By Sarah Picard, Leah Nelson, Rae Walker, Ellie Wilson

Every year, courts across the United States impose millions of dollars in fines, fees, and restitution charges on people adjudicated guilty of traffic violations, misdemeanors, and felonies. In theory, these assessments are intended to punish and deter unlawful behavior and compensate victims for financial losses incurred as the result of a crime. Despite their near ubiquitous use in criminal legal systems throughout the country, there is surprisingly little evidence that these financial penalties and assessments, collectively known as legal financial obligations (LFOs), deter criminal conduct, enhance public safety, or result in victims being compensated for their losses. In fact, some analyses indicate excessive fines and fees can have detrimental effects, eroding community trust in law enforcement, exacerbating hardships faced by individuals and families, undermining public safety and court legitimacy, and saddling community members with debt many will never be able to pay.

The Jefferson County Equitable Fines and Fees (JEFF) Project—a research–practice partnership among MDRC, the Alabama Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and the Tenth Judicial Circuit Court of Alabama—uses five years of longitudinal, case-level data and qualitative research to explore how Alabama’s fines and fees system plays out in Jefferson County, Alabama. This brief presents early results from analysis of the quantitative data collected. 

The preliminary findings highlight inequities in how LFOs are assessed and distributed and the inefficacy of LFOs as a revenue source. Analyses showed that indigent individuals across all charges were assessed higher financial penalties and paid less toward their debt than those who could afford private representation. In addition, across groups, most people did not satisfy their balances over the five-year period, and many incurred a “restitution recovery fee” due to missed payments. Furthermore, the research depicts a system in which restitution often goes unpaid because of the state’s priority disbursement schedule, which compensates law enforcement agencies that collect debt before funding victim restitution

New York: MDRC, 2024. 9p.

By Karin D. Martin

The core of the access-to-justice problem is widespread unmet civil legal needs coupled with general disuse of the civil legal system. This Essay posits that monetary sanctions are an important contributing factor to the problem of access to justice. First, monetary sanctions and the unpaid criminal legal debt they produce are engines of “legal hybridity” in people’s lives in a way that impedes access to justice by generating unmet legal needs. They conflate the criminal and civil legal systems in many people’s lives, thereby reducing access to recourse in either system. Second, by subverting the principles of proportionality, specificity, and finality, monetary sanctions structurally deprive people of just solutions and condition them to not expect justice from legal institutions

widespread disuse of the civil legal system to help solve civil legal problems lies at the core. Regardless of whether the crisis is conceptualized as people having insufficient legal assistance, legal information, or access to civil courts, a through line is the failure of people to make use of the benefits ostensibly available to them through the civil legal system. Here, “access to justice” is conceived of in terms of widespread unmet legal needs with an accompanying paucity of just solutions. Theories about the source of this deficit of just resolutions for people with civil legal problems include lack of legal knowledge and knowhow, underfunded courts, and too few lawyers.cal and structural aspects of monetary sanctions, explained in detail below, this Essay argues that it is time to include monetary sanctions as a contributing factor to the problem of access to justice.

Monetary sanctions are the fines, fees, surcharges, restitution, or any other financial liability imposed in the criminal legal system. Three factors make it easy to overlook the role of these sanctions in the access-to-justice problem: (1) Monetary sanctions originate in the criminal legal system; (2) Some people can pay them without difficulty; and (3) They are a less severe sanction than incarceration. Nevertheless, the ubiquity of monetary sanctions and the unpaid criminal legal debt they produce are engines of “legal hybridity” in people’s lives in a way that harms access to justice by giving rise to unmet legal needs. Specifically, this legal hybridity amplifies the potential for extraction in both the criminal and civil legal systems and hinders the potential for resolution in each. Further, monetary sanctions are structured in a way that violates key principles of justice, which inhibits the pursuit of just solutions. This Essay thus argues that failing to consider the role of monetary sanctions in the access-to-justice crisis will stymie efforts to solve it.

This Essay proceeds as follows. Part I explores how monetary sanctions conflate the criminal and civil legal systems in many people’s lives, thereby reducing access to recourse in either. The idea of legal hybridity is offered as a way to conceptualize this phenomenon. While both the criminal and civil legal systems ostensibly offer remedies for all manner of problems, legal hybridity highlights how they also both have the capacity to be extractive—of time, of money, of property, and of liberty. Monetary sanctions should be a point of focus because they often tilt the balance toward extraction, rather than toward recourse. Part II discusses how monetary sanctions undermine central tenets of justice: proportionality, finality, and specificity in punishment. By subverting these principles, monetary sanctions structurally deprive people of just solutions and condition them to not expect justice from legal institutions. Although these principles are typically of concern in the criminal legal setting, the aforementioned legal hybridity underscores the need to consider them more broadly, particularly in the domain of monetary sanctions.

