By Jonathan Gu

AIM To estimate the association between judge-alone trials and the probability of acquittal, trial length, and sentence severity. METHOD We compared 5,064 jury and 805 judge-alone criminal trials finalised in the NSW District Court and Supreme Court between January 2011 and December 2019, excluding cases where the defendant entered a guilty plea to their principal offence or had a special verdict of “not guilty by reason of mental illness” (under s. 25 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)). Entropy balancing was used to match judge-alone cases with jury cases on available covariates. We then estimated the association between trial type (judge-alone vs jury) and four criminal justice outcomes, adjusting for relevant observable factors. The analysis was repeated for two subsets of offences: violent offences and offences with a higher likelihood of having prejudicial elements or complex evidence (prejudicial and complex offences). We also interviewed 12 legal practitioners, including District and Supreme Court judges, prosecutors, and defence lawyers, to identify factors motivating judge-alone applications that may be correlated with the outcomes of interest. RESULTS We estimated that compared to jury trials, judge-alone trials are associated on average with a statistically significant nine percentage point increase in the probability of acquittal and a shorter prison sentence by 7.6 months. Within prejudicial and complex offences, we found that judge-alone trials were associated with a statistically significant decrease in average trial days. Judge-alone trials were also associated with a statistically significant decrease in prison sentence length for the violent offences subgroup. Interviewees suggested that increased use of written submissions may influence both shorter trial length in judgealone matters and reduced prison sentences (i.e., via discounts from efficiencies resulting from pre-trial cooperation or time saved by submitting tendered evidence). Interviewees stated that judge-alone applications in NSW are mostly made in cases with prejudicial elements (e.g., evidence that cannot be separated from prior proven offending) or complex evidence (e.g., cases with substantial scientific or financial evidence). CONCLUSION Judge-alone trials are associated with an increased probability of acquittal, shorter trials, and a shorter prison sentence. However, we cannot determine whether these differences are driven by confounding factors (such as strength of the prosecution’s case) and/or causal factors.

Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2024. 49p.

By Julie Marie Baldwin, John M. Eassey, and Erika J. Brooke

This paper reviews the distinct nature of the COVID-19 pandemic and examines the resultant court responses and recommendations disseminated by various entities that support courts. Specifically, we contextualize the current environment the present pandemic has created by considering how it compares to the most-recent previous pandemics. We then review guidelines disseminated to the courts and the modifications and innovations implemented by the courts in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Additional challenges related to these recommendations and modifications are identified and discussed.

American Journal of Criminal Justice, 2020. 16p.

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

STANLEY H. PALMER

PREFACE: This book seeks to right an imbalance and recognize a contribution. The imbalance is the result of two decades of scholarship on English popular protest; the contribution, that of Ireland to British police history. Thanks to pioneering work in the 1960s by Eric Hobsbawm, George Rudé, and Edward Palmer Thompson, work that has been ably continued by succeeding generations of graduate students, historians have made a quantum leap in our knowledge of the motivations and aims, composition and tactics, of crowds and protesters in Georgian and carly Victorian England. By contrast, we still know little about the other side of the confrontation, the forces of order. The result has been an emerging, indeed a growing imbalance in our knowledge about crowds and the authorities. ..”

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. CAMBRIDGE NEW YORK NEW ROCHELLE MELBOURNE SYDNEY. 1988. 840p.

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

By CHARLES A. RUUD and SERGEI A. STEPANOV

From Introduction: Fontanka 16 takes a fresh look at the feared Russian tsarist secret police, the Okhranka, during the period of the imperial regime leading up to the Revolution of r917. It is a fascinating account of the development of a secret police organization that was deeply rooted in tsarist Russia but provided a model for Soviet police organizations.

McGill-Queen's University Press Montreal &e Kingston • London • Ithaca. 1999. 409p.

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 Harry Annison, Kate Paradine

In this article we sketch a vision that might guide academic and third sector collaboration. We do so by drawing on a project that involved collaboration with a range of stakeholders, in order to stimulate ongoing discussion about how academics and the third sector might work together to seek positive change. Our findings show that there are keenly felt challenges, but also a sense of resilient optimism. A key finding among our stakeholders was a sense that there is an absence of an overarching shared vision, which was experienced by many of our respondents as consequential. Therefore, in the spirit of constructive provocation we set out such a vision, which was collaboratively developed with our respondents: opening a dialogue, rather than providing a conclusive position.

Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, May 2024 (early view)

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 Sandra Susan Smith and Cierra Robson    

In the year following Humphrey, a judicial decision mandating that judges consider both defendants’ ability to pay cash bail and non-monetary release options, San Francisco Sheriff’s Office (SFSO) reported a 308% increase in the number of people court-ordered for pretrial electronic monitoring (EM) – from 178 to 725. Although proponents of pretrial EM have described it as an effective alternative to pretrial incarceration – one that ensures public safety and court appearances – critics contend that it is simply an alternative form of incarceration, with many of jail’s attendant harms. With this debate in mind, we explore people’s recent experiences on pretrial EM in San Francisco – the extent and nature of difficulties program participants face while attempting to meet program obligations, the extent to which and how these difficulties put them at risk for noncompliance, and how threats of noncompliance interact with other major issues that system-involved people face to affect program outcomes. Through in-depth, semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of 66 people court ordered to participate in pretrial EM between 2018 and 2020, we find that prior struggles, especially with housing insecurity and co-occurring disorders, made it much more difficult to meet program obligations, amplifying risks of noncompliance. Further, conditions of pretrial EM release also created hardships for many, making it even more difficult to find safe, affordable, and stable housing; to protect health and well-being; to secure employment and keep jobs; and to maintain physical, emotional, and psychological connections to loved ones. Indeed, pretrial EM often placed program participants in the untenable position of constantly having to choose between two or more equally awful options, such as program compliance or maintaining employment. These findings have major implications for debates about pretrial EM’s net-widening effects but also the inherent stickiness of the criminal legal system.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Kennedy School. 2022, 53pg

By Nathan T. Connealy, Eric L. Piza, Rachael A. Arietti,  George O. Mohler &  Jeremy G. Carter 

Objectives

We examine the potential effects of gunshot detection technology longitudinally in Chicago through a synthetic control quasi-experiment.

Methods

Police districts receiving gunshot detection technology were compared to a synthetic control unit via a staggered difference-in-difference design. Across eleven unique gunshot detection technology deployment phases, the analyses produce results for aggregate, initial versus expanded, and phase-specific deployment effects across five gun violence outcome measures.

Results

Gunshot detection technology had no effect on fatal shootings, non-fatal shootings, general part I gun crimes, or shots fired calls for service. Gun recoveries significantly increased in the aggregate, initial, and expanded models, and in several individual phases relative to controls.

Conclusions

The results align with prior literature that has found a procedural benefit, but not a crime prevention benefit, of gunshot detection technology. Law enforcement agencies seeking crime prevention or reduction solutions may be better served by investing in other options. 

J Exp Criminol (2024).

By Joseph Schafer, Captain Cory Nelson (ret.)

Since the mid-1990s, policing has struggled to recruit and retain quality applicants. Although many efforts have been made to alleviate this problem, the situation persists. This paper offers alternative suggestions for the policing profession to alleviate its recruitment and retention crisis. The authors argue that it is time to look beyond typical human resource recommendations to fix this problem. The profession needs to begin to experiment with more innovative solutions if it is going to achieve more complete and quality staffing outcomes. 

CNA, 2022. 48p.

By  Jacqueline Beard and  Georgina Sturge
  The Attorney General has the power to refer to the Court of Appeal sentences for certain offences which they believe to be unduly lenient. This is sometimes called the unduly lenient sentence scheme. The Attorney General’s power to refer only applies to serious offences, being those that can only be dealt with by the Crown Court and some other offences specified in an order. In recent years the scheme has been extended to more offences. Anyone can ask the Attorney General to consider whether a sentence should be referred to the Court of Appeal as being unduly lenient, including a victim, a relative of a victim or a member of the public. The Attorney General will consider whether the sentence is unduly lenient. If the Attorney General considers that it might be, then they refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal for review. There is a strict 28-day time limit within which the Attorney General is able to refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal. If the Court of Appeal agrees that the sentence is unduly lenient then it may increase it. The Court of Appeal will only find a sentence to be unduly lenient where it falls outside the range of sentences which the judge, applying their mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate. The scheme was established in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and came into force in 1989. The purpose of the scheme is to correct gross errors. There have been calls for the scheme to be expanded further to include more offences. The Government has said it has no plans to do so. This briefing applies to England and Wales.
London: House of Commons Library 2022. 13p.

