By Megan T. Stevenson and Jennifer L. Doleac

Virginia adopted a risk assessment to help determine sentencing for sex offenders. It was incorporated as a one-way ratchet toward higher sentences: expanding the upper end of the sentence guidelines by up to 300 per cent. This led to a sharp increase in sentences for those convicted of sexual assault. More surprisingly, it also led to a decrease in sentences for those convicted of rape. This raises two questions: (a) why did sentencing patterns change differently across these groups, and (b) why would risk assessment lead to a reduction in sentence length? The first question is relatively easy to answer. While both groups saw an expansion in the upper end of the sentencing guidelines, only sexual assault had the floor lifted on the lower end, making leniency more costly. The second question is less straightforward. One potential explanation is that the risk assessment served as a political or moral shield that implicitly justified leniency for those in the lowest risk category. Even though the risk assessment did not change sentencing recommendations for low-risk individuals, it provided a 'second opinion' that could mitigate blame or guilt should the low-risk offender go on to reoffend. This decreased the risks of leniency and counterbalanced any increase in severity for high-risk individuals.

University of Toronto Law Journal, Volume 73, Supplement 1, 2023, pp. 59-72

By Candan Yilmaz

This publication offers a unique comparative analysis of the sentencing of mentally disordered offenders in Türkiye, England and Wales, and the Netherlands, exploring the alignment of these systems with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). While the presence of mental disorders impacts criminal responsibility, the legal responses and practices differ significantly across jurisdictions. The complex sanctioning system in Türkiye faced substantial challenges due to the absence of secure forensic psychiatric facilities until 2018. Despite legal mandates, mentally disordered offenders were often either released or unlawfully detained in prisons, creating a prolonged gap between law and practice. The research highlights how the situation evolved and assesses the lingering issues, which were exacerbated by delays during the COVID-19 pandemic. In order to contextualize the criminal justice system of Türkiye, comparisons are drawn with the criminal justice systems of the Netherlands and England and Wales, two jurisdictions which have distinct and unique frameworks for mentally disordered offenders. The eminent TBS (terbeschikkingstelling) system of the Netherlands and the bifurcated sentencing approach in England and Wales provide valuable points of reference. This publication is of significance in the field of legal academic literature given the paucity of research on the Turkish criminal justice system, carried out in languages other than Turkish. It evaluates the degree to which these systems adhere to or deviate from ECHR standards, thereby providing insights that facilitate improved compliance with human rights requirements. By bridging comparative legal traditions and identifying best practices, this research holds significant societal and academic relevance.

Groningen: University of Groningen Press, 2025. 560p.

By Vanessa Bettinson

• Coercive control is a recognised form of domestic abuse under section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and it is a criminal offence to engage in controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. Domestic abuse disproportionately affects women as victims and this is reflected in the female prison population where research has found that 57% of women in the prison population in England and Wales have been victims of domestic abuse.

• Coercive control by a male intimate partner or relative can directly result in women’s offending. This occurs in a variety of ways such as taking responsibility for a partner’s crime, possession of a controlled substance belonging to an abuser and theft to support a partner’s drug habit, stealing personal items or using violent resistance against the abuser.

• Coercive control has also been linked to women’s reoffending with short custodial sentences leading to financial hardship and homelessness. Access to women’s refuges is limited as female offenders often have complex and multiple needs which make them ineligible for most refuges. Returning to an abuser to avoid homelessness is likely to lead to the continuation of coerced offending. Abusive partners can also prevent a female offender from complying with supervision under a community order by exerting coercive and controlling behaviours on them. In an effort to maintain their safety, the victim-offender can perceive that compliance with the abuser’s demands is their safest option.

• Existing sentencing guidelines do recognise ‘coercion, intimidation or exploitation’ as a mitigating factor in sentencing. It can operate as a factor that lowers the culpability threshold in some offence specific sentencing guidelines or, alternatively, it can be assessed as personal mitigation in accordance with the Sentencing Council’s ‘General guideline: overarching principles’. This means there is a high potential that coercive control as mitigation in sentencing is not consistently applied to all sentencing decisions.

• The guidelines do not explicitly adopt the term coercive control and sentencers could be limiting their approach to coercion for mitigation purposes to physical forms of coercion. HM Courts and Tribunals ought to apply the statutory guideline that supports the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 at sentencing hearings, however, there is no research on the ability of sentencers to identify coercive control and apply it to sentencing decisions.

