member State, which has at times generated challenges and tensions. In the internal security strategy published on 1 April 2025, the Commission stated that it would 'assess the need to further strengthen' the EAW.

Brussels: EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service, 2025. 2p.

By Leigh Courtney, Barbara Pierce, Ashlin Oglesby-Neal , Susan Nembhard

Many states have enacted comprehensive justice system reforms to reduce incarceration and community supervision in order to focus funding more on people at higher risk of reoffending and invest in strategies to achieve better outcomes for people and communities. Many policy reforms have been spurred by significant growth in the number of people on community supervision. According to a 2018 Pew Charitable Trusts chartbook, probation and parole populations nationwide grew 239 percent from 1980 to 2016 (Horowitz, Utada, and Fuhrmann 2018). Notably, community supervision populations peaked in 2007 and then fell 11 percent between 2007 and 2016. 1 To date, research on the impact of states’ community supervision policy changes has not kept pace with the rate at which they have been enacted, leaving policymakers and practitioners with a knowledge gap on which reforms have made a difference and why. The Urban Institute and the Crime and Justice Institute (CJI) assessed policies reforming probation sentencing in two states, Louisiana and Georgia, to understand their impact on people who are supervised and on outcomes including revocation and successful completion. Reforming probation sentencing is one way to ensure scarce resources are prioritized for supporting and monitoring people when their risk of failing supervision is highest, not for long periods after this risk has declined. Research has shown that supervision is most effective when it focuses on people who are at higher risk of reoffending and that recidivism rates drop precipitously after the first year of supervision (Alper, Durose, and Markman 2018; Andrews and Bonta 2010). A statutory reduction of the length of probation supervision terms can be a direct way to reduce the number of people under community supervision. When implemented consistently, probation sentencing reform may yield more reliable reductions of the supervised population than reforms that depend heavily on changing supervision practices. And by limiting how long supervision resources can be expended on people at low risk of failure, these reforms can yield significant gains in cost savings and community safety. In contrast to other community supervision reforms (such as earned discharge policies) that require people to incrementally earn time off potentially lengthy sentences at the back ends of their terms, probation sentencing reform establishes upper limits that apply uniformly to entire categories of people at the front ends of their terms. Despite these potential benefits, wholesale reductions of probation sentence lengths are uncommon. States’ strategies for reducing probation sentences have varied: some have shortened all probation sentences for certain offenses by reducing the maximum probation sentences allowed for those offenses, whereas others have simply granted judges the flexibility to impose shorter sentences than the maximums. Meanwhile, some states have used creative strategies to establish a presumption of shorter probation terms without changing sentencing requirements. These strategies blend front-end reductions of sentences with mechanisms similar to earned discharge policies that enable early release, but they also grant courts and supervising agencies discretion to extend those sentences at the back end because of noncompliance with supervision terms. For this reason, any assessment of the impact of probation sentencing reforms must consider the details of how they have been implemented and the extent to which discretion is allowed. Urban and CJI assessed implementation and analyzed outcomes of different approaches in Louisiana and Georgia. In 2017, Louisiana’s Senate Bill 139 eliminated the one-year minimum for all probation sentences and reduced the maximum sentence for felony probation from five to three years for a first, second, or third conviction for a nonviolent, non-capital felony. Approximately 89 percent of new probation starts in 2018–19 were for nonsex, nonviolent offenses. The policy allows judges to extend probation terms up to five years for people who do not comply with supervision conditions. The law affects everyone sentenced to probation as of November 2017. Also passed in 2017, Georgia’s Senate Bill 174 established two mechanisms for reducing probation sentence lengths. First, it requires that a probation sentence for any first-time felony conviction with a straight probation sentence (with no prison time) include a behavioral incentive date (BID) of three years or less, at which point the Georgia Department of Community Supervision (DCS) must file a petition to terminate probation if the person has not been arrested for anything other than a nonserious traffic offense during their probation term, has complied with the conditions of supervision, and has paid all restitution owed. About a third of the felony probation population from July 2017 to December 2020 was eligible for BIDs.2 Second, it makes early termination of probation available to anyone convicted of certain nonviolent felony offenses who has been sentenced to three years or more and who has not previously had their supervision revoked. The law requires DCS to file a petition for early termination for anyone who has completed three years of supervision and has not been arrested for anything other than a non-serious traffic offense, has complied with the conditions of supervision, and has paid all restitution. Courts may accept or reject BID petitions and early termination petitions at ends of their terms, probation sentencing reform establishes upper limits that apply uniformly to entire categories of people at the front ends of their terms. Despite these potential benefits, wholesale reductions of probation sentence lengths are uncommon. States’ strategies for reducing probation sentences have varied: some have shortened all probation sentences for certain offenses by reducing the maximum probation sentences allowed for those offenses, whereas others have simply granted judges the flexibility to impose shorter sentences than the maximums. Meanwhile, some states have used creative strategies to establish a presumption of shorter probation terms without changing sentencing requirements. These strategies blend frontend reductions of sentences with mechanisms similar to earned discharge policies that enable early release, but they also grant courts and supervising agencies discretion to extend those sentences at the back end because of noncompliance with supervision terms. For this reason, any assessment of the impact of probation sentencing reforms must consider the details of how they have been implemented and the extent to which discretion is allowed. Urban and CJI assessed implementation and analyzed outcomes of different approaches in Louisiana and Georgia. In 2017, Louisiana’s Senate Bill 139 eliminated the one-year minimum for all probation sentences and reduced the maximum sentence for felony probation from five to three years for a first, second, or third conviction for a nonviolent, non-capital felony. Approximately 89 percent of new probation starts in 2018–19 were for nonsex, nonviolent offenses. The policy allows judges to extend probation terms up to five years for people who do not comply with supervision conditions. The law affects everyone sentenced to probation as of November 2017. Also passed in 2017, Georgia’s Senate Bill 174 established two mechanisms for reducing probation sentence lengths. First, it requires that a probation sentence for any first-time felony conviction with a straight probation sentence (with no prison time) include a behavioral incentive date (BID) of three years or less, at which point the Georgia Department of Community Supervision (DCS) must file a petition to terminate probation if the person has not been arrested for anything other than a non-serious traffic offense during their probation term, has complied with the conditions of supervision, and has paid all restitution owed. About a third of the felony probation population from July 2017 to December 2020 was eligible for BIDs.2 Second, it makes early termination of probation available to anyone convicted of certain nonviolent felony offenses who has been sentenced to three years or more and who has not previously had their supervision revoked. The law requires DCS to file a petition for early termination for anyone who has completed three years of supervision and has not been arrested for anything other than a nonserious traffic offense, has complied with the conditions of supervision, and has paid all restitution. Courts may accept or reject BID petitions and early termination petitions at

