By Ireland. Department of Health, Ireland. Department of Justice

It is increasingly recognised that the criminal justice system and in particular prison are not suitable to address the specific needs and challenges of those with mental health and drug addictions. The two reports of the Interdepartmental Group (IDG) to examine issues relating to people with mental illness who come in contact with the Criminal Justice System (dating from 2012 and 2018) contain recommendations on addressing the issues around this complex challenge. The Programme for Government: Our Shared Future is committed to the establishment of a Task Force to consider the mental health and addiction issues of persons in prison and primary care support on release. It also acknowledged the recent Mental Health Policy Sharing the Vision (StV) and committed to establishing the National Implementation and Monitoring Committee to oversee this work. The task force had three subgroups focused on three key elements to holistically meet these needs going forward; One subgroup, on Diversion, chaired by a member of An Garda Síochána, focused on diverting individuals with mental illness who have committed minor offences from progressing into the criminal justice system, in the best interests of both the public and the individual concerned. A second subgroup, on Irish Prison Service/Central Mental Hospital Capacity, which was chaired by an Irish Prison Service Director, examined the existing and future needs of individuals within the custodial criminal justice system. The objective of this group was to ensure that there is adequate provision of services to meet the mental health and dual diagnosis needs of those in prison. A third subgroup  examined community issues and through-care upon release from custody, and was chaired by the Director of the Probation Service. The objective of this group was to ensure that there are sufficient safeguards in place and adequate provision of services to prevent individuals from relapsing into damaging behaviours undermining the rehabilitative efforts made by the individual and the State. Overall, the Taskforce has put forward 61 recommendations which emphasise the shared responsibility of a number of Government Departments and agencies to deliver on meeting the needs of those with mental health and addiction challenges who come into contact with the criminal justice system.

Key actions include:

• Progressive and empathetic approach by Gardaí to dealing with offenders with mental health and addiction challenges, informed by mental health and addiction awareness training for Gardaí 

• Efficient and effective means of implementing a prosecution avoidance policy when Garda members come in contact with adults with mental illness and addiction, through the adult caution scheme

• The establishment of a pilot specialist dual diagnosis service to support prisoners with a mental health condition and substance misuse in a prison, to inform roll-out across the entire prison estate

• Access to tiered mental health supports that are recovery-oriented for every person with mental health difficulties coming into contact with the forensic system

• Reducing attrition by maintaining engagement and motivation at the point of release, including through the use of community-agreed discharge plans for prisoners (identifying multi-agency supports required).

  Dublin: Department of Health; Department of Justice.2022. 231p.

By Tirion Havard, Sarah Bartley, Ian Mahoney,  Chris Magill,  Chris Flood

This research was funded by the Nuffield Foundation and the British Academy, as part of their Understanding Communities programme. The research involved collaboration between four higher-education institutions, namely London South Bank University, The Royal Central School of Speech and Drama, Nottingham Trent University and the University of Brighton. Partnerships were also formed with local and national organisations, including Clean Break Theatre Company, Restoke and Staffordshire Women’s Aid. The research focused on two communities: women with convictions (WwC) in Staffordshire and residents of Stoke-on-Trent. It used a mixed methodological approach that involved designing and delivering an arts-based transformative justice (TJ) intervention, undertaking ethnographic observations, running focus groups and conducting interviews with TJ experts. The overarching aims of this project were to see: • if TJ can effectively facilitate social cohesion and promote equality within local communities (for the purposes of this research, ‘equality’ is appraised by exploring strengths, assets, attributes, connectedness, enhanced individual welfare and social well-being); • if TJ can effectively support WwC to reintegrate and resettle into their local communities. To achieve these aims, we set out to explore and meet the following objectives: i. Identify the needs of and barriers faced by WwC when they try to resettle/reintegrate into their local community. ii. Identify and activate the strengths, assets and attributes that local communities can bring to the reintegration and engagement of WwC. iii. Determine the suitability of an arts-based approach to TJ for improving community cohesion. iv. Establish whether TJ can support the reintegration of WwC into their local community by making them feel stronger, more equal and more connected, and assess the broader impact this has on community cohesion. v. Establish whether TJ can enhance individual welfare and social well-being for both WwC and local residents and measure the costeffectiveness of the approach. vi.Inform policy and practice about the needs of WwC and how best to meet them through community-led interventions. vii. Contribute to the literature and knowledge base about using TJ to engage and integrate communities within a UK context. viii. Promote the personal and professional development of all those involved in the project. As a conceptual framework, TJ focuses on overcoming ingrained social and structural barriers to engagement and justice issues including the social, political and economic status of communities and the individuals within them. In focusing on community accountability for crime, victimisation and subsequent support for victims and people convicted of offences, TJ recognises that patriarchal social structures can legitimise violence, particularly towards women, and that the state, in this case the criminal justice system (CJS), perpetuates cycles of abuse and (re) traumatises people. TJ is vital for understanding and exploring societal attitudes to justice, and to engage with difficult conversations around the role that communities can play in addressing the harms associated with the actions of people within them  

Lonron; Nuffield Foundation, 2024. 86p.

By  Alabama Appleseed Center for Law & Justice

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) provides additional funding to law enforcement agencies implementing programs to deter dangerous driving. As a condition, agencies must report the number of traffic stop warnings and tickets issued to the state’s STEP grant administrator. Agencies risk reduced funding if found to be not “productive” by issuing a sufficient amount of citations. Police departments in Alabama use these federal grants to drive economic sanctions by paying patrol officers overtime to be “productive” and rewarding the “most active” officers with more overtime at the end of the year; those found to be not “productive” face suspension from the program in some departments. Using municipal budgets and audits, legal records of those ticketed and arrested over court debt, and federal and state grant data, this report examines the incentives that drive policing decisions in Alabama and highlights how traffic stops–primarily regulatory and economic stops–harm low-wealth people. The report also includes personal accounts of individuals who faced court debt and provides recommendations for law enforcement, courts, and lawmakers.

