By Patrick McNeil, et al.

“Persevere: Our Ongoing Fight for an Equal Justice Judiciary” documents the work during the 117th Congress to build an equal justice judiciary by nominating and confirming diverse and highly qualified individuals — including people with civil rights and public defender experience — to serve on the federal bench. The civil rights community has long understood that for there to be equal justice in America, we need fair-minded judges and justices who are committed to protecting the rights of all people and who come from all of our communities. This report details many of the judicial nominees — including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson — who were confirmed during the 117th Congress, explains why their confirmations matter, and calls on lawmakers to bolster our democracy by strengthening the judiciary so that it works for all of us.

Washington, DC: The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights , 2023. 56p.

By Jennifer A. Tallon, Olivia Dana, and Elise Jensen 

 Scholars have long contended that crimes involving violence are often ambiguously defined1 and overlooked as a critical driver of mass incarceration. 2 Currently, individuals charged with violent crimes make up nearly a third of pretrial jail populations across the country, and people convicted of violent crimes represent more than half the number of people in state prisons. 3 Policymakers have long grappled with how to enact criminal legal system reforms that reduce incarceration for such charges while also ensuring public safety. Decisions about cases involving violence can be fraught for criminal legal system stakeholders. Both the media and policymakers give them outsized attention—in particular, decisions related to pretrial release and the use of bail—a phenomenon witnessed most recently with the spike in pandemic-era violence in many parts of the country.  Elected officials have the difficult task of balancing public perceptions of the most effective way to address crime with the reality that those strategies might make things worse, while navigating the impact both might have on their electability. 5 Although there is promising evidence that treatment has the potential to reduce recidivism of individuals who commit certain types of violent offenses, policymakers and practitioners must contend with public outcry associated with being “too lenient” in highly publicized cases, the resulting fear-driven and knee-jerk demands for more punitiveness, and perceptions that “nothing works.”6 In contrast, research has demonstrated that status quo approaches emphasizing incarceration may exacerbate defendants’ underlying risk factors and be counterproductive to public safety in the long term. …. Recent sentencing reforms and legislative enactments will now enable prosecutors in some jurisdictions to initiate or support early release for individuals previously convicted of violent crimes who have served lengthy terms of imprisonment.11 But not enough is known about how prosecutors arrive at their decisions or the prevalence of specific practices across different prosecutors’ offices.  The results of our survey clearly show an appetite for new approaches among prosecutors. But they also suggest that how prosecutors think about violence and the goals of prosecution can be rife with paradoxes. ….

New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2022. 16p.

By John William Wertheimer

Race and the Law in South Carolina carefully reconstructs the social history behind six legal disputes heard in the South Carolina courts between the 1840s and the 1940s. The book uses these case studies to probe the complex relationship between race and the law in the American South during a century that included slavery, Reconstruction, and Jim Crow. Throughout most of the period covered in the book, the South Carolina legal system obsessively drew racial lines, always to the detriment of nonwhite people. Occasionally, however, the legal system also provided a public forum—perhaps the region’s best—within which racism could openly be challenged. The book emphasizes how dramatically the degree of legal oppressiveness experienced by Black South Carolinians varied during the century under study, based largely on the degree of Black access to political and legal power. During the era of slavery, both enslaved and nominally “free” Black South Carolinians suffered extreme legal disenfranchisement. They had no political voice and precious little access to legal redress. They could not vote, serve in public office, sit on juries, or testify in court against whites. There were no Black lawyers. Black South Carolinians had essentially no claims-making ability, resulting, unsurprisingly, in a deeply oppressive, thoroughly racialized system. Most of these antebellum legal disenfranchisements were overturned during the post-Civil War era of Reconstruction. In the wake of abolition, Reconstruction-era reformers in South Carolina erased one racial distinction after another from state law. For a time, Black men voted and Black jurors sat in rough proportion to their share of the state’s population. ……

Amherst, MA: Amherst College Press, 2023.  346p.