• Pre-Sentence Reports (PSRs) are a valuable tool to assist the court in understanding the role coercive control played in the offending, however, there is a reduction in the volume of full written PSRs being requested by courts. In addition, there is no research on the ability of probation officers to identify coercive control and the extent it is included in PSRs

London: Sentencing Academy, 2024. 16p.

By Kathryn Hollingsworth, Jonathan Bild and Gavin Dingwall

This report describes the findings from a survey of 1,038 children living in England and Wales aged between 10-17 years, drawn from the general public and conducted in 2023. The research contributes to the literature on the public’s knowledge and opinion of sentencing and this survey follows up an earlier report by the Sentencing Academy, published in January 2022, which explored public knowledge of sentencing practice and trends through a survey of adult respondents. This report, however, focuses on a cohort – children over the minimum age of criminal responsibility – who are largely absent from the existing research literature.

Key Findings

• Most children reported having spoken to someone about what happens in a criminal court. The most common answer (57%) was that they had spoken to ‘my family’, with 39% of respondents having spoken to ‘my teacher at school’. However, very few respondents (2%) reported having been to a criminal court.

• Respondents reported having seen what happens in a criminal court from a variety of sources, with the two most common responses being ‘on a TV programme’ and ‘in a film’.

• Despite all participants in the survey having reached the minimum age of criminal responsibility, respondents generally over-estimated the age at which children become criminally responsible: 61% of those who provided an answer to the question of at what age does a child become criminally responsible (i.e. excluding those who answered ‘don’t know’) thought it was over the correct age of 10-years-old.

• The children in this survey were much less likely than adult respondents to think that the sentencing of adults is too lenient: 27% of respondents thought that sentencing was too lenient but a greater proportion – 34% – thought it was ‘about right’. Only 16% of respondents thought that the sentencing of children was too lenient.

• Whilst the vast majority (81%) of respondents correctly identified that a judge ‘would’ sentence a 25-year-old more severely than a 15-year-old for an identical offence, only 50% of respondents thought that they ‘should’ do so; 38% thought that both offenders should receive the same punishment.

• Respondents generally under-estimated the severity of sentencing for children convicted of a repeat knife offence. In a scenario crafted to engage a mandatory custodial sentence as the most likely outcome, 57% of respondents thought that the offending would most likely be met with a non-custodial sentence. This included a majority of 16- and 17-year old respondents to whom the mandatory sentencing provisions apply

London: Sentencing Academy, 2024. 26p.

By: Stephanie Brooks Holliday, Elizabeth Marsolais, Samantha Matthews

The Los Angeles County Rapid Diversion Program (RDP) is a pretrial mental health diversion program operating in seven courthouses in Los Angeles County, California. Established in 2019 as a faster approach to mental health diversion compared with the traditional approach, RDP allows for the diversion of individuals who have a mental health diagnosis or substance use disorder and certain qualifying misdemeanor or felony charges. Individuals who complete the program have their case dismissed.

In this report, the authors present findings from a formal assessment of program implementation to date. Using a mixed-methods evaluation of program data and interviews with implementation partners and RDP graduates, they explore current program implementation, case outcomes for individuals who participate in RDP, and strengths and areas for improvement. Lessons learned from this evaluation have the potential to inform efforts to scale the program within Los Angeles County and to other counties interested in implementing a similar pretrial diversion program.

RAND—Published Sep. 30, 2024

By: Aaron Arnold, Precious Benally, and Michael Friedrich

In recent years, several U.S. states have adopted legislation aimed at decreasing sentences for low-level drug offenses. These reforms represent a promising effort to reduce the use of unnecessary incarceration. But one consequence has been reduced enrollment in drug courts. This paper explores how drug courts can adapt themselves to sentencing reforms and continue serving as a powerful, lifesaving intervention for court-involved individuals with substance use disorders.

New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2020. 12p.

By Brandon L. Garrett, JD, Monitor, et al.

The ODonnell Consent Decree

• Misdemeanor Bail Reform: In Harris County, secured money bonds are no longer required for most misdemeanor cases under the court rule adopted as part of the ODonnell v. Harris County settlement. Most people arrested for misdemeanors are released promptly without a hearing.

