By Kierra B. Jones Evelyn F. McCoy Natalie Lima Rod Martinez

Prosecutor-led diversion programs are growing in popularity in many jurisdictions across the country and offer a unique opportunity for prosecutors to address the impact prosecutorial decisions have in perpetuating mass incarceration and an opportunity to reduce local jail populations. Diversion programs can both hold people accused of wrong-doing accountable, while reducing the deleterious effects of incarceration. This case study, part of a series highlighting work supported by the Safety and Justice Challenge, examines how Milwaukee County, Wisconsin developed and implemented prosecutor-led diversion strategies to reduce the local jail population.

Washington DC: The Urban Institute, 2022.36p.

By Brian Elderbroom, Leah Sakala, and Ammar Khalid

Utah adopted criminal justice reform legislation (H.B. 348) in 2015 to curb prison population growth and invest in behavioral health treatment, including reclassifying first and second drug possession convictions from felonies to misdemeanors. Our analysis finds that Utah successfully reduced the number of felony drug possession convictions, with a 71 percent drop between 2014 and 2018. Additionally, people spent a combined 105,011 fewer days in prison for drug possession in the two years following reform than in the two years before. Furthermore, reconviction and imprisonment rates for people with drug possession convictions were low prior to the policy reform and remained unchanged afterwards. However, Utah’s prison population is again growing, arrests for drug possession are rising despite declining arrests overall, and prison admissions for possession with intent to distribute offenses are increasing. This brief offers recommendations that Utah policymakers can consider to build on prior reforms, address additional prison population growth, and continue to invest in more effective public safety solutions.

Washington DC: The Urban Institute, 2020. 19p.

BY THE PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

Key Takeaways Archival research conducted for this report demonstrated that racial disparities observed in Philadelphia’s criminal court system are rooted in severe historical injustices and wealth inequality. For over a century, Black Philadelphians have been overrepresented in arrests and criminal charges, relative to their representation in the City’s broader population. Disparities have not been resolved and in many cases have been worsened by federal, state, and local laws and policies. Combining publicly-available datasets reveals that markers of systemic disinvestment such as poverty, unemployment, litter, health problems, and eviction are concentrated in formerly red-lined neighborhoods where residents are predominantly Black and Latinx. From 2015 to 2022, Black defendants were charged at disproportionately higher rates relative to other groups in seven of the eight most common criminal charge categories. Even when accounting for prior criminal record and illegal firearm charges, Black and Latinx individuals who are convicted of aggravated assault or burglary are more likely to be sentenced to incarceration than white individuals convicted of the same crime. Latinx individuals convicted of possessing drugs with intent to distribute (PWID) are more likely to be sentenced to incarceration than Black or white defendants, even when they have no prior record or illegal firearm charges. While this administration’s policies have helped to reduce disparities in supervision and probationary sentences, large racial disproportionalities remain in Philadelphia’s court system. Justice agencies and social institutions must work together to fix the structural racism that creates disparities across systems 

Philadelphia: The District Attorney's Office, 2023. 68p.