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2022. 40p.

By UK Ministry of Justice

In the summer of 2024, capacity pressures brought the prison system dangerously close to collapse. The adult prison population, estimated to be over 87,000 as of April 2025,1 currently exceeds the capacity the system is designed to accommodate and is projected to increase. To address these capacity challenges, successive governments have been forced to adopt emergency measures to free up spaces, including reducing the release point for some prisoners from 50% of their sentence to 40% (SDS40).2 These measures cannot resolve the capacity crisis in the long term nor fortify the effective running of our prisons. Commissioned by the Ministry of Justice in October 2024, this Independent Sentencing Review (“the Review”) was given the task of a comprehensive re-evaluation of our sentencing framework, to ensure the country is never again in a position where it has more prisoners than prison places, and the government is forced to rely on the emergency release of prisoners. This Review also welcomes the opportunity to think more imaginatively about how we sentence and use custody, holding the view that our current system, regardless of prison capacity pressures, requires considerable reform to rehabilitate offenders more successfully, reduce reoffending and support victims. The purposes of sentencing, as set out in legislation, are punishment, reduction of crime, reparation, rehabilitation and public protection. The Review’s Part 1 report History and Trends in Sentencing found that over the last two decades, sentencing has focused disproportionately on punishment with a view from politicians and the media that “the only form of punishment that counts is imprisonment.”3 Punishment is an important aim of the criminal justice system and prison plays a vital role in delivering punishment. However, too often political decision-making has been based on an approach that punishment is all that matters, with political parties lacking appropriate focus on the most effective ways to reduce crime. This is demonstrated by the high levels of reoffending, suggesting that the current approach is failing to achieve rehabilitation and address the root causes of offending. Overall, proven reoffending rates for adult offenders have fluctuated between