Stanford Law Review Online , Vol. 75, June 2023, 15p.

By Erin Jacobs Valentine, Sarah Picard

Jurisdictions across the United States are implementing reforms to their pretrial systems to reduce the number of people who are held in pretrial detention—that is, who remain incarcerated in jail while they await the adjudication of their cases. As part of this effort, many jurisdictions are moving away from money bail as a primary means to encourage people to return for future court dates, and are instead implementing pretrial supervision, which requires clients to meet regularly with supervision staff members. Jurisdictions often attempt to match the intensity or frequency of supervision with a client’s assessed risk of failing to appear in court or being rearrested, for example by requiring more intensive supervision for clients who are assessed as being at a high risk. However, while different levels of pretrial supervision impose different burdens and costs on both jurisdictions and people awaiting the resolutions of their cases, there has been little systematic research into how they differ in their effectiveness in improving court appearance and arrest outcomes.

This report contributes new evidence in this area using retrospective data from cases initiated between January 2017 and June 2019 in two jurisdictions: one populous, urban metropolitan area in the western United States and a sparsely populated, rural county from the same region. The research team employed a regression discontinuity design, comparing the outcomes of people whose risk scores were just below and just above the cutoff for a level of supervision. They did so for four supervision levels: (1) no supervision, (2) low-intensity supervision that involved only check-ins with supervision staff members after court hearings, (3) medium-intensity supervision that also required one in-person meeting a month with a supervision staff member, and (4) high-intensity supervision that required three in-person meetings per month. The analysis uses a noninferiority approach, which tests whether the less intensive form of supervision is at least as effective as (that is, no worse than) the more intensive form.

The analysis found that:

Overall, lower-intensity supervision was as effective as higher-intensity supervision in helping clients to appear in court and avoid new arrests. When comparing each level of supervision with the next level in intensity, assignment to less intensive supervision led to similar outcomes as assignment to more intensive supervision.

Risk scores were strongly correlated with rearrest rates and modestly correlated with court appearance rates. Unsurprisingly, people with higher risk scores were more likely to be rearrested, and somewhat less likely to make scheduled court appearances. However, higher-intensity supervision did not mitigate this effect.

Overall, the analysis found no evidence that requiring people to meet more intensive pretrial supervision requirements improves outcomes. These findings suggest that policymakers should consider other strategies to encourage people to appear in court and avoid arrest, especially since supervision has costs, including monetary costs to jurisdictions and time and travel costs to clients. It is possible, for example, that strategies that involve service connections rather than supervision could be more effective. At the same time, the results indicate that more research on the use of pretrial supervision is needed. Because the regression discontinuity design of this study focuses on cases at particular risk levels—those near the cutoff risk scores that determine supervision intensity—it is possible that the results would differ for cases with other risk levels. For example, high-intensity supervision could have effects among very high-risk cases, a question that this analysis was not designed to address. Given that prior research suggests that both service and supervision resources are most effective when reserved for higher-risk and -need cases, studies focusing solely on outcomes among this group could be of great benefit to the field.

New York: MDRC, 2023. 77p.

By Chloe Anderson Golub, Erin Jacobs Valentine, Daron Holman

As more jurisdictions across the country are seeking to reduce their jail populations, many view electronic monitoring (EM, the use of an electronic device to monitor a person’s movement and location) and sobriety monitoring (regular drug and alcohol testing) as potential alternatives to pretrial detention. In theory, the added layer of supervision that these special conditions provide should encourage people to appear for court dates and avoid activities that could lead to new arrests. Yet most studies of the effectiveness of special conditions have faced methodological limitations and have yielded mixed findings. Furthermore, special conditions such as electronic monitoring and sobriety monitoring carry significant costs—both personal and monetary—for those being monitored and for jurisdictions.

This report contributes cross-jurisdiction evidence on the effects of these special conditions of release using retrospective data from cases initiated between January 2017 and June 2019 in four diverse jurisdictions across the United States: one small and rural, one medium-sized, and two large and urban jurisdictions. The MDRC research team employed a propensity score matching design to test the effectiveness of EM and sobriety monitoring in maintaining clients’ court appearance rates and helping them avoid arrest. This method allowed the team to compare court appearance and pretrial rearrest outcomes for individuals released with special conditions with those of statistically comparable individuals who were released without special conditions. The analysis uses a noninferiority approach, which tests whether release without special conditions is at least as effective as (that is, no worse than) release with a special condition.

The analysis found that:

Being released on EM or sobriety monitoring did not significantly improve court appearance rates. The analyses found that the special conditions and non–special conditions groups had similar pretrial court appearance rates. These results were consistent across jurisdictions.

