MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

BY ARYE RATTNER AND GIDEON FISHMAN

"Justice for All? Jews and Arabs in the Israeli Criminal Justice System" provides a comprehensive examination of the complex dynamics that shape the experiences of Jews and Arabs within Israel's legal framework. Through meticulous research and insightful analysis, this book delves into the intricacies of how the Israeli criminal justice system navigates issues of identity, power, and discrimination in cases involving Jewish and Arab individuals.

By shedding light on the unique challenges and disparities faced by these two communities, "Justice for All?" prompts readers to critically reflect on the notions of equality and fairness within the legal landscape of Israel. With a nuanced approach, the authors navigate through a range of perspectives, offering a compelling exploration of the multifaceted interactions between ethnicity, religion, and the pursuit of justice.

This book is essential reading for anyone interested in understanding the complexities of the Israeli criminal justice system and its implications for the diverse communities it serves. "Justice for All?" serves as a thought-provoking contribution to the ongoing dialogue surrounding issues of representation, equity, and human rights in the context of Israel's legal institutions.

Westport, Connecticut London. Praeger. 1998. 142p.

By Jennifer Skeem, Lina Montoya, Christopher Lowenkamp

IN THE U.S., many jurisdictions are trying to reduce incarceration by improving pretrial decision-making. The pretrial decision is either to release the defendant until the court date or keep the defendant in jail to prevent re-offending or absconding. Rates of pretrial detention can be remarkably high, particularly in the federal system. There, the majority of defendants are detained before trial, even though less than 10 percent are arrested for a new crime or fail to appear while on pretrial release (Cohen & Austin, 2018; see also Rowland, 2018). Pretrial detention has serious consequences, including an increased likelihood of conviction, a harsh sentence, future re-offending, and unemployment (Dobbie et al., 2018; Leslie & Pope, 2017; Lowenkamp, 2022; Oleson et al., 2017). These consequences, in turn, are disproportionately borne by Black defendants (Didwania, 2021; Dobbie et al., 2018; Kutateladze et al., 2014; Leslie & Pope, 2017). Based on a sample of over 337,000 defendants drawn from 80 federal districts, Didwania (2021) found that 68 percent of Black defendants were detained - - - - - pretrial, compared to 51 percent of White defendants. Increasingly, efforts to improve pretrial decision-making include the goal of reducing racial disparities. In pursuing this goal, stakeholders probably assume that personal bias is to blame—i.e., that racial disparities in pretrial detention reflect the influence of implicit racism on human decision-making, and therefore that (perhaps) diversity training for practitioners would prevent such discrimination (see Devine & Ash, 2022). The majority of Americans frame racism as an interpersonal rather than structural problem—meaning that they focus on “a few bad apples” who discriminate, rather than on laws, policies, and systems that have a disparate impact (Rucker & Richeson, 2021). But disparities can also reflect “upstream” structural forces like socioeconomic and geographic conditions that lead to racial differences in the likelihood of rearrest or failure to appear. Black defendants tend to have more serious criminal histories and other potential risk factors for poor pretrial outcomes than White defendants (Didwania, 2021; Grossman et al., 2022; Spohn, 2008). Because risk of rearrest or flight are legitimate considerations for pretrial release, disparities related to differences in risk are hard to address via pretrial reform. Efforts to address disparities that flow from these kinds of structural forces would better be directed toward approaches like well-timed and well-targeted early prevention programs. In short, understanding the extent to which structural factors play a role in racial disparities is a matter of primary concern for shaping effective solutions (see Beck & Blumstein, 2018). In this study, we use federal data to explore the association between place—in this case U.S. district and geographic region—and racial disparities in pretrial officers’ recommendations for detention. We focus on officers’ recommendations in the federal system for three reasons. First, pretrial officers play a central role in assisting federal judges with the pretrial release decision, and officers’ detention recommendations strongly predict detention itself (see below, Pretrial Recommendation Context). Second, we conducted this work with the Probation and Pretrial Services Office of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, as part of their effort to reduce disparities by specifying targets for change. Third, the vastness and diversity of the federal system provide a unique opportunity to characterize the districts and regions of the U.S. where racial disparities in pretrial detention are greatest, so that they can be prioritized in problem-solving efforts. The federal system encompasses 93 districts that differ geographically, socially, and culturally—but they are governed by a common set

Federal Probation, 2022.

