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

The Kentucky Advisory Committee (“Committee”) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights examined the pretrial detention and bail process in Kentucky. The Committee’s work focused on the impacts and uses of cash bail—that is, the money an individual must pay to secure their release from detention pretrial—in the state. As part of the inquiry, the Committee heard testimony on this topic from a diverse group of panelists during public meetings. The use of cash bail is prevalent in Kentucky courts, posing significant challenges to low-income defendants. A study by the Pegasus Institute in 2016 found that over 64,000 nonviolent, nonsexual offenders—70 percent of whom were deemed to be at low to moderate risk for reoffending prior to trial—were detained in Kentucky for an average of 109 days pretrial because they could not afford to pay their bail.1 The Committee heard several key themes throughout their inquiry which evidenced the need for cash bail reform in the state to achieve more equitable and effective public safety outcomes. These key themes included (1) the failure of Kentucky’s pretrial risk assessment tool to reduce pretrial detentions and provide reliable risk assessments; (2) the widely varied conditions of release for similarly situated defendants across the state; and (3) the negative consequences caused by unnecessary pretrial detention of low- to moderate-risk nonviolent and nonsexual alleged offenders. ….

Washington DC: USCCR, 2021. 16p.

Edited by  Anna Nylund • Kaijus Ervasti • Lin Adrian

• Provides access to twelve unique studies by researches from Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden that were previously not accessible in English

• Gives a research-based insight into different areas of mediation such as family mediation, criminal mediation and court-connected civil mediation

• Offers a sound foundation for implementation of mediation legislation and programs

Cham: Springer Nature, 2018. 268p.

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 Ram Subramanian, Leon Digard, Melvin Washington II, and Stephanie Sorage 

There are concerns about plea bargaining’s coercive nature, its role in encouraging the forfeiture of procedural protections, and its role in fueling mass incarceration. In order to provide an accessible summary of existing research, the Vera Institute of Justice, with support from the Safety and Justice Challenge, examined the small but growing body of empirical studies that has developed around plea bargaining. The result is a mix of complicated, nuanced, and sometimes contradictory research findings.

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2020. 72p.

By The American Bar Association. Criminal Justice Section and Thea Johnson

The Plea Bargain Task Force formed in 2019 to address persistent criticisms of the plea bargain system in the United States.1 Plea bargaining has become the primary way to resolve criminal cases. Indeed, some jurisdictions have not had a criminal trial in many years, resolving all their cases through negotiated resolutions.2 For this reason, a critical examination of the modern plea system is necessary and important. This Report comes after three years of work, during which the Task Force collected and reviewed testimony from experts in the field and those impacted by the plea system, scholarly and legal reports on plea bargaining, state and federal rules of criminal procedure, and other materials. What has become clear from this process is that plea bargaining is not one monolithic practice. It looks different depending on whether one is in state or federal court, a rural jurisdiction with few lawyers or an urban center with large prosecution and public defender offices. Even within the same courthouse, informal practices may differ between courtrooms and attorneys. Although these variations pose a challenge for the development of any one-size-fits-all set of recommendations to reform plea bargaining practices, this Report identifies and addresses numerous concerns with plea bargaining that are common to a wide variety of jurisdictions. The Report then provides guidance to jurisdictions on how to meet those challenges while also promoting justice, transparency, and fairness. There are many purported benefits of plea bargaining in the current criminal justice system. Nearly all jurisdictions have limited resources and plea bargaining provides a mechanism to efficiently resolve cases. ..

Chicago:: ABA, 2023. 40p.

By Andreea Matei, Lily Robin, Kelly Roberts Freeman, and Leigh Courtney

As we have come to reckon with our nation's overreliance on carceral punishment and the mass incarceration of people of color, particularly Black people, experts are turning to a key system point that is the primary method for resolving most criminal cases: plea bargaining. Plea bargaining involves negotiation between a prosecutor and, often, a defense provider on behalf of their client. Prosecutors hold a lot of discretion over how to proceed regarding plea bargains, including whether to offer a plea agreement, when to do so, and what they wish to offer. Despite the wide use of plea bargaining, little is known about the practice, largely because it happens outside of public view and little is documented by the key actors involved—prosecutors.

