By Sandra G. Mayson

Bail reform is gaining momentum nationwide. Reformers aspire to untether pretrial detention from wealth (the ability to post money bail) and condition it instead on statistical risk, particularly the risk that a defendant will commit crime if he remains at liberty pending trial. The bail reform movement holds tremendous promise, but also forces the criminal justice system to confront a difficult question: What statistical risk that a person will commit future crime justifies short-term detention? What about lesser restraints, like GPS monitoring? Although the turn to actuarial risk assessment in the pretrial context has engendered both excitement and concern, the debate so far has largely ignored this foundational question. One way of thinking about the question of what level of crime-risk justifies restraint is to ask whether the answer is different for defendants than for anyone else. It is generally assumed that the answer is yes — that defendants are a special case, exempt by virtue of their pending charge from otherwise applicable constitutional and normative constraints. This Article challenges that assumption. It argues that, for purposes of restraint for dangerousness, there is no clear constitutional, moral, or practical distinction between a defendant and a non-defendant who are equally dangerous. There is thus no basis to conclude that the risk standard for such restraint should be different for defendants than for anyone else.

127 Yale L. J. 490 (2018)

Sandra G. Mayson

Police, prosecutors, judges, and other criminal justice actors increasingly use algorithmic risk assessment to estimate the likelihood that a person will commit future crime. As many scholars have noted, these algorithms tend to have disparate racial impacts. In response, critics advocate three strategies of resistance: (1) the exclusion of input factors that correlate closely with race; (2) adjustments to algorithmic design to equalize predictions across racial lines; and (3) rejection of algorithmic methods altogether. This Article’s central claim is that these strategies are at best superficial and at worst counterproductive because the source of racial inequality in risk assessment lies neither in the input data, in a particular algorithm, nor algorithmic methodology per se. The deep problem is the nature of prediction itself. All prediction looks to the past to make guesses about future events. In a racially stratified world, any method of prediction will project the inequalities of the past into the future. This is as true of the subjective prediction that has long pervaded criminal justice as it is of the algorithmic tools now replacing it. Algorithmic risk assessment has revealed the inequality inherent in all predictions, forcing us to confront a problem much larger than the challenges of a new technology. Algorithms, in short, shed new light on an old problem. Ultimately, the Article contends, redressing racial disparity in prediction will require more fundamental changes in the way the criminal justice system conceives of and responds to risk. The Article argues that criminal law and policy should, first, more clearly delineate the risks that matter and, second, acknowledge that some kinds of risk may be beyond our ability to measure without racial distortion—in which case they cannot justify state coercion. Further, to the extent that we can reliably assess risk, criminal system actors should strive whenever possible to respond to risk with support rather than restraint. Counterintuitively, algorithmic risk assessment could be a valuable tool in a system that supports the risk.

Yale L. J. 2218 (2019) Yale Law Review,

By Alissa Skog and Johanna Lacoe

Pretrial electronic monitoring (pretrial EM) is a digital surveillance program that tracks the location and movements of people released to the community while they await the resolution of their criminal case. A locked plastic bracelet is attached to the person’s ankle, which includes a GPS tracking device that notifies the Sheriff’s Office if the person is not complying with the terms of their release. This report covers the characteristics and outcomes of people released by the courts to pretrial EM in San Francisco between 2018 and 2021. During this period, two significant events impacted pretrial detention. First, the In Re Humphrey decision required judges in San Francisco to consider the ability to pay when setting bail and to select the least restrictive non-monetary release condition. Second, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, policymakers issued public health directives limiting the jail population in San Francisco. This report is not an evaluation or causal analysis of the impact of pretrial EM. Rather, this report provides policymakers with data and insights to aid decisions about pretrial EM in San Francisco. This analysis reveals: • The use of pretrial EM increased more than twenty-fold between 2017 and 2021. San Francisco rarely used pretrial EM before 2018, averaging 75 cases per year. In 2018, more than 550 cases were released to pretrial EM and the annual caseload increased to more than 1,650 in 2021. • More than one-third of people on pretrial EM are unhoused/unstably housed. • More than 65% of people on pretrial EM who were assessed with a standardized pretrial risk assessment tool were rated at the greatest risk of new arrest or failure to appear in court. • Eighty-five percent of people on pretrial EM are booked on felony charges. The median number of prior San Francisco County Jail bookings is five. • Most people on pretrial EM are terminated prematurely. Of those who fail to comply with pretrial EM rules, 60% are returned to custody within one week of termination and 76% are returned within two months. • Pretrial EM termination rates are higher for people who are unhoused/ unstably housed. Nearly 80% of people who are unhoused/unstably housed on pretrial EM fail to complete the program, compared to approximately 50% of people who are housed. • Terminations from pretrial EM often happen in the first 2 weeks of the program. Individuals who terminate have a median number of days on pretrial EM of 15 days.  