Being released on electronic monitoring did not significantly increase the percentage of people who avoided a new arrest during the pretrial period. In fact, the analysis found that the EM group had a higher pretrial rearrest rate than the non-EM group, a result that was consistent across the two jurisdictions in that analysis. While the factors causing the results are not definitively known, the difference may be a supervision effect: people may be more likely to be arrested if their actions are more closely monitored, compared with others who are less closely monitored. Alternatively, the result may reflect unmeasured differences between the EM and non-EM groups that could not be controlled for in the analysis.

Being released on sobriety monitoring did not significantly improve the percentage of people who avoided a new arrest, but there was variation in this effect among jurisdictions. In two of the four jurisdictions studied, people who were assigned to sobriety monitoring were more likely to avoid new arrests, while in the other two, the result was the opposite.

These findings warrant cautious reflection among policymakers and practitioners on the extent of current electronic and sobriety monitoring use, particularly considering their high personal and financial costs to those directly affected and to jurisdictions. The exploratory findings also highlight a need for additional cross-site studies—in particular, those that employ more rigorous experimental methods—on the effectiveness of special conditions at the pretrial stage. Given the site variation in findings, particularly for sobriety monitoring, more research is also needed to delineate the populations that would benefit from special conditions from those who would not benefit and to illuminate the policies and practices that are associated with the greatest success.

New York: MDRC, 2023. 51p.

By Tyson Singh Kelsall and Jasmine Veark and Molly Beatrice a d

This commentary explores a recent shift in British Columbia's drug policy under a novel drug “decriminalization” framework. We focus on the province's move toward "recriminalization" under this framework. In short, recriminalization was a shift in BC's drug decriminalization framework to only apply in private residences, and be removed from essentially all outdoor spaces. This policy change was completed through an agreement with the federal government amid a public health emergency. Since 2016, BC has faced a severe crisis of drug-related overdoses and poisonings, driven by a toxic and unregulated drug supply compounded by prohibitionist policies. Expert recommendations for increasing access to a regulated drug supply have repeatedly dismissed as solutions by the governing BC New Democratic Party, opting instead for measures that do not undercut the toxic drug supply. We examine the sociolegal context of the BC government decision to recriminalize drug use in 2024, including attempts to criminalize recent drug use and police suspicion of substance use. These drug law reforms, understood here as forms of biopolitical violence, reflect a broader trend of using drug policies as tools for social and spatial regulation. By analyzing the sociolegal implications of these policies, the commentary situates the BC government's actions within a framework of sanctioned biopolitical massacre, highlighting the tension between purported decriminalization efforts and the actual enforcement strategies that perpetuate harm and exclusion. This examination underscores the complex interplay between drug policy, public health crises, and state power in the context of systemic colonial and racialized control that may be adaptable to other regions considering drug law reform.

International Journal of Drug Policy

Volume 136, February 2025, 104688

By Roland Neil, and Michael Zanger-Tishler

There is great concern about algorithmic racial bias in the risk assessment instruments (RAIs) used in the criminal legal system. When testing for algorithmic bias, most research effectively uses arrest data as an unbiased measure of criminal offending, which collides with longstanding concerns that arrest is a biased proxy of offending. Given the centrality of arrest data in RAIs, racial differences in how arrest proxies offending may be a key pathway through which RAIs become biased. In this review, we evaluate the extensive body of research on racial differences in arrest as a measure of crime. Furthermore, we detail several ways that racial bias in arrest records could create algorithmic bias, although little research has attempted to measure the degree of algorithmic bias generated by using racially biased arrest records. We provide a roadmap to assist future research in understanding the impact of biased arrest records on RAIs.

Annual Review of Criminology, Vol. 8:97-119 January 2025)

By Alex Severson,  Elise Ferguson,  Cris Moore, Paul Guerin, 

This study analyzes the costs and benefits of pretrial detention in Bernalillo County, New Mexico, examining 16,500 felony cases filed between January 2017 and March 2022. The analysis evaluates the relationship between pretrial detention length and failure outcomes, including failure to appear (FTA), new criminal activity (NCA), and new violent criminal activity (NVCA), both during the pretrial period and post-disposition. The study found that longer detention periods (8-30 days) were associated with significantly higher odds of pretrial failure compared to shorter stays, particularly for failure to appear, though this relationship varied by demographic groups. For post-disposition outcomes, moderate detention lengths (4-30 days) were associated with increased odds of general recidivism but decreased odds of violent recidivism. Using marginal cost estimates rather than average daily jail costs, we estimate that reducing detention length to two days for eligible low-risk defendants who did not fail pretrial could yield cost savings of approximately $259,722 annually. The study contributes to ongoing debates about pretrial detention policies by demonstrating that extended detention periods may increase certain failure rates while generating substantial system costs. However, the analysis notes important limitations, including inability to fully control for post-disposition sentencing outcomes and the challenge of establishing causal relationships between detention length and failure rates. 

Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, Institute for Social Research, 2024.40p.

By Kristine Denman and Ella Siegrist  

The New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center received funding from the Bureau of Justice Statistics to complete a multi-phase study assessing New Mexico’s bail reform efforts. The current report examines the impact of bail reform in six New Mexico counties. This study first explores the use and amount of bond judges ordered as recorded in criminal court cases where conditions of release were set, using data from the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). The data includes cases disposed between 2015 and 2019, and consists of misdemeanor and felony cases, both pretrial and post-disposition. Second, using data from New Mexico county detention centers and the AOC, the study explores the impact of bail reform among defendants booked between 2015 and 2019 for a new felony offense. This allows us to examine the impact of bail reform on pretrial practices among felony defendants—the target of New Mexico’s constitutional amendment on bail reform. Specifically, the study examines four outcomes: pretrial detention practices, the use of bond, failure/success rates among those released pretrial; and court efficiency. By analyzing pre- and post- bail reform data, we found that the amendment has been successful in reducing the average amount of bond ordered and the frequency with which it is ordered. Judges, however, ordered temporary no-bond holds when issuing a warrant for arrest more frequently after bail reform. Overall, defendants involved in new felony cases were detained for a shorter period of time. However, this was not true across the board: a slightly greater percentage were subject to a short period of detention (rather than immediate release), and those detained during the entire pretrial period spent more time in jail post-reform. During the pretrial period, new violent offenses increased slightly by 2%; new offenses overall increased by 1%. Failures to appear were more common after bail reform, with a 5% increase, but this varied significantly by county. In general, time to case resolution decreased post-bail reform, though cases involving defendants detained the entire pretrial period took slightly longer to resolve. 

Albuquerque: New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center   2022. 57p.

By Australia. Parliament. Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade

Detailing the inquiry into Australia’s advocacy efforts against the death penalty, this report finds that Australia’s advocacy strategies must be reevaluated and revamped in order to be effective in a contemporary human rights environment.

The inquiry reviewed progress since the committee's 2016 report on the same issue, taking into consideration the current global landscape and challenges to abolition. It examines Australia's strategy for abolition, international cooperation, and engagement with civil society, finding that Australia has a role to play globally in advocating for the abolition of the death penalty through every avenue possible.

Recommendations

The Australian Government continues to advocate for the abolition of the death penalty in all retentionist countries through bilateral, multilateral and regional forums, and with a particular focus on the Asia-Pacific region.

In addition to advocating for abolition, the Australian Government should advocate for a reduction in the categories of crimes that carry the death penalty in retentionist countries and for discretion in sentencing.

Provide an annual statement against the death penalty, to be delivered in Parliament and across multiple platforms.

Consider the development of a strategy for domestic education and awareness raising.

Consider providing adequate funding for civil society organisations to more accurately gather data on trends and current areas of concern regarding the use of the death penalty.

The Attorney-General’s Department should consult Capital Punishment Justice Project to ensure the competency and qualifications of the local lawyers engaged to represent Australian nationals in capital cases.

The Australian Government should undertake annual reviews of the mechanisms and operations of the Australian Federal Police’s Sensitive Investigations Oversight Board.

Canberra: Australia. Parliament. Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade2025.

By The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Government, Criminal Justice Innovation Lab

In North Carolina, thirty-seven of the state’s 100 counties offer some kind of pretrial supervision and support services. The National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies identifies two primary roles of pretrial services agencies. First, to assist judicial officers in making informed release decisions that promote court appearance and public safety. And second, to offer supervision and support options for individuals who require oversight while on pretrial release. These options can include services such as court date reminders, check-ins with staff, electronic monitoring, and providing referrals to community service providers. Numerous North Carolina counties use pretrial risk assessments to assist judicial officers in making informed release decisions. As used here, the term pretrial risk assessment refers to tools that are designed to predict the likelihood that someone will appear in court and remain arrest-free while on pretrial release. This briefing paper provides information about the use of pretrial risk assessments in North Carolina, including the types of assessments being used and how they are implemented. We also share lessons learned from stakeholders about implementation. This information was gathered as part of a larger partnership between the UNC School of Government Criminal Justice Innovation Lab (the Lab) and the North Carolina Pretrial Services Association (NCPSA) to assess the feasibility of research on the impact of pretrial services.

Durham, NC: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Government, Criminal Justice Innovation Lab: December 2024, 15p.