In this report, we discuss findings from our exploratory single-site study, in which we used qualitative and quantitative data to answer research questions of interest. Our activities included a policy review; analysis of administrative data from 2018 to 2021; interviews with 11 Philadelphia ADAs, 9 defense providers, and 5 people who accepted pleas; a case file review of 115 cases; and a survey of 65 ADAs. Because prosecutorial discretion in plea bargaining is not well documented in data, the best way to learn about discretion is by speaking with prosecutors; thus, this report focuses primarily on our qualitative findings. We organized our findings by three main topics: policies and goals of plea bargaining, trends in plea offers and outcomes, and decision-making and perceptions of key actors. We end the report with a discussion of policy implications.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2022. 76p.

By  Don Stemen, Beth M. Huebner, Marisa Omori, Elizabeth Webster, Alessandra Early, and Luis Torres

Although guilty pleas are the modal method for criminal case resolution in the US, relatively little attention has been paid to the plea negotiation process. Research suggests that prosecutors drive plea decision-making; however, the decision process is largely hidden and informal. Consequently, little is known about the role that prosecutors and other criminal justice actors play across the process, and even less is known about how these mechanisms have changed over time, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Unpacking these plea negotiation decisions are especially key to understanding racial and ethnic disparities in criminal case processing.

Funded as part of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation's Safety and Justice Challenge Research Consortium, the current study considers guilty plea negotiation processes and outcomes in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, and St. Louis County, Missouri. Both offices are currently led by reform-oriented attorneys, are are medium-sized offices serving urban and suburban jurisdictions. Over the long tenure of elected District Attorney John Chisholm in Milwaukee, the office has implemented innovative prosecution models such as community prosecution units and diversion programs. In St Louis, recently elected District Attorney Wesley Bell is the first Black person to hold the office, and he ran on a platform of ensuring equity in the system and reducing mass incarceration. The goal of the study is to explore how prosecutors and other court actors approach and make decisions surrounding the plea negotiation process, in addition to investigating the factors that affect plea outcomes. The data used in this report include narratives from interviews with and surveys of local stakeholders including prosecutors, public defenders, judges, private attorneys, and system-involved persons. The report also centers on administrative data collected through agencies' case management systems for criminal cases filed in Milwaukee and St. Louis Counties through 2020.

Safety and Justice Challenge, 2022. 49p.

By The U.S. Government Accountability Office 

  Online marketing and communication platforms can enable sex trafficking— the commercial sexual exploitation of adults through force, fraud or coercion, or children under the age of 18 (with or without force, fraud, or coercion)—by making it easier for traffickers to exploit victims and connect with buyers. Section 3 of FOSTA established criminal penalties for those who promote or facilitate prostitution and sex trafficking through their control of online platforms. It also allows for those injured by an aggravated violation involving the promotion of prostitution of five or more people or reckless disregard of sex trafficking to recover damages in a federal civil action. It also makes federal criminal restitution mandatory for aggravated offenses contributing to sex trafficking. FOSTA includes a provision for GAO to provide detailed information on restitution and civil damages. This report examines: (1) DOJ enforcement efforts against online platforms that promote prostitution and sex trafficking, from 2014 through 2020; and (2) the extent to which criminal restitution and civil damages have been sought and awarded for aggravated violations under section 3 of FOSTA. GAO reviewed federal criminal cases brought against those who controlled platforms in the online commercial sex market from 2014 through 2020; visited a selection of online platforms in this market; and conducted a legal search to identify criminal and civil cases brought pursuant to section 3 of FOSTA. GAO also interviewed DOJ officials and representatives from third parties. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2021. 56p.