Recommendations

There are nine detailed chapters in the review, each with accompanying recommendations – a total of 48 in all. I summarise the nine chapter headings and overall recommendation for each below.

Revisiting the statutory purposes of sentencing – recommends amending the statutory purposes of sentencing to emphasise the importance of protecting victims and reducing crime.

Strengthening alternatives to custody in the community – recommends revising the sentencing framework to ensure sentencers can take full advantage of the flexibility of community sentencing, including financial penalties and ancillary orders.

Reducing reliance on custody – the expected recommendation to legislate to ensure short custodial sentences are only used in exceptional circumstances.

Incentivising progression from custody to community – prisoners can be released earlier through “earned progression” defined as rewarding compliance with prison rules.

Taking a victim-centred approach – recommendations to improve public awareness and information on sentencing, more transparency about sentence lengths and better support to victims.

Targeted approach to different groups – recommendations aimed at prolific offenders, women, drug and alcohol offenders, older offenders, Foreign National Offenders and sex offenders.

The role of the probation service – more investment in the service itself and funding for Third Sector and community organisations.

The role of technology – rapid roll out of technology in offender supervision, improved data sharing and explore use of advanced AI.

A sustainable prison system – longer term recommendations including an external advisory body and transparency around the impact of new legislation on prison capacity.

London: UK Ministry of Justice, 2025. 192p.

By Phil Bowen and Ellie Brown

• This briefing considers the three criminal justice Bills currently before Parliament— the Sentencing Bill; the Criminal Justice Bill; and the Victims and Prisoners’ Bill— and estimates the impact they will have on the demand placed on the prisons and on probation specifically. (In a separate briefing, we have looked specifically at how to strengthen provision for victims within the Victims and Prisoners’ Bill). We recognise our estimates include a good deal of guesswork but we have tried as far as possible to ground them in the existing Government figures in the public realm. • The backdrop of these new Bills is stark. From court backlogs, high probation service caseloads and an overcrowded and overflowing population in the adult male prisons, the adult criminal justice system is already struggling with demand. The Sentencing Bill itself was originally announced as part of a broader response to acute prison capacity issues, and included a new executive early release scheme. • Our assessment is that, taken together, the proposals to reduce demand on, and increase the capacity of, our prison system are unlikely to adequately deal with the acute pressures on the adult male prison estate in the medium term. Measures like a presumption against short sentences may delay the point at which demand outstrips supply but we estimate that, by December 2026, we are likely to reach a capacity crunch point again. • Turning to probation, a number of the measures to alleviate prison demand place do so by placing additional burdens on the probation service (we estimate 14,000 extra cases over the next four years). There is currently insufficient assurance that probation have the workforce and resources to take this on. We have concerns that the current proposal to place individuals onto Suspended Sentence Orders (SSOs) as an alternative to short prison sentences could backfire due to this lack of probation resourcing, and this may further undermine judicial and public confidence in community sentences more generally. • We suggest that the Ministry of Justice pay special attention to the recommendations of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee of the House of Lords report on community sentences that “Deferred sentencing can be used… to create incentives for low-level, repeat offenders to engage with more intensive rehabilitative activities.” We also recommend the Ministry of Justice extends existing alternatives to short prison sentences for women (both diversion away from the court system as well as problem-solving court alternatives for women), and ensure that the presumption against short sentences applies for people under 18 as well. • Finally, we have concerns about the measures in the Criminal Justice Bill to tackle rough sleeping and nuisance begging through new civil orders which, if breached, can result in criminal proceedings. There is a lack of credible evidence advanced for these proposals and the Government’s own impact assessment seems to ignore the considerable evidence that similar attempts to use these types of order have been ineffective, poorly implemented, disproportionately punish the most vulnerable and do so while draining resources away from evidence-based preventative measures. We are also concerned that the proposals are accompanied by no assessment of their impact on the courts or other parts of the criminal justice system

