By Joanna R. Lampe

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Notwithstanding the strict federal control of marijuana, in recent years, many states have repealed state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

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

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

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

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

By American Bar Association Working Group on Building Public Trust in the American Justice System

Released in June 2020, this Report provides a comprehensive overview of the role private companies play throughout the criminal justice system and how the use of these private companies impacts low-income individuals moving through the system. The Report summarizes research done by other entities, academics, journalists, and activists on specific aspects of privatization. The organization of the report tracks the sequence of a typical accused individual's experiences in the criminal justice system following arrest, demonstrating how costs compound as the individual moves through the system.

The Report acknowledges that courts and other government entities sometimes need to import expertise they lack, but it urges governments to recognize how low-income individuals too often can be relentlessly ensnared in the criminal justice system, not because they engage in ongoing criminal activity, but because they cannot pay the debts imposed by the system itself. Too often, by hiring private companies to handle what were previously governmental functions in the criminal justice system, government agencies exacerbate the cycle of mandatory fees, nonpayment, and consequent additional fees. Far too frequently, government authorities allow private companies to operate in the criminal justice system with little or no oversight and to charge fees untethered to actual costs.

The Report urges the ABA to adopt specific policy on the privatization of services in the criminal justice system, as well as to promote the policies, already in existence, calling for careful limitations on fines and fees.

Chicago: ABA, 2020. 36p.

By The Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, Data Lab

The Conviction Integrity Unit (“CIU”) was established in 2018 by District Attorney Larry Krasner. The CIU’s predecessor, the Conviction Review Unit (“CRU”), which was established in 2014, had operated for a number of years with only a small staff and a narrow mandate. The CRU only reviewed claims of actual innocence, and rarely undertook investigations into whether new evidence existed that could prove those claims. Cases where the defendant had confessed were largely excluded from consideration, as if false confessions (which occur in a quarter of DNA exonerations nationally) were always reliable. Today, the CIU is an independent unit within the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, reporting directly to the District Attorney, and involved in one out of every ten homicide exonerations in the country. When District Attorney Krasner transformed the unit from the CRU to the CIU, he immediately tasked it with a broader mandate: not only to review past convictions for credible claims of actual innocence but also to review claims of wrongful conviction and secondarily to consider sentencing inequities. Early in his first term, District Attorney Krasner merged the CIU with the Office’s Special Investigations Unit (“SIU”). The two units share a common focus on investigating official misconduct, and their cases frequently overlap. However, as the CIU and SIU personnel have grown and expanded their caseloads, the units were separated in the summer of 2020 to better accommodate each unit’s mission

The CIU’s mission is to ensure that justice is served by prosecutors at the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office and to remedy the Office’s wrongful convictions. Pennsylvania prosecutors have limited post-con viction discretion in general and they have no legal authority to set aside convictions in the interest of justice. Since CIU prosecutors cannot unilaterally dismiss an existing conviction or free anyone we believe to be wrongfully incarcerated, the CIU makes a recommendation to the court that the petitioner be granted a new trial whenever its independent investigation leads it to conclude that a conviction lacks integrity. If warranted, the CIU will move to withdraw the charges against the petitioner or reduce the charges so that an equitable sentence can be imposed. In cases that are ultimately withdrawn or dismissed, the CIU will investigate and prosecute the actual perpetrator where feasible. However, given the inherent difficulties involved in investigating decades-old crimes where the original investigation was either botched or inadequate, identifying the real perpetrator and bringing that person to justice may be impossible. To date, the Philadelphia Police Department has declined to re-open and re-investigate old cases following exonerations. For example, Walter Ogrod was exonerated of a 1988 murder in 2020. While investigating the case, the CIU identified two alternate suspects. As of almost a year after Ogrod’s exoneration, however, police had not even begun the process of re-opening the underlying murder case. Additionally, the CIU believes that conviction integrity is more than simply fixing past mistakes and exposing misconduct. It also requires policies and processes to prevent future injustices. With this aim, the CIU helps craft office-wide policies and trainings designed to reduce the number of future wrongful convictions.