by Terry Huang, Katarzyna Wyka, Maria Khan,

The US incarcerates more people than any country in the world. Driven by racial bias in policing policies, practices and sentencing, as well as biases toward individuals of lower socio-economic background, minority groups are disproportionately exposed to police contact and incarceration. People who have a history of incarceration face elevated risk of adverse health outcomes prior to incarceration, and incarceration is likely a determinant of the racial/ethnicity disparity in health. There is strong evidence showing that criminal legal system involvement (CLI) plays a role in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and STI/HIV exposure. CLI also appears to be associated with other chronic conditions such as diabetes22, and adverse pregnancy outcomes such as miscarriage. In addition, there is evidence CLI increases exposure to violence, including homicide and suicide. Given the intersection of incarceration and a myriad of health risks, there is a critical need to develop public health programs for people released from incarceration focused on client-centered goals to best protect health and wellbeing, and promote social integration, upon return to the community. The New York City Health Justice Network (NYC HJN), an innovative health service delivery program for individuals returning from incarceration, was developed and implemented by the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH), with criminal justice reform funding from the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office (DANY) Criminal Justice Investment Initiative (CJII). NYC HJN sought to provide individuals recently released from incarceration with peer support from community health workers (CHW) with lived experience of successful reentry from the criminal legal system and access to integrated primary care and social services. As an intersectoral strategy to improve community health and well-being, NYC HJN aimed to reduce the likelihood of further contact with the criminal legal system. NYC HJN addressed a wide range of client health needs, including support with health insurance, primary care, dental care, mental and behavioral health, and social service needs such as assistance with employment, housing, food security, obtaining vital documents (e.g., identification), and legal support. CHWs provided social and emotional support and served as critical advocates to help clients navigate the healthcare system as well as a wide range of social service organizations deemed critical to successful community reentry. The NYC HJN program served people released from both prison and jail. Those served generally represented the incarcerated population in NYC. This final evaluation report aims to examine the association of NYC HJN program participation with criminal legal system re-involvement outcomes, including re-arrests, conviction/reconviction and reincarceration at 6- and 12- months post program start. For the purpose of this evaluation, a sample of HJN clients who enrolled in the program between 2020-2022 were recruited and consented into the study. Using administrative data from criminal justice agencies in New York, HJN clients were compared to a sample of controls matched on age, sex, time spent incarcerated during the last jail or prison stay, top charge for the last incarceration, and frequency of incarceration in the past 5 years. For the final analysis, 203 HJN clients were matched against 339 individuals serving as controls. Bivariate results showed that HJN clients had a lower average number of re-arrests at 6-months compared to controls, as shown in Figure 1 below. This trend was present up to 12 months after program start. Other outcomes such as rates of conviction/reconviction and reincarceration were lower among HJN program participation relative to controls but were not statistically significantly different between the two groups. After adjusting for covariates, there were no significant differences in any of the outcomes at 6- or 12-months between HJN clients and controls, except for the lower mean number of re-arrests in the HJN group. The lack of statistical significance among other variables should be interpreted with caution, as the results may have been affected by the small sample size and relative short duration of the study.

New York: NYU-CUNY Prevention Research Center , 2025. 45p.

By Amanda Y. Agan, Andrew Garin, Dmitri K. Koustas, Alexandre Mas, and Crystal Yang

All results in this paper using IRS data are drawn from the publicly available working paper “The Impact of Criminal Records on Employment, Earnings, and Tax Filing,” which is available on the IRS Statistics of Income Tax Stats website. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or the official positions of the U.S. Department of the Treasury or the Internal Revenue Service. All results have been reviewed to ensure that no confidential information is disclosed. Researchers Agan, Garin, and Koustas received funding for this research through the Clean Slate Initiative, a project of the New Venture Fund. We thank the San Joaquin Public Defender's Office and District Attorney's office for their help and tireless work in making this project possible. We also thank the numerous interns who worked in San Joaquin to help us gather data. Camilla Adams, Kaan Cankat, Sarah Frick, Jared Grogan, Bailey Palmer, and Kalie Pierce provided instrumental research assistance. We also thank Emma Rackstraw and J-PAL NA for the initial conversations that allowed this project to happen. The RCT in this paper was registered in the AEA RCT Registry, RCT ID: AEARCTR-0004414. IRB approvals were obtained where necessary.

WORKING PAPER · NO. 2023-133

Chicago: University of Chicago, The Becker Friedman Institute for Economics, 2023. 53p.