London: Centre for Justice Innovation 2023. 10p.

By Jose Pina-Sánchez, Julian V. Roberts and Jonathan Bild,

This Research Bulletin reports findings from the first comprehensive analysis of ‘sentence inflation’ in England and Wales. Unlike previous analyses, this one encompasses all years since 2005 and all offences.

In a previous research bulletin by the Sentencing Academy Pina-Sánchez et al. (2023) documented a significant increase in sentence severity in England and Wales over the last two decades. However, the extent to which this increase in sentence severity is due to a genuine process of ‘sentence inflation’ was unclear. The changing nature of crime might have affected the offence mix processed through our criminal courts. It is possible that the cases sentenced by the courts have become more serious over the period in question. To the extent that this has occurred it would constitute ‘explainable’ or natural inflation. If the cases sentenced are more serious, sentence severity should reflect this changing pattern.

The analysis relates two indices. One – the Imprisonment Index – measures sentence severity by combining the custody rate and Average Custodial Sentence Length (ACSL). The second index measures the seriousness of cases appearing for sentencing.

The Sentencing Academy’s submission to the Sentencing Review reported new analyses comparing trends of sentence severity and crime seriousness for three offence groups: sexual offences, drug offences, and criminal damage offences. In this report, we expand that preliminary analysis to include all major offence groups. This enables us to estimate the overall increase in sentence severity independent of changes in the mix of offences sentenced.

We estimate that since 2005, sentence severity has increased by 62%, while the seriousness of crimes processed through courts has increased by only 8%. This means that 87% of the increased sentence severity over the period was due to changes in sentencing practice, or as we term it, ‘sentence inflation’. Put differently, we estimate that sentencing in England and Wales is today 54% more punitive than in 2005. This is the first analysis to provide an estimate of the overall degree of sentence inflation in this or any other jurisdiction.

Our analysis reveals that sentence inflation has been far from uniform. Whereas no discernible pattern can be detected for drug offences, or public order offences, sentence severity for offences involving violence or weapons related offences has doubled since 2005. Sentence severity for fraud offences has tripled.

London: The Sentencing Academy, 2025. 7p.

By Jared Trujillo

The relationship between incarceration and poverty is circular, cyclical, and symbiotic – poverty is a cause of incarceration, and incarceration causes poverty. In the 1970’s and 1990’s, New York led the country in enacting draconian sentencing laws that required judges to sentence children and adults to longer periods of incarceration, while also reducing the ability of incarcerated people to earn time off of their sentences for participation in rehabilitative, vocational, and educational programming. For the past half century, these harsh sentencing laws have been the primary driver of mass incarceration in New York. As a result, generations of families with criminal legal system involvement have been damned to multigenerational poverty. This is most profound in low-income communities, particularly low-income Black and brown communities.

Incarceration often deprives children, partners, and other family members of a breadwinner. Even when breadwinners are released from incarceration, incomes for former imprisoned people are between ten and twenty percent lower than those who were never imprisoned. Even incomes for those formerly incarcerated in juvenile detention facilities are lower than the incomes of those who were not. Further, the children of incarcerated parents suffer from psychological, emotional, and educational trauma. These children are six times more likely to be incarcerated in their lives than their peers who do not have incarcerated parents. Romantic partners and co-parents of incarcerated people often struggle with anxiety, stress, and financial precarity. Mass incarceration in New York continues to be a policy choice, and sentencing reform is an important tool to fight individual and multigenerational poverty.