By Marcus Smith and Seumas Miller

This book undertakes a multifaceted and integrated examination of biometric identification, including the current state of the technology, how it is being used, the key ethical issues, and the implications for law and regulation. The five chapters examine the main forms of contemporary biometrics–fingerprint recognition, facial recognition and DNA identification– as well the integration of biometric data with other forms of personal data, analyses key ethical concepts in play, including privacy, individual autonomy, collective responsibility, and joint ownership rights, and proposes a raft of principles to guide the regulation of biometrics in liberal democracies. Biometric identification technology is developing rapidly and being implemented more widely, along with other forms of information technology. As products, services and communication moves online, digital identity and security is becoming more important. Biometric identification facilitates this transition. Citizens now use biometrics to access a smartphone or obtain a passport; law enforcement agencies use biometrics in association with CCTV to identify a terrorist in a crowd, or identify a suspect via their fingerprints or DNA; and companies use biometrics to identify their customers and employees. In some cases the use of biometrics is governed by law, in others the technology has developed and been implemented so quickly that, perhaps because it has been viewed as a valuable security enhancement, laws regulating its use have often not been updated to reflect new applications. However, the technology associated with biometrics raises significant ethical problems, including in relation to individual privacy, ownership of biometric data, dual use and, more generally, as is illustrated by the increasing use of biometrics in authoritarian states such as China, the potential for unregulated biometrics to undermine fundamental principles of liberal democracy. Resolving these ethical problems is a vital step towards more effective regulation.

Cham: Springer Nature, 2021. 99p.

Edited by  Mark Maguire, Ursula Rao, and Nils Zurawski

From biometrics to predictive policing, contemporary security relies on sophisticated scientific evidence-gathering and knowledge-making focused on the human body. Bringing together new anthropological perspectives on the complexities of security in the present moment, the contributors to Bodies as Evidence reveal how bodies have become critical sources of evidence that is organized and deployed to classify, recognize, and manage human life. Through global case studies that explore biometric identification, border control, forensics, predictive policing, and counterterrorism, the contributors show how security discourses and practices that target the body contribute to new configurations of knowledge and power. At the same time, margins of error, unreliable technologies, and a growing suspicion of scientific evidence in a “post-truth” era contribute to growing insecurity, especially among marginalized populations.

Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2018. 257p.

By Danielle Kaeble, BJS Statistician

This report presents national data on adult offenders under community supervision on probation or parole in 2019. It includes characteristics of the population, such as sex, race or Hispanic origin, and most serious offense. The report details how offenders move onto and off community supervision, such as completing their term of supervision, being incarcerated, absconding, or other unsatisfactory outcomes while in the community. Findings are based on data from BJS’s 2019 Annual Probation Survey, Annual Parole Survey, and Federal Justice Statistics Program.

By Danielle Kaeble, BJS Statistician

This report is the 29th in a series that began in 1981. It includes characteristics of the population such as sex, race or ethnicity, and most serious offense of adult U.S. residents under correctional supervision in the community. The report details how people move onto and off community supervision, such as completing their term of supervision, being incarcerated, absconding, or other unsatisfactory outcomes while in the community. Findings are based on data from BJS’s 2020 Annual Probation Survey, Annual Parole Survey, and Federal Justice Statistics Program.

By Danielle Kaeble, BJS Statistician

This report is the 30th in a series that began in 1981. It includes characteristics of the population such as sex, race or ethnicity, and most serious offense of adult U.S. residents under correctional supervision in the community. The report details how people move onto and off community supervision, such as completing their term of supervision, being incarcerated, absconding, or other unsatisfactory outcomes while in the community.

