By Gemma Buckland

In recent decades, policymakers have become increasingly aware that our legal definition, which treats all people aged 18 years or older as adults, does not reflect the neurological process of maturation. Policymakers across all parts of the criminal justice system have recognised this although changes in practice are variable at best. There is now a considerable body of evidence on the maturation process and best practice in working with young adults (typically defined as those aged between 18 and 25 years old) in contact with the criminal justice system. This review looks at: What we understand about the development of the brain in young adulthood The implications for young adults involved in criminal behaviour The impact of trauma and Adverse Childhood Experiences on the maturation process The “age-crime curve” and the evidence about growing out of crime Implications for best practice working with young adults

London: CLINKS, 2025. 16p.

By Tyson Singh Kelsall and Jasmine Veark and Molly Beatrice a d

This commentary explores a recent shift in British Columbia's drug policy under a novel drug “decriminalization” framework. We focus on the province's move toward "recriminalization" under this framework. In short, recriminalization was a shift in BC's drug decriminalization framework to only apply in private residences, and be removed from essentially all outdoor spaces. This policy change was completed through an agreement with the federal government amid a public health emergency. Since 2016, BC has faced a severe crisis of drug-related overdoses and poisonings, driven by a toxic and unregulated drug supply compounded by prohibitionist policies. Expert recommendations for increasing access to a regulated drug supply have repeatedly dismissed as solutions by the governing BC New Democratic Party, opting instead for measures that do not undercut the toxic drug supply. We examine the sociolegal context of the BC government decision to recriminalize drug use in 2024, including attempts to criminalize recent drug use and police suspicion of substance use. These drug law reforms, understood here as forms of biopolitical violence, reflect a broader trend of using drug policies as tools for social and spatial regulation. By analyzing the sociolegal implications of these policies, the commentary situates the BC government's actions within a framework of sanctioned biopolitical massacre, highlighting the tension between purported decriminalization efforts and the actual enforcement strategies that perpetuate harm and exclusion. This examination underscores the complex interplay between drug policy, public health crises, and state power in the context of systemic colonial and racialized control that may be adaptable to other regions considering drug law reform.

International Journal of Drug Policy

Volume 136, February 2025, 104688

By BRANDON L. GARRETT, ERIC TUCKER & NICHOLAS SCURICH

Firearms violence results in hundreds of thousands of criminal investigations each year. To try to identify a culprit, firearms examiners seek to link fired shell casings or bullets from crime scene evidence to a particular firearm. The underlying assumption is that firearms impart unique marks on bullets and cartridge cases, and that trained examiners can identify these marks to determine which were fired by the same gun. For over a hundred years, firearms examiners have testified that they can conclusively identify the source of a bullet or cartridge case. In recent years, however, research scientists have called into question the validity and reliability of such testimony. Judges largely did not view such testimony with increased skepticism after the Supreme Court set out standards for screening expert evidence in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Instead, the surge in judicial rulings came more than a decade later, particularly after reports by scientists shed light on limitations of the evidence. In this Article, we detail over a century of case law and examine how judges have engaged with the changing practice and scientific understanding of firearms comparison evidence. We first describe how judges initially viewed firearms comparison evidence skeptically and hought jurors capable of making firearms comparisons themselves— without an expert. Next, judges embraced the testimony of experts who offered more specific and aggressive claims, and the work spread nationally. Finally, we explore the modern era of firearms case law and research. Judges increasingly express skepticism and adopt a range of approaches to limit in-court testimony by firearms examiners. In December 2023, Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence was amended, for the first time in over twenty years, specifically due to the Rules Committee’s concern with the quality of federal rulings regarding forensic evidence, as well as the failure to engage with the ways that forensic experts express conclusions in court. There is perhaps no area in which judges, especially federal judges, have been more active than in the area of firearms evidence. Thus, the judging of firearms evidence has central significance for the direction that scientific evidence gatekeeping may take under the revised Rule 702 in federal, and then state courts. We conclude by examining lessons regarding the gradual judicial shift toward a more scientific approach. The more-than-a-century-long arc of judicial review of firearms evidence in the United States suggests that, over time, scientific research can displace tradition and precedent to improve the quality of justice.