By Phil Bowen and Ellie Brown

• This briefing considers the three criminal justice Bills currently before Parliament— the Sentencing Bill; the Criminal Justice Bill; and the Victims and Prisoners’ Bill— and estimates the impact they will have on the demand placed on the prisons and on probation specifically. (In a separate briefing, we have looked specifically at how to strengthen provision for victims within the Victims and Prisoners’ Bill). We recognise our estimates include a good deal of guesswork but we have tried as far as possible to ground them in the existing Government figures in the public realm. • The backdrop of these new Bills is stark. From court backlogs, high probation service caseloads and an overcrowded and overflowing population in the adult male prisons, the adult criminal justice system is already struggling with demand. The Sentencing Bill itself was originally announced as part of a broader response to acute prison capacity issues, and included a new executive early release scheme. • Our assessment is that, taken together, the proposals to reduce demand on, and increase the capacity of, our prison system are unlikely to adequately deal with the acute pressures on the adult male prison estate in the medium term. Measures like a presumption against short sentences may delay the point at which demand outstrips supply but we estimate that, by December 2026, we are likely to reach a capacity crunch point again. • Turning to probation, a number of the measures to alleviate prison demand place do so by placing additional burdens on the probation service (we estimate 14,000 extra cases over the next four years). There is currently insufficient assurance that probation have the workforce and resources to take this on. We have concerns that the current proposal to place individuals onto Suspended Sentence Orders (SSOs) as an alternative to short prison sentences could backfire due to this lack of probation resourcing, and this may further undermine judicial and public confidence in community sentences more generally. • We suggest that the Ministry of Justice pay special attention to the recommendations of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee of the House of Lords report on community sentences that “Deferred sentencing can be used… to create incentives for low-level, repeat offenders to engage with more intensive rehabilitative activities.” We also recommend the Ministry of Justice extends existing alternatives to short prison sentences for women (both diversion away from the court system as well as problem-solving court alternatives for women), and ensure that the presumption against short sentences applies for people under 18 as well. • Finally, we have concerns about the measures in the Criminal Justice Bill to tackle rough sleeping and nuisance begging through new civil orders which, if breached, can result in criminal proceedings. There is a lack of credible evidence advanced for these proposals and the Government’s own impact assessment seems to ignore the considerable evidence that similar attempts to use these types of order have been ineffective, poorly implemented, disproportionately punish the most vulnerable and do so while draining resources away from evidence-based preventative measures. We are also concerned that the proposals are accompanied by no assessment of their impact on the courts or other parts of the criminal justice system

London: Centre for Justice Innovation 2023. 10p.

By The ACLU of Northern California

California was once the nation’s leader in public defense. Long before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the state must provide a lawyer to poor people charged with crimes, many counties in California already did so. Yet today, after years of neglect by the state, California is in the midst of a decades-long public defense crisis. A main cause is the reliance on “flat-fee” contracts with for-profit private attorneys and firms, where lawyers are paid a set amount for a limitless number of cases. These agreements lock attorneys and their clients in a financial conflict of interest where the lawyers’ fees are pitted against quality, zealous representation for those accused of crimes. Flat-fee systems have a well-documented history of providing worse representation and fueling mass incarceration and California has been called out, decade after decade, for allowing them to flourish.

This report examines the actual contracts California counties use and finds that they are woefully deficient in providing necessary resources to private contractors in order for them to adequately represent their clients, they uniformly fail to limit the number of cases attorneys can handle at once, and they provide little to not oversight or supervision for the lawyers who defend people when their lives are on the line. We synthesize the decades of research from within the state and around the country that show these systems should be eliminated and recommend that California finally do just that

San Francisco: ACLU of Northern California, 2025. 27p.

By Erik Luna and Weldon Angelos

Marijuana laws in the United States vary by state, with some states allowing recreational use and others only allowing medical use. At the federal level, marijuana is still illegal, however, banned as a Schedule 1 substance under the Controlled Substance Act. The disconnect between state laws and federal laws is growing. As of December 2024, 39 states allow for medical use of marijuana and 24 states allow for recreational use, while a proposed change in federal rules would reschedule marijuana from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3. With the laws constantly evolving, and calls for legalization at the federal level growing louder and louder, what happens to the people still affected by the federal war on marijuana at the twilight of national prohibition? This white paper proposes clemency criteria for non-violent, federal marijuana convictions. It concludes by offering next steps for both executive and legislative action. With the President’s leadership, this Administration and Congress can assure that individuals haunted by marijuana arrests and convictions will finally have the clean slate they deserve.