This report encompasses exonerations, commutations, and sentencing adjustments from January 1, 2018 through June 15, 2021. This report includes data on cases submitted to the CIU, active investigations, cases declined or closed, and cases awaiting review that are accurate as of May 31, 2021. Experts who have opined on the issue of best practices for conviction integrity units agree that in order to increase public understanding of and trust in such units, offices should publish annual reports detailing the results of their conviction and case reviews and actions taken. This report is the first report issued by the CIU under District Attorney Krasner and is a first-term report, rather than an annual report. Although annual reports were contemplated, they were postponed as a result of multiple factors ,including lack of resources, internal technology deficits, case load, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, Data Lab. 2021. 47p.

By Kitty Lymperopoulou

 In recent years, there has been considerable policy and academic interest in the existence of ethnic inequalities in the Criminal Justice System. A large body of sentencing research has been dedicated to exploring whether ethnic minority defendants are treated more harshly than similarly situated white defendants. This paper extends this research utilizing Ministry of Justice linked criminal justice datasets and multilevel models to assess the effect of ethnicity and other defendant case and contextual factors on sentencing outcomes in the Crown Court. The analysis shows that legal characteristics such as plea, pre-trial detention, offence type and severity are important factors determining sentencing outcomes although they do not fully explain disparities in these outcomes between ethnic groups. Ethnic disparities in imprisonment persist and, in some cases, become more pronounced after controlling for defendant case and court factors. In contrast, ethnic disparities in sentence length are largely explained by legal factors, and after adjusting for other predictors of sentencing outcomes, observed differences between most (but not all) ethnic minority groups and the white British disappear

 British Journal of Criminology. 2024, 22pg

By Jennifer Skeem, Lina Montoya, Christopher Lowenkamp

IN THE U.S., many jurisdictions are trying to reduce incarceration by improving pretrial decision-making. The pretrial decision is either to release the defendant until the court date or keep the defendant in jail to prevent re-offending or absconding. Rates of pretrial detention can be remarkably high, particularly in the federal system. There, the majority of defendants are detained before trial, even though less than 10 percent are arrested for a new crime or fail to appear while on pretrial release (Cohen & Austin, 2018; see also Rowland, 2018). Pretrial detention has serious consequences, including an increased likelihood of conviction, a harsh sentence, future re-offending, and unemployment (Dobbie et al., 2018; Leslie & Pope, 2017; Lowenkamp, 2022; Oleson et al., 2017). These consequences, in turn, are disproportionately borne by Black defendants (Didwania, 2021; Dobbie et al., 2018; Kutateladze et al., 2014; Leslie & Pope, 2017). Based on a sample of over 337,000 defendants drawn from 80 federal districts, Didwania (2021) found that 68 percent of Black defendants were detained - - - - - pretrial, compared to 51 percent of White defendants. Increasingly, efforts to improve pretrial decision-making include the goal of reducing racial disparities. In pursuing this goal, stakeholders probably assume that personal bias is to blame—i.e., that racial disparities in pretrial detention reflect the influence of implicit racism on human decision-making, and therefore that (perhaps) diversity training for practitioners would prevent such discrimination (see Devine & Ash, 2022). The majority of Americans frame racism as an interpersonal rather than structural problem—meaning that they focus on “a few bad apples” who discriminate, rather than on laws, policies, and systems that have a disparate impact (Rucker & Richeson, 2021). But disparities can also reflect “upstream” structural forces like socioeconomic and geographic conditions that lead to racial differences in the likelihood of rearrest or failure to appear. Black defendants tend to have more serious criminal histories and other potential risk factors for poor pretrial outcomes than White defendants (Didwania, 2021; Grossman et al., 2022; Spohn, 2008). Because risk of rearrest or flight are legitimate considerations for pretrial release, disparities related to differences in risk are hard to address via pretrial reform. Efforts to address disparities that flow from these kinds of structural forces would better be directed toward approaches like well-timed and well-targeted early prevention programs. In short, understanding the extent to which structural factors play a role in racial disparities is a matter of primary concern for shaping effective solutions (see Beck & Blumstein, 2018). In this study, we use federal data to explore the association between place—in this case U.S. district and geographic region—and racial disparities in pretrial officers’ recommendations for detention. We focus on officers’ recommendations in the federal system for three reasons. First, pretrial officers play a central role in assisting federal judges with the pretrial release decision, and officers’ detention recommendations strongly predict detention itself (see below, Pretrial Recommendation Context). Second, we conducted this work with the Probation and Pretrial Services Office of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, as part of their effort to reduce disparities by specifying targets for change. Third, the vastness and diversity of the federal system provide a unique opportunity to characterize the districts and regions of the U.S. where racial disparities in pretrial detention are greatest, so that they can be prioritized in problem-solving efforts. The federal system encompasses 93 districts that differ geographically, socially, and culturally—but they are governed by a common set