By Lauren Knoth-Peterson, Whitney Hunt

The purpose of this resource is to identify whether states have established unique sentencing policies for individuals convicted of a sex offense authorizing community supervision for life. In states where lifetime supervision policies were identified, we also examined whether the state has an established pathway off of lifetime supervision status. This resource highlights each state’s relevant statutes to lifetime supervision policies with the green text emphasizing the pathway off of supervision (when applicable). There are limitations to this resource. First, we looked only for unique sentencing policies for individuals convicted of a sex offense. In some instances, states may have general

indeterminate sentencing structures by which convicted defendants may end up under supervision orders for life. For example, states may allow defendants sentenced to life in prison to apply for parole. If granted, parole may include community supervision for life, consistent with the underlying life incarceration sentence. Since these parole policies are not unique to sex offenses, but instead are applicable only when the court explicitly imposes a life sentence, we did not include these statutes in this report. For example, Idaho is an indeterminate sentencing state with a parole system. In some cases, individuals convicted of a sex offense may receive a sentence of life incarceration with the possibility of parole. If paroled, those individuals would be under parole supervision for the remainder of their sentence, which is for life. The Board of Correction in Idaho may submit a request to the Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole for early termination of parole after serving at least 5 years on parole. However, since these parole policies do not apply to all sex offenses and are related to the underlying life imprisonment sentence and standard parole processes, we do not include these statutes in this report. State laws frequently change. Please note that any statutory language included in this document may be subject to change over time, and readers should verify that statutes have not been amended after publication of this resource.

Olympia, WA: Washington State Office of Financial Management, Public Safety Policy & Research Center. 2025. 96p.

By Michael Vitiello

The United States’ War on Drugs has not been pretty. Moral panic has repeatedly driven policy when states and the federal government have regulated drugs. Responding to that panic, legislators have authorized severe sentences for drug offenses.

By design, Article III gives federal judges independence, in part, to protect fundamental rights against mob rule. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has often failed to protect fundamental rights in times of moral panic. For example, it eroded Fourth Amendment protections during the War on Drugs. Similarly, it failed to protect drug offenders from excessive prison sentences during the War on Drugs. This Article examines whether it is time for the Supreme Court to rethink its precedent upholding extremely long sentences for drug crimes.

In 1983, in Solem v. Helm, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause applies to terms of imprisonment. There, it found the imposition of a true-life sentence imposed on a repeat offender to be grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the defendant’s offense. Whatever hope Solem created that courts might limit excessive sentences proved to be false.

Two Supreme Court cases dealing with drug sentences, bracketing Solem, demonstrate the Court’s unwillingness to override legislatures’ discretion in imposing sentences. In 1982, the Court upheld a 40-year term of imprisonment imposed on an offender who possessed less than nine ounces of marijuana. In 1991, the Court upheld a true-life sentence imposed on an offender who possessed 672 grams of cocaine. The Court’s refusal to curtail such extreme sentences reflects its willingness to accede to the nation’s moral panic over drug usage.

Since the height of the War on Drugs, Americans have changed their views about drugs. Significant majorities of Americans favor legalization of marijuana for medical and recreational use. Many Americans favor a wholesale rethinking of drug policy. Despite studies in the 1950s and 1960s demonstrating beneficial use of drugs like LSD and psilocybin, Congress yielded to moral panic and included them in Schedule I when it enacted the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. Efforts are afoot at the state level to legalize the study of and to decriminalize the use of those and other drugs.

This Article argues that the Court should rethink its Eighth Amendment caselaw upholding severe drug sentences. The Court’s Eighth Amendment caselaw balances the severity of punishment against the gravity of an offense. In turn, the gravity of an offense turns on its social harm and the culpability of the offender. The Court upheld extreme drug sentences based on the view that drugs were a national scourge. Moral panic led it to overstate the social harm and the culpability of drug offenders. Scientifically based examination of drugs and drug policy should compel the Court to rethink its excessive punishment caselaw because the balance between severity of punishment and the gravity of drug offenses looks different when one has a better understanding of true costs and benefits of drug use.

Clev. St. L. Rev., 69, 441 2921

By Claire Austin

In the U.S., death row is made up of a disproportionate number of black persons. In capital trials, black defendants often face all white juries. The deep-rooted racial discrimination in the justice system impacts jury selection because prosecutors use peremptory strikes to remove black jurors from the jury panel. As the law stands today, the Sixth Amendment guarantee of an impartial jury made up of a fair representation of the jury applies only to the pool of jurors called in for jury service, not those who are actually selected to hear the case. This comment analyzes the Supreme Court decision, Holland v. Illinois 493 U.S. 474 (1990), which held that the Sixth Amendment does not prevent prosecutors from striking potential jurors based on their race. In doing so, the Court missed an opportunity to provide meaningful relief to black capital defendants who faced all-white juries. This comment argues for the reversal of Holland, extension of Sixth Amendment protections, and a change in the framework for questioning the use of peremptory challenges to remove black jurors.