Arizona State University Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law Paper No. 5199528, 43p.

By Lindsay Bing, Rebecca Goldstein , Helen Ho , Devah Pager, and Bruce Western

  US courts regularly assess fines, fees, and costs against criminal defendants. Courtrelated debt can cause continuing court involvement and incarceration, not because of new crimes, but because of unpaid financial obligations. We conducted an experiment with 606 people found guilty of misdemeanors in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. Study participants were randomly selected to receive relief from all current and prior fines and fees assessed for criminal charges in the county. Fee relief reduced jail bookings 21 mo after randomization and the effect persisted over 44 mo of follow-up. Although fee relief reduced incarceration, financial sanctions had no effect on indicators of lawbreaking. Instead, the control group (who obtained no relief from fines and fees) were rearrested at significantly higher rates because of open arrest warrants for nonpayment. These results indicate the long-term and criminalizing effects of legal debt, supporting claims that financial sanctions disproportionately harm low-income defendants while contributing little to public safety

PNAS 2024 Vol. 121 No. 51 e2415066121 

by Luzi Shi, Megan Denver

A common concern in hiring individuals with criminal convictions is the stigma associated with the criminal record, which can include negative consumer reactions. We provide two novel tests of courtesy stigma, or the idea of transferring negative traits from one entity to another, through a nationwide survey. Using a conjoint experiment and a follow-up open-ended question, we first establish whether the public is less likely to select a restaurant if the business has a hiring initiative for people with conviction records. Using a vignette experiment, we then test whether the same factors driving personal stigma apply to courtesy stigma and whether hiring messaging frames influence courtesy stigma. We find evidence of criminal conviction courtesy stigma in the conjoint experiment. Respondents, however, typically reported the characteristics of the business itself as influential, and when the criminal record mattered, the underlying rationale was mainly instrumental: Avoiding a criminal record–friendly business was often due to safety concerns. We find similar instrumental results in the vignette experiment; the quality of service, rather than the characteristics of the criminal record or server's race, influenced restaurant recommendations. Perhaps for this reason, messaging strategies focusing on reducing criminal record stigma did not reduce courtesy stigma.

Criminology, Volume 63, Issue 1, February 2025, Pages 89-121

By Shadd Maruna

Early desistance research identified a key role for redemption scripts in the process of desisting from crime. This research emerged in an incredibly punitive environment at the turn of the century, when core beliefs about human redeemability were being challenged by popular and academic theories about incorrigible predators incapable of change. Desistance research made a profound impact, inspiring academic scholarship and changes to the policy and practice of reintegration. However, desistance research can also be accused of numerous crimes, as well, ranging from the adoption of an overly individualistic framing to the usurpation of the voices of research contributors. Fortunately, redemption is possible. A new generation of desistance theory and research now explicitly addresses the political and cultural factors impacting the desistance process and proposes that these hardened prejudices will only be changed by supporting a social movement led by and for system-impacted people. With their proven ability to inspire hope and promote action, redemption scripts may, again, be a key tool in such a movement.

