By Ross Jackson and Nikki Pressley

“Human trafficking survivors in the State of Texas deserve justice. Existing legal protections for victims is inadequate. Amending the existing definition of duress in Texas statute will enable victims to escape unjust prosecution, better steward state resources, and hold true perpetrators accountable.”

KEY POINTS

• Many victims of human trafficking are prosecuted for crimes occurred while under the control of their trafficker.  

• Texas’ current definition of duress fails to protect victims of human trafficking from prosecution by disallowing relevant histories of abuse to be used as an affirmative defense.  

• Texas should amend the definition of duress to bring justice to both offenders and victims.

Austin, TX: Right On Crime, 2024. 12p.

By Ross Jackson, Nikki Pressley

The incarceration of parents has devastating effects on the family unit, especially on health, education, employment, and quality of life outcomes for children. Texas should enact mitigation laws that redirect parents who commit non-violent, non-serious crimes to diversionary programs that keep them at home with their children while serving their sentence.

KEY POINTS

• Incarceration has particularly devastating consequences for children of imprisoned parents, as it harms their mental health and affects their academic performance, employment opportunities, and overall quality of life.

• Many states, including Tennessee, Missouri, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington, have attempted to keep individuals with children closer to their families by enacting caregiver diversion and mitigation laws.

• By enacting mitigation legislation, Texas can keep families together, reduce recidivism, and better steward taxpayer dollars.

Austin TX: Right On Crime, 2024. 12p.

By Nikki Pressley, Ross Jackson

Since the FBI began tracking clearance rates in the 1960s, law enforcement has been solving fewer crimes each year, despite declining crime trends since the 1990s.

KEY POINTS

• Following national trends, violent crime and property crime rates have significantly declined in Texas since the early 1990s when crime in the United States peaked.

• Law enforcement has been solving fewer crimes each year, despite the decline in crime rates.

• In 2023, only 53% of homicides were solved in Texas.

• Potential causes of declining clearance rates include law enforcement staffing challenges, technology challenges, funding gaps, overcriminalization, and a lack of prioritization of cases.

• To increase clearance rates, law enforcement departments need additional resources for crime staff and training, new policies and procedures that target crime ridden areas, increased transparency and accountability mechanisms, and a renewed focus on restoring victims and their families.

Austin, TX: Right On Crime, 2025. 28p.

By Rachel Wright 

“There has been an explosion of criminal laws with little accountability. The key to reigning in potential abuse of the criminal legal system is requiring prosecutors to prove state of mind in all crimes.”

KEY POINTS

• While the number of criminal laws has grown, mens rea requirements have shrunk. This had led to overcriminalization and disparate outcomes.

• Mens rea reforms have enjoyed bipartisan success in the past and should again in the future.

• Strengthening mens rea is key to remedying the larger criminal justice issues of overcriminalization and abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

Austin, TX: Right on Crime, 2025. 16p.

By The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine

Reliable and valid forensic science analytic techniques are critical to a credible, fair, and evidence-based criminal justice system. There is widespread agreement that the scientific foundation of some currently available forensic science methods needs strengthening and that additional, more efficient techniques are urgently needed. These needs can only be met through sustained research programs explicitly designed to ensure and improve the reliability and validity of current methods and to foster the development and use of new and better techniques. This task is challenging due to the broad nature of the field.

Concerns have been raised repeatedly about the ability of the criminal justice system to collect and analyze evidence efficiently and to be fair in its verdicts. Although significant progress has been made in some forensic science disciplines, the forensic science community still faces many challenges. Federal leadership, particularly in regard to research and the scientific validation of forensic science methods, is needed to help meet the pressing issues facing state and local jurisdictions.

This report reviews the progress made by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to advance forensic science research since the 2009 report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward and the 2010 report, Strengthening the National Institute of Justice. Support for Forensic Science Research examines the ways in which NIJ develops its forensic science research priorities and communicates those priorities as well as its findings to the scientific and forensic practitioner communities in order to determine the impact of NIJ forensic science research programs and how that impact can be enhanced.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Support for Forensic Science Research: Improving the Scientific Role of the National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