97 S. Cal. L. Rev. 101, 2024.

By Roland Neil, and Michael Zanger-Tishler

There is great concern about algorithmic racial bias in the risk assessment instruments (RAIs) used in the criminal legal system. When testing for algorithmic bias, most research effectively uses arrest data as an unbiased measure of criminal offending, which collides with longstanding concerns that arrest is a biased proxy of offending. Given the centrality of arrest data in RAIs, racial differences in how arrest proxies offending may be a key pathway through which RAIs become biased. In this review, we evaluate the extensive body of research on racial differences in arrest as a measure of crime. Furthermore, we detail several ways that racial bias in arrest records could create algorithmic bias, although little research has attempted to measure the degree of algorithmic bias generated by using racially biased arrest records. We provide a roadmap to assist future research in understanding the impact of biased arrest records on RAIs.

Annual Review of Criminology, Vol. 8:97-119 January 2025)

By  Elise Ferguson,  Daniel Goldberg,  Paul Guerin

This study examines the validity of the judicial designee assessment (JDA), an assessment tool used in Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court for select misdemeanor cases. We review specifically the ability to predict the likelihood of an individual committing a new crime, committing new violent crime, and failing to appear at a future court hearing during their pretrial period. Validity is reviewed for race and gender. Additional research is included that provides a preliminary look at the use of the JDA for charges that would typically not have qualified for assessment.

Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, Institute for Social Research, 2023. 25p.

By Paul Guerin

This study reviews felony court cases in the Second Judicial District Court with a Public Safety Assessment (PSA) and a pretrial detention (PTD) motion filed between July 2017 and June 2023. The dataset of 6,698 cases includes court data and jail data that is used to study the cases from the filing of the case to the court disposition. It is important to note this review includes the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic likely had some impact on case filings, time to case dispositions, and jails admissions and lengths of stay. This review found that a slightly higher percent of court cases on which a preventive detention motion was filed was granted compared to denied motions. The study confirms other research that cases with higher FTA and NCA scores are more likely to have granted motions and that motions were most likely to be filed on cases with violent charges. We found 55% of closed cases had a conviction and were sentenced and that 43.5% were dismissed or nolled and so did not result in a conviction. Cases with denied preventive detention motions spent few days in the MDC regardless of their disposition. Cases with a granted motion that were eventually dismissed or nolled spent slightly more than 120 days in the MDC and a similar number of days in the court system. Dismissals and nolles occur at the case level for a variety of reasons including uncooperative witnesses, lack of probable cause, and because some cases might be refiled in the Federal court system. Various criminal justice system level reasons may also exist. This includes the volume of crime and arrests with resulting court case filings, the complexity of cases, and staffing among the various agencies. This preliminary review of preventive detention motion cases in the Second Judicial District Court is the first of its kind to report on the disposition of cases with a preventive detention motion. In the future more sophisticated and detailed analyses and reporting could occur that further detail the relationship between PSA scores, preventive detention motions and results, and court case dispositions.

Albuquerque: Center for Applied Research and Analysis, Institute for Social Research, University of New Mexico , 2024. 13p.

By Alex Severson,  Elise Ferguson,  Cris Moore, Paul Guerin, 

This study analyzes the costs and benefits of pretrial detention in Bernalillo County, New Mexico, examining 16,500 felony cases filed between January 2017 and March 2022. The analysis evaluates the relationship between pretrial detention length and failure outcomes, including failure to appear (FTA), new criminal activity (NCA), and new violent criminal activity (NVCA), both during the pretrial period and post-disposition. The study found that longer detention periods (8-30 days) were associated with significantly higher odds of pretrial failure compared to shorter stays, particularly for failure to appear, though this relationship varied by demographic groups. For post-disposition outcomes, moderate detention lengths (4-30 days) were associated with increased odds of general recidivism but decreased odds of violent recidivism. Using marginal cost estimates rather than average daily jail costs, we estimate that reducing detention length to two days for eligible low-risk defendants who did not fail pretrial could yield cost savings of approximately $259,722 annually. The study contributes to ongoing debates about pretrial detention policies by demonstrating that extended detention periods may increase certain failure rates while generating substantial system costs. However, the analysis notes important limitations, including inability to fully control for post-disposition sentencing outcomes and the challenge of establishing causal relationships between detention length and failure rates. 

Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, Institute for Social Research, 2024.40p.

