By Rose Cahn

On May 19, 2003, Angel Ramirez1 was pulled over while driving home from work. A careful driver, Angel was sure he hadn’t been speeding, but during this “routine stop,” police asked for proof of citizenship. Having none, he was immediately arrested, transferred to immigration custody, and placed in removal proceedings. At the time of his arrest, Angel had lived in the United States for 30 years. He was a well-liked, civically engaged, small-business owner. He and his U.S.-citizen wife had four children together and a fifth on the way. But due to a single marijuana conviction from 1999—when he was 18 and represented by counsel who never told him the lasting immigration consequences of a plea deal—Angel faced losing his family, his business, and the only country he had ever called home. Barred by his conviction from lawful permanent residency and any opportunity for discretionary relief, he faced deportation to Mexico. In August 2008, Maria Sanchez, a long-time lawful permanent resident (“LPR” or “green card” holder), was convicted of growing a marijuana plant in her backyard. Born in Mexico, Maria had lived in the United States for over three decades, raising her children and grandchildren here. Maria suffered from arthritis and turned to the same remedy her mother and grandmother had used: She grew a single marijuana plant, soaked it in rubbing alcohol, and rubbed the alcohol tincture on her painful joints. This was Maria’s first and only arrest. Her public defender got a good deal from a criminal perspective: four months of house arrest. Unbeknownst to Maria, however, that plea was the functional equivalent of signing her own deportation order. Considered an aggravated felony under immigration law, the conviction subjected Maria to mandatory deportation and mandatory imprisonment, with no opportunity for discretionary relief. She suddenly faced the real likelihood of being separated from her family forever.

Oakland, CA: Californians for Safety and Justice, 2019. 148p.

By Lauren Magee, Travis Carter, and Edmund F. McGarrell

In an effort to reduce the number of fatal and nonfatal shootings in Detroit, the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office (WCPO), working closely with the Detroit Police Department (DPD), developed an innovative approach to the investigation and prosecution of nonfatal shootings. The innovation involved the use of a One-Person Grand Jury focused specifically on nonfatal shootings. The One-Person Grand Jury was considered an investigatory resource that could increase the cooperation of shooting victims and witnesses. The grand jury provided victims and witnesses a safe environment in which to provide testimony they might otherwise be reluctant to provide. The short-term goals included the preservation of testimonial evidence that would result in identification, arrest, and conviction of perpetrators of nonfatal shooting incidents. The mission of the WCPO’s Violent Crime Unit: The mission of The Violent Crime Unit Is to ensure that Justice Is served by utilizing a non-traditional approach to the reduction of violent crime. This collaborative effort utilizes a combination of special judicial proceedings, vertical prosecution, crime analysis, social media analysis, and witness protection to target violent gangs and offenders that drive violent crime. The longer-term goal was to reduce shootings. The rationale was that building stronger cases would lead to an increase in arrests and better cases for court; future shootings would be prevented through two causal mechanisms. First, high risk individuals (shooters) would be more likely to be convicted and sentenced to a period of incarceration during which they would be unable to re-offend within the community (incapacitation effect). Second, the perceived risk of sanction among potential shooters would be increased (deterrence effect). Essentially, by holding shooters accountable at a higher rate than historically has been the case, there should be a reduction in shootings. Additionally, given that nonfatal shootings have historically had low levels of clearance by arrest and closure through prosecution, the focused attention of the OnePerson Grand Jury might have an additional effect of increasing the perceived legitimacy of police and prosecution by residents of neighborhoods affected by shootings through the effort to hold shooters accountable. Complementing the One-Person Grand Jury was increased cooperation and coordination among prosecutors and police investigators whereby designated prosecutors were available (via phone) to consult with police investigators at the scene of a nonfatal shooting. The intent was to provide prosecution resources to investigators, including the legal process of the One-Person Grand Jury, to enhance investigations and case preparation.

East Lansing, MI: Michigan Justice Statistics Center, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, 2021. 31p.

By Dennis C. Benamati, Phyllis A. Schultze, Adam C. Bouloukos, and Graeme R. Newman

From the Introduction: “… Informa­tion is now available from any location—home, office, or classroom—and at any time of day or night. Tradi­tionally, the researcher had to go to a library to access information.There, he or she could find a librarian to assist with locating information and formulating que­ries. Today, the researcher does not have to be in the same room or building to access Internet and online information sources. The librarian, who would have normally assisted with the research, is remote or may not be on duty. Thus, the concept of the library as a physical location has lost some of its meaning.

We have written Criminal Justice Information: How to Find It, How to Use It to accommodate these fundamental changes in the way that criminal justice information is accessed and disseminated. We hope that this new guide will provide the distant researcher with guidance in the use of resources—guidance that would have traditionally been provided by a reference librarian at a library….

Our publisher has suggested that we provide the re­searcher with a “roadmap” of how to use this book. It is a well-meant suggestion…[but]…a roadmap is an altogether inadequate analogy to demonstrate how we would like our readers to use this guide. Indeed, for several reasons we encourage our readers to shed the bias that research and information gathering are linear processes. This perception has been part and parcel of a culture that has taught and related information linearly for generations. The media in which our culture and knowledge are re­corded—primarily books but also audio and video recordings—are linear because they are bome of the limited technologies of the printing press…”

Phoenix, Arizona. The Oryx Press. 1998. 247p.

By John F. MacLeod, Peter G. Grove, and David P. Farrington

Explaining Criminal Careers presents a simple quantitative theory of crime, conviction and reconviction, the assumptions of the theory are derived directly from a detailed analysis of cohort samples drawn from the “UK Home Office” Offenders Index (OI). Mathematical models based on the theory, together with population trends, are used to make: exact quantitative predictions of features of criminal careers; aggregate crime levels; the prison population; and to explain the age-crime curve, alternative explanations are shown not to be supported by the data. Previous research is reviewed, clearly identifying the foundations of the current work. Using graphical techniques to identify mathematical regularities in the data, recidivism (risk) and frequency (rate) of conviction are analysed and modelled. These models are brought together to identify three categories of offender: high-risk / high-rate, high-risk / low-rate and low-risk / low-rate. The theory is shown to rest on just 6 basic assumptions. Within this theoretical framework the seriousness of offending, specialisation or versatility in offence types and the psychological characteristics of offenders are all explored suggesting that the most serious offenders are a random sample from the risk/rate categories but that those with custody later in their careers are predominantly high-risk/high-rate. In general offenders are shown to be versatile rather than specialist and can be categorised using psychological profiles. The policy implications are drawn out highlighting the importance of conviction in desistance from crime and the absence of any…..

• More.....

  additional deterrence effect of imprisonment. The use of the theory in evaluation of interventions is demonstrated.

Oxford, UK; New York: Oxford University Press, 2021. 273p.