The keynote speech argues that accurate and uniform data on probation and parole must be used to support and argue correctional policy that advocates the rational use of correctional resources, notably to reduce the use of incarceration and increase the use of community supervision. The keynote panel, conforming to the theme of national criminal justice data, discusses how national data should be used, developing effective user services for criminal justice statistical analysis, and eliciting support for data collection and analysis in an era of budget-cutting. In the workshop reports on State responses to prison overcrowding, an overview is given of the problem, and examples of State responses to the problem are presented for Minnesota and California. The panel presentations on setting priorities for national reporting provide the systems and operation view, a judicial and sentencing view, and a legislative and legal view. Staff, speakers, and participant lists are included.

By Gina Jurva

In 2020, the United States judicial system faced unprecedented challenges as it was required to quickly adapt to an ever-evolving virus, new health mandates, and court closures, all while ensuring that litigants had access to the court system. People are entitled to their day in court, as they say, and this has been no easy feat. Where there is a challenge, however, there is also opportunity. Judges, court staff, and attorneys have risen to the occasion, finding new and innovative ways to keep the daily operations of civil and criminal court moving. In this “new normal”, courts used short- and long-term solutions to ensure that the public has continuous access to the U.S. justice system, while also reducing the danger to public health and maintaining safety. However, these solutions still didn’t meet all the needs to ensure access to justice and elimination of backlogs. As a result, we saw an increased reliance on technology in almost all aspects of court proceedings, from virtual or remote pre-trial hearings to remote jury selection and even digital evidence sharing. Many judges found this to be challenging, but many also embraced the opportunity to act as a salve against further case backlogs. While many courts relied on social distancing and were involved in some aspect of remote hearings, they now plan to continue to do so in hybrid-fashion into the future, whether by using social media and remote meeting tools like Zoom, YouTube, Microsoft TEAMS and even Facebook Live.  

Toronto: Thomson Reuters, 2021. 12p.

Edited by Antony Duff

Five preeminent legal theorists tackle a range of fundamental questions on the nature of the philosophy of criminal law. Their essays explore the extent to which and the ways in which our systems of criminal law can be seen as rational and principled. The essays discuss some of the principles by which, it is often thought, a system of law should be structured, and they ask whether our own systems are genuinely principled or riven by basic contradictions, reflecting deeper political and social conflicts

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998. 272p.

By Reid Griffith Fontaine

In American criminal law, if a defendant demonstrates that they lack certain psychological capabilities, they may be excused of blame and punishment for wrongdoing. However, criminal defense law often fails to consider the developmental science of individual differences in ability and functioning that may inform jurisprudential issues of rational capacity and responsibility in criminal law. This book discusses the excusing nature of a range of both traditional and nontraditional criminal law defenses and questions the structure of these defenses based on scientific findings from social and developmental psychology. This book explores how research on individual differences in the development of social perception, judgment, and decision making explain why some youths and adults develop psychological tendencies that favor criminal behavior, and considers how developmental science can guide the understanding of criminal excuses and affirmative defense law.

Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012. 282p.

By R.A. Duff

This book reflects the belief that a careful study of the Law of Attempts should be both interesting in itself, as well as being a productive route into a number of larger and deeper issues in criminal law theory and in the philosophy of action. By identifying the legal doctrines which courts and legislatures have developed or adopted, the author goes on to ask whether and how they can be rationalized or rendered persuasive. Such an approach involves paying detailed attention to cases. The book is also unusual in that it grapples with English, Scots and US law, showing great breadth of research as well as philosophical sophistication.

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1997, 448p.

By Kyla Wasserman, Johanna Walter, Beata Luczywek, Hannah Wagner, and Cindy Redcross

This report presents findings from a feasibility evaluation of the Bridges to Pathways (Bridges) program. Bridges was a program for young men in Chicago between the ages of 17 and 21 years who were involved with the criminal or juvenile justice system and lacked a high school credential. The program offered intensive mentoring and case management, as well as the opportunity to earn a high school credential, attend social-emotional learning workshops, and participate in a subsidized internship.