Federal Probation, 2022.

By Kelly Roskam, Chiara Cooper, Philip Stallworth, and April M. Zeoli

For more than a decade after the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to possess a handgun i  the home for  self-defense in District of Columbia v. Heller, 1 courts relied on the well documented connection between domestic abusers and firearm violence to uphold the laws prohibiting persons subject to domestic violence protective orders (DVPOs) from purchasing or possessing firearms. Research finds that these laws are associated with reductions in intimate partner homicide, making them a valuable tool for protecting victimized partners.2 However, the constitutionality of those evidence-based laws is now in question due to the sea change in Second Amendment jurisprudence represented by New York State Rifle and Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen. 3 Bruen repudiated the use of tiers of scrutiny and requires that the government bear the burden of showing that a modern law is relevantly similar to historical firearms laws to be constitutional.4 The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in United States v. Rahimi5 to decide whether the 30-year-old federal law prohibiting the purchase and possession of firearms by persons subject to DVPOs, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), is consistent with the Second Amendment. Before Bruen, public health research played a straightforward role in Second Amendment analyses of § 922(g)(8). Lower courts had no trouble using such research in their tiers-of-scrutiny analyses to determine that reducing firearm-involved domestic violence was an important    governmental interest and that there was a reasonable fit between § 922(g)(8) and that interest. After Bruen, public health and social science research plays a more nuanced role in Second Amendment analyses. Such research must be connected to an underlying historical argument that implicates either the original plain text of the Second Amendment or the relevance of an historical analogue. 6 In this Article, we illustrate how this connection can be made in the context of § 922(g)(8). We first introduce § 922(g)(8) and discuss how state analogs do or do not implement its proscription of firearm possession by those subject to DVPOs. We then lay out the relevant legal background, including Heller, post-Heller Second Amendment case-law concerning § 922(g)(8), and Bruen, before turning to the meat of our argument. We next discuss Rahimi and other post-Bruen cases addressing § 922(g)(8), arguing that the law satisfies Bruen’s requirement that statutes regulating firearm access must be sufficiently similar to historical firearm laws. We argue that firearm-involved domestic violence is an “unprecedented societal concern” that requires a more nuanced approach to analogy.7 A myopic search for founding-era bars on firearm possession by domestic abusers ignores both important differences in social norms surrounding women, marriage, and domestic violence and the significantly increased role of firearms in domestic violence today. Instead, § 922(g)(8) is more aptly analogized to historical laws evidencing the longstanding tradition of prohibiting “dangerous people from possessing guns,”8 such as so-called “going armed laws,” surety laws, and racist and discriminatory laws that prohibited firearm possession by enslaved persons, Native Americans, Catholics, and those who refused to swear loyalty oaths.

United States, 51 Fordham Urb. L.J. 2023, 39pg

By Kees Sterk

For the identity and well-functioning of Europe, independent national judiciaries are key, and the selection processes of judges and Court Presidents essential. During the last decade, however, several European Governments have been undermining this by trying to establish political control over national judges, especially through political dominance over the selection and appointment processes for judges and Court Presidents.