By Kristine Denman and Ella Siegrist

Felony criminal cases in New Mexico progress through multiple steps. New Mexico has a two-tiered system. Cases are typically initiated in the lower courts and bound over to the district court for felony prosecution after a finding of probable cause. Not all cases are bound over, however, and whether adjudication occurs is dependent on decisions made along the way. These decisions influence the trajectory and outcomes of the case. Prosecutors play a key role in this process. They decide whether to file charges against a particular defendant in a criminal case; which charges to pursue; whether to file felony charges, and if so, whether to pursue a finding of probable cause via preliminary examination or grand jury (if available); and whether to offer a plea bargain. These prosecutorial decisions, though, are not the only factors that influence this trajectory. Other factors, including court resources, judicial decision-making, defense decisions, and witness cooperation all play a role. Further, restrictions imposed due to COVID-19 altered some court processes. All of these factors can also influence the time that it takes to reach resolution on a court case. The current report is a part of a multi-part study on criminal case progression in the state of New Mexico. This report tracks the progression and outcomes of a sample of felony court cases initiated in magistrate and metropolitan courts across the state between January of 2017 and June of 2021. It also explores time to disposition and how the charges associated with a case change as the case progresses through the courts. 

Albuquerque: New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center 2024. 86p.

By Kristine Denman and Caitlyn Sandoval

Since its inception, the United States has used the grand jury system. Grand juries are an independent group of citizens whose job is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to charge an individual with a crime, thereby ensuring that the prosecutor does not abuse their discretion. Legal scholars, though, have long raised concerns about the use of grand juries. At least as early as the 1800s, scholars and others have questioned whether the practice should be abolished. They cite concerns that, in practice, not only are grand juries costly, they also do not result in the intended protections (see, e.g., Kinghorn, 1881; Younger, 1955). Despite this long-standing controversy, the criminal justice system continues to use grand juries at the federal level and in jurisdictions across the United States, including in New Mexico. In 2018, however, the Bernalillo County District Court (the largest judicial district in New Mexico) reported that they would be limiting the number of grand juries held from approximately 20 times per month to six (Guadaro, August 6, 2018). Proponents in New Mexico argue that preliminary examinations—the alternative to grand jury—are more transparent, cost-effective, and lead to improved case outcomes among cases that proceed to district court, mirroring many of the same arguments made nationally and historically. Opponents, on the other hand, argue that in the long run, preliminary examinations are not cost-effective and may have an adverse effect on crime (ibid). The purpose of the current study is to understand the processing of felony cases in New Mexico and the influence of prosecutorial discretion in that process. Specifically, the study explores case initiation type and whether this is associated with the ultimate disposition of cases. Further, the study reviews the efficiency of preliminary examinations. Finally, we examine whether offense type, jurisdiction, and COVID-19-related restrictions are related to these decisions and procedures.   

Albuquerque: New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center , 2023. 62p.

By Robin Joy

From 2015-2019 Black people in Vermont were more likely to experience violent crime than White people in Vermont. This paper explores the circumstances and the criminal justice system response to violent crime against Black individuals. To do so, we use two data sources: the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) and the Vermont Court Adjudication Database maintained by the Crime Research Group (CRG). This paper focuses on the experience of Black victims1 and mentions White victims only when there is a divergence in patterns or responses that highlight specific policy needs to reduce Black victimization. For example, efforts to reduce violence against women will have lesser impact on Black victimization. This is because Black men make up the majority of Black victims of violence. White women make up the majority of victims of White victims of violence. This will be discussed more fully below. It is mentioned here to frame the readers’ attention as to when White victimization is referenced and when focusing policy discussions on Black experiences will benefit all Vermonters.   

Montpelier: Crime Research Group, 2022/ 12p.

By Robin Joy

 This brief explores female offenders and court processing in Vermont. The brief draws on three sources: the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) accessed via the Crime Data Explorer (CDE), which captures crimes reported to the police, the Court Adjudication Database maintained by Crime Research Group (CRG), and Criminal Histories maintained by Vermont Crime Information Center (VCIC). These data cover different aspects of the criminal justice process. Please refer to the Criminal Justice Data Pyramid submitted with this document and found on the CRG website. Highlights: • Women are likely to be arrested for assault and larceny offenses. • Violation of bail conditions and drug possession charges drive incarceration for women. • Black women are overrepresented in arrests and sentences to incarceration. • Washington and Windham counties send the most women to prison. • Women starting a sentence of incarceration in 2023 were an average age of 38 and had spent about 10% of their lives (3.5 years) incarcerated. • Probation Violations, Violation of Conditions of Release (Bail), and Escape from Furlough are some of the more common crimes women serve incarceration for.  

Montpelier: Vermont Crime Research Group. 2024. 16p.