This article ultimately presents five legislative proposals that would reduce mass incarceration in New York. Repealing the juvenile offender statute will prevent children as young as 13 years old from being given life sentences; the Youth Justice and Opportunities Act would expand, strengthen, and establish alternative sentencing structures for people under 26 years old that would limit the length of incarceration while also sparing young people from the scarlet mark of a permanent criminal conviction; the Eliminate Mandatory Minimums Act would unchain judges from the rigidity and cruelty of New York’s current sentencing paradigm, while requiring them to consider noncustodial sentences and alternatives to incarceration; the Second Look Act would enable those who are already sentenced to long periods of incarceration to apply for a reduced sentence; and the Earned Time Act would enable incarcerated people to earn time off of their sentence for participating in educational, rehabilitative, or vocational programming.

26 CUNY L. Rev. 225 (2023). 42p.

By Jay Gormley, Gabrielle Watson, Gavin Dingwall, Jade Mouton, Jonathan Bild and Julian Roberts

Firearms offences are statistically rare yet in light of their potential for harm cause considerable public concern. The offences vary greatly in terms of their nature and possible sentences. As a result, the sentencing exercise is often complex. Courts must weigh the harm caused, intended, or which was reasonably foreseeable, as well as the culpability of the individual offender. Quantifying the harm caused can be particularly challenging where a firearms offence does not have an identifiable victim as firearms offences are inherently potentially harmful. An additional complexity arises in a small number of serious gun crimes which carry a mandatory minimum sentence. When sentencing these offences, the court must also consider whether exceptional circumstances may justify the imposition of a sentence which falls below the statutory minimum. This report examines research and sentencing guidance relating to firearms offences. These offences include a range of crimes varying in seriousness, although most create a risk of serious harm or death. We conducted a literature review of the social and socio-legal databases to uncover relevant publications for the period 2000-2024. As will be seen, most of the scholarship in the area focuses on restricting access to firearms rather than punishing offenders convicted of firearms offences. Within the more restricted domain of sentencing, the majority of publications address mandatory sentencing as a response to gun crime. Most Western nations have introduced mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment for the more serious forms of gun crime. The project also conducted a review of the public opinion literature to seek any research exploring public knowledge of, and attitudes towards, sentencing for firearms offences. Understanding public opinion is recognised as a relevant consideration by sentencing commissions and councils around the world. 3. With respect to guidance, England and Wales is the only relevant comparator jurisdiction. While gun crime is a near-universal problem, differences in the definition of offences – and laws around gun ownership – makes it inappropriate to compare sentencing guidance or trends with the United States. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are more comparable countries, but none of these operate formal sentencing guidelines. Many of the firearms offences in Scotland also exist in England and Wales and stem from the same UK legislation. In addition, courts in England and Wales and Scotland also employ sentencing guidelines. These follow a similar step by step approach (albeit with important differences). For these reasons, we restrict our comparisons to England and Wales. Contents of the Volume Chapter 1 Firearms Offences: This chapter identifies the offences under consideration, including statistics on the prevalence of the offences, and summarises the current legal framework for sentencing these offences. Chapter 2 Firearms Offenders and Associated Offences: This chapter explores the connection between firearms offences and other violent crime. It addresses the way that the assessment of risk interacts with sentencing for firearms offences and the indicators of further or more serious offending (such as homicide). Finally, it discusses the background of offenders and the intersection between minority ethnic backgrounds and sentencing for firearms offences. Chapter 3 Sentencing Guidance for Firearms Offences: This chapter reviews the principles and purposes of the sentencing of firearms offences and also discusses the sentencing guidelines for firearms offences issued by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales. Chapter 4 Research on Sentencing Responses to Firearms Offences: The final chapter summarises findings from research on the sentencing of firearms offences. The chapter also discusses the limited research exploring public attitudes to sentencing offenders convicted of firearms offences.

Edinburgh: Scottish Sentencing Council, 2025. 65p.