ByPenelope Gibbs

The criminal justice system is in crying need of more efficiency but there is little space to be innovative. So what’s not to like about a process which has revolutionised the magistrates’ court? The single justice procedure, introduced ten years ago, makes summary justice far speedier and cheaper. It needs fewer court staff and judges than a traditional open court hearing, and defendants can plead guilty and submit mitigation online. A case can be processed within weeks rather than months. Transform Justice has followed the progress of the single justice procedure (SJP) since its launch in England and Wales in 2015. We have written many articles about it, briefed journalists and made it the subject of our first ever podcast episode, but never brought our evidence together. In this report we acknowledge the potential benefits of the SJP but also express our deep concerns about the justice it delivers. Just as in the case of the Post Office Scandal, the victims are organisations and companies who are trying to protect their revenue or ensure behavioral compliance. They are both victim and prosecutor, which may cloud their objectivity in decision-making. It is in the interests of any prosecutor to produce the minimum of evidence to get a conviction and to have as few people as possible contest the charge. The SJP fits the bill. Most offences are strict liability so prosecutors don’t have to prove the suspect intended to commit a crime, nor do they need to prove their prosecution is for the public benefit (partly because no-one ever challenges them to do so). So prosecution is relatively easy. Getting convictions is easy too, because most people don’t respond to their prosecution under SJP and are convicted in their absence. A tiny minority of defendants plead not guilty. No data is available on what proportion are acquitted. Procedural justice is defined as the fairness of processes used by those in positions of authority to reach specific outcomes or decisions. This report measures the SJP against that test and finds it wanting. Many people who transgress are willing to make amends. But SJP defendants also need to know what their rights are and how to exercise them, and most don’t. So far, no-one (apart from some journalists) has been that interested in finding out about their experience and amplifying their voice. But change is coming. We hope that procedural justice and fair trial rights will be at the heart of SJP reform.

London: Transform Justice, 2025. 36p.

By Mika Hagerlid, Görel Granström

Twenty years ago, the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention presented a report that highlighted serious problems with regard to identifying, investigating, and sentencing ofenders for hate crimes. The same problems have also been described in international research from several other countries. Since then, several measures have been taken to remedy these problems, but it remains unknown whether these measures have been successful. The aim of the present study is therefore to trace developments over time, using Sweden as a case study, and to evaluate the extent to which the problems identifed earlier have been remedied. The results show that the problems identifed by the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention still remain despite a continuous process of reform. Theoretical links and parallels to international research are discussed throughout the article.

European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research (2025) 31:193–210

By David Abrams and  Priyanka Goonetilleke

Each year, millions of Americans rely on public defenders to fulfill their Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Despite being the linchpin of the criminal justice system, public defense remains both underfunded and understudied. This article provides empirical analysis to contribute to a critical question: How should public defender systems be structured? Criminal justice advocates, scholars, and the American Bar Association strongly favor vertical representation in public defense. Under this model, a single public defender represents a defendant throughout their case, from initial appearance through sentencing. The alternative approach—horizontal representation—operates like an assembly line: Different attorneys handle each stage of a case, from preliminary hearings to pretrial conferences to trials. The preference for vertical representation stems from the intuitive belief that continuity of representation improves outcomes for defendants. However, no prior empirical work has tested this assumption. Using a natural experiment created by the Defender Association of Philadelphia’s transition from a fully horizontal representation system to a partially vertical one, we find no evidence that increasing attorney continuity improves defendant outcomes. These findings have significant implications for how public defender offices should allocate their scarce resources. While vertical representation is considered by many as the ideal, our results cast doubt on whether the additional resources and logistical challenges relative to horizontal representation are justified, given the current reality of underfunded public defense. As jurisdictions nationwide grapple with a chronic lack of resources for public defense, this article provides crucial empirical evidence to inform decisions about how best to uphold defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

New York University Law Review No. 5 (forthcoming), Northwestern Law & Econ Research Paper No. 25-05, Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 25-22, U of Penn, Inst for Law & Econ Research Paper No. 25-10, 

By Everytown Research & Policy

In October 2022, William Hale and Frank Allison drove alongside each other on US Highway 1 in Hialeah, Florida. A traffic dispute grew more dangerous as both men began driving erratically. When Hale threw a water bottle at the other car, Allison retaliated with a gun, firing a shot that hit Hale’s 5-year-old daughter. In response, Hale fired all of the bullets in his handgun, striking Allison’s 14-year-old daughter. Though both men were initially charged with attempted murder, prosecutors dropped the charges against the man who fired first. Under Florida’s so-called “Stand Your Ground” legal defense law, the thrown water bottle justified responding with deadly force, leading to a child being shot.1 In the end, with two girls wounded in a road rage tragedy, the man who started the shootout was protected by a distortion of self-defense that allows people to shoot first and ask questions later.