Criminology, Volume63, Issue 1, February 2025, Pages 5-25

By Ava Pittman

Tacoma Housing Authority (THA) envisions a future where everyone has an affordable, safe and nurturing home, where neighborhoods are attractive places to live, work, attend school, shop and play, and where everyone has the support they need to succeed as parents, students, wage earners and neighbors. THA’s mission is to provide high quality, stable and sustainable housing and supportive services to people in need. It does this in ways that help them prosper and help our communities become safe, vibrant, prosperous, attractive, and just1 . To fulfill that vision and that mission, THA attempts to make informed judgments about whether to admit or deny applicants for its housing. It seeks to balance its mission to house people who need the housing while keeping it safe and enjoyable by excluding those who pose an undue risk. Like most other landlords, THA’s screening policies consider an applicant’s criminal history as a sign of risk for this purpose. THA also uses screening policies for admission to its rental assistance programs that help clients pay the rent to private landlords on the private rental market. This paper describes THA’s review of these uses of criminal history. It recommends some changes to THA’s screening policies. These recommendations arise from the review’s answer to the following questions: ● to what extent is an applicant’s criminal history a useful predictor of future tenant behavior; ● is excluding an applicant due to criminal history otherwise excluding a qualified tenant unnecessarily; ● does the use of criminal history as a screening criterion result in an undue and disproportionate exclusion of persons of color; ● the extent to which housing persons with criminal histories make a community, the justice-involved individual, and their families more successful; ● can changes to THA’s screening policies make THA’s housing more accessible to persons with a criminal history without incurring undu To help answer these questions, THA consulted the following sources: ● the research literature; ● THA’s current practices and the results; ● current practices of other public housing authorities, and the results; ● THA residents; ● THA staff; ● THA’s Landlord Advisory Group; ● THA’s liability insurance carrier. THA’s review of its use of criminal history as a screening criterion arose from related discussions in Pierce County. In late 2016, the Center for Social Innovation, a national research and training project addressing racism and homelessness, invited Pierce County to take part in a research study to identify the nexus of race to homelessness in Pierce County. They call the project, Supporting Partnerships for Anti-Racist Communities (SPARC). It included interviews with people who have or are experiencing homelessness in Pierce County. During these interviews, participants voiced that their past criminal history was a barrier to securing housing. Nationally, research tells the same story that: people with conviction histories face discrimination in many facets of life, including housing. In September 2017, the Vera Institute of Justice invited THA to participate with other public housing authorities in a new initiative, Opening Doors to Public Housing. The U.S Department of Justice funded this initiative. The initiative sought to help housing authorities assess how to safely increase access to stable housing for people with conviction histories. The Vera Institute of Justice provided THA with technical assistance, data from national research, and valuable substantive expertise in assessing that data. THA’s Department of Policy, Innovation & Evaluation (PIE) led this review. This paper conveys PIE recommended changes to THA’s screening use of criminal history.

Tacoma, WA: Tacoma Housing Authority, 2020. 76p.

By Vera Institute of Justice

Millions of people transition into the community from jails and prisons every year but face signifcant obstacles to securing safe, affordable housing. These barriers contribute to the revolving door of homelessness and incarceration. People who were formerly incarcerated are 10 times more likely than the general public to be unhoused, with a rate of 203 people experiencing homelessness per 10,000 people. The relationship between homelessness and incarceration is cyclical, as homelessness and housing instability increase the likelihood of future criminal legal system involvement: People who are unhoused are more likely to interact with police and are 11 times more likely to be arrested than people with stable housing. Viewed another way, access to stable and affordable housing substantially increases the likelihood that a person returning home from prison or jail will be able to receive support from their family, fnd and retain employment, rebuild supportive social networks, and avoid additional convictions. These improved outcomes and living conditions are relevant and crucial to the whole community: When people who are reentering their communities are housed and supported, the community is strengthened and public safety is improved. The United States has nearly 3,300 public housing authorities (PHAs) that serve approximately 1.2 million households, yet they are often inaccessible resources for people released from incarceration and in need of a safe place to live. At present, exclusionary criteria govern much of the country’s public housing that bar people who were formerly incarcerated from moving back in with their families—families who are often eager to reconnect and to help their loved ones reintegrate into society. These admissions criteria affect local public housing developments as well as federal housing choice vouchers, commonly referred to as Section 8, which provide rental assistance to low- and moderate-income families. Following the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines, all PHAs must place permanent residency exclusions on people who are required to register on the sex offender registry for life or who have been convicted of producing methamphetamine in federally assisted housing. For other types of crimes, housing authorities exercise their individual discretion when developing their admissions criteria.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice • Office of Justice Programs • Bureau of Justice Assistance , 2022. 7p.

