Edited by Morgan Currie, Jeremy Knox and Callum McGregor

Data Justice and the Right to the City engages with theories of social justice and data-driven urbanism. It explores the intersecting concerns of data justice - both the harms and civic possibilities of the datafied society – and the right to the city - a call to redress the uneven distribution of resources and rights in urban contexts. These concerns are addressed through a variety of topics: digital social services, as cities use data and algorithms to administer to citizens; education, as data-driven practices transform learning and higher education; labour, as platforms create new precarities and risks for workers; and activists who seek to make creative and political interventions into these developments. This edited collection proposes frameworks for understanding the effects of data-driven technologies at the municipal scale and offers strategies for intervention by both scholars and citizens.

Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2023. 386p.

By David Grant

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

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

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

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

Cham: Springer Nature, 2024. 456p.

By Ashley N. Muchow, Agustina Laurito

In 2012, Chicago closed half of its public mental health clinics, which provide services to those in need regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. Critics of the closures argued that they would result in service shortages and divert untreated patients to the criminal justice system. We explore this claim by examining whether and to what extent the closures increased criminal justice contact. Using a difference-in-differences framework, we compare arrests and mental health transports in block groups located within a half mile of clinics that closed to those equi-distant from clinics that remained open. While we find evidence that police-initiated mental health transports increased following the closures, we do not observe similar changes in arrests.

Policy implications

Chicago's mental health clinic closures remain a contentious issue to this day. Our results suggest that the shuttered clinics were meeting a need that, when left unmet, created conditions for mental health emergencies. While the closures do not appear to have routed untreated patients to the county jail, they increased police contact and, subsequently, transportation to less specialized emergency care facilities. Our findings demonstrate the need to strengthen health care access, crisis prevention, and the mental health safety net to preclude police from acting as mental health responders of last resort.

Criminology & Public Policy Volume 24, Issue 1 Feb 2025

By Gemma Buckland

In recent decades, policymakers have become increasingly aware that our legal definition, which treats all people aged 18 years or older as adults, does not reflect the neurological process of maturation. Policymakers across all parts of the criminal justice system have recognised this although changes in practice are variable at best. There is now a considerable body of evidence on the maturation process and best practice in working with young adults (typically defined as those aged between 18 and 25 years old) in contact with the criminal justice system. This review looks at: What we understand about the development of the brain in young adulthood The implications for young adults involved in criminal behaviour The impact of trauma and Adverse Childhood Experiences on the maturation process The “age-crime curve” and the evidence about growing out of crime Implications for best practice working with young adults

London: CLINKS, 2025. 16p.

By Roland Neil, and Michael Zanger-Tishler

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

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

By Christine Reynolds, et al.

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

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

By Guha Krishnamurthi

We are in the age of the Data State. Increasingly capable artificial intelligences, equipped with vast amounts of data, will integrate into every aspect of our lives. Penal systems are no exception-algorithms are already being deployed in criminal investigations, bail determinations, and sentencing decisions. Thinkers of all stripes-including scholars, activists, and science-fiction authors-have warned us of the dire consequences of such algorithmic criminal systems. Philip K. Dick's Minority Report presaged an apocalyptic society predicting and preemptively punishing criminal behavior. Minority Report featured precognitives-or "precogs"-individuals that had psychic ability to predict premeditated murders. Today, we are warned, algorithms are the new precogs, with an uncannily accurate but impenetrable method of determining the future. And we can expect that society will pervasively use such predictions to pre-punish individuals. Our societal desire to stop criminal wrongs will come at the heavy cost of our freedom. Understandably, this has led people to stridently oppose the use of algorithmic criminal systems. In this Article, I proffer a vision of how to integrate algorithms into criminal systems that aims to enhance, rather than curtail, our freedom and minimize the reach of the draconian criminal law. Consider a simple example: Jaywalking. Under the Minority Report view, police would use algorithms to predict jaywalkers and ticket them preemptively. But under an alternative system, algorithms would predict vehicle movement, and allow people to cross the street safely whenever they wish. Similarly, an algorithmic criminal system could probabilistically predict the occurrence of other crimes, including violent crimes, and first deploy alternative interventions to stop the crime while zealously avoiding penal responses.

