By The Center for Justice Innovation

Within the context of a national movement toward criminal legal system reform— including the use of alternatives-to incarceration (ATIs) for non-violent and drug cases—legal responses to crimes of violence still largely involve incarceration. Few jurisdictions apply alternatives to address violent crime, instead continuing to rely on carceral approaches, despite evidence pointing to the overall negative effects. The current study explores alternative responses to crimes of violence outside of incarceration. Specifically, this document presents 

  Specifically, this document presents findings from five in-depth case studies. In it, we highlight some of the unique approaches to responding to violent crime implemented in each site, in hopes that they may prove instructive for other jurisdictions seeking to explore or further develop alternative approaches to crimes of violence. The featured approaches are implemented at various stages of the criminal legal system process—from after charging and the initial appearance, to pretrial and plea, to post-plea, pre- sentencing, to post-conviction and sentencing. We explore a pretrial  supervision program, restorative justice programs, pretrial diversion programs, specialty courts, and post-conviction resentencing initiatives. Each study also includes specific recommendations made by those in the featured site and based on the information learned from the featured site. The companion piece, A New Approach: Alternative Prosecutorial Responses to Violent Crime, presents a comprehensive summary of study findings, along with resultant recommendations for policy and practice. 

New York: Center for Justice Innovation. 2024, 41pg

By Elizabeth Neuland

On May 4, 2021, New York became the 20th state to restore the right to vote to individuals upon release from custody, regardless of parole status. In a time when the United States government is trying to protect voting rights through the “For the People Act” and “The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act,”  and while some states are seeing radical legislation proposed that would potentially suppress the right to vote, New York needs to abolish the antiquated practice of felony disenfranchisement and guarantee the right to vote to all eligible New Yorkers regardless of incarceration status. The practice of felony disenfranchisement does not align with the values and core curriculum of the programs being provided by the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”) within state correctional facilities. The overview statement for program services reads, “DOCCS offers an extensive array of programs and services for incarcerated individuals to assist them in redirecting their lives and becoming productive, law-abiding members  of society.” Although the word “rehabilitation” is absent, this statement essentially summarizes what rehabilitation is. The argument to abolish felony disenfranchisement is highlighted by the vast rehabilitation efforts taken by DOCCS, through numerous employment and vocational programs, temporary release programs, and educational opportunities. Felony disenfranchisement stands in stark opposition to rehabilitation because it alienates individuals from the very communities to which DOCCS is taking great measures to help them to return In addition to rehabilitation, restoring the right to vote to all eligible New Yorkers regardless of incarceration status would raise the level of accountability for state politicians, lawmakers, and DOCCS itself. It is no secret that correctional facilities can be dangerous places, due to both interpersonal violence and acts of self-inflicted harm, including suicide. Accountability should apply to those that are the guardians of a vulnerable population. In Parts I and II, this Comment provides a brief overview of international and national practices of felony disenfranchisement to see where New York fits into the landscape. Part III concentrates on New York State. Its legislation affecting disenfranchisement and the number of individuals incarcerated are discussed to highlight how many people are affected by felony disenfranchisement. The argument to fully abolish felony disenfranchisement is made through discussions of rehabilitation and accountability. Lastly, this Comment describes how all New York citizens could be enfranchised.  

 City University of New York Law Review. 2022, 25pg