By Jaeok Kim, Cherrell Green, Alex Boldin, Quinn Hood, and Shirin Purkayastha

In April 2019, New York passed historic bail reform that was intended to reduce the use of pretrial detention. The impact was quick and sizable: from April 2019 to March 2020, the number of people incarcerated in New York jails decreased by more than 30 percent. The unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic further decreased the number of people in jail. In July 2020, a daily average of 11,000 people were incarcerated in local jails across New York, hitting a two-decade low.1 Two-thirds of these people were incarcerated in jails outside of New York City. This report provides an extensive look at how five counties—Albany, Broome, Erie, Tompkins, and Ulster—implemented key provisions of the bail reform law. The analysis incorporates multiple data sources, including arrest, jail, and pretrial supervision administrative data; court observations; and system actor interviews. The major findings are as follows: 1. Changes in pretrial admissions and likelihood of pretrial detention § Across the counties, pretrial populations decreased more than 35 percent after the implementation of bail reform. § The likelihood of pretrial detention after arrest decreased by more than 35 percent after the implementation of bail reform. 2. Putting policy into practice: Findings from 300 virtual court observations § Mandatory release effectively limited the use of money bail. § Prosecutors and judges relied on money bail where still allowed. Judges set bail in about a quarter of all arraignments and for almost 60 percent of cases with qualifying charges. § When setting bail, judges rarely considered ability to pay and often set bail above defense counsel requests. In more than 70 percent of cases for which judges set bail, discussion about the person’s ability to pay remained absent from their arraignment hearing. § Prosecutors and judges relied on criminal history and severity of charge when assessing bail in more than a quarter of cases in which bail was set. § Although it occurred rarely, the 2020 amendments to bail reform allowed judges to use ambiguity in the statutes to set bail on charges that otherwise required mandatory release. 3. Twenty-six system actors’ perceptions of bail reform § More than 90 percent of system actors interviewed supported the bail reforms. § Virtual arraignments, introduced in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, hampered attorney–client communication. Defendants faced many barriers in returning to court, including substance use, mental health, and financial struggles. § Inconsistent practices in local and county courts created challenges to the successful implementation of the law. 4. Changes in the use of pretrial supervision after bail reform implementation § The number of people admitted to pretrial supervision in Albany, Broome, and Ulster Counties decreased by more than one-third immediately after bail reform went into effect. § COVID-19 resulted in short-term declines in pretrial supervision admissions in Albany, Broome, and Ulster Counties, and a more prolonged effect in Erie County. § The share of new supervision admissions for misdemeanor cases dropped more than 30 percent at the beginning of the pandemic, then returned to prepandemic levels. § Variations in the use of release conditions reveal different court practices across counties. § Less than 15 percent of new pretrial supervision cases ended in revocation within six months, mostly for felony rearrest or failure to appear.

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2022. 47p.

By Akhi Johnson, et al.

In 2020, after a request for proposal process, Vera began partnerships with prosecutors’ offices in six jurisdictions: Boulder County, Colorado; Contra Costa County, California; DeKalb County, Georgia; Ingham County, Michigan; Ramsey County, Minnesota; and Suffolk County, Massachusetts. The partnerships were initially slated to run for 12–18 months, but the pandemic and the 2020 racial justice movement required adapting and lengthening those engagements to two years. Three goals guided the partnerships: reducing mass incarceration, addressing racial disparities, and increasing accountability to those most impacted by the criminal legal system. Prosecutors wield tremendous power, as their decisions reach nearly every aspect of the criminal legal system. They decide whom to charge—and with what offense; whether to ask for bail; when to provide evidence to the defense; what plea offer to make; what sentence to recommend; and, in some instances, whether someone should receive parole. However, prosecutors have the greatest influence at charging, when they decide whether someone enters the criminal legal system, and their charging discretion is virtually unchecked. Although Vera helped each office to examine its impact at every discretion point, the primary focus was on how to reduce harms at charging—through who was charged, what crime was charged, and who could be diverted away from traditional prosecution. Vera’s approach to addressing racial disparities focused on systemic issues rather than potential biases of individual actors. Rather than analyze whether similarly situated people received different treatment based on their race, Vera highlighted broader trends to illustrate which communities the criminal legal system impacts most and in what ways. For example, Vera’s analysis revealed that although Black people represent 55 percent of DeKalb County, Georgia’s population, they made up 81 percent of the adult caseload, 79 percent of juvenile cases, and 93 percent of children charged as adults.2 Rather than seeking to determine who was at fault, Vera’s analysis describes trends and starts conversations within communities about the historical and societal factors contributing to disparities and how stakeholders can respond. For each partnership, a key goal was to help prosecutors be more accountable to communities impacted by their decisions. In many areas around the country, people do not know who their elected prosecutors are, let alone how an office’s decisions affect safety in their communities. That gap represents a missed opportunity to learn from people uniquely positioned to inform policy discussions, and it leaves communities ill-equipped to gauge the performance of their elected officials. Vera worked in partnership with each office to facilitate the public sharing of data to inform communities and ground conversations on potential reform efforts. As one community group noted, Vera’s engagement “has made our prosecutor more aware of the need for a greater relationship with the community. . . . [W]e have a lot of systemic issues . . . [and] Vera’s presence has allowed us to continue to push the conversations forward.” Multiple factors impacted each office’s ability to implement reforms during the engagements, but the political climate was most significant. With increased scrutiny of reform prosecutors and false narratives that communities had to choose between safety and reform, some jurisdictions faced unique challenges in announcing changes. Vera worked with each jurisdiction to assess what was feasible in the current moment and adjusted accordingly. Despite the political climate, our partners made significant strides—including a groundbreaking policy in Ramsey County, Minnesota, inspired by Philando Castile’s death, to deter non– public safety (pretextual) traffic stops. However, even when an office did not announce a particular policy, Vera observed shifts in how prosecutors approached cases based on discussions prompted by the engagements. As partner offices noted, Vera’s work prompted new discussions about how to assess cases and revealed problem areas. One prosecutor reflected that the engagement “changed the way I think about my job and my role . . . being more mindful about the decision to charge somebody with a felony, and, you know, even if that case is later dismissed, the impact that can have on them.”