Los Angeles: California Policy Lab, 2022. 41p.

By: Oded Oren, Chad M. Topaz, and Courtney Machi Oliva.

Key Findings:

1. An analysis of public pretrial data from 2020 - 2022 reveals that some New York City judges are disproportionately carceral, i.e., these judges are substantially more likely to order pretrial detention than their peers, even when accounting for factors such as the severity of the case and the defendant’s prior criminal history.

2. The fourteen judges who exhibited the most carceral discretion compared to their peers are Felicia Mennin, Gerald Lebovits, Quynda Santacroce, Josh Hanshaft, Kerry Ward, Bruna DiBiase, Gerianne Abriano, Beth Beller, Phyllis Chu, Alan Schiff, Tara Collins, Derefim Neckles, Joseph McCormack, and Lumarie Maldonado-Cruz.

3. These fourteen judges’ disproportionately carceral decisions over 2.5 years resulted in an estimated 580 additional people detained, 154 additional years of pretrial detention, and over $77 million of additional costs borne by New York City taxpayers

Key Recommendations:

1. Closer scrutiny of judges’ bail decisions is crucial because of the link between pretrial detention and increased recidivism rates, exacerbated racial disparities, and influence over case outcomes.

2. New York (and other jurisdictions) must evaluate whether judicial discretion should be constrained given that legislative efforts to reform bail have not prevented some judges from exercising discretion in disproportionately carceral ways.

3. New York lawmakers should consider the following approaches to constraining disproportionately carceral judges:

• Making additional judge-level data publicly available to all New Yorkers.

• Removing disproportionately carceral judges from overseeing criminal cases.

• Limiting judges’ discretion to detain, including by mandating release from detention upon the preparation of a release plan by holistic teams of experts.

Scrutinize, Institute for the Quantitative Study of Inclusion, Diversity, and Equity Zimroth Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at NYU School of Law, 2023. 29p.

By Jacqueline Pacvilon, Neil Agarwal, Rosie Wang ,, April Pierina , Hernandez Luperdi

Having legal representation helps ensure due process and is associated with more positive case outcomes for people facing deportation. In 2022, the Midwest Immigrant Defenders Alliance (MIDA) was formed by four organizations to provide legal representation for people in the Chicago immigration court whose cases begin in immigration detention: The National Immigrant Justice Center, The Resurrection Project, The Immigration Project, and the Law Office of the Cook County Public Defender. These organizations developed a collaborative model to provide legal representation on a merits-blind basis, which ensures equity in access to representation. A larger share of people on the Chicago detained docket are being represented one year into the MIDA program, despite an increasing number of cases before the court. In this report, the Vera Institute of Justice evaluates the impact of MIDA and this model of universal representation during the coalition’s first year.

Key Takeaway:

Cases with representation have historically fared much better in immigration court. One year after MIDA’s formation, a larger share of people on the Chicago detained docket have representation, despite an increasing number of cases before the court. This model ensures equity and has resulted in many MIDA clients establishing a right to remain in the United States.

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2024. 35p.