Marquette Benefits and Social Welfare Law Review, 25 Marq. Ben. and Soc. Welfare L. Rev. 59 (2023)

By Equal Justice Initiative

Race and the Jury: Illegal Discrimination in Jury Selection, released online July 27, 2021, places the continuing illegal exclusion of jurors of color in its historical context as “a continuing legacy of our history of racial injustice,” documenting the country’s “long history of tolerating racial bias in jury selection and a continuing indifference to correcting widespread underrepresentation of people of color on juries.” The report, a follow up to the organization’s 2010 report, Illegal Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection, details the numerous factors that contribute to ongoing jury discrimination today, and what EJI describes as the “persistent and widespread” impact it continues to have on the U.S. legal system.

While racial discrimination in jury selection is present throughout the criminal legal system, the report finds that it has especially pernicious effects in capital trials. “In cases where the death penalty is a possible punishment, the absence of meaningful representation on juries shapes sentencing outcomes, making them less reliable and credible,” the report explains. “The effect is greatest for non-white defendants, as studies show that less representative juries convict and sentence Black defendants to death at significantly higher rates than white defendants. White jurors are also less likely to consider critical mitigating evidence supporting a life sentence, rather than the death penalty, for Black defendants.”

EJI says illegal jury discrimination “persists because those who perpetrate or tolerate racial bias — including trial and appellate courts, defense lawyers, lawmakers, and prosecutors — act with impunity. Courts that fail to create jury lists that fairly represent their communities face no repercussions. Prosecutors who unlawfully strike Black people from juries don’t get fined, sanctioned, or held accountable.”

To redress the problem, EJI recommends that courts and legislatures remove procedural barriers to reviewing claims of jury discrimination, adopt policies and practices that commit to fully representative jury pools, hold accountable decision makers who engage in racially discriminatory jury selection practices, and strengthen the standard of review of jury discrimination claims. However, EJI says, only a few states “have recognized the problem and implemented reforms or initiated studies” and “[m]ost states have done nothing.”

Montgomery, AL: Equal Justice Initiative, 2021. 107p.

In September 2024, after 56 years under a sentence of death, Hakamada Iwao was acquitted in a retrial in Japan. This article summarizes what went wrong in his wrongful conviction case and what should be learned from it. The Shizuoka District Court’s retrial decision concluded that police and prosecutors conspired to frame Hakamada with evidence they had fabricated, but there is more to the case than that. This tragedy occurred because of mistakes and misconduct that were exacerbated by underlying weaknesses in Japan’s criminal process. To prevent a recurrence, many things need to change in Japanese criminal justice. The conclusion identifies five priorities for reform.

The Asia Pacific Journal | Japan Focus Volume 22 | Issue 11 | Number 3 | Article ID 5872 | Nov. 30, 2024

By Siobhan Lawler, Hayley Boxall, Christopher Dowling

Research evaluating restorative justice programs for domestic and family violence and sexual violence is limited in Australia and internationally. In 2019 the AIC was commissioned to evaluate the Australian Capital Territory’s Restorative Justice Scheme for domestic and family violence and sexual violence (‘Phase Three’). The evaluation examined the process and outcomes of Phase Three, including barriers to delivery, activities delivered and outcomes associated with participation. A range of data was examined, including interviews with participants (n=16) and stakeholders (n=47), analysis of post-conference surveys (n=28) and analysis of administrative and reoffending data. The evaluation demonstrated Phase Three is working effectively overall. Participants and stakeholders report high levels of satisfaction with Phase Three and the service they received. There was evidence that victim-survivors could meet a range of justice needs with varying levels of offender participation and accountability. Some areas for improving referrals were identified.

Research Report no. 33.

Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. 2025. 185p.