By Julian Adler, Jethro Antoine, Laith Al-Saadoon 

There was but one passing reference to “core values” over the course of a recent U.S. Senate Judiciary hearing on artificial intelligence [AI] in criminal investigations and prosecutions.[1] This is typical. Even in spaces like the criminal legal system, where the specters of racial injustice and inhumanity loom so large, the technological sublimity of AI can be awfully distracting. People have long looked to technology to duck the hard problem of values. “[W]e have tended to believe that if we just had more information, we could make better policy,” observes University of Nevada’s Lynda Walsh in Scientists as Prophets. “But no matter how much data we could lay hands to—even if it were LaPlace’s Demon itself—values would still stand in the way.”[2] If anything is clear about advanced AI, it is that there is much we don’t know and even more that we can’t begin to predict. Consider that the “generative AI” we have witnessed over the past 18 months—AI which produces autonomous human-impersonating content—was largely unforeseen. It’s now being attributed to AI’s “emergent abilities.”[3] Across sectors, most observers acknowledge that AI is a game-changing technology. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is illustrative: using AI, it now processes “a peak volume of 600 billion transactions every day to detect potential abuses,” making the regulator “one of the largest data processors in the world.”[4] Tell  ingly, many of the people closest to the leading edges of AI development are sounding the loudest alarms about its capabilities. “Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war,” warned the Center for AI Safety in 2023.[5] AI has the potential to supercharge, not mitigate, the uglier sides of humanity, much like, as one journalist puts it, “a fun-house-style… mirror magnifying biases and stripping out the context from which their information comes.”[6] Advanced AI is “not just another technology,” contends Nick Bostrom, Director of the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford. It is not “another tool that will add incrementally to human capabilities.”[7] Echoing countless dystopian projections of the future, the Center for AI Safety predicts AI systems will likely “become harder to control” than previous forms of technology; among other disquieting scenarios, these systems could “drift from their original goals” and “optimize flawed objectives.”[8] 

New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2024. 8p.

By Sruthi Naraharisetti

In the wake of several high-profile systemic failures of justice for Black people in the last decade, there have been widespread demands for change against pervasive racial inequities throughout the criminal legal system. These failures include the killings by law enforcement1 of Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, George Floyd, and Breonna Taylor; the excessive use of confinement and untimely deaths of Sandra Bland and Kalief Browder; and the determination of the wrongful convictions of the Central Park 5. While much of the public discourse has focused on how law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and correctional officers perpetuate racial biases, far less attention has been on how public defense attorneys do, as well. Recently, scholars have started examining how race affects legal representation in public defense. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to counsel in criminal cases and the Supreme Court has held that the government will provide a lawyer if a person cannot afford it. Each decision point of a public defense lawyer’s assistance is vulnerable to racial bias and the potential for long-lasting harm to clients. Despite calls from the American Bar Association's Standards for the Defense Function4 for defense counsel to be proactive in detecting, investigating, and eliminating improper biases, with particular attention towards historically persistent biases like race, achieving this standard has proven difficult. Often operating with limited time, resources, and information, public defense attorneys must make critical decisions relating to bail requests, case investigations, social service needs, plea negotiations, and trial strategies, among others. Recognizing the pivotal role that public defense attorneys play in addressing racial disparities that their clients face, our exploratory study seeks to create a basis of understanding for how attorneys consider race when working with clients, conceptualize their role in addressing racial inequity, and experience the impact of their own racial/ethnic identities in the workplace. By shedding light on these issues, we hope to encourage public defense attorneys to reflect on and discuss how racial bias within their field perpetuates systemic harm, ultimately paving the way for improvement in racial equity across the field. 

New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2024. 14p.

By Samantha Plummer, Timothy Ittner, Angie Monreal, Jasmin Sandelson, Bruce Western

Data from a unique survey of court- involved New Yorkers collected during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 provides evidence for a cycle of disadvantage involving penal control, material hardship, and health risk. We find evidence of chaotic jail conditions from March to May 2020 in the early phase of the pandemic, and high levels of housing and food insecurity, and joblessness for those leaving jail or with current criminal cases. The highest levels of material hardship—measured by housing insecurity, unemployment, shelter stays, and poor self- reported health—were experienced by those with mental illness and substance use problems who had been incarcerated

RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, Volume 9, Issue 3, May 2023, pp. 232-251 pages

By Tasseli McKay and William A. “Sandy” Darity Jr.