Key Findings:

68 percent of law enforcement agencies statewide that received STEP funding issued more warnings to speeders than to drivers with car insurance violations —who instead received tickets.Cleburne County adds an additional $30 fee to the base of their fines for planning, designing, constructing, furnishing, equipping, and financing a county jail.Findings from two municipal budgets showed revenue from fines and fees is volatile.In 2021, the Anniston Police Department was twice as likely to issue tickets for an insurance violation than a warning when compared to those stopped for speeding.  Drivers who miss enough payments or court appearances are issued a suspended driver’s license and an order for arrest.

Recommendations:

Alabama police departments should look into how the prioritization of moving violations over equipment and regulatory stops by the Fayetteville Police Department in North Carolina has reduced traffic fatalities, injuries, and racial disparities.Courts should hold ability to pay hearings before ordering an arrest or placing a person on payment plans.Lawmakers should require publicly available reporting on all traffic stops.

Alabama Appleseed Center for Law & Justice, 2023. 36p.

By The National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform

After the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, violence surged nationwide. Responding to the urgent need to address gun violence, the White House encouraged jurisdictions across the country to use a portion of their federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) allocations to fund violence intervention. President Joe Biden hosted a series of meetings at the White House with experts in the community violence intervention (CVI) field and launched the Community Violence Intervention Collaborative (CVIC), which provided technical assistance (TA) and funding to local CVI groups in 16 cities. The National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (NICJR) was a partner in CVIC. NICJR is also the convener of the National Offices of Violence Prevention Network (NOVPN), a firstof-its-kind learning community launched in 2021 as a space to build the expertise and capacity of OVPs and other similar agencies. The NOVPN was founded by NICJR and partners with a membership of 21 established OVPs. Since then, it has grown to more than 45 agencies (including several established with NOVPN support). NICJR also provides tailored training and technical assistance to cities, counties, and states across the US as they work to understand the nature of their local gun violence problem and enact proven, community-focused strategies to reduce that violence. In many cases, this work has been funded through ARPA dollars. As a result, NICJR is deeply aware of the impact of ARPA funding, as well as the challenges that communities face in ensuring the sustainability of violence reduction work, as these federal funds must be obligated by the end of 2024. The following report provides a snapshot of ARPA funds—including the use, impact, and potential for sustainability—in four jurisdictions: two cities, one county, and one state.   

NICJR, 2023. 11p.

By Mike Males

Media reports, politicians, and law enforcement lobbies are manufacturing a false picture of crime as Californians prepare to vote. Backers of anti-justice reform policies are falsely blaming liberal reforms and prosecutors for a non-existent “crime wave.” The anti-reform campaign is also exploiting public anger that retail thieves are “getting away with crime,” while the media fails to hold law enforcement and conservative jurisdictions accountable for their own failed practices. California’s criminal justice statistics (BSCC 2024; CDCR 2024; DOJ 2024) clearly show: 1) California’s 23 Republican-voting counties* consistently suffer worse trends in murder, violent crime, gun violence, and drug abuse than the 25 Democratic-voting counties or the 10 counties with mixed-voting patterns. 2) California’s conservative inland and rural counties suffer the state’s worst homicide trends. 3) All counties show similar property crime trends and rates. 4) California’s liberal counties2 have gotten tougher on crime, especially in the post-2010 reform era, incarcerating a greater share of people arrested – even though conservative counties have long incarcerated a greater share of their overall populations. 5) The real reason the public has the impression that retail thieves are “getting away with crime” is not reforms, but because law enforcement in all jurisdictions, regardless of politics, are making arrests in far fewer crimes today than 30 years ago. Law enforcement’s plunging “crime clearance rate” will be detailed in an upcoming report. 

San Francisco; Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2024. 7p.  

By Irene Oritseweyinmi Joe and  Ben Miller 

Public defenders are tasked with the unenviable job of representing some of the most vulnerable people in society when they are accused of crimes. At the same time, public defenders receive little thanks for protecting the marginalized and instead face insurmountable odds with insufficient resources and limited public support. Premal Dharia, founder and director of the Defender Impact Initiative, said, “Public defenders are on the front lines of the devastation wrought by our system of mass criminalization and they are guided by an unwavering dedication to the very people being devastated.” As the coronavirus ravages communities, courtrooms, jails, and prisons, public defenders are now indispensable to confronting the epidemic. While not medical professionals, public defenders are the front line, often the only line, between their clients and incarceration. Since jails and prisons have become hotbeds of COVID-19, with infection rates exponentially larger than the general population, public defenders have the added task of not just protecting their clients’ rights, but also, in many cases, their lives. Dan Engelberg, the chief of the trial division for the Orleans Parish Public Defender in Louisiana, aptly characterized the efforts of public defenders nationwide over the last few weeks as “heroic and tireless” as they strive to protect the health, humanity, and lives of their clients. The Justice Collaborative Institute asked nearly 200 public defenders from across the country how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted their work and personal lives. The responses are revealing. Nearly half, as of April 2, 2020, reported clients incarcerated in correctional facilities with at least one confirmed case of COVID-19. Over 80%  did not think their local court systems were doing enough to protect the health and safety of their clients. (See Appendix for results from the questionnaire). Their concerns went beyond the spread of disease. Public defenders expressed anger over the perceived lack of empathy for their clients’ health, frustration with the many officials who treat their clients’ rights as disposable, and mental distress over the impact the virus is having on their clients, their loved ones, and themselves. Taken together, their responses form a powerful argument in support of policies, also popular among voters, to dramatically and urgently reduce jail and prison populations in response to COVID-19. The frontline accounts of public defenders reveal that far too many people in positions of authority continue to undermine public health and safety by processing far too many people daily into the criminal legal system, while at the same time failing to protect the millions of people behind bars. By doing so, they continue to place the lives of millions—people incarcerated at correctional facilities, people who go to work there, and people who live in surrounding communities—at grave risk. Law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and politicians should work with public defenders and urgently adopt policies to limit arrests, expand the use of cite and release, end cash bail, dismiss cases instead of needlessly dragging them out, and release as many people as possible from incarceration who do not reasonably pose a risk to public safety. Such steps can all be taken right now and are options public defenders across the country are advocating for, placing their personal health at risk in many cases, to do so.  