By Brandon L. Garrett and Luke Mears

After 44 years in prison for a conviction of rape in the small town of Concord, North Carolina, Ronnie Long was released from prison in 2021. Four months later, the Governor granted him a full pardon on the grounds of innocence. That pardon made it possible to obtain compensation from a state commission, which awarded Long $750,000. This amount was the maximum available under state law that permitted compensation of $50,000 per year of incarceration, but with an upper limit of $750,000. After his exoneration, Long also filed a civil rights lawsuit in federal court. This federal case against the city settled for $22 million in 2024. Long also received $3 million from the North Carolina State Crime Lab as a result of its “role in hiding evidence from Mr. Long and his legal team that proved his innocence.” This substantial settlement made Long Compensating Exonerees in the United States highly unusual among exonerees in the United States. Most exonerees, if they are compensated, received something more along the lines of the $50,000 per year available under the state law that initially compensated Long, and nothing more. Many exonerees receive no compensation at all. Academics have long criticized the traditional lack of compensation for wrongful conviction in the United States. In 1932, Edwin Borchard wrote that the United States needed national legislation regarding compensation for wrongful convictions. For many decades, no such legislation existed, however. Civil rights litigation, like the case brought by Long, was uncommon, and compensation under statutory schemes was similarly rare. This changed once exonerations became much more common, including those based on post-conviction DNA evidence, in the 1990s. In general, many of the exonerees that have received substantial compensation, like Ronnie Long, have brought civil rights lawsuits in federal, not state court. For example, of the first 250 DNA exonerees, 60% received some type of compensation, and of those, half of them obtained it in federal court. However, exonerees are increasingly seeeking compensation under state compensation statutes. In this fact sheet, we describe how compensation for exonerees has evolved in the past several decades, including through successful litigation efforts and through the enactment of compensation legislation, in thirty-nine states, Washington D.C., and by the federal government. We summarize each of these state and federal statutes in the table at the end of this document. To date, 39 states have enacted such compensation statutes, in addition to Washington D.C. and the federal government. In addition, five of the remaining 11 states currently have pending legislation on the issue. The figure below shows which jurisdictions have these statutes currently, and which have legislation pending.

Durham, NC: Wilson Center for Science and Justice at Duke Law, 2024. 20p.

By Sarah Monaghan, Kellyann Bock, Michael Rempel, & Olive Lu

Spanning more than four decades, how has the footprint of New York’s criminal legal system changed? This comprehensive report explores the changing landscape of law enforcement in New York State from 1980 to 2023. It analyzes trends in arrests, prosecutorial declinations, criminal convictions, and sentencing practices, with a focus on regional and racial disparities.

Key Takeaways

● Statewide Arrest Trends

● After varying patterns by charge and region from 1980 to 2010, arrest rates declined significantly from 2010 to 2020, with a modest resurgence from 2020 to 2023.

● Misdemeanor arrests in NYC increased nearly fourfold from 1980 to 2010, dropped by 75% from 2010 to 2020 but rose by 40% from 2020 to 2023.

● Felony arrests decreased across all regions from 1980 to 2020, with a modest uptick in recent years.

● Charge-Specific Arrest Patterns

● Drug arrests in NYC peaked at over 128,000 in 2000, before falling to under 18,000 in 2023.

● Prostitution and fare evasion arrests in NYC saw drastic declines. Prostitution declined 99% from 1985 to 2023, and fare evasion declined 99% from 1994 to 2021, before a 2021-to-2023 uptick.

● DUI remained a leading charge outside NYC, comprising 18%-19% of suburban and upstate misdemeanors in 2023.

● Prosecutorial Declinations

● After changing only modestly until 2017, district attorneys’ offices in the Bronx, Manhattan, and Brooklyn declined to prosecute increasing numbers of low level misdemeanor arrests from 2017 to 2023.

● Select low level arrests for transit fare evasion, prostitution, trespass, and marijuana possession saw especially significant increases in declinations in the Bronx, Manhattan, and/or Brooklyn.

● Sentencing Trends: Jail and prison sentences for misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies peaked around 2000 before decreasing significantly by 2023. Violent felony convictions increasingly resulted in prison sentences across all regions.

● Racial and Ethnic Disparities: While shrinking in some areas since 1980 (e.g., felony arrest disparities narrowed), the study found that sizable Black-white and Hispanic-white disparities on most metrics examined.

New York: Data Collaborative for Justice at John Jay College, 2024. 45p.