From these examples, the Article derives the Liberty-Enhancing View, with a concrete set of principles for implementing an algorithmic criminal system: First, algorithmic systems should seek to avoid imposing punishment on individuals. Second, algorithms should seek to eliminate pretextual, intrusive conduct by the government. Third, algorithms should seek to eliminate malum prohibitum laws, through superior coordination. Fourth, algorithms should seek to eliminate inchoate liabilities. And fifth, algorithms should not seek to discover and punish bad character of individuals, especially through criminalizing inchoate conduct. This Liberty-Enhancing View does not seek to shelter the penal system from algorithms. Instead, it focuses our use of algorithms to advance the principles underlying our criminal justice system, with the aspiration of eliminating the harms of the penal state.

Houston Law Review, 2025, 56p.

By Daniel Loehr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Grant Duwe and Valerie Clark

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

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

By Equal Justice Initiative

Race and the Jury: Illegal Discrimination in Jury Selection, released online July 27, 2021, places the continuing illegal exclusion of jurors of color in its historical context as “a continuing legacy of our history of racial injustice,” documenting the country’s “long history of tolerating racial bias in jury selection and a continuing indifference to correcting widespread underrepresentation of people of color on juries.” The report, a follow up to the organization’s 2010 report, Illegal Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection, details the numerous factors that contribute to ongoing jury discrimination today, and what EJI describes as the “persistent and widespread” impact it continues to have on the U.S. legal system.

While racial discrimination in jury selection is present throughout the criminal legal system, the report finds that it has especially pernicious effects in capital trials. “In cases where the death penalty is a possible punishment, the absence of meaningful representation on juries shapes sentencing outcomes, making them less reliable and credible,” the report explains. “The effect is greatest for non-white defendants, as studies show that less representative juries convict and sentence Black defendants to death at significantly higher rates than white defendants. White jurors are also less likely to consider critical mitigating evidence supporting a life sentence, rather than the death penalty, for Black defendants.”

EJI says illegal jury discrimination “persists because those who perpetrate or tolerate racial bias — including trial and appellate courts, defense lawyers, lawmakers, and prosecutors — act with impunity. Courts that fail to create jury lists that fairly represent their communities face no repercussions. Prosecutors who unlawfully strike Black people from juries don’t get fined, sanctioned, or held accountable.”

To redress the problem, EJI recommends that courts and legislatures remove procedural barriers to reviewing claims of jury discrimination, adopt policies and practices that commit to fully representative jury pools, hold accountable decision makers who engage in racially discriminatory jury selection practices, and strengthen the standard of review of jury discrimination claims. However, EJI says, only a few states “have recognized the problem and implemented reforms or initiated studies” and “[m]ost states have done nothing.”

Montgomery, AL: Equal Justice Initiative, 2021. 107p.

By Angelica Duran-Martinez

In the mid 2010s discussions about the pertinence of negotiating with criminal groups increased in Latin America. Although controversial, such negotiations are more common than often thought. This article asks: can negotiations reduce violence and generate peace? I argue that the homicide reduction potential of negotiations depends on the cohesion of the state and on the cohesion and hierarchical control of criminal groups. This in turn generates two challenges for peacebuilding: the challenge of scaling up and down security gains beyond homicide reduction, and the challenge of creating three-way arrangements that include civilians and navigate the blurry boundaries between states, civilians, and criminal actors. To conceptualize these challenges, I also distinguish top-down and bottom-up negotiations and argue that addressing these challenges requires bridging a divide between peace building principles emphasizing the importance of local contexts, and peace processes literature focusing on objective power considerations. I substantiate the theory using evidence from long term fieldwork, archival analysis, and forty-three interviews conducted for this project in Medellín-Colombia and extend the insights to assess the potential for peace negotiations in Mexico.

Crime Law and Social Change 82(4):867-891, 2023

Edited by Jacqueline Behrend and Laurence Whitehead

This important book offers an original perspective on the rule of law, development, and democracy in Latin America, establishing a new approach in recognizing the realities of political economy as opposed to merely structural and institutional factors. With contributions from an international team of experts, the book outlines the main challenges that have arisen in the pursuit of a developmental agenda in the region, including subnational variations, state capture by local elites, variations in state capacity, border divergence from centrally designed perspectives, environmental conflicts, uneven access to justice and the role of international organizations. In doing so, the book explores the democratic and developmental implications of conflicts over the rule of law and its application, uneven enforcement, and state capture. Whether a reference tool for the seasoned scholar, a guide aiding practitioner's individual expertise or an introduction to students interested in the complex intersections between the rule of law, development and democracy, this book is a must-have for any library.