The Bridges evaluation enrolled 480 young people between June 2015 and July 2016. This report provides a detailed description of the Bridges model and how the program providers adapted the model. It also presents findings about whether the program improved young people’s outcomes and decreased criminal activity during the first year after study enrollment. The implementation study concluded that the program succeeded in enrolling a high-risk population, and it focused its services on keeping participants engaged with the program and removing barriers to their participation.

New York: MDRC, 2019. 114p.

By Chloe Anderson Golub, Cindy Redcross and Erin Jacobs Valentine

On January 1, 2017, the State of New Jersey implemented Criminal Justice Reform (CJR), a sweeping set of changes to its pretrial justice system. With CJR, the state shifted from a system that relied heavily on monetary bail to a system based on defendants’ risks of failing to appear for court dates and of being charged with new crimes before their cases were resolved. These risks are assessed using the Public Safety Assessment (PSA), a pretrial risk-assessment tool developed by Arnold Ventures with a team of experts. The PSA uses nine factors from an individual’s criminal history to produce two risk scores: one representing the likelihood of a new crime being committed, and another representing the likelihood of a failure to appear for future court hearings.

The PSA is used at two points in New Jersey’s pretrial process: (1) at the time of arrest, when a police officer must decide whether to seek a complaint-warrant (which will mean booking the person into jail) or issue a complaint-summons (in which case the defendant is given a date to appear in court and released); and (2) at the time of the first court appearance, when judges set release conditions for defendants who were booked into jail on complaint-warrants. (The DMF is also used at this second point.) CJR includes a number of other important components: It all but eliminated the use of monetary bail as a release condition, established the possibility of pretrial detention without bail, established a pretrial monitoring program, and instituted speedy-trial laws that impose time limits for case processing.

This report is one of a planned series on the impacts of New Jersey’s CJR. It describes the effects of the reforms on short-term outcomes, including the number of arrest events (where an “arrest event” is defined as all complaints and charges associated with a person on a given arrest date), complaint charging decisions, release conditions, and initial jail bookings.

New York: MDRC, 2019, 48p.

By the Criminal Justice Policy Program, Harvard Law School

Bail reform presents a historic challenge – and also an opportunity. Bail is historically a tool meant to allow courts to minimize the intrusion on a defendant’s liberty while helping to assure appearance at trial. It is one mechanism available to administer the pretrial process. Yet in courtrooms around the country, judges use the blunt instrument of secured money bail to ensure that certain defendants are detained prior to their trial. Money bail prevents many indigent defendants from leaving jail while their cases are pending. In many jurisdictions, this has led to an indefensible state of affairs: too many people jailed unnecessarily, with their economic status often defining pretrial outcomes. Money bail is often imposed arbitrarily and can result in unjustified inequalities. When pretrial detention depends on whether someone can afford to pay a cash bond, two otherwise similar pretrial defendants will face vastly different outcomes based merely on their wealth…. All of this builds on sustained attention from experts and advocacy groups who have long called for fundamental reform of cash bail.3 As policymakers across the political spectrum seek to end the era of mass incarceration,4 reforming pretrial administration has emerged as a critical way to slow down the flow of people into the criminal justice system. This primer on bail reform seeks to guide policymakers and advocates in identifying reforms and tailoring those reforms to their jurisdiction. In this introductory section, it outlines the basic legal architecture of pretrial decision-making, including constitutional principles that structure how bail may operate. Section II describes some of the critical safeguards that should be in place in jurisdictions that maintain a role for money bail. Where money bail is part of a jurisdiction’s pretrial system, it must be incorporated into a framework that seeks to minimize pretrial detention, ensures that people are not detained because they are too poor to afford a cash bond amount, allows for individualized pretrial determinations, and effectively regulates the commercial bail bond industry.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard Law School, 2016. 40p.