• Bail Options Unchanged for Cases with Public Safety Concerns: People charged with misdemeanors that potentially present public safety risks (e.g., repeat DWIs, family violence, prior bond violations or outstanding warrants) are not automatically released. A hearing officer makes a bail decision, usually following a hearing at which magistrates have the traditional options to require financial bonds, protective orders, pretrial supervision requirements, or other release conditions.

• Better Bail Hearings: Defense attorneys continue to represent people at bail hearings, as required by Rule 9 and the Consent Decree. Before 2017, people arrested in Harris County usually had no defense attorney at these hearings. Judges also must give greater attention to more rigorous bail requirements.

Major Consent Decree Accomplishments:

• Court Appearance: The County is currently implementing an approved plan to make use of the budget allocation to improve court appearance. The County is now piloting a new website, https://myharriscountycase.com, where people can readily look up information about upcoming appearances in their cases.

• Data: Much of the relevant information about the misdemeanor bail process is now available in an automated report. We have continued work to provide feedback on Harris County’s public data portal. We now have improved data regarding persons flagged as homeless or with mental health assessment requests, as well as data concerning pretrial supervision conditions, and report these new analyses in this report.

• Training: The Deason Criminal Justice Reform Center at the SMU Dedman School of Law conducted trainings in 2023, which resume in early 2024.

• Indigent Defense: The County is continuing to develop plans in response to the National Association for Public Defense (NAPD) evaluation of Harris County’s misdemeanor indigent defense systems. We hope the County will implement a plan for the earlier appointment of counsel.

Ongoing Work by the Monitor Team:

• Data Development: We analyzed data prepared by Harris County and provided continual feedback on data development in regular meetings concerning the assembly and validation of data regarding misdemeanor cases.

• Community Work Group: We convened quarterly meetings of our Community Work Group, to share our work and solicit input from our diverse community stakeholders. Members share their perspectives for the “Community Viewpoints” column found in our reports.

• Regular Meetings: We held regular meetings with the parties and Harris County stakeholders, including weekly calls, monthly meetings with both judges and hearing officers, and periodic calls with public defenders and prosecutors. Our next public meetings will be held in-person on April 18, 2024.

• Feedback: We provided feedback to the parties on several improvements to the hearing process, the designed and implemented training, and the assessment work regarding holistic defense services and nonappearance. o Review of Violations: We are extremely grateful for the work that has begun to build an improved system to permit all County actors to review potential Rule 9 violations and prevent delays and errors in case processing.

Our Findings:

• Data Analysis: Our updated findings largely confirm what we reported in our first six reports. The bail reforms under the ODonnell Consent Decree have saved Harris County and residents many millions of dollars, improved the lives of tens of thousands of persons arrested for misdemeanors, and these large-scale changes have produced no increase in new offenses by persons arrested for misdemeanors.

  • Overall, the work suggests that repeat offending by persons arrested for misdemeanors has remained stable in recent years.

  • The numbers of persons arrested for misdemeanors have declined since 2015.

  • The numbers of those arrested for misdemeanors who had new charges filed within one year have also declined.

• The analyses conducted show:

• Misdemeanor Case and Defendant Characteristics

• The number of misdemeanor arrestees has declined by more than 15 percent between 2015 (N=49,359) and 2023 (N=41,177).

• The count has been slightly increasing since 2020, which marked the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic period.

Durham, NC: Duke University, 2024. 107p.

By Allison P. Harris

How does racial diversity impact institutional outcomes and (in)equality? Discussions about diversity usually focus on how individuals’ identities shape their behavior, but diversity is a group-level characteristic. Scholars must, therefore, consider the relationship between group composition and the individual decisions that shape institutional outcomes. Using felony data from a large U.S. court system, I explore the relationship between racial diversity among the judges comprising a court and individual judges’ decisions. I find that as the percent of Black judges in a courthouse increases white judges are less likely to render incarceration sentences in cases with Black defendants. Increases in racial diversity decrease the Black–white gap in the probability of incarceration by up to 7 percentage points. However, I find no relationship between judge’s racial identities and disparities in their decisions. This study highlights the importance of conceptualizing diversity as a group characteristic and the relationship between institutional context and outcomes.