New York: Everytown Research and Policy, 2025. 9p.

By Hannah Turner, Moriah Sharpe

This project, executed by the UNC School of Government Criminal Justice Innovation Lab (the Lab) in partnership with the North Carolina Office of Indigent Defense Services (IDS), supports stakeholder interest in the expansion of social work services in North Carolina public defender offices by assessing the implementation of the social work function. The project has two components: (1) A workshop for Chief Public Defenders and select staff, held in April 2024, on holistic defense and the use of social workers in public defender offices. (2) An implementation evaluation of social work positions in seven North Carolina public defender offices. This report focuses on findings from the implementation evaluation and provides recommendations for public defender offices seeking to add or expand social work capacity. Key takeaways include: Eight public defender offices currently have social work staff, and many others have expressed interest in adding social work capacity. Of the twenty-seven public defender offices in the state, eight have social work staff members. Seven offices with social work staff participated in the implementation evaluation component of the project. However, representatives from twenty-one offices attended the April 2024 workshop, demonstrating broad interest in the use of social workers in public defender offices. The day-to-day operation of social work staff varies significantly by office. Offices have tailored the role of social work staff to meet their specific needs. For example, some social work staff take on a wide array of referrals, while others focus on a narrower client populationlike clients in custody seeking acceptance to residential substance use treatment programs. The background of the social work staff member, the availability of community resources, and the willingness of other court system actors to agree to social work alternatives as part of case resolutions all impact the day-to-day role of social work staff. Offices have different preferences when hiring social work staff. Offices have hired social work staff members with a variety of professional backgrounds, including capital mitigation work, psychology, county social services, and library science. Chief Public Defenders emphasized that not everyone with a traditional social work background would be an ideal candidate to work in public defense. For example, some offices expressed concerns about people with child welfare experience making the transition to advocate for adult clients who may have been charged with crimes against children. Most offices agreed that professional licensure was not a necessary requirement for their social work staff. Offices create their own procedures for training and onboarding social work staff. There is not a statewide standardized training or onboarding process specific to social work staff. Many offices described this as both a benefit and a challenge. Chief Public Defenders appreciated the flexibility, but they raised concerns about their ability to effectively train social work staff without subject matter expertise in the area. Offices used a variety of techniques to promote successful onboarding, like court observation, finding relevant online trainings, and shadowing current staff to understand different roles. Still, social work staff consistently voiced a desire for more training opportunities. Social work staff offer a range of benefits. Offices expressed that social work staff offer a variety of supports to clients, freeing up attorneys to focus on the person’s legal defense. They said social work staff facilitate  more trusting client relationships, promote a positive working environment, and can increase the community’s confidence in the public defender’s office. There is minimal overlap in data collection among offices with social work staff, which could be a limitation for future evaluation. Social work staff members typically create their own procedures for case documentation and data collection, and those procedures vary widely by office. Some offices use paper files, others use electronic tracking systems, and others do not have separate social work case files at all. The lack of consistency in data collection could present challenges for any future evaluation seeking to determine the impact of social work staff on non-legal client outcomes, like connection to substance abuse treatment. Consistent funding is one of the biggest challenges for retention of social work staff and expansion of the social work function. Offices fund social work positions in several ways, including grants, county government support, and state budget allocations. All of these funding sources have their limitations, and offices described challenges securing stable funding. Limited funding means that offices struggle to expand their social work capacity and that existing social work staff have very minimal opportunities for promotion. However, using interns from Master of Social Work or other similar programs can provide a no-cost option for offices looking for additional social work supporteven for offices that do not currently have dedicated social work staff.

Raleigh:  Criminal Justice Innovation Lab, UNC School of Government

Sexual assault is epidemic in the United States. Recent media reports, public outrage, and activism have been focused on the institutional settings in which these assaults occur. Colleges and universities, as well as the military and athletic programs, have come under increasing scrutiny as settings that not only fail to deter, but possibly foster rape.

viewpoints, 16p.