Social scientists continue to declare that mass incarceration, a defining social force of the last half century, is on its way out. Lifetime risks of imprisonment are indeed in decline, as are absolute and relative imprisonment risks for Black Americans. But whether we consider mass incarceration to be over, or even on its way out, depends a great deal on what we believe mass incarceration is and what it does.

Scholarship on the “collateral consequences” of mass incarceration, leaving concerns with political etiology to political scientists, is curiously absent a broader concept of how such consequences function. Even as the field rigorously documents the vast social, political, economic, and health fallout of mass incarceration, it remains largely agnostic on a central theoretical concern: Do we conceive of mass incarceration as a policy mistake with negative consequences for us all, or as a well-running engine of racial stratification that has enriched some Americans at others' expense? How we answer this question, or do not, has tremendous implications for how we study the harms of mass incarceration and what policy moves we deem capable of confronting it.

Scholarship on mass incarceration's consequences is often introduced with reference to racial inequality. Such scholarship has identified an array of mechanisms by which mass incarceration appears to contribute to racial stratification, particularly through a longstanding line of inquiry on the disproportionate impact of incarceration-related constraints on Black men's workforce participation, income, and wealth. Yet most such research frames these phenomena as an unfortunate artifact of racially disproportionate criminal legal system contact, rather than situatingthe impetus and functioning of the criminal legal system within a broader theory of structural racial inequality.

Critiquing the failure to engage questions of structural racism in empirical research on mass incarceration's consequences, two of the field's preeminent scholars argue,

While most studies that explore the consequences of mass incarceration for American families are motivated by racial inequality within the carceral system--rightfully so, given the massive racial disparities in incarceration rates and criminal justice involvement--the work often fails to engage this important issue in meaningful ways .... We neither interrogate why we see racial disparities in mass incarceration nor do we investigate why we might see racial disparities in outcomes due to mass incarceration.

Indeed, with important exceptions, collateral consequences research inventories the implications of mass punishment for individuals, neighborhoods, and nations rather than examining how a racially targeted punishment system functions within a broader set of national and subnational institutions that systematically privilege whiteness. Further, the possibility that mass incarceration produces systematic benefits, in addition to or even as an impetus for its systematic harms, receives very limited scholarly attention. Such research, if it aims to confront racial injustice, must “move beyond description of racial inequality [and] think critically about how our society's raced institutions interact with one another to stratify the experiences of American families”.

Toward that end, the current review applies the theory of stratification economics to consider whether and how the broad criminalization and intensive punishment of Black Americans have advanced or advantaged their White contemporaries. First, the review briefly revisits key theoretical perspectives on the consequences of mass incarceration and proposes stratification economics as a meta-theoretical framework for understanding the production and functioning of those consequences. Next, it applies stratification economics to available social scientific evidence on the consequences of mass incarceration, analyzing the implications of that evidence for the relative standing of White Americans. Finally, the review advances an agenda for future research and policy capable of confronting and redressing the ill-gotten gains of mass incarceration.

20 Annual Review of Law and Social Science 309 (2024), 22p.

By Tashayla Sierra-Kadaya Borden

xisting literature does little to address the unique victimization of Black women in the law. Studies looking through a racial lens may ignore Black women by failing to address gender. Alternatively, gender analysis may center around issues specific to white women. White feminist scholars promote carceral feminism, a “neoliberal law-and-order agenda pursued by a coalition of secular anti-prostitution feminists and white evangelicals.” Carceral Feminism focuses on white womanhood and harms marginalized communities, actively pushing Black women into prison. To address this, Black feminist scholars have developed key theories to understand Black women's experiences. One such scholar, Moya Bailey, coined the term misogynoir to describe “the uniquely co-constitutive racialized and sexist violence that befalls Black women as a result of their simultaneous and interlocking oppression at the intersection of racial and gender marginalization.” Misogynoir operates as a form of implicit or explicit bias that informs how and why the state views Black women as dual victims and victimizers.