London; New York: Routledge, 2025. 318p.

By Ian Mynot and Oksana Ihnatenko\

On 15 November 2024, RUSI’s Centre for Finance and Security and the Center for Financial Integrity (CFI)1 launched a Taskforce on Public–Private Partnership in Fighting Financial Crime in Ukraine. An in-person meeting in Warsaw, held on a non-attributable basis, convened 40 representatives, including those from the public and private sectors in Ukraine, and international experts. The discussion included two sessions focused on the current state of public–private partnerships (PPPs) in Ukraine and on international experience and recommendations. This report summarises the main findings of each of these sessions. None of the discussions at the meeting are attributable.

London: The Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies RUSI, 2025. 15p.

By Sarah Monaghan, Kellyann Bock, Michael Rempel, & Olive Lu

Spanning more than four decades, how has the footprint of New York’s criminal legal system changed? This comprehensive report explores the changing landscape of law enforcement in New York State from 1980 to 2023. It analyzes trends in arrests, prosecutorial declinations, criminal convictions, and sentencing practices, with a focus on regional and racial disparities.

Key Takeaways

Statewide Arrest Trends

After varying patterns by charge and region from 1980 to 2010, arrest rates declined significantly from 2010 to 2020, with a modest resurgence from 2020 to 2023.

Misdemeanor arrests in NYC increased nearly fourfold from 1980 to 2010, dropped by 75% from 2010 to 2020 but rose by 40% from 2020 to 2023.

Felony arrests decreased across all regions from 1980 to 2020, with a modest uptick in recent years.

Charge-Specific Arrest Patterns

Drug arrests in NYC peaked at over 128,000 in 2000, before falling to under 18,000 in 2023.

Prostitution and fare evasion arrests in NYC saw drastic declines. Prostitution declined 99% from 1985 to 2023, and fare evasion declined 99% from 1994 to 2021, before a 2021-to-2023 uptick.

DUI remained a leading charge outside NYC, comprising 18%-19% of suburban and upstate misdemeanors in 2023.

Prosecutorial Declinations

After changing only modestly until 2017, district attorneys’ offices in the Bronx, Manhattan, and Brooklyn declined to prosecute increasing numbers of low level misdemeanor arrests from 2017 to 2023.

Select low level arrests for transit fare evasion, prostitution, trespass, and marijuana possession saw especially significant increases in declinations in the Bronx, Manhattan, and/or Brooklyn.

Sentencing Trends: Jail and prison sentences for misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies peaked around 2000 before decreasing significantly by 2023. Violent felony convictions increasingly resulted in prison sentences across all regions.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities: While shrinking in some areas since 1980 (e.g., felony arrest disparities narrowed), the study found that sizable Black-white and Hispanic-white disparities on most metrics examined.

New York:

Data Collaborative for Justice at John Jay College,

2024. 45p.

By Chris Tully

JENGbA facilitated a series of Listening Days with the families and friends of those impacted by Joint Enterprise (JE). Between October 2023 and May 2024 four such days took place in London, Birmingham, Manchester and Sheffield. The days were attended by 41 family members and friends. Each listening day focussed on five themes; knowledge of JE and when they were first aware their loved ones were to be charged under joint enterprise, the impact on them and their communities following conviction, racism and the gang narrative, role of the media, developing support networks and the fightback against the injustice of joint enterprise. Families reported having little or no previous knowledge of JE and in a considerable number of cases only found out immediately prior to, or during the trial and in some cases not until the judges’ summing up. Inevitably the impact was profound. We heard of the toll on peoples’ physical and mental health, the damage done to family relationships, the breakdown of relationships with neighbours and members of their local communities, often based on stigma, a suspicion that there is ‘no smoke without fire’ and a general lack of awareness amongst the general public of how JE is applied. A lack of independent, accessible information, support and guidance at the point of charging was seen as a fundamental problem for families confronting a trial. Families expressed anger towards the role of the police, often seen as complicit with the Crown Prosecution Service, in using JE as a blunt instrument to “round up” and prosecute young people particularly on the basis of race, class, family name and by dint of neighbourhood. Participants in the conversations also had poor experiences with lawyers citing; a lack of experience, little or no expertise in JE cases, little empathy, a reluctance to share. information and documents. The experiences of trials were predicated on similar concerns. We heard families describe juries who appeared unaware of what guilty verdicts in JE cases meant for defendants, judges who were dismissive of evidence, and concerns that juries rarely reflected the diversity of the cities and towns where trials were taking place. A key concern was disproportionate use of JE in relation to black and racialised communities, working class communities and children and young people. Often underpinning this was the use of a gang narrative to justify charging and prosecution. Families were angered by the speed with which the gang narrative was introduced into proceedings and why this was applied when association was actually founded on living in the same neighbourhood, shared interests such as music and sport, school friendships etc. As such JE was seen as both “lazy” and susceptible to stereotyping and demonisation. Many we heard from had experienced unacceptable treatment at the hands of the media. Commonly this is presented as malign or inaccurate reporting, geared towards racism, blame often attributed to parents and especially mothers. Some felt the media and police worked hand in hand to perpetuate moral panics. Retractions of inaccurate reporting were hard to come by and we also heard how images of families’ children were used repeatedly by local press, sometimes years later, to highlight youth crime or gang violence. The most positive conversations revolved around the value of family relationships as a buffer against the isolation of having a loved one sentenced under JE. Additionally a community of interest has been forged by the work of JENGbA, without which many felt they would have collapsed under the weight of trying to support loved ones and sustain other relationships. JENGbA have provided support, information, understanding and access to a group of people who share campaigning zeal and a desire to put an end to the misuse of a legal doctrine that punishes many more people than ‘just’ those it imprisons.