By Hayley Stillwell

Despite the foundational principle in the American criminal justice system that it is better to acquit the guilty than to convict the innocent, wrongful convictions remain a persistent issue. Wrongful convictions are sometimes caused by flawed evidence, such as eyewitness misidentifications and unreliable forensic techniques. Researchers and scholars have studied this problem of flawed evidence extensively, leading to many successful reform efforts to address this portion of the wrongful conviction problem. But there is another portion of the wrongful conviction problem that has yet to be the target of reform efforts—wrongful convictions caused by juror error. Implicit biases, forbidden assumptions, and strategic voting are jury errors that can lead to wrongful convictions, yet they are difficult problems to address given the black box of secrecy that surrounds jury deliberations. This Article proposes the use of “placebo trials” as a novel thought experiment that could transform into a real experimental method to identify and address jury error. Placebo trials simulate real trials in every way, but they are not real. As far as jurors know, however, they are sitting on a real trial. Another important characteristic of placebo trials is that the objectively correct verdict outcome is an acquittal. By inserting a variable into a placebo trial, the experiment can show with firsthand jury data whether the variable impacts acquittal rates. If a variable has such an effect, then it may lead to wrongful convictions and should be the focus of reform efforts.

56 Ariz. St. L.J. 1361 (2024 )

By Brandon MordueFollow

The idea that one’s punishment should depend on the crime committed rather than which judge happens to do the sentencing strikes most as uncontroversial, if not a requirement for a fair sentencing regime. Forty years ago, the passage of the Sentencing Reform Act promised just that result. Increased data availability allows us to evaluate the project’s success. The results are not encouraging.

Federal defendants are sentenced using guidelines issued by the United States Sentencing Commission that sometimes bear little relation to the underlying wrongdoing. This has created a split among judges, with some following the guidelines and others rejecting them. The consequences are arbitrariness in sentencing and unwarranted disparities across offenders.

In 2007, the Supreme Court permitted appellate courts to presume the reasonableness of guideline sentences, largely insulating those sentences from judicial review. Much has changed since then, and it is time for the presumption to go. The findings of the original data analysis presented in this Article, as well as developments since the Court’s decision, show that the claims made in support of the presumption are unfounded. In fact, some of the related case law rests upon provably false empirical premises.

Today, most sentences are not within the range set by the guidelines. Favoring the minority of sentences that are within the range results in a sentencing regime incompatible with the overriding statutory aim of avoiding unwarranted sentencing disparities. Rather than presuming the reasonableness of within-guideline sentences, the courts can chart a course correction by prioritizing the data on actual sentences from the Sentencing Commission. Such a shift would achieve more consistent sentences across offenders convicted of similar crimes.

115 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 133 (2025), 73p.

By Isis Misdary

Three separate but closely related factors have together produced this nation’s epidemic of mass incarceration. First, the enforcement of criminal law has become wholly dominated by a caste of repeat players. The chasm between this grouping and outsiders has become far more important than the prosecution-defense duality ostensibly dominating the system. Second, the system’s design and policies have become dominated by central authorities sealed in a “tough-on-crime” echo chamber. This leaves local communities largely powerless to check the devastation being visited upon them. And third, the system has ruthlessly suppressed the individuality of those facing charges. They are rarely seen, almost never heard, ignored if they try to contextualize events giving rise to the charges, and punished severely if they attempt to assert their rights, much less their innocence. Robbed of all that makes them human, their fates arouse little sympathy. Devastated communities have mounted various responses to mass incarceration. None is more exciting than the participatory defense movement. This movement seeks to involve the person facing charges as well as that person’s family and community. Together, they meet with defense counsel, gather evidence for the case, and in mitigation, prepare videos or other testimonials to influence charging and plea-bargaining decisions and undertake other efforts to support the person facing charges. Through the movement’s work on individual cases, families and communities have spotted issues within the criminal systems and the criminal laws close to home that must change, that must end. Case by case, they have started to challenge, change, and end them. Yet, for all its promise, participatory defense may face considerable challenges going forward in these areas. As a relatively new movement, it must continue to resolve significant design challenges and overcome formidable institutional and attitudinal buttresses the current system has erected.

25 Nev. L.J. 325 (2025), 92p.

By John Burns

This Note traces the evolution of bail from its origins to modern commercial bail, highlighting how the system has disproportionately affected low-income defendants. In 2023, Illinois became the first state to eliminate cash bail with the enactment of the Pretrial Fairness Act, which attempted to remedy longstanding inequities. The Note situates Illinois’s approach between New Jersey’s successful risk-based reform and California’s oversimplified and harmful “zero bail” experiment. While Illinois’s reform represents a meaningful step toward fairness, this Note argues that its reliance on a categorical approach and its limited use of pretrial assessments may unintentionally undermisne its effectiveness. The Note concludes that Illinois must go further by expanding judicial discretion and mandating the use of risk assessment tools.