In his inaugural speech, Sterk addresses the topic of selection processes, both on substance as well as on procedure. He analyses the case law of the European Court of Justice as well as the European Court of Human Rights, and the enforcement policies of the European Commission. 

Sterk identifies problems and recommends five steps to protect independent justice in Europe including the systemic enforcement gap, an effective enforcement duty, the standards for selection bodies, a duty to reason selection decisions, and on limiting the power of the executive to refuse candidates selected by selection bodies.

The Hague: Eleven International Publishing, 2023. 56p.

By Coletta A. Youngers

The incarceration of women is growing at alarming rates worldwide and in Latin America it is driven by strict drug laws, with devastating consequences for the women impacted and their families. Their stories unveil contexts of poverty, lack of opportunity, and physical and sexual violence, and also reveal the discrimination of unjust legal systems and societies plagued by stigmatization and patriarchal attitudes. But they are also stories of resilience, as women coming out of prison in Latin America today are organizing and fighting for their human rights and the right to live with dignity.

In response to the growing crisis of women’s incarceration in Latin America, in 2015 organizations, experts and activists created a Working Group on Women, Drug Policies, and Incarceration, led by the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC), and the Colombian NGO, Centro de Estudios de Derechos, Justicia y Sociedad – Dejusticia. Our objective is to significantly reduce the number of women deprived of liberty in Latin America, providing analysis and public policy recommendations and participating in advocacy initiatives at the international, regional, and national levels.

The purpose of this report is to reflect on almost ten years of collective research and joint advocacy by the working group, its achievements and disappointments, as well as challenges and opportunities for the future.

Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America, 2023.. 82p.

By Donald Kerwin & Brendan Kerwin

This paper examines the staffing needs of the US Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), as it seeks to eliminate an immigration court backlog, which approached 2.5 million pending cases at the end of fiscal year (FY) 2023. A previous study by the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS) attributed the backlog to systemic, long-neglected problems in the broader US immigration system. This paper provides updated estimates of the number of immigration judges (IJs) and “judge teams” (IJ teams) needed to eliminate the backlog over ten and five years based on different case receipt and completion scenarios. It also introduces a data tool that will permit policymakers, administrators and researchers to make their own estimates of IJ team hiring needs based on changing case receipt and completion data. Finally, the paper outlines the pressing need for reform of the US immigration system, including a well-resourced, robust, and independent court system, particularly in light of record “encounters” of migrants at US borders in FY 2022 and 2023.

United States, Journal on Migration and Human Security. 2024, 10pg

By The United States Sentencing Commission

This report is the third in a series of reports. It examines variations in sentencing practices—and corresponding variations in sentencing outcomes—across federal districts since the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in United States v. Booker.  The Commission’s ongoing analysis in this area directly relates to a key goal of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984: reducing unwarranted sentencing disparities that existed in the federal judicial system.  In particular, the Act was the result of a widespread bipartisan concern that such disparities existed both regionally (e.g., differences among the districts) and within the same courthouse. Having analyzed the differences within the same courthouse in its Intra-City Report, the Commission now turns in this report to examining regional differences since Booker.

Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission, 2020. 100p.

By Ian K. Belton, Mandeep K. Dhami

Personal mitigating factors (PMFs) such as good character, remorse and addressing addiction help sentencers evaluate an offender's past, present and future behavior. We analyzed data from the 2011–2014 Crown Court Sentencing Surveys in England and Wales to examine the relationship between these PMFs and custodial sentences passed on assault and burglary offenses, controlling for other sentencing relevant factors. Beyond revealing the distribution and co-occurrence of the three PMFs, it was found that good character, remorse and addressing addiction all had a significant mitigating effect. The effects of addressing addiction were the strongest of the three across both offense types, while good character had a stronger effect on burglary than assault. In addition, some mitigating factors appear to be underweighted when they occur together. We consider the implications of these findings for sentencing policy and practice.