By Kim Shayo Buchanan

We at the Center for Policing Equity (CPE) advocate reducing the footprint of law enforcement by removing police from places where they do not belong and cannot help. People’s health care, their pregnancy outcomes, and their gender and queer identities exemplify situations that should not involve police. Law enforcement can and should step back from enforcing such laws, as police have traditionally done. Enforcement of anti-abortion, anti-trans, and anti-LGBTQ+ laws would divert finite police resources away from serious and violent crimes that communities care about; squander the goodwill police have built with communities; embolden extremist violence; and endanger vulnerable communities—all while doing nothing to keep the public safe. We urge mayors and municipal governments to instruct law enforcement agencies to deprioritize enforcement of these new, victimless crimes. Instead, officers’ time and departmental resources should be used to prevent and investigate serious crimes that affect public safety. Police and municipal governments can take the following steps to deprioritize enforcement and protect their communities against the threats and harms these laws create: Municipal governments and law enforcement should take these actions: 1. Affirm a public commitment to the rights and safety of LGBTQ+ and pregnant people. 2. Consult with affected communities, on a structured and ongoing basis, about how to deprioritize enforcement. 3. Consult with affected communities about how loud and public to be about deprioritizing enforcement. 4. Ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcome, and provision or receipt of reproductive health care, abortion care, and gender-affirming care (whether real or perceived). a. Ban discrimination against municipal employees, including police officers, on these bases. b. Ban discrimination by municipal employees, including police officers, on these bases. 5. Provide employment benefits such as medical leave, comprehensive health coverage, travel for out-of-state health care, and assurances that any investigation or prosecution by another agency for breach of anti-abortion, anti-trans, or anti-LGBTQ+ laws will not affect the person’s employment. Municipal governments should take these actions: 6. Direct law enforcement leadership to allocate no funds to enforce anti-trans, anti-LGBTQ+, and anti-abortion laws. 7. Ban discrimination by municipal contractors and by local businesses based on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcome, and receipt of abortion care and gender-affirming care. 8. Consider using municipal funds to ensure community access to health care needs such as prenatal care, doula care, lactation support, and out-of-state gender-affirming and reproductive health care. 9. Oppose any effort to criminalize use of municipal roads to access abortion, gender affirming care, or any other health care. Law enforcement should take these actions: 10. Protect people and communities against hate crimes and vigilante violence. Use and enforce restraining orders and, when warranted, laws against trespass and disorderly conduct. 11. Consult with abortion providers, reproductive justice advocates, and escorts; gender affirming care providers; hospital management and staffers; and trans and LGBTQ+ advocates about the risks they face and about how best to protect their rights and safety. 12. Amend policy manuals, as needed, to clarify that it is misconduct for police officers and civilian employees to discriminate against members of the public on the bases of sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, pregnancy outcome, or receipt of abortion care or gender-affirming care. 13. Do not enforce anti-trans, anti-LGBTQ+, or anti-abortion laws. Allocate no resources to their enforcement. Conduct no investigations and make no arrests. Amend policies and procedures to direct law enforcement employees as follows: a. Do not conduct electronic, in-person, or other surveillance to detect violations of these laws. b. Do not use traffic-safety laws, pretextual stops, or any other means to investigate whether drivers, passengers, or pedestrians may be pregnant, may be transgender, or may be traveling within or out of state to receive prohibited health care. c. Take no action on any report of a violation of anti-abortion, anti-trans, or anti-LGBTQ+ laws except, as needed, to protect the person against potential violence by the caller. d. Do not investigate whether anyone is or has been pregnant, or how or why their pregnancy may have ended. e. Do not investigate anyone’s gender identity, their biological sex, or their assigned sex at birth. f. Take no action when you see a person you think may be transgender unless you have reasonable grounds to suspect the person is committing a crime for which a cisgender person would be investigated. g. Do not enter bars, theaters, libraries, or anywhere else to identify drag performances. h. Apply the same standards of obscenity to LGBTQ+ content or performance as to heteronormative1 content or performance. i. Do not enter bathrooms, changerooms, or anywhere else to ascertain the assigned sex at birth or sex characteristics of people who are there. 14. Require multiple levels of written supervisory approval, including by the chief of police, before an officer can initiate an arrest or investigation for any alleged violation of an anti-abortion, anti trans, or anti-LGBTQ+ law. 15. Ensure that officers and dispatchers are aware of agency policy not to investigate alleged violations of such laws, and that they understand specific laws in the state and locality. 16. Remind officers that they and other people cannot know by looking whether someone is transgender, what their assigned sex at birth was, or whether they are pregnant. a. Do not assume that a person is engaged in sex work based on their gender presentation. b. Do not treat possession of condoms as evidence that a person intends to engage in sex work. 17. Do not treat the presence or existence of a person who is – or is perceived to be – transgender, queer, or gender-expansive as a threat to anyone. 18. Ensure that law enforcement does not interfere with provision of health care. a. Do not station police officers in emergency departments or at hospitals or clinics to investigate patients. b. Do not investigate or interrogate patients or health care providers about a patient’s health care, gender identity, biological sex, pregnancy, health condition, or any reason they may have sought or received medical treatment. c. Do not seek disclosure of patients’ health information or records to investigate any suspected violation of an anti-abortion, anti-trans, or anti-LGBTQ+ law. d. Do not partner with hospitals or health providers to surveil or investigate patients who are pregnant, miscarrying, birthing, thought to be transgender, or suspected of using substances. 19. Do not second-guess medical determinations of whether an abortion procedure was medically necessary within the meaning of a state’s criminal laws. 20. Meet with hospital management, together with local prosecutors – and with physician representatives and emergency health care providers – to understand their concerns about criminal liability and to clarify that police and prosecutors will not second-guess their medical decisions about pregnancy or gender-affirming care   