Washington University Journal of Law & Policy [Vol. 78, 2025. 29p.

By Jess Hickman, Mei Yang, Andy Tisdel, Charlie Riccardelli, Ashley Neufeld, and Amanda Coscia.

When a person facing criminal charges fails to appear for a court hearing, no one benefits. Courts must reschedule hearings and often issue warrants, consuming time and resources. Meanwhile, people who miss court may face additional charges, fees, and even jail time. Jurisdictions across the country have explored interventions such as court date notifications to improve appearance rates, but failures to appear continue to present a challenge. Part of the problem is that the underlying causes are unclear. Research suggests that people miss court for reasons like forgetting the date or not receiving notice.1 Others miss hearings due to a lack of transportation or conflicts with life responsibilities, including employment or providing dependent care. Courts need hard data on why people miss court. However, relatively few studies have systematically investigated this question, leaving courts without the information needed to make policy decisions. To fill this research gap, the Crime and Justice Institute (CJI), with funding from Arnold Ventures, partnered with Jefferson County, KY (Louisville) and Salt Lake County, UT (Salt Lake City) to survey people who were arrested on a failure to appear warrant.

Boston: Crime and Justice Institute, 2025. 7p.

By Anouschka Rajah, Conleth Burns

Recent events have propelled the criminal justice system to the forefront of public debate. The controversial early release of thousands of prisoners to ease overcrowding was one of Labour’s first acts in government. The Stockport attack, the 2024 summer riots, the media storm over ‘two-tier’ justice, David Gauke’s independent review of sentencing – all have contributed to a new and intense scrutiny of the UK’s approach to crime and punishment. The backdrop to these events is a justice system in crisis, of which the overcrowding of our prisons is only one symptom. As this report shows, victim and wider public confidence has collapsed; voters are deeply frustrated with the status quo and now rank criminal justice alongside the NHS, immigration, and the economy as a top priority for reform. The Common Ground Justice Project, which commissioned this research, aims to find a new way forward for the justice system which can command broad public support. In the context of a noisy, polarised debate, we’re starting by listening: to voters across the country, to victims, perpetrators and communities most affected by crime. To that end, More in Common conducted national polling and focus groups to better understand public attitudes to criminal justice through the lens of their British Seven Segments model. What emerges is a public ready for change, with views more complex than the popular framing of ‘tough’ vs ‘soft’ justice. While there are key differences between segments, most people are not at the extremes. They want a better balance: enforcing punishment while also improving accountability and proportionality and ensuring people who commit crime make a contribution to society rather than being a burden on the taxpayer. This is the emerging common ground that can point towards a different future: delivering a real sense of justice for victims, safer streets, and restoring public confidence – even national pride – in the British justice system. What might such a future look like? While the public shows little enthusiasm for costly prison expansion, many struggle to imagine credible alternatives. Yet our findings show that when people are presented with concrete examples of new approaches that speak to core values, they respond with openness. The will for change is clear – but to harness it, we need greater efforts to identify new ways forward that feel tangible, achievable, and properly resourced. We also found that the public segment whose views on criminal justice differ most sharply from the rest of the country (Progressive Activists) is significantly overrepresented in policy and communication roles across the public and charity sectors. For those advocating change or shaping justice policy, we hope this report underscores the importance of not only following the evidence of what works, but also speaking to the values of the British public whose trust in the system is essential. The report is just the first step, but an important one, of our journey to improve understanding of attitudes on criminal justice and light the way to a justice system that better serves victims and wider society

UK: Common Ground Justice, 2025. 41p.

By Patrick Armstrong

This policy framework outlines policy recommendations developed as part of a Justice Reinvestment Initiative effort in Kansas from 2020 to 2022 in collaboration with the Kansas Criminal Justice Reform Commission. Analysis conducted throughout the project resulted in numerous policy and practice recommendations to improve community supervision, victim services, behavioral health supports, employment opportunities, and housing for people in the criminal justice system. These recommendations were advanced to the Commission, and some were introduced to the legislature during the 2021 session. Some of these bills, in addition to new ones, were also considered in the 2022 session. Recommendations related to improving supervision by focusing resources where they can be most effective, expanding prosecutor diversions, and extending the existence of the Commission culminated in legislation that was signed into law in May 2021. Recommendations focused on improving specialty court programs, allowing people to petition to be removed from a drug offenses registry, and ensuring that people on supervision are supervised by only one entity were signed into law in April 2022.

New York: The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2022. 16p.

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.