Davis, CA: UC Davis School of Law, 2020. 48p. 

By Christopher Dowling, Anthony Morgan and Kamarah Pooley

This study examines reoffending among 1,092 male offenders proceeded against for a child sexual offence in New South Wales between 2004 and 2013, including 863 child sexual assault offenders, 196 child abuse material offenders and 33 procurement/ grooming offenders. Seven percent of child sexual offenders sexually reoffended within 10 years of their first police proceeding for a child sexual offence, while 42 percent non-sexually reoffended. Risk of sexual and non-sexual reoffending was highest in the first two years. Child sexual assault offenders were the most likely to reoffend non-sexually, while procurement/grooming offenders were the most likely to reoffend sexually. There was evidence of transition to other sexual offence types, but this varied between groups. Indigenous status, history of offending and the number of child sexual offences emerged as important predictors of reoffending, although risk profiles varied between offender types

Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 628. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. 2021. 16p.

By Troy Allard,  Molly McCarthy and Anna Stewart

Reducing Indigenous overrepresentation in the criminal justice system is justified on both social justice and economic grounds. We developed an innovative costing framework and estimated direct criminal justice system unit costs based on critical cost drivers. These estimates were applied to offender trajectories, modelling offences of all individuals registered as being born in Queensland during 1983–1984 (from ages 10 to 31). Separate trajectory models were developed for Indigenous and non-Indigenous Queenslanders in the birth cohort to enable separate cost estimations for these groups. Findings identified over one-half (53%) of the identified Indigenous cohort and 16 percent of the non-Indigenous cohort had moderate to chronic offender trajectories. Because of the high levels of recontact and sanction seriousness and length, Indigenous offenders were on average more costly. These findings emphasise the high cost of current criminal justice system responses to Indigenous and chronic offenders in particular and the need to consider innovative and more cost-effective approaches to reduce offending by individuals in these groups.

Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 594. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2020. 17p.

By Fionnuala Ratcliffe and Penelope Gibbs

How easy are the magistrates’ courts to access, navigate and understand? This report seeks to answer that question, drawing on the experiences of 82 volunteer members of the public observing their local magistrates’ courts over six months in 2023. CourtWatch London was a mass court observation project where citizen volunteers observed magistrates’ court hearings and reported what they saw. From July to December 2023, a diverse group of 82 volunteer members of the public (court watchers) visited their local London magistrates’ courts armed with a booklet of observation forms and a small amount of training. Between them they observed over 1,100 hearings and reported on the treatment of defendants, the decision-making of magistrates and district judges, and their experiences of attending the magistrates’ court as a public observer. This report summarises courtwatchers’ experiences of trying to observe magistrates’ court hearings and the barriers they faced. Their reflections on the justice they saw delivered there and specifically how young adult defendants were treated, are reported on separately. The courts are in principle open to any who want to observe, for whatever reason. Despite this, volunteers were sometimes severely constrained by a court system that has deprioritized public access. For example, court watchers could not hear court proceedings from many of the public galleries. The response from court staff towards volunteers bringing this to their attention ranged from assistance to puzzlement to hostility. Our efforts to alert senior London court representatives to the issue seemed to go unnoticed. Courtwatchers should not have needed to justify their presence but were asked to do so all too frequently. Staff questioning of public observers may be well-intentioned, but had potential to intimidate an unconfident observer. Inaccurate court lists, poor sightlines and courtroom jargon also made it difficult for courtwatchers to work out what was happening. All this sends a message to public observers that you can be there, but it is not the court’s problem if you do not understand what is going on. This report includes recommendations for how the courts can become more open, including: sending ‘secret shoppers’ into courts to check accessibility for members of the public; auditing audibility in courtroom public galleries and fixing any problems this reveals; better and fuller court listings online and in paper; and training for court staff and judges to re-prioritise the principles of open justice.

London: Transform Justice, 2024. 23p.  