By City of San Jose.  Office of the City Auditor 

The City of San José Police Department (SJPD) has more than 1,700 sworn and non-sworn staff who provide public safety services to San José’s residents, including responding to calls for police services, investigative efforts, crime prevention and education, and regulatory services. The largest number of sworn officers is dedicated to supporting patrol efforts across the city and responding to calls for service. Civilian staff, which accounts for about one-third of SJPD’s staff, provide administrative support, perform crime prevention analysis, staff the Police Communications Center, and assist patrol staff through the Community Service Officer program. In total, the Department’s Adopted Operating Budget for FY 2020-21 was $471.5 million. The objective of this audit was to review and compare SJPD staffing, spending, and calls for service over time, including an allocation of staff by bureau or division, vacancies, and use of overtime. This audit was requested by multiple Councilmembers. As the City undergoes its reimagining community safety process, the information and recommendations in this report can provide insight into the Department’s staffing history, expenditures, and workload as it moves forward. Finding 1: Reductions in Sworn Staffing Over 20 Years Present Challenges for SJPD. Over the last two decades, SJPD has experienced major staffing reductions in sworn officers. Layoffs and reductions in budgeted staffing during the Great Recession, along with high numbers of resignations and retirements in subsequent years, resulted in a decline in the number of active sworn officers. The Department continues to fill vacancies through recruitment and has begun to add budgeted sworn officer positions in recent years. We found:  In FY 2000-01, the Department was budgeted for 1,358 sworn staff; in FY 2020-21, that number had decreased to 1,157. Staffing reached its lowest point in FY 2016-17 when there were 1,107 budgeted positions; more than 200 of these budgeted positions were vacant that year.  SJPD has been actively recruiting to fill sworn vacancies, adding nearly 200 recruits in the past two years. Although the Department has begun to grow again, the Department’s police force is overall less experienced than it was ten years ago.  While there are different factors that may contribute to staffing decisions, San José primarily uses a budget-based model to determine its overall staffing from year to year. Finding 2: Increases in SJPD Expenditures Have Outweighed Staffing Changes. Despite having less staff, SJPD expenditures have increased over time. In FY 2020-21, SJPD’s adopted budget was $471.5 million, more than double its adopted budget in FY 2001-02. We found:  The largest increase in expenditures has been in retirement and fringe benefit costs, growing from $65 million in FY 2008-09 to $168 million in FY 2019-20.  Overtime costs grew by over 300 percent in the past decade and accounted for 10 percent of total expenditures in FY 2019-20.  Personal services account for 92 percent of the Department’s budget. However, overall spending on salaries declined beginning in FY 2008-09 and did not fully recover until FY 2018-19. This decrease was due to vacancies, fewer budgeted staff, and a 10 percent pay cut in FY 2010-11.  Other costs, including computer software expenses, professional services, vehicle costs, workers’ compensation, travel and training, and supplies and materials (including ballistic equipment, ammunition, and other police supplies) accounted for the remaining 8 percent of expenditures in FY 2019-20. Finding 3: SJPD’s Workload Has Increased as It Has Struggled to Meet its Response Time Goals. Officers respond to incidents dispatched through the Police Communications Center and initiate calls if they observe a need for police service or conduct a vehicle or pedestrian stop. The Department categorizes each response into one of six priorities, depending on the nature of the incident. We found:  In FY 2019-20, the Police Communications Center received over 1.2 million calls for emergency and nonemergency service. This resulted in 331,000 officer responses, up from 274,000 responses in FY 2016-17.  SJPD did not meet its response time target in FY 2019- 20 for the highest priority incidents, with SJPD only meeting the Priority 1 response time target in one district (District D at the Airport).  Queuing time, or the amount of time a call waits for an officer to be dispatched, was a major driver for SJPD for not hitting its Priority 2 response time target indicating not enough staff were available to respond. Finding 4: Reorganizing San José’s Patrol Districts and Reviewing Shift Schedules Could Optimize Workload and Available Staffing. SJPD deploys staff across three shifts and 16 patrol districts, in addition to the Airport District. Several studies have concluded that SJPD should review how it organizes its patrol districts and shifts. We found: 

San Jose, CA: City of Jose, Office of the City Auditor, 2021. 101p.