By Guha Krishnamurthi

We are in the age of the Data State. Increasingly capable artificial intelligences, equipped with vast amounts of data, will integrate into every aspect of our lives. Penal systems are no exception-algorithms are already being deployed in criminal investigations, bail determinations, and sentencing decisions. Thinkers of all stripes-including scholars, activists, and science-fiction authors-have warned us of the dire consequences of such algorithmic criminal systems. Philip K. Dick's Minority Report presaged an apocalyptic society predicting and preemptively punishing criminal behavior. Minority Report featured precognitives-or "precogs"-individuals that had psychic ability to predict premeditated murders. Today, we are warned, algorithms are the new precogs, with an uncannily accurate but impenetrable method of determining the future. And we can expect that society will pervasively use such predictions to pre-punish individuals. Our societal desire to stop criminal wrongs will come at the heavy cost of our freedom. Understandably, this has led people to stridently oppose the use of algorithmic criminal systems. In this Article, I proffer a vision of how to integrate algorithms into criminal systems that aims to enhance, rather than curtail, our freedom and minimize the reach of the draconian criminal law. Consider a simple example: Jaywalking. Under the Minority Report view, police would use algorithms to predict jaywalkers and ticket them preemptively. But under an alternative system, algorithms would predict vehicle movement, and allow people to cross the street safely whenever they wish. Similarly, an algorithmic criminal system could probabilistically predict the occurrence of other crimes, including violent crimes, and first deploy alternative interventions to stop the crime while zealously avoiding penal responses.

From these examples, the Article derives the Liberty-Enhancing View, with a concrete set of principles for implementing an algorithmic criminal system: First, algorithmic systems should seek to avoid imposing punishment on individuals. Second, algorithms should seek to eliminate pretextual, intrusive conduct by the government. Third, algorithms should seek to eliminate malum prohibitum laws, through superior coordination. Fourth, algorithms should seek to eliminate inchoate liabilities. And fifth, algorithms should not seek to discover and punish bad character of individuals, especially through criminalizing inchoate conduct. This Liberty-Enhancing View does not seek to shelter the penal system from algorithms. Instead, it focuses our use of algorithms to advance the principles underlying our criminal justice system, with the aspiration of eliminating the harms of the penal state.

Houston Law Review, 2025, 56p.

By Ethan Lowens

Many of the most widely discussed and influential criminal legal reform proposals of the last several years, including "defund the police," "no new jails," and plea strikes, are resource attacks. Resource attacks reduce the footprint of the criminal legal system by creating an imbalance between the resources available to it and the resources it needs to continue status quo operations. Forced into a resource crunch, the theory goes, institutions such as the police, prosecutors, and criminal courts will triage and scale back. There is substantial evidence that resource attacks can, and have, meaningfully reduced incarceration, misdemeanor prosecutions, and executions. Yet, despite their effectiveness, popularity, and political influence, resource attacks presently exist without a name or identity in the criminal legal scholarship. This article fills that gap, beginning with a definition and a catalog of resource attack case studies and proposals. The catalog includes a novel case study: in 2020, New York rewrote its discovery law to impose substantial new burdens on prosecutors. Prosecutors were quickly overwhelmed-following the law's implementation, the rate of dismissals of misdemeanor cases in New York City jumped from 32.6% of cases just prior to reform to 55.2% after. Resource attacks can deliver tremendous impact quickly and at low political cost. However, their effects are often temporary as affected institutions adapt to constraints or secure additional funding. Resource attacks can even backfire, forming the foundation for a bigger, more destructive criminal legal system. The article concludes with guidance for architects of prospective resource attacks: they should tailor their plans to a jurisdiction's particular legal and institutional features, prepare to stay engaged well after their intervention's launch, and promote statutory changes that make the temporary effects of a resource attack permanent.

 N.Y.U. Review of Law & Social Change Volume 47, Issue 4, 2025, pp. 479-538 pages

The Blackstone Commentaries on Criminal Law are part of Sir William Blackstone's influential 18th-century work, Commentaries on the Laws of England. This comprehensive treatise, published between 1765 and 1769, is divided into four volumes. The fourth volume, "Of Public Wrongs," focuses on criminal law. The other volumes are "Of the Rights of Persons," "Of the Rights of Things," and "Of Private Wrongs. "”

In "Of Public Wrongs," Blackstone provides a detailed examination of the criminal laws of England, aiming to demonstrate their justice and mercy. Despite the severe penalties of the time, later known as the "Bloody Code," Blackstone's work sought to rationalize and justify the legal system's approach to crime and punishment.