By Jennifer Ferone, Bryn Herrschaft, Kate Jassin, Cecilia Low-Weiner, Aimee Ouellet

Findings from a multiyear process evaluation of New York State legislation aimed at facilitating pretrial release and minimizing the use of cash bonds. Includes recommendations and lessons learned for future reform efforts both in and out of New York. The inequities inherent in this country’s criminal legal system have been well-documented. Research and evidence repeatedly show that socioeconomic circumstances affect how people fare at all points, with those who are economically disadvantaged and Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) faring disproportionately worse, such as higher rates of arrest and incarceration. The pretrial period—which is after a person is arrested and charged but before they have been convicted of any crime—is no exception to this trend. Disparities at this stage are particularly prevalent, having been exacerbated by the ever-expanding use of cash bail and pretrial detention across jurisdictions in recent decades. This has long-lasting implications: even one day in jail can lead to exposure to violence while incarcerated, and loss of housing and employment after release.1 In the past, efforts to reduce the harm caused by cash bail were often tied to particular system leaders making changes to administrative policies under their control (e.g., prosecutors not charging individuals with certain low-level offenses). In recent years, however, some states have taken up broader legislative reforms aiming to transform the system on a much larger scale; specifically, many have moved to eliminate or substantially reduce the use of cash bail as a major factor in determining when and for whom pretrial detention is used. In 2019, New York became one of these states, with the passage of the Criminal Justice Reform Act (Act) in April of that year (with reforms taking effect on January 1, 2020). The Act, fueled by increasingly abhorrent conditions at the Rikers Island jail complex in New York City (NYC), was hailed as one of the most ambitious bail reform packages in the country. The comprehensive package of reforms was driven by the recognition of New York's systemic problems and the need to address them through an effort that was equally broad in scope and scale. At its core, the Act aimed to facilitate a presumption of non-financial release to avoid the deleterious and inequitably distributed effects of pretrial detention. The New York State government (NYS) understood, however, that to effectively and safely shift away from incarceration as a primary system response— and to create a decision-making foundation that was not dependent on financial resources—a variety of local criminal legal processes beyond the bail decision had to shift as well. To that end, the legislation included provisions in other related areas. More specifically, the legislation aimed to reduce systemic inequities and harms through a comprehensive approach that incorporated significant changes to policy and practice in four key areas of pretrial decision-making  (continued)

New York:  CUNY Institute for State & Local Governance 2023. 55p.

By Chloe Anderson Golub, Melanie Skemer

On any given day, nearly 450,000 people in the United States—still legally innocent—are detained while awaiting the resolution of their criminal charges, many because they could not afford to pay the bail amount set as a condition of their release. In response, jurisdictions across the United States are making changes to their pretrial systems to reduce the number of people who are held in pretrial detention. As part of this effort, many jurisdictions are moving away from money bail as a primary means of encouraging people to return for future court dates. Instead, they are increasingly relying on strategies such as pretrial supervision, which requires released people to meet regularly with supervision staff members, and special conditions, such as electronic monitoring and sobriety monitoring. In theory, the added layer of oversight that these release conditions provide would encourage people to appear for court dates and avoid new arrests. Yet until the last two years, research on the effectiveness of these conditions was either limited (in the case of pretrial supervision) or had faced methodological limitations and yielded mixed findings (in the case of special conditions). A more rigorous understanding of the effectiveness of these release conditions is critical, particularly given their immense burdens and costs to both jurisdictions and people awaiting the resolution of their criminal charges. This brief synthesizes findings from three recent impact studies that assessed the effectiveness of varying intensities and modes of pretrial supervision, as well as electronic monitoring and sobriety monitoring, at ensuring court appearances and preventing new arrests. Among the most rigorous evaluations of pretrial monitoring conducted to date, these studies were set across five geographically diverse U.S. jurisdictions. Findings from each of the three studies are presented in the sections below, followed by a discussion of overarching policy and practice implications. In sum, these analyses suggest that more restrictive levels and modes of pretrial supervision and special conditions do not improve the rates at which clients appear in court or avoid arrest, at least among those assessed as having a low to moderate probability of pretrial noncompliance (that is, failing to appear in court or being rearrested during the pretrial period). Jurisdictions should consider reducing their reliance on these release conditions and instead seek less restrictive requirements to support pretrial compliance among this population. 

New York: MDRC,   2024. 7p.

By The Alabama Appleseed Center for Law & Justice and The Southern Poverty Law Center