By Krystal Rodriguez

On April 1, 2019, New York State passed sweeping criminal justice reform legislation, including discovery reform, requiring prosecutors to disclose their evidence to the defense earlier in case proceedings. The discovery reforms went into effect January 1, 2020, but were amended in April 2020, with an effective date 30 days later. In April 2022, New York State included further amendments to the discovery statute, along with other criminal justice reforms, in the state budget. This document, originally published in 2019 and updated in 2020, incorporates those most recent changes.

The impact of discovery reform—regardless of amendments—rests on how well it is implemented and enforced. Compared to the pre-reform era, accelerated discovery timelines remain in force, even after the April 2022 amendments. If implemented properly, the current law has the potential to shrink case processing times, resulting in shorter jail stays for people held in pretrial detention. By facilitating a defendant’s ability to prepare a defense, the reform may also result in fewer prison or jail sentences and more just outcomes.

New York: The Data Collaborative for Justice (DCJ) at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2022. 15p.

By Olive Lu, Erica Bond, and Preeti Chauhan

On April 1, 2019, New York State passed extensive legislative reforms (“2020 Criminal Justice Reforms”) aimed at transforming the criminal legal system and its impact on New Yorkers. Amongst other changes, the reforms (which came into effect on January 1, 2020) now require police in New York State to issue desk appearance tickets (commonly referred to as “DATs” or “universal appearance tickets”), rather than make a custodial arrest for many types of criminal charges. In May 2020, DCJ released a research brief examining the use of DATs across New York State in 2018 to provide a baseline against which the future impact of these changes can be measured.

This report uses 2019 data to examine DAT arraignments and associated appearance rates in New York State district and city courts prior to the implementation of the reforms. In addition, the metrics are disaggregated by charge type, by geographic region (New York City, Suburban New York City and Upstate Cities), and by individual courts. Future research from DCJ will examine the actual impact of the 2020 Criminal Justice Reforms on DAT issuance in 2020. DCJ will also examine how DAT issuance and associated appearance rates have been impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic in New York State.

New York: The Data Collaborative for Justice (DCJ) at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2021. 24p.

By Olive Lu, Erica Bond, Preeti Chauhan and Michael Rempel

For this report, DCJ analyzed how the Original Reforms and the Amended Reforms would have impacted pretrial releases for 2019 criminal cases in New York City. The report provides findings about how pretrial outcomes, including the number and proportion of cases where bail was set, would have changed under the Original and Amended Reforms. It also provides analyses of how outcomes would have differed by borough, by charge types, and by demographics (race/ethnicity, sex, and age).

Future research from DCJ will examine the actual impacts of bail reform on release outcomes in 2020. DCJ will also examine pretrial release outcomes and how they have changed as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, nationwide protests calling for policing and criminal legal system reforms, and rising rates of certain types of violent crime in New York City.

New York: The Data Collaborative for Justice (DCJ) at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2022. 48p.

By Olive Lu, Erica Bond, and Preeti Chauhan,

In April 2019, New York State passed significant reforms to the laws governing bail, which the state legislature then amended in April 2020 (collectively referred to as the "2020 Bail Reforms"). The first set of reforms (“Original Reforms”),1 which went into effect on January 1, 2020, included restrictions on which charges were eligible for money bail, mandated that people be released on recognizance (ROR)2 unless more restrictive conditions are needed to assure court appearance, required that judges set at least three forms of bail, and take into account an individual's ability to pay when setting money bail. The amendments to the bail reforms (“Amended Reforms”)3 went into effect in July 2020 and moved some charges that had been made ineligible for bail under the Original Reforms into the category of charges where judges have discretion to set bail.4 In September 2019, DCJ released a research brief that examined how the Original Reforms would have impacted the number and proportion of cases resulting in pretrial release without bail had they been in effect in 2018. This report updates DCJ’s prior research brief by using 2019 case data, applying the Original and Amended Reforms, and includes additional analyses on how the reforms would have impacted different types of charges and demographic groups in 2019.

New York: The Data Collaborative for Justice (DCJ) at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, ,2021. 34p.