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, Volume21, Issue1, March 2024, Pages 208-239

By Ebony L. Ruhland, Amber A. Petkus, Nathan W. Link, Jordan M. Hyatt, Bryan Holmes, and Symone Pate

Abstract:

The assessment and collection of monetary sanctions (fines, fees, and restitution) have become a common element of the U.S. criminal justice system, especially in community corrections. Although the application of monetary sanctions is often dictated by state-level legislation, court rules, and agency policy, little research has sought to organize and systematically examine a set of these policies to compare them across several community corrections contexts more broadly. As such, this study fills a gap in the literature by using thematic content analysis to examine legislative policies governing the use of monetary sanctions in six states from across the United States. Laws and policies regarding the assessment, waiver, and collection of monetary sanctions utilized by agencies of varying size and jurisdictional scope were considered to identify common themes. We conclude with a discussion of whether the policies and laws examined align with rehabilitative and punitive goals of community supervision and highlight emerging opportunities for research and policy reform.

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 37(1), 108-127.

By Rafael A. Mangual 

After enacting a sweeping bail reform, New York lawmakers have drawn the ire of constituents who are troubled by the many stories of repeat and serious offenders—some with violent criminal histories—being returned to the street following their arrests. In the state’s biggest city, the public’s growing concerns are buttressed by brow-raising, if preliminary, crime data, amplifying calls for amending or repealing the bail reform. The operative provisions of New York’s bail reform severely limit judicial discretion in pretrial release decisions, increasing the number of pretrial defendants who are being released, often without conditions and without allowing judges to consider the risk that a defendant poses to the public. New York is now the only state that does not allow judges to consider public safety in any pretrial release decisions. This brief begins with an overview of New York’s pre-2020 bail law and the reforms that took effect on January 1. It then highlights the reform’s shortfalls and ends by proposing three changes intended to address the public’s legitimate safety concerns while preserving the spirit of the reform effort and addressing some of the inequities and inefficiencies inherent in a system that is heavily reliant on the use of monetary pretrial release conditions. The proposed changes include: • Empowering judges to assess the public safety risk posed by pretrial defendants, and setting out a process that allows them to detain dangerous or chronic offenders; • Allowing judges to revoke or amend release decisions in response to a pretrial defendant’s rearrest; and • In the intermediate term, setting aside additional funds or diverting existing funds to reduce the time a defendant stands to spend in jail if remanded to pretrial detention.  

New York: Manhattan Institute, 2020. 14p.

By Julius Yam 

Authoritarianism has significant implications for how judges should discharge their duties. How should judges committed to constitutionalism conduct themselves when under authoritarian pressure? To answer this question,the article proposes a two-step adjudicative framework, documents a variety of judicial strategies, and proposes how principles and strategies can and should be incorporated into the framework in different scenarios. The first step of the adjudicative framework involves judges identifying the ‘formal legal position’ while blindfolding themselves to extra-legal factors (such as potential authoritarian backlash). In the second step, depending on the level of risk incurred by maintaining the formal legal position, judges should lift the blindfold to check whether, and if so how, the formal legal position should be supplemented with or adjusted by judicial strategies. Through this analysis, the article offers a guide to judicial reasoning under authoritarianism 

Modern Law Review Limited.(2023) 00(0) MLR 

By Sarah Lageson & Robert Stewart

Criminal records are routinely used by employers and other institutional decision-makers who rely on their presumed fidelity to evaluate applicants. We analyze criminal records for a sample of 101 people, comparing official state reports, two sources of private-sector background checks (one regulated and one unregulated by federal law), and qualitative interviews. Based on our analysis, private-sector background checks are laden with false-positive and false-negative errors: 60 percent and 50 percent of participants had at least one false-positive error on their regulated and unregulated background checks, and nearly all (90 percent and 92 percent of participants, respectively) had at least one false-negative error. We define specific problems with private-sector criminal records: mismatched data that create false negatives, missing case dispositions that create incomplete and misleading criminal records, and incorrect data that create false positives. Accompanying qualitative interviews show how errors in background checks limit access to social opportunities ranging from employment to education to housing and violate basic principles of fairness in the legal system.