American Political Science Review, 2023, 16 pages

By The United States Sentencing Commission

This report examines variations in sentencing practices—and corresponding variations in sentencing outcomes—in the federal courts since the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in United States v. Booker. The United States Sentencing Commission analyzed the sentencing practices of federal district judges in 30 major cities located throughout the country to determine the extent of the judges’ variations in imposing sentences in relation to the city average. This report is the second in a series of reports updating the analyses and findings of the Commission’s 2012 Report on the Continuing Impact of United States v. Booker on Federal Sentencing.

Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission, 2019. 138p.

By The United States Sentencing Commission

This report is the third in a series of reports. It examines variations in sentencing practices—and corresponding variations in sentencing outcomes—across federal districts since the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in United States v. Booker.  The Commission’s ongoing analysis in this area directly relates to a key goal of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984: reducing unwarranted sentencing disparities that existed in the federal judicial system.  In particular, the Act was the result of a widespread bipartisan concern that such disparities existed both regionally (e.g., differences among the districts) and within the same courthouse. Having analyzed the differences within the same courthouse in its Intra-City Report, the Commission now turns in this report to examining regional differences since Booker.

Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission, 2020. 100p.

By Vera M. Kachnowski and Amanda Russell

 In 2016, the United States Sentencing Commission promulgated an amendment that comprehensively revised the guideline covering illegal reentry offenses—§2L1.2 (Unlawfully Entering or Remaining in the United States). The amendment, Amendment 802, became effective November 1, 2016, and represented the most comprehensive revision of a major guideline in the last two decades. This report examines the impact of Amendment 802 by looking back at sentencings under §2L1.2 over the last ten fiscal years. The report first describes the concerns leading to the amendment, including that §2L1.2’s 12- and 16-level increases were overly severe and led to variances, and that using the “categorical approach” to apply enhancements was overly complex, resource intensive, and increased litigation and uncertainty. After outlining the changes made by Amendment 802, the report assesses its impact on guideline application for §2L1.2 offenders and on appeals involving §2L1.2.

Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission, 2022. 38p.

By Kathleen C. Grilli, Kevin T. Maass and Charles S. Ray,

This publication summarizes the history of Chapter Eight’s development and discusses the two substantive changes made to the elements of an effective compliance and ethics program. It then provides policymakers and researchers a snapshot of corporate sentencing over the last 30 years. Finally, the publication describes Chapter Eight’s impact beyond federal sentencing.

Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission, 2022. 94p.

By April A. Christine,  Courtney R. Semisch,  Charles S. Ray, and Amanda Russell,

This comprehensive study of robbery offenders sentenced in fiscal year 2021 provides an analysis of the characteristics of robbery offenders, their criminal history, and their sentences imposed. The report also provides analyses on the prevalence of robbery offenses and how they were committed, including who was robbed, what was taken, the use or threatened use of physical force, the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, and whether any victim was injured or killed during a robbery. This report builds upon the Commission’s recent observations regarding the high recidivism rates among federal robbery offenders

Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission, 2022. 60p.

By Vera M. Kachnowski, Christine Kitchens, and Data Cassandra Syckes,

The report entitled Weighing the Impact of Simple Possession of Marijuana: Trends and Sentencing in the Federal System updates a 2016 Commission study and examines sentences for simple possession of marijuana offenses in two respects. Part One of the report assesses trends in federal sentencings for simple possession of marijuana since fiscal year 2014. The report then describes the demographic characteristics, criminal history, and sentencing outcomes of federal offenders sentenced for marijuana possession in the last five fiscal years and compares them to federal offenders sentenced for possession of other drug types. Part Two of the report examines how prior sentences for simple possession of marijuana (under both federal and state law) affect criminal history calculations under the federal sentencing guidelines for new federal offenses. The report identifies how many federal offenders sentenced in fiscal year 2021—for any crime type—received criminal history points under Chapter Four of the Guidelines Manual for prior marijuana possession sentences. The report then assesses the impact of such points on those offenders’ criminal history category, one of the two components used to establish the sentencing guideline range.

Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission, 2023. 46p

 By Tracey Kyckelhahn and Amanda Kerbel,

The United States Sentencing Commission (“the Commission”) has previously published reports on the relationship between demographic factors and sentencing,1 but none have focused specifically on the educational attainment of federally sentenced individuals. The United States Census Bureau estimates that 12.8 percent of the U.S. population have acquired a graduate degree (i.e., master’s degree, professional degree, or doctoral degree).2 However, less than two percent (1.8%) of federally sentenced individuals in fiscal year 2021 were in this educational attainment group. Congress requires courts to consider several factors when determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed in federal cases, including the “history and characteristics of the defendant.”3 The federal sentencing guidelines provide that specific characteristics of sentenced individuals such as education may be considered at sentencing, yet there is little information published that examines differences across education levels.4 Accordingly, this report provides an analysis of the federally sentenced individuals in fiscal year 2021 by educational attainment. 

Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission 2023. 36p.

By Ian K. Belton and Mandeep K. Dhami

Personal mitigating factors (PMFs) such as good character, remorse and addressing addiction help sentencers evaluate an offender’s past, present and future behavior. We analyzed data from the 2011–2014 Crown Court Sentencing Surveys in England and Wales to examine the relationship between these PMFs and custodial sentences passed on assault and burglary offenses, controlling for other sentencing relevant factors. Beyond revealing the distribution and co-occurrence of the three PMFs, it was found that good character, remorse and addressing addiction all had a significant mitigating effect. The effects of addressing addiction were the strongest of the three across both offense types, while good character had a stronger effect on burglary than assault. In addition, some mitigating factors appear to be underweighted when they occur together. We consider the implications of these findings for sentencing policy and practice.

J Empir Leg Stud. 2024;1–32.

By Beth M. Huebner, Andrea Giuffre

Investigations in Ferguson, Missouri, revealed that many individuals, particularly Black people, entered the criminal justice system for relatively minor offenses, missed court appearances, or failure to pay fines. Municipal courts were focused on revenue generation, which led to aggressive enforcement of municipal codes. Although subsequent reforms were passed, little is known about whether and how the legislative changes influenced the law-in-action in the municipal courts. Using data from qualitative interviews with St. Louis area residents and regional court actors, as well as court observations, this article documents the legal structure of municipal courts in the region after Ferguson. We address how the parochial nature of municipal courts in St. Louis County perpetuates the financial marginalization of residents through the layering of punishment, and how the state legal structure further facilitates control, even after reform.

RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences January 2022, 8 (1) 108-127; DOI: https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2022.8.1.05

By Liz Komar, et al.

Through the lens of the successes and challenges of New York’s DVSJA, this guide explores the need for similar bills across the country (referred to as DVSJA legislation, DVSJA laws or DVSJA relief) and offers recommendations for advocates and legislators developing and implementing those laws in their own jurisdictions. Drawing from case law and the guidance of survivors, advocates, and litigators, the guide offers a model bill, which can be adapted to fit any locality. Woven throughout are the experiences of those who have applied for DVSJA relief in New York or those who would benefit from such a law should it be enacted in their state.

Specifically, the guide recommends that states enact sentencing laws for domestic violence survivors that:

1. Create broad and trauma-informed eligibility criteria

2. Develop a legal process accessible to survivors

3. Craft a trauma-informed and realistic legal standard

4. Maximize sentence reductions

The ultimate goal of these recommendations is to allow advocates to draw on lessons learned from New York’s DVSJA to strengthen efforts for survivor sentencing legislation already gaining ground across the United States.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project and Survivors Justice Project, 2023. 33p.

By Bugmy Bar Book Committee

Launched in 2019, the Bugmy Bar Book is a free, evidence-based resource hosted on the website of the NSW Public Defenders.

The project publishes accessible summaries of key research on the impacts of the experience of disadvantage and strengths-based rehabilitation. It provides objective research across several areas of disadvantage, to support both the application and decision-making processes, when subjective information is unable to be obtained.

The project is directed by a Committee comprised of representatives of key stakeholders in the criminal justice system (including the NSW Public Defenders, NSW Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) Limited and Legal Aid NSW), the judiciary (including the Supreme Court of NSW, District Court of NSW, Local Court of NSW, ACT Magistrates Court and NSW Judicial Commission), legal academics (including senior academics from UNSW, ANU and UTS) and members of the private legal profession. Although the project originated and is based in NSW, the resources are designed for use across all Australian jurisdictions and the committee engages with stakeholders Australia-wide.

Who is the Bugmy Bar Book For?

It aims to promote greater understanding of the impacts within the legal profession and judiciary, with the key function being to assist in the preparation and presentation of evidence to establish the application of the sentencing principles in Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571.

The application of the materials in the Bugmy Bar Book can also be used in other contexts, including bail and mental health diversionary applications, various civil practice areas, coronial inquests and other inquisitorial jurisdictions.

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.