West Hollywood, CA: Center for Policing Equity, 2024. 35p.

Edited by Steven Teutsch, Yasmin Hurd, and Elizabeth Boyle

Over the past several decades, more than half of all U.S. states have legalized cannabis for adult and/or medical use, but it remains illegal at the federal level. The public health consequences of cannabis policy changes have not been comprehensively evaluated. Therefore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health tasked the National Academies with reviewing cannabis and cannabinoid availability in the U.S., assessing regulatory frameworks for the industry with an emphasis on equity, and describing the strengths and weaknesses of surveillance systems for cannabis. The resulting report finds that there has been limited federal guidance to states regarding protecting public health, which has led to inconsistent protection across the states. The report recommends a strategy to minimize public health harms through stronger federal leadership, a robust research agenda, and more.

Washington DC: National Academies Press, 2024. 340p.

By Florida International University and Loyola University Chicago

This project is a groundbreaking partnership between prosecutors and researchers to promote more effective, just, and transparent decision-making in prosecution. It is a bipartisan effort to be smart on crime, to think about new ways to maximize public safety, to enhance fairness, and to create a new system of accountability to the public. It involves four forward-thinking prosecutors in Cook County (IL), Jacksonville (FL), Milwaukee County (WI), and Tampa (FL) working with researchers at Florida International University and Loyola University Chicago to take a new look at prosecutorial performance and decision-making. This partnership is supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Improving prosecutorial performance and decision-making is impossible without data. Data takes center stage in the project because it tells prosecutors what problems are the biggest threats to community well-being, and it points to ways to tackle those problems. Data helps measure the overall impact of prosecutors’ work, and it alerts them that a policy or practice needs to be continued or changed. Unfortunately, most prosecutors’ offices cannot collect, analyze, and apply data to these ends. Many offices do not record the data they need. Others are missing the staff and knowledge necessary to analyze their data. Still other offices—probably most—do not have the ability and commitment to use data to guide their decisions and reforms. This project focuses on helping our partner offices and other interested jurisdictions overcome these hurdles. The project has four distinct objectives: What The Project Is About While the project targets performance in our four partner jurisdictions, it also aims to use the knowledge generated from this experiment to advance the field of prosecution nationally. There are more than 2,300 local prosecutors’ offices in the United States, but very few organizations specialize in prosecutorial research and technical assistance. Realistically, most prosecutors’ offices will not receive any direct meaningful assistance. By building sustainable data collection, performance measurement, and communication practices for the four offices, this project provides a set of blueprints that offices across the country can use to make their own internal improvements. We realize there is no one-size-fits-all approach to prosecutorial office management that will meet every office’s needs. Writing a prescription for a patient we have not examined is hard. However, the project provides a model that other offices can use to start thinking about forming local partnerships, improving data capacity, and producing metrics for assessing their own impact. The backdrop for this project is the Safety & Justice Challenge, the MacArthur Foundation initiative to reduce jail misuse and overuse as both a crucial component and a major driver of America’s over-reliance on incarceration. Unnecessary jail incarceration carries significant costs to individuals, families, communities, and society at large. These costs take their greatest toll on low-income people and communities of color. The Safety & Justice Challenge supports local leaders who are dedicated to safely reducing jail populations, improving justice systems, and ultimately strengthening their communities. To expand offices’ data and analytical capacity by assessing case management systems, making better use of existing data, and exploring options for capturing new information without creating additional burdens for prosecutors. To assist prosecutors with tracking their progress toward greater efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness using prosecutorial performance indicators at the office and unit levels (as opposed to the individual prosecutor level). To identify possible racial and ethnic disparities at various stages of case processing across offense categories, and to work with stakeholders to develop specific solutions to reduce them. To establish a practice of using data to measure monthly or quarterly performance and engage with the communities While the project targets performance in our four partner jurisdictions, it also aims to use the knowledge generated from this experiment to advance the field of prosecution nationally. There are more than 2,300 local prosecutors’ offices in the United States, but very few organizations specialize in prosecutorial research and technical assistance. Realistically, most prosecutors’ offices will not receive any direct meaningful assistance. By building sustainable data collection, performance measurement, and communication practices for the four offices, this project provides a set of blueprints that offices across the country can use to make their internal improvements. We realize there is no one-size-fits-all approach to prosecutorial office management that will meet every office’s needs. Prescribing for a patient we have not examined is hard. However, the project provides a model that other offices can use to start thinking about forming local partnerships, improving data capacity, and producing metrics for assessing their impact. The backdrop for this project is the Safety & Justice Challenge, the MacArthur Foundation initiative to reduce jail misuse and overuse as both a crucial component and a major driver of America’s over-reliance on incarceration. Unnecessary jail incarceration carries significant costs to individuals, families, communities, and society at large. These costs take their greatest toll on low-income people and communities of color. The Safety & Justice Challenge supports local leaders who are dedicated to safely reducing jail populations, improving justice systems, and ultimately strengthening their communities. This report presents findings from an assessment of racial and ethnic disparities in prosecution and sentencing in Cook County, Illinois. Multiple decision points are analyzed, including case charging, changes in charge severity from arrest to charging, disposition type, changes in charge severity from charging to conviction, and sentencing. Because the findings vary by decision points and offense categories, each finding should be examined and assessed independently