On August 15, 1822, the brig Palmyra, an armed privateer commissioned by the King of Spain, was captured on the high seas by the USS Grampus. Accused of violating the 1819 Piracy Act, the Palmyra was sent to South Carolina to await judgment.1 Though the crew was “guilty of plunder,”2 no law existed under which its members could be punished,3 so no one was convicted of any crime. The Spanish government, claiming its f lag had been “insulted and attacked” and its property stolen, demanded that the Palmyra be returned to its owner.4 The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the ship was properly forfeited, ruling that it was permissible for the state to take property that had facilitated criminal activity, despite the fact that no person was convicted of a crime.5 Nearly two centuries later, law enforcement agencies across America are using a process known as civil asset forfeiture to take and keep billions of dollars in currency, vehicles, houses, land and weapons – even items like TVs – under the same legal reasoning. This property is taken not from pirates who lie beyond the jurisdictional reach of the United States, but rather from ordinary people who can easily be taken into custody, charged and tried if the state believes they committed a crime. Today’s use of civil asset forfeiture, in other words, is unmoored from its historical justification of imposing penalties when authorities could not convict a person suspected of crime. This lack of a link to the original use of civil forfeiture raises numerous questions, including whether it is the wrong process to meet the state’s otherwise legitimate interests of confiscating the fruit of crimes. In the 1980s, with the advent of the War on Drugs, civil asset forfeiture was sold to the public as a tool for taking the ill-gotten gains of drug kingpins. In practice, however, it has become a revenue stream for law enforcement – but one whose burden falls most heavily on the most economically vulnerable. In Alabama, as in numerous other states, the process is opaque, mostly applied to people who are not drug kingpins, and fraught with enormous potential for abuse. This study found that in half of the 1,110 cases examined in Alabama, the amount of cash involved was $1,372 or less. This suggests that prosecutors have extended the use of civil forfeiture beyond its original intent of pursuing leaders of international drug cartels. And since typical attorney fees add up to well over $1,372 – often running into the thousands for the multiple pleadings and court appearances a civil forfeiture case can entail – this means law enforcement can take these relatively small amounts of money from Alabamians, secure in the knowledge that they will never be asked to return it. Indeed, this study found that in more than half the disposed cases (52 percent), the property owner never attempted to contest the forfeiture, resulting in a default judgment – an easy win – for the state. Making matters worse, there is no state law requiring agencies to track or report the assets they seize – and no requirement that they account for how they use the property or the proceeds that are subsequently forfeited. To track the property seized and forfeited under civil asset forfeiture laws in the state, Alabama Appleseed Center for Law and Justice and the Southern Poverty Law Center reviewed court records in the 1,110 cases filed in 14 counties in 2015, comprising approximately 70 percent of all such cases filed statewide that year. The study shows that, in those 14 counties: • Seventy agencies – including police departments, city governments, district attorneys’ offices, sheriffs’ offices and inter-agency drug task forces – were awarded $2,190,663 by the courts in 827 cases that were disposed of. • Courts awarded law enforcement agencies 406 weapons, 119 vehicles, 95 electronic items and 274 miscellaneous items, including gambling devices, digital scales, power tools, houses and mobile homes. • In 25 percent of the cases, the property owner was not charged with a crime linked to the civil forfeiture action. The state won 84 percent of disposed cases against property owners who were not charged with a crime. Those cases reaped $676,790 for law enforcement. • In 55 percent of 840 cases where criminal charges were filed, the charges were related to marijuana. In 18 percent of cases where criminal charges were filed, the charge was simple possession of marijuana and/or paraphernalia. In 42 percent of all cases, including those where there were no charges, the alleged offense was related to marijuana. • In 64 percent of cases where criminal charges were filed, the defendant was African American, even though African Americans comprise only about 27 percent of Alabama’s population.6 Appleseed and the SPLC also reviewed information about all 1,591 civil asset forfeiture cases filed across the state in 2015. Of the 1,196 that had been resolved by the time of this review in October 2017:7 • 79 percent resulted in favorable verdicts for the state. • 52 percent of disposed cases were default judgments, meaning the seizures were never challenged in court by the individuals from whom assets were taken. Civil asset forfeiture cases reside in a peculiar legal netherworld premised on the fiction that objects themselves can be “guilty” of criminal activity. In the time of the Palmyra, civil asset forfeiture laws enabled the government to recover damages and punish offenders by taking the wealth of individuals who were personally beyond the jurisdiction of the United States. The practice today hardly resembles those origins. Beginning in the 1980s, Congress enacted laws that essentially created a financial incentive for law enforcement to prioritize the War on Drugs. States followed suit by expanding their use of civil forfeiture under state laws. In addition to the $2.2 million in state forfeitures in 2015, Alabama law enforcement agencies netted $3.1 million from federal forfeitures. (continued)

Montgomery, ALL: Southern Poverty Law Center,  2022.  53p.

By Lila Kazemian

This paper reviews the empirical literature on desistance from crime among adolescents and adults and the factors that explain (dis)continuity in criminal behavior in the transition to adulthood. It also highlights the implications of this knowledge base for various criminal justice agencies. Drawing on the research literature and relevant theoretical frameworks, the paper offers nine key recommendations on desistance-promoting criminal justice policy and practice.  Our criminal justice interventions would benefit from a paradigm shift that expands from an exclusive focus on recidivism to the consideration of positive outcomes that may result in reduced involvement in crime. Program evaluations that prescribe to this new paradigm should: (a) integrate the well-established fact that desistance from crime occurs gradually and that setbacks are to be expected; (b) consider changes in individual and social outcomes in addition to behavioral measures; (c) offer a balanced assessment of both failure and success outcomes and invest resources in tracking progress before, during, and after any given intervention; and (d) provide incentives for success. Biosocial research has suggested that from a cognitive perspective, emerging adults (18-24 years old) may resemble adolescents more than adults. It would then be logical to extend assumptions about reduced culpability to individuals up to the age of 24. Young adult courts are an example of such an accommodation. The age crime curve confirms that most individuals are likely to give up crime during emerging adulthood; in many cases, criminal justice processing during this period may be counterproductive and might delay the process of desistance from crime that would otherwise occur naturally. Prosecutors play a key role in fostering desistance by avoiding further processing for individuals who do not pose a significant threat to public safety. Longer prison sentences are not effective in promoting desistance from crime and reducing recidivism. Confinement disrupts the desistance process in many ways, and it should be used only as a last recourse. When possible, jurisdictions should favor alternatives to confinement for both juveniles and adults. Few individuals remain active in crime after the age of 40. Barring exceptional circumstances for those who pose a clear threat to public safety, there is no empirical basis for incarcerating individuals for decades past mid-adulthood. Because the decision to give up crime is regarded as a gradual process rather than an abrupt event, preparation for release from confinement should ideally begin early in the sentence for those cases where incarceration is deemed necessary. Individuals can make constructive use of their time in prison if they can find meaning to their sentence, get to the root of the reasons that brought them to prison in the first place, and develop a plan for their return to society. These are essential components of the desistance and reintegration processes. Interactions with law enforcement may disrupt desistance in many ways that are not necessarily well understood by officers. Given that most initial contacts with law enforcement do not result in further criminal justice processing, arrests that do not lead to a conviction constitute a poor measure of criminal behavior and may create unnecessary stigma that hampers the desistance process. This stigma disproportionately affects individuals belonging to socially marginalized groups. Convictions or incarcerations may be more valid indicators of official crime. The stigma of a criminal record has enduring effects on the ability to successfully reintegrate into society. Expungement laws can help offset some of the negative consequences of the stigma of a criminal record. The mere prevalence of past offending is insufficient to assess the future risk of reoffending. We need to account for other dimensions of the criminal record, including the recency and intensity of involvement in past crimes. Housing and employment policies that adopt a blanket ban against individuals with a criminal record cannot be justified based on public safety concerns and are detrimental to the process of desistance from crime. 8. 9. Many state and local jurisdictions have developed promising initiatives and interventions that draw on principles of the desistance paradigm, but few have been rigorously evaluated. Partnerships between policymakers, practitioners, and academics are crucial to conducting more systematic assessments. We also need to better understand whether the level of responsiveness to any given intervention varies across demographic groups (specifically age and gender), criminal history characteristics, and histories of trauma. Efforts to promote desistance from crime are not the sole responsibility of one agency. The most promising desistance-promoting policies and practices rely on ongoing partnerships between the various agents of the criminal justice system and community resources, including law enforcement, prosecution, corrections, and community organizations.    