The Commentaries were groundbreaking for their readability and accessibility, making complex legal principles understandable to a broader audience. They played a significant role in the development of both British and American legal systems and continue to be referenced in legal education and court decision

By The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Arkansas Advisory Committee

On January 19, 2024, the Arkansas Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights adopted a proposal to study the right to counsel for indigent defendants in Arkansas. The focus of the Committee’s inquiry was to examine the role public defenders play in ensuring equal protection of the laws in the administration of justice. The Committee considered public investment and funding available to support the right to counsel for those who cannot afford it and the impact such counsel (or the lack thereof) may have on persistent disparities throughout the criminal justice system based on race, color, sex, disability, and national origin.

Washington, DC: USCCR, 2024. 27p.

May Contain Markup

By Herschel, William J., Sir

Historical Development: The document details the origins of fingerprinting, highlighting Sir William J. Herschel's pioneering work in the 19th century.

Practical Applications: Herschel's use of fingerprints for identification of various official capacities, such as criminal courts and pension verification, is emphasized.

Scientific Validation: The document discusses the permanence of fingerprint patterns over time, which Herschel confirmed through repeated experiments.

Influence and Legacy: Herschel's work laid the foundation for modern fingerprint classification systems, further developed by Sir Francis Galtonand & Sir Edward Richard Henry.

DigiCat, Nov 22, 2022, 112 pages

By Minnesota Senate,  Joint Transportation and Judiciary and Public Safety Committee Minnesota Senate

After George Floyd’s death, Minnesota experienced an unprecedented series of riots (primarily in the Twin Cities area) that included arson, vandalism, looting, homicides, and assaults. As these riots grew, local law enforcement and law enforcement from around the state were so completely over whelmed it was necessary to activate the entire contingent of the Minnesota National Guard in order to restore law and order. Activation of the full Minnesota National Guard had not occurred since World War II. Lives were lost,  over 1,500 businesses and buildings were burned, approximately $500 million in property damage occurred, and community morale was deeply affected. As a result of these events, the Minnesota Senate convened several joint committee hearings consisting of members from the Transportation Finance and Policy Committee and the Judiciary and Public Safety Finance and Policy and Finance Committee (the Joint Committee). The Joint Committee’s purpose was to compile the facts, reach conclusions regarding the efficiency of state and local governments’ responses, and make recommendations to prevent similar catastrophes in the future. As the hearings progressed and the facts were examined, a theme emerged highlighting the response of both the state and local governments and their respective elected officials. The main themes that led the Joint Committee to the conclusions and recommendations found in this report were: 1. Failure to Lead: Executive leadership at the state and local level failed to distinguish between demonstrators and rioters. Furthermore, leaders failed to provide the guidance Minnesotans expect from their offices. 2. Philosophical Conflict Caused a Hesitation to Confront Ideological Allies: Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and elected local leaders identified with the causes promoted by the demonstrators, causing them to lose sight of their responsibility to protect the public from criminal acts committed during the riots. 3. Underestimation of the Escalation and Organization of the Riots: Governor Walz did not realize the severity of events as they unfolded, resulting in a delayed reaction and increased violence. 4. Refusal to Confront Criminal Violence with Force: Governor Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey initially chose to negotiate with and appease the rioters rather than give law enforcement the authority to confront criminal acts with enough force to restore law and order. A primary responsibility of the Office of the Governor of the State of Minnesota and local elected officials is to protect the public. Inaction on the part of state and local officials led to an increase in violence.  This summary is based on evidence presented to the Joint Committee and throughout this report. The Joint Committee’s conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are supported by over 350 fact citations from hearings, press conferences, news articles, data practice requests, and written testimony.  

St. Paul: Joint Transportation and Judiciary and Public Safety Committee Minnesota Senate, 2020. 61p.

By Matthew B Robinson

The book provides a thorough summary of the relationships between race, ethnicity, crime, and justice practice and discusses the existence of disparities in criminal and juvenile justice practices and highlights the impact of race and ethnicity on the law, policing, courts, and corrections.It addresses the issue of institutionalized discrimination against different racial and ethnic groups in American institutions, including the criminal law and mainstream media.