By Jingxuan Zhao; Jessica Star,  Xuesong Han, 

IMPORTANCE People with a history of incarceration may experience barriers in access to and receipt of health care in the US. OBJECTIVE To examine the associations of incarceration history and access to and receipt of care and the contribution of modifiable factors (educational attainment and health insurance coverage) to these associations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Individuals with and without incarceration history were identified from the 2008 to 2018 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 cohort. Analyses were conducted from October 2022 to December 2023. MAIN MEASURES AND OUTCOMES Access to and receipt of health care were measured as self-reported having usual source of care and preventive service use, including physical examination, influenza shot, blood pressure check, blood cholesterol level check, blood glucose level check, dental check, and colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screenings across multiple panels. To account for the longitudinal study design, we used the inverse probability weighting method with generalized estimating equations to evaluate associations of incarceration history and access to care. Separate multivariable models examining associations between incarceration history and receipt of each preventive service adjusted for sociodemographic factors; sequential models further adjusted for educational attainment and health insurance coverage to examine their contribution to the associations of incarceration history and access to and receipt of health care. RESULTS A total of 7963 adults with 41 614 person-years of observation were included in this study; of these, 586 individuals (5.4%) had been incarcerated, with 2800 person-years of observation (4.9%). Compared with people without incarceration history, people with incarceration history had lower percentages of having a usual source of care or receiving preventive services, including physical examinations (69.6% vs 74.1%), blood pressure test (85.6% vs 91.6%), blood cholesterol level test (59.5% vs 72.2%), blood glucose level test (61.4% vs 69.4%), dental check up (51.1% vs 66.0%), and breast (55.0% vs 68.2%) and colorectal cancer screening (65.6% vs 70.3%). With additional adjustment for educational attainment and health insurance, the associations of incarceration history and access to care were attenuated for most measures and remained statistically significant for measures of having a usual source of care, blood cholesterol level test, and dental check up only. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The results of this survey study suggest that incarceration history was associated with worse access to and receipt of health care. Educational attainment and health insurance may contribute to these associations. Efforts to improve access to education and health insurance coverage for people with an incarceration history might mitigate disparities in care. 

JAMA Health Forum. 2024;5(2):e235318. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.5318  

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

BY ARYE RATTNER AND GIDEON FISHMAN

"Justice for All? Jews and Arabs in the Israeli Criminal Justice System" provides a comprehensive examination of the complex dynamics that shape the experiences of Jews and Arabs within Israel's legal framework. Through meticulous research and insightful analysis, this book delves into the intricacies of how the Israeli criminal justice system navigates issues of identity, power, and discrimination in cases involving Jewish and Arab individuals.

By shedding light on the unique challenges and disparities faced by these two communities, "Justice for All?" prompts readers to critically reflect on the notions of equality and fairness within the legal landscape of Israel. With a nuanced approach, the authors navigate through a range of perspectives, offering a compelling exploration of the multifaceted interactions between ethnicity, religion, and the pursuit of justice.

This book is essential reading for anyone interested in understanding the complexities of the Israeli criminal justice system and its implications for the diverse communities it serves. "Justice for All?" serves as a thought-provoking contribution to the ongoing dialogue surrounding issues of representation, equity, and human rights in the context of Israel's legal institutions.

Westport, Connecticut London. Praeger. 1998. 142p.

Edited by Gavin E. Oxburgh, Trond Myklebust, Mark Fallon and Maria Hartwig

Data-driven decision-making and science-based policies are critical to ensuring that the most effective tools and methods are being used to address real-world issues, such as the challenge of how to effectively elicit information from people during an interview. Academics and practitioners alike have been calling for investigators to transition away from customary, experience-based approaches to interviewing and detecting deception, and toward adoption of science-based approaches in their stead. Increasingly, there are hopeful signs this transition is welcomed by many members of the practitioner community, and a growing number of organizations are seeking out science-based interview and interrogation training.2A fundamental premise of this volume is that science-based methods of interviewing–skills and techniques that have been validated through an objective process of systematic empiricism–are the most effective means of eliciting reliable information from interviewees, and the current volume provides the practitioner community with a comprehensive summary of the state of the science of interviewing (with the irony being that, at some point after this volume is published, the science will have advanced). Each chapter in this volume is written by leading scholars in the field or practitioners who have become versed in the science of interviewing and have key insights to share about their use of science-based approaches in the field. The findings and conclusions are based on hundreds, if not thousands, of studies using a wide variety of complex re-search methodologies and statistical analyses, none of which is particularly easy to understand for people without advanced scientific training. Just as it is fool-hardy for academics to assume they understand the challenges and realities of interviewing in the ‘real world’ without critical insights from and partnerships with experienced practitioners, it is not realistic to expect practitioners to be-come scientists in their own right, able to consume and put the science into practice without assistance. That said, it is imperative that practitioners are armed with enough knowledge of scientific methods to become critical consumers of purported scientific information