In 2019, the New York State Legislature passed the DVSJA. The DVSJA amended New York's existing Penal Law § 60.12 and created Criminal Procedure Law § 440.47 to provide resentencing for currently incarcerated individuals. This statute permits a judge to change a domestic violence survivor's initial sentence if the abuse was a “significant contributing factor” to the crime. The DVSJA is the first legislation of its kind in the United States. Advocates and survivors promoted this statute to decriminalize trauma and help individuals who commit crime while suffering abuse. Other states have enacted similar laws, but Black women still face lingering issues that exacerbate coercive abuse, racism, and gendered violence.

This Note examines the impact of New York's revolutionary DVSJA on Black woman survivorship while proposing solutions and improvements for other states aiming to replicate the statute. Part I summarizes the DSVJA and contextualizes the case law that preceded its passing. Part II describes the unique impact of domestic violence on Black women, the challenges of qualifying for relief under the statute, and the limitations of resentencing. Lastly, Part III offers noncarceral solutions that replace sentencing and help Black women share their experiences as abuse survivors.

144 Columbia Law Review 2065 (2024), 40p.

By Andrew Howard

Almost every county in the United States elects its chief Prosecutor, but the chief Public Defender, if there is one, is generally an appointed position. In four states, however, some or all of the Public Defender offices have elected leaders. Although prosecutorial elections have been heavily studied and criticized, relatively little attention has been paid to the elections of their counterparts. This Note sheds light on how Public Defender elections impact a criminal justice ecosystem. A series of interviews with elected Public Defenders reveal these elections can enhance the independence and stature of the position. Additionally, the interviews and additional research rebut the primary criticism of these elections: that voters may elect someone who wanted to work against indigent defendants. There are simply very few examples relative to the many counties that have these elections. These qualitative findings are supported in part by further quantitative analyses. First, this Note found a correlation of increased Public Defense experience amongst the state judiciary in jurisdictions where there the chief Public Defender is elected. Second, this Note found a correlation between these elections and increased salary parity between Public Defenders and Prosecutors in the same state.

Accordingly, this Note argues that some counties should explore making their chief Public Defender an elected position. While far from a panacea for the many issues facing the American criminal justice system, these elections could help enhance the quality of indigent defense where implemented.

Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 2020, 40p.

By Ben Finholt

For decades, the North Carolina Supreme Court—like many other state supreme courts—largely ignored its own state constitution’s ban on harsh criminal punishments and deferred entirely to federal case law on the constitutional limits of excessive sentences. The result has been near-total deference to the state legislature and a discriminatory mass incarceration crisis that has ballooned without meaningful constitutional checks.

This approach has been a serious mistake of constitutional law. As Justice Harry Martin once noted, “the Constitution of North Carolina . . . is the people's timeless shield against encroachment on their civil rights,” and it provides uniquely broad protections of civil rights and personal liberty. Yet sentencing law has been the exception, despite a specific provision that bans “cruel or unusual punishments,” and whose text and original meaning are distinct from the Eighth Amendment.

The North Carolina Supreme Court finally revived this clause, Article I, Section 27, in two recent cases involving children sentenced to serve decades, recognizing that it should not be interpreted in lockstep with its federal counterpart. This Article argues that these cases provide a crucial moment of doctrinal clarity and opportunity to articulate the independent meaning of Section 27 and unleash its power as an essential tool in the urgent project of dismantling mass incarceration. While previous scholarship has noted that state analogs to th

e Eighth Amendment can and should bear their own independent meaning, this Article provides a full analysis of Section 27 specifically, looking to its text and history, related constitutional provisions, and other factors to show that it provides broader protections against excessive punishments than does current Eighth Amendment case law. This Article also sketches a doctrinal framework that state courts can apply in all challenges to excessive punishment, not just those involving children.

Finally, the Article places this constitutional analysis in the specific context of North Carolina’s criminal legal system, explaining how other mechanisms of reducing needless incarceration have proven wholly inadequate.

Duke Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Series No. 2023, 49p.