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2023. 40p.

KAH Webb, SA Riley, MT Wells

Pretrial risk assessment tools are used in jurisdictions across the country to assess the likelihood of "pretrial failure," the event where defendants either fail to appear for court or reoffend. Judicial officers, in turn, use these assessments to determine whether to release or detain defendants during trial. While algorithmic risk assessment tools were designed to predict pretrial failure with greater accuracy relative to judges, there is still concern that both risk assessment recommendations and pretrial decisions are biased against minority groups. In this paper, we develop methods to investigate the association between risk factors and pretrial failure, while simultaneously estimating misclassification rates of pretrial risk assessments and of judicial decisions as a function of defendant race. This approach adds to a growing literature that makes use of outcome misclassification methods to answer questions about fairness in pretrial decision-making. We give a detailed simulation study for our proposed methodology and apply these methods to data from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services. We estimate that the VPRAI algorithm has near-perfect specificity, but its sensitivity differs by defendant race. Judicial decisions also display evidence of bias; we estimate wrongful detention rates of 39.7% and 51.4% among white and Black defendants, respectively.

Cornell University Pre-publication paper: 2023. 33p,

By Chad M. Topaz, Shaoyang Ning, Maria-Veronica Ciocanel & Shawn Bushway

Race-based inequity in federal criminal sentencing is widely acknowledged, and yet our understanding of it is far from complete. Inequity may arise from several sources, including direct bias of courtroom actors and structural bias that produces racially disparate impacts. Irrespective of these sources, inequity may also originate from different loci within the federal system. We bring together the questions of the sources and loci of inequity. The purpose of our study is to quantify race-based disparate impact and differential treatment at the national level and at the level of individual federal judicial districts. We analyze over one-half million sentencing records publicly available from the United States Sentencing Commission database, spanning the years 2006 to 2020. At the system-wide level, Black and Hispanic defendants receive average sentences that are approximately 19 months longer and 5 months longer, respectively. Demographic factors and sentencing guideline elements account for nearly 17 of the 19 months for Black defendants and all five of the months for Hispanic defendants, demonstrating the disparate impact of the system at the national level. At the individual district level, even after controlling for each district’s unique demographics and implementation of sentencing factors, 14 districts show significant differences for minoritized defendants as compared to white ones. These unexplained differences are evidence of possible differential treatment by judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys.

Published in: Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Volume 10, Article Number 366 (2023). doi: 10.1057/s41599-023-018By Bugmy 9-5.

By The National Institute of Corrections, Justice-Involved Veterans Network.

This white paper is a collaboration between the National Institute of Corrections, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and the National Institute of Corrections-sponsored Justice-Involved Veterans Network. This effort reflects the original Sequential Intercept Model (SIM) that was developed in the early 2000s by Mark Munetz, MD, and Patricia A. Griffin, PhD, along with Henry J. Steadman, PhD, of Policy Research Associates, Inc. The original intent of the Sequential Intercept Model was to “envision a series of ‘points of interception’ or opportunities for an intervention to prevent individuals with mental illness from entering or penetrating deeper into the criminal justice system” (Munetz & Griffin, 2006). The current project builds on prior efforts to adapt (as V-SIM) the original SIM to the justice-involved veterans population challenged by various forms and degrees of mental illness, as well as by substance abuse, and by the trauma from physical injuries (with psychological trauma-overlapping Traumatic Brain Injury of particular note). Each decision point in the criminal justice system represents an opportunity to intercede at the lowest level possible and to minimize the collateral consequences of a veteran getting more deeply involved in the justice system.