London: Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association,

2024. 28p.

By The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General

  In the aftermath of the riot and breach of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, among the questions that were raised was how the breach had occurred and what was known by federal law enforcement in advance of January 6 about the possibility of a violent protest that day. On January 15, 2021, the Department of Justice (Department or DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) announced its review to examine the role and activity of DOJ and its components in preparing for and responding to the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Separately, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department prosecutors immediately began criminally investigating individuals who violated federal law in connection with the riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6. The Department—through the U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) for the District of Columbia (DC)— has reported that it has brought charges against over 1,500 individuals and described the January 6 investigations and prosecutions as having “moved forward at an unprecedented speed and scale.” In the public announcement of our review of the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, we took note of these ongoing criminal prosecutions, stating that the OIG was “mindful of the sensitive nature of the ongoing criminal investigations and prosecutions related to the events of January 6. Consistent with longstanding OIG practice, in conducting this review, the DOJ OIG will take care to ensure that the review does not interfere with these investigations or prosecutions.” As is customary for the OIG, we coordinated closely with the Department and the DC USAO to ensure that the OIG’s investigative work did not conflict with or compromise any ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution. To that end, and consistent with OIG practice, in spring 2022 the OIG paused aspects of our review. 1 Once the OIG determined last year, after consultation with federal prosecutors, that our review would no longer potentially interfere with pending prosecutions, we resumed our review. In doing so, we were cognizant of the amount of time that had passed in deference to the ongoing criminal investigations and prosecutions, as well as the number of other non-DOJ OIG oversight reports that have since been publicly released regarding the January 6 events, and we therefore decided to largely focus our inquiry on an issue that has not yet been thoroughly reviewed in oversight conducted by other entities, namely the FBI’s direction and handling of its confidential human sources (CHS) in the lead-up to and on January 6, and whether the FBI exploited its CHSs and other available information to determine the nature of threats in advance of the electoral vote certification on January 6. In addition to the DOJ OIG’s oversight efforts reflected in this report, several other Inspectors General have conducted reviews of their agency’s actions in connection with the events of January 6:  The U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) OIG immediately began a review to determine if the USCP, which is responsible for policing the Capitol Complex, (1) established adequate measures for ensuring the safety and security of the Capitol Complex as well as Members of Congress, (2) established adequate  internal controls and processes for ensuring compliance with Department policies, and (3) complied with applicable policies and procedures as well as applicable laws and regulations.  The Department of Defense (DoD) OIG initiated a review of the relevant events leading up to January 6, including the DoD’s review and approval of the DC government’s request for assistance from the DC National Guard; DoD’s coordination with DC and federal officials in preparation for January 6; DoD’s receipt and approval of the USCP’s request for assistance on January 6; and the planning involved for National Guard forces to help secure the Capitol in the immediate aftermath of the riot.  The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) OIG began a review to examine the role and activity of DHS and its components in preparing for and responding to the events of January 6, 2021, including DHS’s Office of Intelligence & Analysis’s responsibility for providing intelligence to law enforcement and DHS law enforcement components’ roles, responsibilities, and actions on January 6. The U.S. Secret Service (USSS), which was responsible for protecting then Vice President Mike Pence on January 6 during his time at the U.S. Capitol, is a law enforcement component within DHS. In addition, DHS is responsible for designating an event as a national special security event (NSSE) or as a Special Event Assessment Rating (SEAR) event, which it did not do for the electoral vote certification on January 6. 2 The FBI defines a special event as a “significant international event or a domestic event” formally designated as an NSSE event or a SEAR event, which requires the FBI “to plan, coordinate, develop, or provide FBI resources to mitigate potential threats the special event may cause to national security or threats of significant criminal activity that the FBI is responsible for identifying, preventing, investigating, or disrupting.”  The Department of Interior (DOI) OIG initiated a review of the actions of the National Park Service (NPS) and the U.S. Park Police (USPP) in preparing for and responding to the events at the Ellipse and the Capitol on January 6 and in information-sharing between the NPS, the USPP, and their law enforcement partners. The demonstration that preceded the violence at the Capitol occurred at the Ellipse, which is part of President’s Park—a national park under the control of the NPS. The USPP is a unit of the NPS authorized to conduct law enforcement in the national park system and, pursuant to local statutes, within DC generally. A further oversight effort was undertaken by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), at the request of Congress, which announced that it would conduct “a comprehensive overview of events leading up to, during, and following the January 6 attack.” The U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives also conducted oversight regarding the events of January 6. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (HSGAC) together with the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration (RAC) announced a joint investigation on January 8, 2021, to “examine the intelligence and security failures” that led to the events of January 6. On January 12, 2021, the House of Representatives and Senate leadership were briefed by senior FBI officials about the FBI’s posture leading up to January 6, its response and investigation into the events of January 6, and the threat picture and operational posture leading into the Inauguration on January 20, 2021. Subsequently, numerous congressional committee hearings addressed how various federal agencies prepared in advance of the January 6 Electoral Certification and how they responded on January 6, with the first one being held by the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee on January 26, 2021. In early March 2021, HSGAC/RAC jointly held an oversight hearing that included testimony from the FBI, Hearing Examining the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol, Part II, as well as from non-FBI witnesses. On June 30, 2021, the House of Representatives established a 13-member Select Committee to investigate the rioting and breaching of the Capitol on January 6, named the “House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol” (House Select Committee). The House Select Committee held 10 televised hearings beginning on June 9, 2022, and concluded the last hearing on December 19, 2022. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, 2024. 88p.