Carolina Academic Press, 2021, 317 pages

By Joanna R. Lampe

Federal law generally prohibits the production, distribution, and possession of marijuana for both medical
and recreational purposes. In April 2024, news outlets reported that the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA) planned to change the status of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) by moving
it from Schedule I to the less restrictive Schedule III. Such a move would relax some controls over
marijuana but would not immediately legalize medical or recreational use of marijuana under the CSA.
Notwithstanding the strict federal control of marijuana, in recent years, many states have repealed state
law criminal prohibitions on some marijuana-related activities, and medical and recreational cannabis
businesses now operate openly in some parts of the United States.
In response to the disparity between state and federal law, Congress has enacted appropriations legislation
prohibiting the Department of Justice (DOJ) from expending appropriated funds to prevent states from
implementing their own medical marijuana laws. Federal courts have interpreted the appropriations rider
to prohibit DOJ from bringing criminal drug prosecutions against certain persons and entities involved in
the state-legal medical marijuana industry, but they have differed as to the scope of conduct the rider
shields from prosecution.
This Legal Sidebar first outlines the legal status of marijuana under federal and state law. It then discusses
the medical marijuana appropriations rider and analyzes how federal courts have interpreted the
provision. The Sidebar closes with key considerations for Congress related to the appropriations rider and
the disparity between federal and state marijuana policy more generally.
Federal and State Marijuana Regulation
The plant Cannabis sativa L. and products derived from that plant have a number of uses and may be
subject to several overlapping legal regimes. In recent years, a significant divide has developed between
federal and state marijuana laws. On the federal side, the CSA imposes stringent regulations on the
cannabis plant and many of its derivatives. Activities involving controlled substances not authorized
under the CSA are federal crimes that may give rise to large fines and significant prison sentences.
Unless an exception applies, the CSA classifies cannabis and its derivatives as marijuana. Congress
classified marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance when it enacted the CSA, reflecting a legislative

Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2024. 5p.

By Megan Comfort, Jenn Rineer, Elizabeth Tibaduiza, and Monica Sheppard

The “pretrial process” refers to the events that happen between the time that one is suspected by law enforcement of violating the law and the time that charges are dismissed, the case is otherwise resolved, or the trial process begins. During the pretrial period, people are considered innocent under the law. The U.S. Supreme Court1 has stated, “In our society, liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception.” The only two constitutionally valid reasons for holding someone in jail during the pretrial period are (1) to prevent flight or (2) to prevent harm to people in the community. Judges make decisions every day about whether to detain or release people going through the pretrial process, as well as about what conditions of release may be needed to help people succeed. Pretrial release assessments are designed to inform their decisions. Unlike assessments that involve a clinician or other professional drawing on their subjective expertise to make a recommendation, actuarial pretrial release assessmentsa rely on mathematical processes. Using large data sets with information about people who previously went through the pretrial process, researchers identify factors related to appearing for court hearings and not being arrested again if released. The researchers then create a sequence of instructions for a computer to follow (called an algorithm) that uses these factors to calculate an estimated likelihood that a person will appear in court and remain arrest free while their case is being resolved. This calculation—referred to as a “score”—is provided to the judge as information to consider when making decisions about pretrial release. A person’s score is also often provided as information to other courtroom actors, such as prosecutors, defense attorneys, and pretrial services officers. When thinking about actuarial pretrial release assessments, it is important to understand the history of the criminal legal system in the United States, which is deeply rooted in the legacy of slavery. Read Race and the Criminal Justice System2 by the Equal Justice Initiative to learn more. No actuarial pretrial release assessment tool or instrument is considered standard. Numerous assessments have been developed, and they vary in terms of the factors and instructions entered in the algorithm. Some use factors that are available through criminal legal system records, such as whether someone has been arrested before or has previously missed a court date. Others include factors like whether someone has a job, is enrolled in a substance use treatment program, or has a place to live. This information is usually obtained by talking with the person who has been arrested. At the time of this writing, pretrial release assessments use algorithms that are created by humans as opposed to ones that are generated by machine learning or artificial intelligence (AI). It is possible that future assessments will rely on AI, which would raise a different set of issues to consider. The use of actuarial pretrial release assessments is growing across the United States. Often, they are an element of broader system change aimed at reducing or eliminating the use of cash bonds, which require people to post money to be released from jail. Judges may consider the actuarial pretrial release assessment score when deciding what conditions of release—for instance, electronic monitoring or mandatory check-ins with pretrial services—are appropriate for a person. In systems that retain money bond as a potential release condition, assessments are sometimes used to inform decisions about bond amounts, but the impact on release is lessened if people remain in jail because they cannot afford to pay their way out. Judges may also use the score as part of their decision about whether to keep someone in jail or release them while their case is pending

APPR Research Brief, April 2024. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International, 2024. 5p.