(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 2021), NCJ 301497. 2021. 38p.

By  Brett Fischer, Johanna Lacoe and Steven Raphae

When someone is arrested and cannot afford bail or a private lawyer, they stay in jail and have to wait several days before they are assigned a public defender at arraignment. This time in jail imposes legal, social, and economic costs, from a higher chance of conviction to loss of employment or wages. Low-income individuals bear the brunt of these costs because many cannot afford to post bail to secure their own release, nor can they afford to hire a lawyer to negotiate their release. The County of Santa Clara Public Defender’s Office designed a program to address these problems by providing legal counsel to low-income people shortly after their arrest. In early 2020 they piloted the Pre-Arraignment Representation and Review (PARR) program using a rotating schedule that offered PARR services one day per week. This quasi-random implementation enabled the research team to estimate the impact receiving PARR services had on release and case outcomes. Participation in the program decreased jail time and convictions, and increased case dismissals. This policy brief is a condensed version of a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper: The Effect of Pre-Arraignment Legal Representation on Criminal Case Outcomes. Key Findings • Arrested individuals who received PARR services were detained in jail, on average, for 23 fewer days relative to comparable people who did not receive PARR services (6 total days vs. 29 total days). This reduction reflects both reductions in pretrial detention, as well as potential reductions in the probability and length of incarceration imposed at sentencing. • PARR participants were more than twice as likely to have their cases dismissed altogether, thereby avoiding a criminal conviction. Specifically, receiving PARR services reduced the probability that an individual was convicted by about 75% relative to comparable people whom PARR did not serve. These findings underscore how providing faster access to legal representation following an arrest can improve case outcomes for low-income individuals.

Los Angeles: California Policy Lab, 2024. 5p.

By NIla Bala, Casey Witte, Lars Trautman   

 The most pressing problems facing criminal justice policymakers and practitioners are racial disparities within the criminal justice system. In many instances, the data on outcomes at each stage of the criminal justice process are stark, with Black individuals disproportionately bearing the brunt of system involvement and severe sentences. While nearly every actor and policymaker associated with the criminal justice system can play a part in addressing this issue, prosecutors remain some of the most powerful. With a hand in decisions ranging from charging to plea bargaining, the policies and practices of prosecutors inevitably influence the existence and extent of any racial disparities. This paper examines the sources of racial disparities in the criminal justice system, how prosecutors may contribute to them, and finally, actions that prosecutors can take to help reduce these disparities. These recommendations include a better understanding of disparities, decreasing reliance on cash bail and pretrial detention, prioritizing diversion programs, and implementing algorithmic color-blind charging.  

Washington, DC: R Street, 2021. 6p.

By: Oded Oren (Scrutinize) and Rachael Fauss (

Transparency is a cornerstone of a robust democratic governance system. It helps build public trust, fosters accountability, and promotes informed citizen participation. When it comes to the transparency of the state judiciary and court administration, there are notable shortcomings due to gaps in current law and practice. Since judicial data is a public good, there is a compelling public interest in making more judicial data publicly available. This report delves specifically into the limited publication of written decisions by criminal court judges.

Key Findings:

1. Only an estimated 6% of the total written criminal court decisions are published every year.

2. In New York, criminal court judges effectively decide whether or not to publish their decisions in criminal cases. Of the judges who published at least one decision a year, the average number of published decisions was two to three decisions a year.

3. The number of judges presiding over criminal cases each year is not made available by the court system, meaning that it is not possible to determine how many judges publish zero decisions each year.

4. Of the 600 New York criminal court judges who published at least one decision between 2010 and 2022, 20 judges (3%) were responsible for 28% of all published decisions, while 356 judges (59%) published three or fewer decisions.

Public Access to Criminal Court Decisions Boosts Transparency and Judicial Accountability:

• Judicial Assessment: Access to decisions is vital for evaluating a judge’s performance and qualifications during reappointment, reelection, or promotion.

• Legislative Oversight: Publicly available decisions provide a window for the Legislature to monitor the implementation of criminal law reforms.

• Legal Insight: Decisions offer valuable insights for appellate courts and attorneys into legal interpretations and trends, but only if they are available for review.

Recommendations:

1. New York should pass a law to increase transparency by requiring written decisions by criminal court judges to be publicly available online.