By Jess Zhang, Jacob Kang-Brown, and Ari Kotler

  Electronic monitoring (EM) is a form of digital surveillance that tracks people’s physical location, movement, or other markers of behavior (such as blood alcohol level). It is commonly used in the criminal legal system as a condition of pretrial release or post-conviction supervision—including during probation, parole, home confinement, or work release. The United States also uses electronic monitoring for people in civil immigration proceedings who are facing deportation. This report fills a gap in understanding around the size and scope of EM use in the United States. The Vera Institute of Justice’s (Vera) estimates reveal that, in 2021, 254,700 adults were under some form of EM. Of these, 150,700 people were subjected to EM by the criminal legal system and 103,900 by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Further investigation revealed that the number of adults placed on EM by ICE more than tripled between 2021 and 2022, increasing to 360,000.1 This means that the total number of adults on EM across both the civil immigration and criminal legal systems likely increased to nearly half a million during that time. From 2005 to 2021, the number of people on EM in the United States grew nearly fivefold—and almost tenfold by 2022—while the number of people incarcerated in jails and prisons declined by 16 percent and the number of people held in ICE civil detention increased but not nearly as dramatically as EM.2 Regional trends in the criminal legal system reveal how EM has been used more widely in some states and cities but increased sharply from 2019 to 2021 across the country: The Midwest has the highest rate of state and local criminal legal system EM, at 65 per 100,000 residents; this rate stayed relatively constant from 2019 to  midyear 2021. In the Northeast, EM rates are the lowest of all the regions at 19 per 100,000 residents, but they increased by 46 percent from 2019 to 2021. The South and West have similar rates, 41 and 34 per 100,000 residents respectively, but the growth rate in the South has outpaced that of the West in recent years—up 32 percent in the South compared to 18 percent in the West. Prior to this report, the most recent estimate of the national EM population was from a 2015 Pew Charitable Trusts study—which studied the use of criminal legal system EM via a survey of the 11 biggest EM companies. For this report, Vera researchers collected data from criminal legal system agencies in all 50 states and more than 500 counties, as well as from federal courts, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and ICE. Therefore, Vera’s study represents the most comprehensive count of the national EM population to date, as it accounts for the rise of smaller EM companies, immigration system surveillance, and new EM technologies. For this report, Vera researchers also reviewed existing literature and spoke with local officials to better understand the impacts of EM programs. Vera’s findings contradict private companies’ assertions that EM technology is low-cost, efficient, and reliable. EM in the criminal legal system is highly variable and subject to political decisions at the local level. In many jurisdictions, EM is not used as a means to reduce jail populations. Rather, it is often a crucial component of highly punitive criminal legal systems. This challenges the dominant narrative that EM is an “alternative to incarceration.” Nonetheless, this report also highlights several jurisdictions that demonstrate how decarceration can occur alongside reduced surveillance. 

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2024. 54p.

By Kelsie Chesnut and Jennifer Peirce

  From 2019 to 2022, the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera), along with Black and Pink National, developed and conducted a large-scale survey of currently incarcerated transgender people regarding their experiences in state prisons. In 2015, Black and Pink National published a landmark survey of more than a thousand LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer/questioning) incarcerated people, Coming Out of Concrete Closets. The present survey provides updated information on similar issues as Black and Pink’s 2015 survey but focuses solely on transgender people. Vera and Black and Pink National are grateful to the incarcerated people who took the time to thoughtfully respond to the survey, often sharing sensitive and traumatic experiences. The survey used regular mail to reach participants, who were already connected with Black and Pink National, and this allowed people to respond in 2021–2022 despite ongoing COVID-related constraints on inperson access to prisons. This report highlights the key findings from the survey responses and open-ended comments shared by the 280 people who participated. 1 Vera and Black and Pink National codesigned all stages of this project, with input from researchers and advocates working on this topic. Vera independently managed the data collection, analysis, and production of findings included in this report, with guidance and input from Black and Pink National and an external expert research consultant.2 The goals of this report are to • share the experiences and insights of transgender people living behind bars in state prisons in their own words, • provide policymakers and people who work with incarcerated people with findings that update and expand their understanding of how transgender people in state prisons experience conditions of confinement, • improve correctional policy and practice as it relates to transgender people who are incarcerated in the United States, and  • contribute to a larger national discussion about incarceration and decarceration in a way that advances transgender justice.  