Miami; Florida International University and Chicago: Loyola University Chicago, 2019. 50p.

By Jan Pospisil

KEY FINDINGS • The governor of Lakes state, Rin Tueny Mabor, rules the state with an iron fist, and is credited with reducing overall levels of inter-communal violence during his two years in office. Despite widespread allegations of human rights violations linked to his heavy-handed approach to security, he has received considerable national recognition for pacifying Lakes state. • The governor’s reputation has suffered setbacks —including public unrest over a decision to demolish informal housing in Rumbek, erected by internally displaced people, and a perceived loss of authority in his home county, Yirol West, following the contested dismissal of a county commissioner nominated by the Sudan People’s Liberation Army-in-Opposition (SPLA-IO). • Since September 2022, pastoral violence has re-emerged along the border with Warrap state, especially in Rumbek North and Cueibet counties, highlighting faults with the governor’s disarmament strategy and his emphasis on a deterrence-based approach to curbing inter-communal violence. • Despite these recent challenges, Rin Tueny appears to be interested in a national-level position. While he is seen as indispensable among national leadership in tackling insecurity in Lakes state, he has political backing to support an appointment in a high-level security sector role. 

Geneva, SWIT: Small Arms Survey, 2023. 7p.

By Odile Ammann,

In Domestic Courts and the Interpretation of International Law, Odile Ammann examines the methodology and reasoning which domestic courts, including Swiss courts, use to interpret international law. She argues that interpretative methods must be taken more seriously in international law. Readership: Domestic judges, academics working on international law, legal theory, and judicial reasoning, academic libraries, advocates, public servants, diplomats, students, and laypersons interested in the relationship between domestic and international law.

Leiden: Brill | Nijhoff, 2019. 404p.

By Suzanne M. Strong, and Mark Motivans

This report provides statistics on the number of RICO investigations concluded and persons investigated by U.S. attorneys from fiscal year (FY) 2012 to FY 2022. It also presents statistics from FY 2018 to FY 2022 on investigations concluded by U.S. attorneys with multiple persons investigated; persons prosecuted, adjudicated, and sentenced with a RICO violation as the most serious offense; persons convicted with a RICO violation as the most serious offense or as a secondary offense; and conviction rates by state or territory.

Washington, DC:  U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2024.11p.