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 Kuc, Oktawian

Recent decades have brought international and municipal courts much closer together and induced meaningful cooperation. This holds true also for the International Court of Justice and domestic judicial institutions as they engage actively in an inter-judicial dialogue, particularly on the normative level. Due to the impact of globalisation and internationalisation, the World Court has expanded its jurisprudence to also accommodate references and analysis of external judicial organs and their pronouncements. Likewise, ICJ decisions are referred to and consulted by municipal courts as authoritative statements of international norms or assistance in fact determination. This monograph examines this inter-judicial dialogue in a comprehensive manner by identifying and analysing all its aspects as evidenced in respective jurisprudence. Surprisingly, the mutual conversation in judicial decisions between the World Court and national judicial institutions has drawn little attention from international legal scholarship, and the book is designed to fill this lacuna.

New York; London: Routledge, 2022.

Edited by Douglas Edlin

Are judges supposed to be objective? Citizens, scholars, and legal professionals commonly assume that subjectivity and objectivity are opposites, with the corollary that subjectivity is a vice and objectivity is a virtue. These assumptions underlie passionate debates over adherence to original intent and judicial activism.

In Common Law Judging, Douglas Edlin challenges these widely held assumptions by reorienting the entire discussion. Rather than analyze judging in terms of objectivity and truth, he argues that we should instead approach the role of a judge's individual perspective in terms of intersubjectivity and validity. Drawing upon Kantian aesthetic theory as well as case law, legal theory, and constitutional theory, Edlin develops a new conceptual framework for the respective roles of the individual judge and of the judiciary as an institution, as well as the relationship between them, as integral parts of the broader legal and political community. Specifically, Edlin situates a judge's subjective responses within a form of legal reasoning and reflective judgment that must be communicated to different audiences.

Edlin concludes that the individual values and perspectives of judges are indispensable both to their judgments in specific cases and to the independence of the courts. According to the common law tradition, judicial subjectivity is a virtue, not a vice.

Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2016. 281p.

By Akhi Johnson and Stephen Roberts 

Prosecutors wield tremendous power. They decide whom to charge— and with what offense—whether to ask for bail, when to provide evidence to the defense, and what plea offer to make. For decades, prosecutors have used their discretion in ways that contributed to mass incarceration and racial disparities in the criminal legal system.1 Yet, despite their immense power, prosecutors had largely not been the focus of criminal legal system reform efforts until relatively recently.2 Starting around 2015, with the help of groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Color of Change, communities across the nation have begun to demand that their elected prosecutors adopt a new approach that reflects the communities’ priorities.3 As a result, a wave of reform prosecutors has won elections, and reelections, throughout the country.4 In 2017, the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) launched the Reshaping Prosecution program to help reform prosecutors transform their campaign promises into data-informed policies and practices.5 The program has three goals: (1) to end mass incarceration, (2) to reduce racial disparities in the system, and (3) to help offices be more accountable and transparent to their communities. The program aims to achieve these goals primarily through strategic site engagements during which Vera researchers, former prosecutors, and other programmatic staff assist offices with data analysis, new policy creation, and training on the reforms for line prosecutors. Vera’s review relies primarily on data from the office’s case management system and focuses on key decision points in the life of a case so that prosecutors can gain insights into how their decisions are contributing to mass incarceration and racial disparities. This report provides an overview of Vera’s pilot engagement with the St. Louis City Circuit Attorney’s Office (CAO). It begins by discussing why Vera partnered with CAO and then details the stages of the engagement, initial lessons from the data, and some policy recommendations. The report concludes with some successes and an important lesson learned about the persistence of racial disparities that will inform the program’s future work to reshape how prosecutors do justice.

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2020. 26p.

By Daniel Richman

Even as others make cogent arguments for diminishing the work of prosecutors, work remains — cases that must be brought against a backdrop of existing economic inequality and structural racism and of an array of impoverished institutional alternatives. The (immediate) future of prosecution requires thoughtful engagement with these tragic circumstances, but it also will inevitably involve the co-production of sentences that deter and incapacitate. Across-the-board sentencing discounts based on such circumstances are no substitute for the thoughtful intermediation that only the courtroom working group — judges, prosecutors and defense counsel — can provide. The (immediate) future also requires prosecutors to do more to recognize the distinctive role they can play in combating illegitimate domination.

50 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1139 (2023).

By Doron Teichman, Eyal Zamir, Ilana Ritov

Previous studies of judgment and decision-making in adjudication have largely focused on juries and judges. This body of work demonstrated that legal training and professional experience sometimes affect attitudes and mitigate the susceptibility to cognitive biases, but often they do not. Relatively few experimental studies examined the decisions of prosecutors and defense lawyers, although they play a major role, especially in legal systems where prosecutors have a broad discretion in charging decisions, courts' discretion regarding sentencing is constrained, and plea bargains abound. This study directly compares laypersons, law students, and legal practitioners—including prosecutors and defense lawyers—in terms of their attitudes about the criminal justice system and their cognitive biases. It was found that the outcome bias and the anti-inference bias influenced all groups similarly, but an irrelevant anchor only impacted the decisions of laypersons and law students, and not those of legal professionals. Prosecutors were significantly more inclined to judge a behavior as negligent and reach factual conclusions supporting a conviction. However, the hypothesis that the susceptibility of prosecutors and defense lawyers to cognitive biases would be affected by their role was not borne out. The article considers possible explanations for the reported findings, and discusses their policy implications.

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies published by Cornell Law School and Wiley Periodicals

By Scrutinize

Institute for the Quantitative Study of Inclusion, Diversity, and Equity Zimroth Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at NYU School of Law

An analysis of public pretrial data from 2020-2022 reveals that some New York City judges are disproportionately carceral, i.e., these judges are substantially more likely to order pretrial detention
than their peers, even when accounting for factors such as the severity of the case and the defendant’s
prior criminal history. The fourteen judges who exhibited the most carceral discretion compared to their peers are Felicia Mennin, Gerald Lebovits, Quynda Santacroce, Josh Hanshaft, Kerry Ward, Bruna DiBiase, Gerianne Abriano, Beth Beller, Phyllis Chu, Alan Schiff, Tara Collins, Derefim Neckles, Joseph McCormack, and Lumarie Maldonado-Cruz. These fourteen judges’ disproportionately carceral decisions over 2.5 years resulted in an estimated 580 additional people detained, 154 additional years of pretrial detention, and over $77 million of additional costs borne by New York City taxpayers.

New York: The Authors, 2023. 29p.

Edited by Hans-W. Micklitz, Oreste Pollicino , Amnon Reichman, Andrea Simoncini , Giovanni Sartor, and Giovanni de Gregorio.

“ the rise of the bureaucratic state, the technologies for infringing liberty or equality were thought to be containable by the exercise of concrete judicial review… . In recent years, however, the rise of the algorithmic society has led to a paradigmatic change where the public power is no longer the only source of concern for the respect of fundamental rights and the protection of democracy, where jurisdictional boundaries are in flux, and where doctrines and procedures developed in the pre-cybernetic age do not necessarily capture rights violations in a relevant time frame.”

Cambridge University Press. (2021) 300 pages.

Read/Download