By Deniz Arıtürk , Michele M. Easter , Jeffrey W. Swanson, and Marvin S. Swartz

Despite significant scholarship, research, and funding dedicated to implementing criminal diversion programs over the past two decades, persons with serious mental illness and substance use disorders remain substantially overrepresented in United States jails and prisons. Why are so many U.S. adults with behavioral health problems incarcerated instead of receiving treatment and other support to recover in the community? In this paper, we explore this persistent problem within the context of “relentless unmet need” in U.S. behavioral health (Alegría et al., 2021). 

  The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 52 (2024): 65-75 

By Peter Leasure

The current paper aimed to estimate the likelihood of an OVI (operating vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs) arrest across race/ethnicity and gender using data from the Ohio State Highway Patrol (OSHP). Black and Hispanic males and females had higher probabilities of an OVI arrest than White males and females. However, males and females in the other category had lower probabilities of an OVI arrest than White males and females. For gender differences, males in all race/ethnicity categories had higher probabilities of an OVI arrest than females. 

Ohio State Legal Studies Research Paper No. 886 Columbus: Ohio State University (OSU) - Michael E. Moritz College of Law, 2024. 11p.

By Robin M. Maher, Leah Roemer

While all eyes are on the race for U.S. President, it is local races for prosecutor, state judge, legislator, and governor that will decide whether and how the death penalty is used. The President only has jurisdiction over federal death penalty cases, which currently represent about 2% of all death row prisoners and 1% of all executions carried out in the U.S. since 1976. He or she selects the Attorney General, who determines whether to seek death sentences in eligible federal cases and how to defend existing federal death sentences. The President also has clemency power for people convicted of federal crimes, including those on federal death row. 

Washington, DC: Death Penalty Information Center, 2024. 32p.