Washington, DC: NIC, 2023. 120p.

By Steering Committee on Justice Efficiencies and Access to the Justice System

A sub-committee of the Steering Committee on Justice Efficiencies and Access to the Criminal Justice System was formed to examine therapeutic courts in Canada, ascertain how well they were functioning, and identify best practices. A plan was formed to conduct a jurisdictional scan focused on mental health and drug treatment courts. (Other therapeutic courts, such as domestic violence courts and “Gladue” courts for Indigenous offenders, were outside the scope of the scan due to the constraints of time and the need to focus the inquiries.) Group interviews were arranged with judges, lawyers, and treatment providers from across Canada who work in these courts. The general topics that were covered in the interviews were: 1) Barriers to access and success; 2) Best practices; and 3) Evaluation methods. The authors of this report hope that this report can, in some way, serve to support, enhance, and contribute to the extensive body of knowledge held by the dedicated professionals who serve in these courts and who are passionately committed to improving the well-being of their communities.

Vancouver, BC: ICCLR, 2021. 142p.

By Hayley Hahn

In recent decades, states and municipalities have increasingly relied on court fines and fees to overcome budget shortfalls. Existing literature underscores the varied and adverse impacts of court debt, as well as the disproportionate incidence of such debt on people of color and poor people of all races. Yet, few pieces of scholarship directly link increased imposition of court fines and fees to decreased dependence on traditional progressive taxes. This article aims to fill the gap. Using the Law and Political Economy (LPE) framework, I argue that increased imposition of court debt derives from heightened antitax sentiment and the erosion of the state and local tax bases. In the process, I contend, the tax and court debt systems reflect and exacerbate racial inequality. I conclude by proposing a conceptual framework to abate reliance on court debt, advancing the LPE mission.

Journal of Law and Political Economy, 2(1) 2021.

By John W. Wertheimer

This first title in the “Law, Literature & Culture” series uses six legal disputes from the South Carolina courts to illuminate the complex legal history of race in the U.S. South from slavery through Jim Crow. The first two cases—one criminal, one civil—both illuminate the extreme oppressiveness of slavery. The third explores labor relations between newly emancipated Black agricultural workers and white landowners during Reconstruction. The remaining cases investigate three prominent features of the Jim Crow system: segregated schools, racially biased juries, and lynching, respectively. Throughout the century under consideration, South Carolina’s legal system obsessively drew racial lines, always to the detriment of non-white people, but it occasionally provided a public forum within which racial oppression could be challenged. The book emphasizes how dramatically the degree of legal oppressiveness experienced by Black South Carolinians varied during the century under study, based largely on the degree of Black access to political and legal power.

Amherst College Press, 2023.

By Cody Tuttle

I test for racial disparities in the criminal justice system by analyzing abnormal bunching in the distribution of crack-cocaine amounts used in federal sentencing. I compare cases sentenced before and after the Fair Sentencing Act, a 2010 law that changed the 10-year mandatory minimum threshold for crack-cocaine from 50g to 280g. First, I find that after 2010, there is a sharp increase in the fraction of cases sentenced at 280g (the point that now triggers a 10-year mandatory minimum), and that this increase is disproportionately large for black and Hispanic offenders. I then explore several possible explanations for the observed racial disparities, including discrimination. I analyze data from multiple stages in the criminal justice system and find that the increased bunching for minority offenders is driven by prosecutorial discretion, specifically as used by about 20-30% of prosecutors. Moreover, the fraction of cases at 280g falls in 2013 when evidentiary standards become stricter. Finally, the racial disparity in the increase cannot be explained by differences in education, sex, age, criminal history, seized drug amount, or other elements of the crime, but it can be almost entirely explained by a measure of state-level racial animus. These results shed light on the role of prosecutorial discretion and potentially racial discrimination as causes of racial disparities in sentencing.

College Park, MD: University of Maryland, 2019. 121p.