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2024. 96p.

By John McGhee, Scott McMillan & James Reilly

This scoping document was commissioned by the BF programme to better understand the impact of long-term imprisonment in Scotland, drawing on the expertise of SPARC. Initial background research from SPARC found that many of the issues faced by long-term prisoners in England and Wales are also faced by those in Scottish prisons. This document highlights these similarities and considers the differences. The Scottish context - On 23 May 2022 there were 1,044 prisoners serving 10 years or more in Scotland. • - This means 19% of the convicted population in Scotland were serving over 10 years compared with 16% in England and Wales. • The average sentence for murder has increased from eight to nine years in the 1970’s to nearly 20 years in 2021. • Successful parole applications in the early 2000’s were just under 30%, this has now reduced to 12%. • Progression is a major issue in Scottish prisons and 36 of 100 judicial reviews are concerned with progression or parole. - SPARC have had requests from Scottish prisoners for advocacy work to navigate the progression and parole system. - Most advocacy requests related to “critical dates” which are those dates specific and relevant to progression, availability of spaces on offence focused programmes, spaces in community testing facilities, and the misapplication of risk scoring tools. - These issues were also highlighted during SPARC’s community consultations for Glasgow University’s ‘Scotland in Lockdown’ project. - In 2018 SPARC delivered a training workshop to the Independent Prison Monitors in Scotland on the failings of the progression system. ....

London: Prison Reform Trust, 2023. 26p.

By Sophie Ellis and Alex Hewson

  Introduction It’s hard to find the right adjectives to describe the tumultuous year the prison and probation service has had. The chief inspector of prisons issued five urgent notifications (UN)—raising immediate concerns about conditions—the highest number in a single year. The prison service ran out of places, forcing the government to adopt emergency measures to hold people in police cells; release people from prison early; delay court hearings; and warn judges about the pressure on our already overcrowded prisons. Meanwhile, staff leave the service in droves, quickly burnt out by the conditions they face each day as they pick up their keys to start their shift. Prisons continue to be places of hopelessness and despair for too many people, with self-harm now higher than before the pandemic, and reaching the highest level on record for women. Whilst crisis and scandal can trigger defensiveness, they can also act as a launch pad for bold reform. The Government should seize this opportunity to show that the status quo is not working and present a positive alternative vision for our criminal justice system. One that is rooted in the things that matter to the communities that they serve—safety, fairness, effectiveness and decency—and which relies on evidence rather than rhetoric. Alex Chalk, our current Secretary of State for Justice, has to his credit begun this journey. A swift reconsideration of his predecessor’s intransigence to ending the injustice of the Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence; reversing measures which prevented people progressing in their sentences; and introducing legislation currently before Parliament for a presumption that prison sentences of a year or less should be replaced with a suspended prison sentence. All of these are causes for celebration in a sector where the wins are few and hard fought for. As the former Governor of HMP Liverpool, I know first-hand the powerful impact that reducing prisoner numbers had on my ability to bring about much needed reform measures. Overcrowding is the single biggest barrier in providing a safe, decent and rehabilitative prison. Prisons will always be messy, complex places to live and work in, but by hitting the reset button it reduced the relentless day-to-day crisis we faced when the next full escort van turned up. Having fewer people in the prison not only reduced the flow in and out of the gates each day, but it also gave me and my team some breathing space to work through the plethora of problems we needed to fix. It unlocked the much-needed funding and focus for refurbishment to take place. It allowed us to develop a vision; to articulate our values and to see the wood for the trees. But most importantly, it allowed us—the operational experts—to shape our prison in a way that worked best for those who lived and worked there. But what happens when you have a prison system with so little slack that you can’t simply transfer 500 people to another prison down the road? We’ve witnessed the very real consequences on prisons when politicians talk about the need to “toughen up” sentences with little thought given to the implications—or to the long line of similar measures that preceded them. Governors up and down the country—good, hard working and well-intentioned leaders—must despair at how straightjacketed they are. They are expected to be omnipotent leaders—ultimately responsible when it hits the fan—but are often left feeling that they have little autonomy.    They fulfil the insatiable requests for information from higher management; they react with knee jerk responses in anticipation of events that could cause their ministers political embarrassment; and they live with the constant threat of doing something which turns out to be career limiting. In the new world, the decision-making structure has well and truly moved from the governor’s office to outside the prison......

London: Prison Reform Trust, 2024. 86p.