2. Judges would be able to submit transcripts of oral rulings instead of written decisions.

3. The new law would mandate the publication of decisions when they resolve a legal issue raised in a written motion or decide a pre-trial hearing.

4. The new law would also require the Office of Court Administration to make all written criminal court decisions authored in the past 15 years publicly available.

5. The Office of Court Administration should immediately begin implementing these policies administratively.

Scrutinize and Reinvent Albany, 2023. 28p.

By David Hausman

Prioritization by criminality, in which noncitizens who have been convicted of serious crimes are deported ahead of those with little or no criminal history, is the most consequential principle governing who is deported from the interior of the United States. This Article argues that, intuitive as prioritization by criminality may appear, it is only rarely justifiable. I show, empirically, that the interior immigration-enforcement system is successful at such prioritization. Being convicted of a crime makes deportation at least a hundred times more likely. And I show that center left attempts to reduce deportations over the last decade have sharpened this prioritization: both sanctuary policies and President Obama’s Priority Enforcement Program, which caused the two largest reductions in interior immigration enforcement in the last decade, prioritized deportations by criminality. Because well under one percent of undocumented noncitizens are deported in any given year, some principle for prioritizing deportations is needed (to the extent that deportations continue at all), but criminality should not be the primary principle. First, the crime-control rationales for punishing noncitizens more severely than citizens convicted of the same crime are surprisingly weak. Second, the immigration-policy rationale for prioritization by criminality is strongest among recent entrants to the United States. The longer a noncitizen has lived in the United States, and the stronger his or her ties here, the less deportation resembles a retroactive admission decision and the more it resembles punishment. Finally, the relationship between ties and criminality is asymmetric: there are better arguments for deporting people with weak  ties and no convictions than for deporting people with strong ties and serious convictions. If noncitizens convicted of crimes were mostly recent entrants, then the current prioritization might make sense. But the limited existing evidence on deportees’ ties to the United States suggests that prioritization by criminality leads the government to target people with deep roots in this country. The result is that interior immigration enforcement functions more as a method of social control of long-term noncitizen residents than as a tool of immigration policy. 

THE GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 110:973 2022

By: Omair Gill, Mia Bird, Johanna Lacoe, Molly Pickard, Steven Raphael and Alissa Skog

Consecutive sentencing is a practice where people serve sentences for separate convictions sequentially rather than concurrently. We analyze the application of consecutive sentences among all people admitted to California’s prisons since 2015, as well as the population of people incarcerated as of March 2023. KEY FINDINGS: • Frequency. Most prison admissions (56%) are ineligible for consecutive sentencing because they do not involve convictions for multiple offenses. Among admissions with multiple convictions, half (51%) receive consecutive sentences. In total, consecutive sentences are applied to less than a quarter of prison admissions in California (22%). • Contribution to sentence length. Overall, the time added by consecutive sentences increases the average prison sentence of the entire prison population by 8.5 months (roughly 13%). ◦ Among those admitted with consecutive sentences, it increases the average sentence by 35%, or three years (from 8.6 to 11.6 years). ◦ Consecutive sentences typically involve either the full sentence for an additional offense tagged on to the primary sentence or an additional sentence equal to one-third the prescribed sentence for the lesser ofense. While only 20% of consecutive sentences are for full additional prison terms (80% are for one-third terms), full-term sentences account for roughly 70% of the additional sentence years added through consecutive sentences since 2015. • Contributing factors. Among cases with multiple convictions, consecutive sentences are more likely to be applied when criminal cases involve offenses that occurred in multiple counties, the offenses are serious or violent, the most serious offense is a crime against a person, or the individual has prior prison admissions for serious or violent crimes. ◦ Multivariate models show that the likelihood of a consecutive sentence increases with the number of prior prison admissions, number of convictions, and age of the person admitted. People admitted with second- and third-strike enhancements are more likely (by roughly 12 to 18 percentage points) to receive consecutive sentences relative to admissions with multiple convictions without these enhancements ◦ Offenses receiving one-third consecutive sentences are more likely to involve property offenses, weapons offenses, as well as offenses like evading a police officer or identity theft. By contrast, the offenses receiving full-term consecutive sentences often involve crimes against a person, child victims, and various sex offenses. • County variation. The use of consecutive sentences varies across the state. Counties in far Northern California, excluding the coast, as well as those in the Central Valley, are more likely to impose consecutive sentences. Bay Area counties and most counties in Southern California are less likely to impose consecutive sentences. ◦ Average differences across counties in the types of cases resulting in a prison admission do not explain cross-county differences in the use of consecutive sentencing. ◦ American Indian/Alaskan Native and White people are more likely to receive consecutive sentences largely because they tend to be convicted in counties that are more likely to use consecutive sentencing. The opposite is true for Black, Hispanic, and Asian people. .   

Los Angeles: California Policy Lab, 2024. 39p.

By Mary Catlin, David Wilson, Allison D. Redlich, Talley Bettens, Christian Meissner, Sujeeta Bhatt, Susan Brandon

Background

False confessions are often the product of an interrogation process, and the method by which an interrogation is conducted likely affects both the rate of truthful confessions and false confessions. An optimal interrogation method will maximize the former and minimize the latter.

Objectives

The current study was a partial update and extension of Meissner and colleagues' (2012) prior Campbell systematic review titled Interview and Interrogation Methods and their Effects on True and False Confessions. Our objective was to assess the effects of the interrogation approach on the rates of true and false confessions for criminal (mock) suspects.

Search Methods

PsycINFO, Criminal Justice Abstracts, and 15 other databases were searched starting October 20, 2022, with the final search conducted on May 23, 2023; together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with authors to identify additional studies.