By Chris Tully

JENGbA facilitated a series of Listening Days with the families and friends of those impacted by Joint Enterprise (JE). Between October 2023 and May 2024 four such days took place in London, Birmingham, Manchester and Sheffield. The days were attended by 41 family members and friends. Each listening day focussed on five themes; knowledge of JE and when they were first aware their loved ones were to be charged under joint enterprise, the impact on them and their communities following conviction, racism and the gang narrative, role of the media, developing support networks and the fightback against the injustice of joint enterprise. Families reported having little or no previous knowledge of JE and in a considerable number of cases only found out immediately prior to, or during the trial and in some cases not until the judges’ summing up. Inevitably the impact was profound. We heard of the toll on peoples’ physical and mental health, the damage done to family relationships, the breakdown of relationships with neighbours and members of their local communities, often based on stigma, a suspicion that there is ‘no smoke without fire’ and a general lack of awareness amongst the general public of how JE is applied. A lack of independent, accessible information, support and guidance at the point of charging was seen as a fundamental problem for families confronting a trial. Families expressed anger towards the role of the police, often seen as complicit with the Crown Prosecution Service, in using JE as a blunt instrument to “round up” and prosecute young people particularly on the basis of race, class, family name and by dint of neighbourhood. Participants in the conversations also had poor experiences with lawyers citing; a lack of experience, little or no expertise in JE cases, little empathy, a reluctance to share. information and documents. The experiences of trials were predicated on similar concerns. We heard families describe juries who appeared unaware of what guilty verdicts in JE cases meant for defendants, judges who were dismissive of evidence, and concerns that juries rarely reflected the diversity of the cities and towns where trials were taking place. A key concern was disproportionate use of JE in relation to black and racialised communities, working class communities and children and young people. Often underpinning this was the use of a gang narrative to justify charging and prosecution. Families were angered by the speed with which the gang narrative was introduced into proceedings and why this was applied when association was actually founded on living in the same neighbourhood, shared interests such as music and sport, school friendships etc. As such JE was seen as both “lazy” and susceptible to stereotyping and demonisation. Many we heard from had experienced unacceptable treatment at the hands of the media. Commonly this is presented as malign or inaccurate reporting, geared towards racism, blame often attributed to parents and especially mothers. Some felt the media and police worked hand in hand to perpetuate moral panics. Retractions of inaccurate reporting were hard to come by and we also heard how images of families’ children were used repeatedly by local press, sometimes years later, to highlight youth crime or gang violence. The most positive conversations revolved around the value of family relationships as a buffer against the isolation of having a loved one sentenced under JE. Additionally a community of interest has been forged by the work of JENGbA, without which many felt they would have collapsed under the weight of trying to support loved ones and sustain other relationships. JENGbA have provided support, information, understanding and access to a group of people who share campaigning zeal and a desire to put an end to the misuse of a legal doctrine that punishes many more people than ‘just’ those it imprisons.

London: Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association,

2024. 28p.

By Natasha Brown

On September 18, 2022, 42-year-old Shannon Brandt hit and killed 18-year old Cayler Ellingson with his SUV following a heated altercation in McHenry, North Dakota. Brandt admitted to the crime and “was charged with vehicular homicide and leaving the scene of an accident that resulted in death.” Despite court documents revealing Brandt’s past DUI history, “unlawful possession of alcohol and fleeing a peace officer on foot”, two days later, on September 20, 2022, Brandt was released from custody after posting $50,000 bail. On September 12, 2022, 42-year-old Ivan Cheung was “charged with aggravated rape (four counts), aggravated rape of a child (four counts), and aggravated statutory rape (two counts)” in Boston Massachusetts. Sixteen days later, on September 28, 2022, Cheung walked out of Boston Municipal Court after posting a $200,000 bail. In contrast, in March of 2016, 31-year-old Jessica Preston was arrested for driving with a suspended license in Macomb County, Michigan. Despite being eight months pregnant, the judge gave her the choice of going to jail until she received a hearing date, or come up with $10,000 for bail. Preston did not have the financial resources to make bail and as a result was put in jail. Five days later, Preston went into labor. When the jail staff refused to call an ambulance, Preston had no choice but to give birth on a mat lying on the jailhouse floor. These three stories above reveal that despite the wide range of crimes that were committed, the determining factor to secure the pretrial release of a murderer, a rapist, and a traffic violator was money. While Shannon Brandt and Ivan Cheung were charged with violent crimes, they were both released because they had the means to pay their bail. In contrast, Jessica Preston who was arrested for a non-violent crime remained in pretrial detention because she could not afford to pay her way out. Ending a decades long system that bases someone’s freedom off of access to money requires collective collaboration between advocates across political lines who are ready to implement change. On January 22, 2021, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed into law the Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity Today Act, otherwise known as the SAFE-T Act (“Act”). Within the SAFE-T Act is the Pretrial Fairness Act (“PFA”) which eliminated cash bail in Illinois. While states like California and New Jersey have passed similar cash bail reform laws, Illinois is the first state in the country to abolish the cash bail system entirely. This bill affirms the notion that people accused of crimes are considered innocent until proven guilty and their release is not based on their access to monetary funds. Those in opposition claim the SAFE-T Act will be the beginning stages of The Purge, the infamous movie where all crime is legal for 12 hours. Critics against the Act have promoted misinformation leading many to believe that violent people will be released into the neighborhoods and cause chaos among communities. This comment explores how the implementation of the PFA does not impose a threat to the safety of Illinois residents, but rather how the PFA will pave the wave for a more just court system that other states should follow. Part II discusses the history of pretrial detention and cash bail in the United States. This will lead to how cash bail became a faulty and unreliable metric to determine whether someone could be a danger to their community and whether they pose a flight risk. Part III discusses the development leading to the PFA in Illinois. Part IV proposes that the PFA should grant judicial decision-making power to the Restorative Justice Community Courts and further explains how this expansion will lead to safer communities. While the Act will impact the entire state of Illinois, most of the analysis for this comment is focused towards Cook County.

57 UIC L. REV. 291 (2024), 37 p.