United States, Criminology. 2024, 30pg

By Criminal Justice Joint Inspectorates: UK

In this report, the Criminal Justice Joint Inspectorates focus on recruitment and retention in the agencies that they inspect. The report draws on evidence from inspections conducted by each of the individual inspectorates, both jointly and singly, of the police, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the Probation and Youth Offending Services and the Prison Service. It sets out the findings from this work, as well as cross-cutting themes. It concludes by highlighting signs of progress as well as ongoing risks to the criminal justice system.

United Kingdom, CJJI. 2024, 19pg

By Sarah W. Craun and Alyssa Purdy

There are numerous federal criminal statutes authorizing a sentence of life as the maximum sentence allowed, such as for offenses involving drug trafficking, racketeering, and firearms crimes. While convictions under these statutes are common, sentences of life imprisonment are rare, accounting for only a small proportion of all federal offenders sentenced.  In February 2015, the Commission released Life Sentences in the Federal Criminal Justice System, examining the application of life sentences by federal courts during fiscal year 2013. Using data from fiscal years 2016 through 2021, this report updates and augments the Commission’s previous findings by examining the offenses that led to the life sentences imprisonment imposed, along with offender demographics, criminal histories, and victim-related adjustments.

Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission,  2022. 40p.

By Vera M. Kachnowski, Christine Kitchens, and Data Cassandra Syckes,

The report entitled Weighing the Impact of Simple Possession of Marijuana: Trends and Sentencing in the Federal System updates a 2016 Commission study and examines sentences for simple possession of marijuana offenses in two respects. Part One of the report assesses trends in federal sentencings for simple possession of marijuana since fiscal year 2014. The report then describes the demographic characteristics, criminal history, and sentencing outcomes of federal offenders sentenced for marijuana possession in the last five fiscal years and compares them to federal offenders sentenced for possession of other drug types. Part Two of the report examines how prior sentences for simple possession of marijuana (under both federal and state law) affect criminal history calculations under the federal sentencing guidelines for new federal offenses. The report identifies how many federal offenders sentenced in fiscal year 2021—for any crime type—received criminal history points under Chapter Four of the Guidelines Manual for prior marijuana possession sentences. The report then assesses the impact of such points on those offenders’ criminal history category, one of the two components used to establish the sentencing guideline range.

Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission, 2023. 46p

By The New York State Bar Association

The Task Force analyzed the newly-enacted New York State Josef Neumann Hate Crimes Domestic Terrorism Act (the “Neumann Act”), New York Penal Law § 485, which recognizes mass killings motivated by hate as acts of terrorism by creating two terrorism offenses: domestic acts of terrorism motivated by hate in the first and second degrees. The Neumann Act also amends the definition of “specified offense” in the hate crimes statute to include terrorism crimes and establishes a Domestic Terrorism Task Force comprised of members of New York government and law enforcement.

The Task Force also considered possible additional legislation to address hate crimes. First, the Task Force recommends further study of two possible changes to criminal statutes—it considered but ultimately rejected an amendment to the definition of “civilian population” in current terrorism statutes, and recommends consideration of a proposal to align New York’s definition of “material support or resources” with the federal definition. Second, the Task Force considered possible methods of addressing a rise in low-level hate-motivated offenses—it recommends further study of the proposal to attend mandatory counselling or training, and rejects the possibility of adding a rebuttable presumption of intent to § 485. Third, the Task Force recommends further study of possible civil causes of action for hate crimes and domestic terrorism, including expanded causes of action under New York State civil rights law, and amendments to New York Not-for-Profit Law, Business Corporation Law, and Limited Liability Law to prevent recovery of property from entities that provide support to terrorist causes. Fourth, the Task Force recommends an increase in law enforcement resources to prosecute hate crimes, including making hate crimes a designated offense to facilitate wiretaps and additional training of law enforcement on hate crime issues. Finally, the Task Force notes a surge in anti-Asian and anti-Semitic hate crimes amid the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as a rise in hate-motivated attacks associated with COVID-19 via online platforms. These attacks and incidents highlight the urgent need for law enforcement and lawmakers to take action to curb hate crimes.

Albany: The Bar Association, 2020/ 41p.