By Arie Freiberg

The relationship between alcohol and other drugs (AOD), the criminal law, and sentencing has a long and tortuous history in Victoria. It is a saga of changing theories regarding the nature of substance use and addiction, the link between substance use and crime1 and oscillating responses to AOD-related crime ranging from ‘law and order’ to harm minimisation, from more severe penalties to decriminalisation. Over 170 years or so, Victoria’s sentencing responses have evolved from the traditional sanctions of fines, imprisonment, common law bonds and probation to a complex mix of pre-sentence interventions, diversion programs, a range of intermediate sanctions, various forms of suspended sentences and problem-oriented court models such as the drug and alcohol court. Although the criminal law forms the foundation of the legal framework for AOD offending, sentencing law and practice play an important part in that structure. They provide the context for medical and other interventions aimed at addressing the underlying causes of drug related offending.2 This paper argues that although there have been many innovations in sentencing, they have generally had only a marginal effect on AODrelated crime. While there exists a substantial literature on the sentencing of AOD-related offences (Sentencing Advisory Council 2015), and on AOD treatment policy (Ritter and Berends 2016), less attention has been paid to the structure, content and effectiveness of the various sanctions employed over the years. In contrast, this paper reflects on over 170 years of AOD sentencing reform, arguing that many of the interventions have been less than successful due to their poor construction, inadequate resourcing, lack of continuity and clarity of purpose, unrealistic and inflexible conditions, geographic disparity, and unresponsiveness to different groups of offenders. This paper concludes that sentencing alone can never provide the answer to AOD-related crime and that far more fundamental reform to the regulation of AOD-related offending is required. These conclusions reflect the current impasse between the clear and undeniable failure of the war on drugs and the continued pursuit of the same law and order policies that, asthis paper shows, have failed to provide lasting solutions  

Collingwood 3066, Victoria : The Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association (VAADA) i , 2023. 34p.

By Jennifer Ferone, Bryn Herrschaft, Kate Jassin, Cecilia Low-Weiner, Aimee Ouellet

Findings from a multiyear process evaluation of New York State legislation aimed at facilitating pretrial release and minimizing the use of cash bonds. Includes recommendations and lessons learned for future reform efforts both in and out of New York. The inequities inherent in this country’s criminal legal system have been well-documented. Research and evidence repeatedly show that socioeconomic circumstances affect how people fare at all points, with those who are economically disadvantaged and Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) faring disproportionately worse, such as higher rates of arrest and incarceration. The pretrial period—which is after a person is arrested and charged but before they have been convicted of any crime—is no exception to this trend. Disparities at this stage are particularly prevalent, having been exacerbated by the ever-expanding use of cash bail and pretrial detention across jurisdictions in recent decades. This has long-lasting implications: even one day in jail can lead to exposure to violence while incarcerated, and loss of housing and employment after release.1 In the past, efforts to reduce the harm caused by cash bail were often tied to particular system leaders making changes to administrative policies under their control (e.g., prosecutors not charging individuals with certain low-level offenses). In recent years, however, some states have taken up broader legislative reforms aiming to transform the system on a much larger scale; specifically, many have moved to eliminate or substantially reduce the use of cash bail as a major factor in determining when and for whom pretrial detention is used. In 2019, New York became one of these states, with the passage of the Criminal Justice Reform Act (Act) in April of that year (with reforms taking effect on January 1, 2020). The Act, fueled by increasingly abhorrent conditions at the Rikers Island jail complex in New York City (NYC), was hailed as one of the most ambitious bail reform packages in the country. The comprehensive package of reforms was driven by the recognition of New York's systemic problems and the need to address them through an effort that was equally broad in scope and scale. At its core, the Act aimed to facilitate a presumption of non-financial release to avoid the deleterious and inequitably distributed effects of pretrial detention. The New York State government (NYS) understood, however, that to effectively and safely shift away from incarceration as a primary system response— and to create a decision-making foundation that was not dependent on financial resources—a variety of local criminal legal processes beyond the bail decision had to shift as well. To that end, the legislation included provisions in other related areas. More specifically, the legislation aimed to reduce systemic inequities and harms through a comprehensive approach that incorporated significant changes to policy and practice in four key areas of pretrial decision-making  (continued)

New York:  CUNY Institute for State & Local Governance 2023. 55p.

By National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice.