By Christopher T. Lowenkamp, Marie VanNostrand and Alexander Holsinger

The release-and-detention decision takes into account a number of different concerns, including protecting the community, the need for defendants to appear in court, and upholding the legal and constitutional rights afforded to accused persons awaiting trial. It carries enormous consequences not only for the defendant but also for the safety of the community … Using data from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, this research investigates the impact of pretrial detention on 1) pretrial outcomes (failure to appear and arrest for new criminal activity); and 2) post-disposition recidivism" (p. 3). Sections following an executive summary include: introduction; sample description; research objective one—investigate the relationship between length of pretrial detention and pretrial outcome; and research objective two—investigate the relationship between pretrial detention, as well as the length of pretrial detention, and new criminal activity post-disposition (NCA-PD). There appears to a direct link between how long low- and moderate-risk defendants are in pretrial detention and the chances that they will commit new crimes.

Houston, TX: The Laura and John Arnold Foundation, 2013. 32p.

By Sara Bastomski, Matt Herman, Alison Martin and Sara Friedman

Between April 2021 and February 2022, The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center conducted an analysis of racial equity across Montana’s criminal justice system in partnership with Montana judicial branch stakeholders. This work identified decision-making points in Montana’s criminal justice system in which there are disparities between American Indian and White people. Key findings include American Indian people are more likely to be incarcerated for felony criminal endangerment and public order offenses relative to comparable White people; American Indian people are incarcerated for longer than similarly situated White people; and American Indian people are more likely to be revoked from probation, conditional release, and parole than comparable White people. Based on these findings, the CSG Justice Center proposed five recommendations to improve racial equity in Montana’s criminal justice system.

New York: Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center, 2022. 49p.

By David Lammy

Across England and Wales, people from minority ethnic backgrounds are breaking through barriers. More students from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) backgrounds are achieving in school and going to university.1 There is a growing BAME middle class.2 Powerful, high-profile institutions, like the House of Commons, are slowly becoming more diverse.3 Yet our justice system bucks the trend. Those who are charged, tried and punished are still disproportionately likely to come from minority communities. Despite making up just 14% of the population, BAME men and women make up 25% of prisoners,4 while over 40% of young people in custody are from BAME backgrounds. If our prison population reflected the make-up of England and Wales, we would have over 9,000 fewer people in prison5 – the equivalent of 12 average-sized prisons.6 There is greater disproportionality in the number of Black people in prisons here than in the United States.7 These disproportionate numbers represent wasted lives, a source of anger and mistrust and a significant cost to the taxpayer. The economic cost of BAME overrepresentation in our courts, prisons and Probation Service is estimated to be £309 million a year.8 This report is the product of an independent review, commissioned by two Prime Ministers.9 The review was established to ‘make recommendations for improvement with the ultimate aim of reducing the proportion of BAME offenders in the criminal justice system’.10 It reflects a growing sense of urgency, across party-political lines, to find solutions to this inequity

London: Ministry of Justice, 2017. 108p.

By Michael J. Lynch and E. Britt Patterson.

Collection of original and authoritative articles covering role and definition of race in criminal justice research, bias crimes, race and policing, juvenile justice, and much more. CONTENTS: 1. Law, Justice, and "Americans": An Historical Overview/Bailey. 2./Garofalo. 3.Minorities and the Police/Smith,Graham and Adams. 4.Bias in Formalized Bail Procedures/Patterson and Lynch. 5. Ethnic, Racial, and Minority Disparity in Felony Court Processing/ Farnworth,Teske and Thurmond. 6. Race and the Death Penalty in the United States/ Bohm. 7.The Over-representation of Blacks in Florida'sJuvenile Justice System/Tollett and Close. 8. American Indians and Criminal Justice/ Zatz, Chiago, Lujan and Snyder-Joy. 9. An Examination of Ethnic Bias in a Correctional Setting:The case of the Mariel Cubans/Clark .10. Racial Codes in Prison Culture/Thomas. RECOMMENDED: Adopted widely throughout the United States for courses on Race and Crime or Criminal Justice. The comprehensive coverage, avoidance of ideological jargon, and use of scientifically controlled studies makes this text is excellent for class use. Use with companion volume, "Justice with Prejudice," which examines the criminal justice management and personnel side of Race and Criminal Justice, and uses a more qualitative and theoretical approach.

Harrow and Heston Publishers. 1985. 205p.

By Marjorie Mayo, Gerald Koessl, Matthew Scott and Imogen Slater.

This book explores the dilemmas being faced by professionals and volunteers who are aiming to provide access to justice for all and to promote social justice agendas in increasingly challenging contexts. Public service modernisation has been accompanied by increasing marketisation and massive public expenditure cuts, with escalating effects in terms of the growth of social inequalities. As the following chapters illustrate, Law Centres have provided a lens through which to examine the implications of these wider policies, as increasing marketisation has been impacting upon staff and volunteers working to promote social justice in disadvantaged communities.

Policy Press (2014) 174p.