Selection Criteria

All eligible studies experimentally manipulated interrogation approaches (i.e., accusatorial, information-gathering, or direct questioning) were conducted with mock suspects accused of wrongdoing where ground truth was known and included information about confession rates.

Data Collection and Analysis

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Campbell Collaboration for our selection of studies and data collection. However, we developed our own risk of bias items and analyzed our data using network meta-analysis methods. Data were synthesized via random-effects network meta-analysis based on the logged odds ratio.

Main Results

Across the 27 research articles that provided statistical information sufficient to calculate an effect size, 29 individual studies provided a total of 81 effect sizes. Most studies were conducted with college students in the United States. Overall, our risk of bias assessment indicated that authors generally adhered to double-blind procedures and avoided selective reporting of outcomes. Of note, however, it was often unclear how violations of the randomization process were dealt with.

For true confessions, there were 12 studies estimating the effect between accusatorial and direct questioning, five estimating the effect between information-gathering and direct questioning, and another five estimating the effect between accusatorial and information-gathering. Compared to information-gathering, on average, the accusatorial conditions observed fewer true confessions, although not statistically significant (combined OR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.29, 1.05). The largest effects were between information-gathering and direct questioning, with the former producing significantly more true confessions on average (combined OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.29, 4.59). This model showed good consistency between the direct and indirect effects.

For false confessions, there were 20 studies estimating the effect between accusatorial and direct questioning, 4 studies estimating the effect between information-gathering and direct questioning, and 7 estimating the effect between accusatorial and information-gathering. On average, accusatorial conditions yielded more false confessions than direct questioning (combined OR = 3.03, 95% CI 1.83, 5.02) or information-gathering (combined OR = 4.41, 95% CI 1.77, 10.97), both of which are statistically significant. In contrast, direct questioning and information-gathering had roughly similar rates of false confessions with nonsignificant and small effects that slightly favored information-gathering (combined OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.27, 1.78). This model showed good consistency between the direct and indirect effects.

For true confessions under a six-node model, most of the direct, indirect, and combined network estimated mean odds ratios were not statistically significant. The only significant effects were for (1) information-gathering versus direct questioning, with the former resulting in more true confessions (combined OR = 2.57, 95% CI 1.38, 4.78); and (2) accusatorial-evidence ploy versus information-gathering with the former resulting in fewer true confessions (combined OR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.16, 0.84).

For false confessions under a six-node model, we found significant effects for (1) accusatorial-evidence ploys versus direct questioning, with the former resulting in more false confessions (combined OR = 2.98, 95% CI 1.59, 5.59); (2) accusatorial-evidence ploys versus information-gathering, with the former resulting in more false confessions (combined OR = 4.47, 95% CI 1.46, 13.68); (3) accusatorial-other versus direct questioning, with the former resulting in more false confessions (combined OR = 3.12, 95% CI 1.37, 7.10); (4) accusatorial-other versus information-gathering, with the former resulting in more false confessions (combined OR = 4.67, 95% CI 1.61, 13.55); and (5) information-gathering versus minimization, with the latter resulting in more false confessions (combined OR = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.08, 0.83). No other combined effects were significant. This model should be interpreted cautiously, however, as the Q statistics raised concerns regarding model consistency.

Author's Conclusions

Overall, results support calls for reforming policies related to interviewing and interrogation practices to prohibit the use of accusatorial approaches and require the adoption of science-based approaches.

Campbell Systematic Reviews Volume 20, Issue 4 December 2024

By MacArthur Foundation

The fair and just treatment of racial and ethnic minorities at all stages of the criminal justice system is of significant importance to communities of color, practitioners, and scholars alike. Central to this discourse is a recognition of the discretionary power that prosecutors wield in shaping the outcomes of criminal cases. This includes, among other things, the decision to file or drop a case, amend the severity and number of charges, and dispose of criminal cases through plea bargaining. This report focuses on the outcomes of prosecutorial decision making in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. Specifically, it assesses the extent to which racial and ethnic disparities exist across the following five decision points in criminal case processing: (1) Case charging; (2) Charge changes from arrest to charging; (3) Disposition type; (4) Charge changes from charging to disposition; and (5) Sentencing. We encourage the reader to interpret the results while recognizing that criminal case processing can trigger disparate outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities for a number of different reasons. Some of these reasons, such as defense attorney role and judicial discretion, are beyond the immediate control of prosecutors. At the same time, our partners are keenly aware that prosecutors can and should play a vital role in uncovering and addressing racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system, and this report stems from that recognition. The intent of this report is to prompt discussion and raise questions, rather than provide definitive answers. We also want to stress that the findings presented throughout this report cannot be used to support or refute possible racial and ethnic biases. Our methodology simply does not permit that. Rather than serving as an end point, we view this report as a starting point from which to engage in meaningful discussions concerning policies and procedures that can ameliorate racial and ethnic disparities in case outcomes. Furthermore, given that prosecutorial decision making does not operate in a vacuum, certain findings direct attention to ways district attorney’s offices, the defense bar, law enforcement agencies, and the judiciary can galvanize future reform efforts. Even more importantly, continued efforts to engage with minority communities will be critical for increasing public trust in and cooperation with the criminal justice system. This report is part of a series of publications resulting from this partnership. The first report, Prosecutorial Attitudes, Perspectives, and Priorities: Insights from the Inside, was released in December, 2018. The second report, Race, Ethnicity and Prosecution in Hillsborough County, Florida, was released in July, 2019. The final report in the series, focused on prosecutorial performance indicators, will be released near the end of 2019.   

2019. 62p.