This report provides criminal justice policymakers and practitioners with a priority agenda to prepare the nation’s criminal justice system for future public health crises. Through its recommendations, the Commission seeks to better balance the roles and responsibilities of the public health and public safety fields. Through its recommendations, the Commission seeks to better balance the roles and responsibilities of the public health and public safety fields. Launched at the end of July, the Commission received multiple reports and extensive testimony from leading national and local experts. Key findings include: + Crime: Property crime and drug offense rates fell from 2019 to 2020, but violent crime increased significantly. In particular, homicide rates increased by 42% during the summer months (June to August) in a sample of more than 20 medium to large cities, and by 34% in the fall (September to October).1 + Prisons: Prison populations have been reduced by about 5% nationally. On average, the COVID-19 mortality rate within prisons (61.8 deaths per 100,000 people in prison) was double the mortality rate for the general population, after adjusting for the gender, age, and race/ethnicity of those incarcerated. There are also substantial differences among states in the rate of prison infections and deaths.2 + Jails: Jail populations fell by 31% in the early weeks of the pandemic but have been slowly climbing toward prior levels since May.3 During the pandemic, the rates at which people have been rebooked on new charges 30, 60, and 180 days after release remain below pre-pandemic rates. Unfortunately, data regarding COVID-related infections and deaths in jails is scarce. + Racial and Ethnic Disparities: The COVID-19 pandemic may have exacerbated some racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system. As jail populations began to fall in March at the onset of the pandemic, there were increases in the proportion of people who were Black, who were booked on felony charges, who were male, and who were 25 or younger. These changes in the population composition persisted even as jail populations began to rise again in early May.4 + Substance Use and Mental Health Disorders: More than 40 states have reported increases in opioid-related fatalities since the onset of the pandemic. Mandatory lockdowns, restrictions on movement, social distancing guidelines, orders limiting access to facilities for nonessential workers, and the absence of in-person treatment have created gaps in the system's ability to identify and monitor the needs and legal 3 requirements of people with substance abuse and mental health disorders, and to intervene when they are in distress.5 + Budgets: State and local governments face daunting budget deficits that will worsen as the pandemic wears on, and unemployment levels remain high. Because criminal justice operations (law enforcement, courts, and corrections) are funded more heavily by state and local governments than most other government functions, revenue shortfalls will disproportionately damage the criminal justice system without effective policy interventions.

Washington, DC: Council on Criminal Justice. 2020, 43pg

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 Arthur L. Rizer

Over the past 20 years, conservatives have often been at the forefront of criminal justice reform efforts, including to reduce mandatory minimum sentencing, lengthy prison terms, and excessive criminal fines and fees and to improve conditions in prisons and jails. Rejecting the Nixonian “law and order” impulse, criminal justice reform has increasingly become incorporated into the conservative political self-identity. But this has been an elite-driven phenomenon, and it is open to question whether the roots of that political identity are deep enough to withstand the rising salience of crime as a political issue. This review traces how criminal justice reform came to be incorporated into the conservative political identity, raises questions concerning its staying power in the face of rising crime and increasingly strident progressive demands, and proposes some principles that might ground a more lasting conservative commitment to a just, proportionate system of criminal justice.

Annual Review of Criminology, v. 6. 2023, 18pg

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 Sam J. Merchant

Many observers claim that judges are imposing disproportionately lenient sentences on January 6, 2021, “Capitol Breach” offenders. Some have even suggested a racial or political motivation for lighter sentences. Comparative data on these sentences and offenders, presented here for the first time, refute this narrative. Individuals convicted of felonies related to the Capitol Breach appear to actually receive longer sentences than individuals convicted of the same crimes outside of the Capitol Breach context.

But sentences in Capitol Breach cases may indeed be “lenient” for a deeper, more structural reason—the current Federal Sentencing Guidelines do not adequately account for the severity of the conduct that occurred on January 6, 2021. There is a qualitative difference between federal offenses and the same offenses committed in the context of the “treason spectrum.” English and American legal traditions have historically viewed treason, rebellion, and subversive activities as “the worst crimes of all” because they are crimes against all citizens and threaten the constitutional order. Yet no sentencing enhancement addresses the increased severity of conduct involving offenses that are on the treason spectrum.

Recognizing the increased seriousness of other conduct, Congress and the Sentencing Commission have enacted an array of enhancements to punish, incapacitate, and deter offenders whose conduct involves a dangerous weapon, body armor, or even use of a fake website during an offense. This Article proposes a new sentencing enhancement in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines that properly accounts for the relative severity of conduct involving offenses on the treason spectrum. To reaffirm a commitment to democratic values, to deter future subversive conduct, and ensure that the legal system is equipped to respond to the severity of subversive conduct, policymakers and judges should send clear signal that subversive activities are indeed among “the worst crimes of all.”

Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law Research Paper Series. 2024, 41pg

By Kayla Tawa

As mental health concerns and awareness around mental health challenges have increased, policymakers have prioritized mental health policy. Within these conversations, there is a broad recognition that far too often people experiencing mental health challenges encounter the criminal legal system rather than accessing mental health supports. In response, many policymakers have championed policies that aim to divert people experiencing mental health challenges away from prisons and jails and into mental health treatment. However, some of these policies, particularly those involving forced treatment, rely on carceral tactics and replicate incarceration.

Washington, DC:  Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP). 2024, 14pg