By Kaman Maxine Clarke

Since its inception in 2001, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been met with resistance by various African states and their leaders, who see the court as a new iteration of colonial violence and control. In Affective Justice Kamari Maxine Clarke explores the African Union's pushback against the ICC in order to theorize affect's role in shaping forms of justice in the contemporary period. Drawing on fieldwork in The Hague, the African Union in Addis Ababa, sites of post-election violence in Kenya, and Boko Haram's circuits in Northern Nigeria, Clarke formulates the concept of affective justice—an emotional response to competing interpretations of justice—to trace how affect becomes manifest in judicial practices. By detailing the effects of the ICC’s all-African indictments, she outlines how affective responses to these call into question the "objectivity" of the ICC’s mission to protect those victimized by violence and prosecute perpetrators of those crimes. In analyzing the effects of such cases, Clarke provides a fuller theorization of how people articulate what justice is and the mechanisms through which they do so.

Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2019. 384p.

By R. D. Mackay

Mental condition defences have been used in several high-profile and controversial criminal trials in recent years. indeed, mental abnormality is increasingly an important yet complex source of defence within the criminal trial process. The author offers a detailed critical analysis of those defences within the Criminal Law where the accused relies on some form of mental abnormality as a source of defence. Topics covered include: the defences of automatism, insanity, diminished responsibility, and infanticide; self-induced incapacity; and the doctrine of fault. It also includes a chapter on unfitness to plead, which although not a defence has been included because of its important relationship to mental disorder within the criminal process. Drawing upon a wide variety of legal, psychiatric, and philosophical sources, this is a timely contribution to a controversial and complex topic.

Oxford, UK; New York: Oxford University Press, 1996p. 278p.

By Andrew Ashworth

Written by Andrew Ashworth, a well-known expert in the field of criminal law, this book offers a set of essays, old and new, that examine the positive obligations of individuals and the State in matters of criminal law. The centerpiece is a new, extended essay on the criminalization of omissions - examining the duty to act that is imposed upon individuals and organizations by the criminal law, and assessing their moral and social foundations. Alongside this is another new essay on the State's positive obligations to put in place criminal laws to protect certain individual rights. Introducing the volume is Ashworth's much-cited essay on criminalization: Is the Criminal Law a Lost Cause? The book sheds new light on contemporary arguments about the proper boundaries of the criminal law, not least by exploring the justifications for imposing positive duties (reinforced by the criminal law) on individuals and their relation to the positive obligations of the State.

Oxford, UK; Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 2013. 233p.

Edited by Julian V Roberts and Lucia Zedner

Celebrating the scholarship of Andrew Ashworth, Vinerian Professor of English Law at the University of Oxford, this collection brings together leading international scholars to explore questions of principle and value in criminal law and criminal justice. Internationally renowned for elaborating a body of principles and values that should underpin criminalization, the criminal process, and sentencing, Ashworth's contribution to the field over forty years of scholarship has been immense. Advancing his project of exploring normative issues at the heart of criminal law and criminal justice, the contributors examine the important and fascinating debates in which Ashworth's influence has been greatest.

The essays fall into three distinct but related areas, reflecting Ashworth's primary spheres of influence. Those in Part 1 address the import and role of principles in the development of a just criminal law, with contributions focusing upon core tenets such as the presumption of innocence, fairness, accountability, the principles of criminal liability, and the grounds for defences. Part 2 addresses questions of human rights and due process protections in both domestic and international law. In Part 3 the essays are addressed to core issues in sentencing and punishment: they explore questions of equality, proportionality, adherence to the rule of law, the totality principle (in respect of multiple offences), wrongful acquittals, and unduly lenient sentences. Together they demonstrate how important Ashworth's work has been in shaping how we think about criminal law and criminal justice, and make their own invaluable contribution to contemporary discussions of criminalization and punishment.

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 375p.

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 Jeremy Horder

A number of jurisdictions world-wide have changed or are considering changing their homicide laws. Important changes have now been recommended for England and Wales, and these changes are an important focus in this book, which brings together leading experts from jurisdictions across the globe — England, Wales, the US, Canada, France, Germany, Scotland, Australia, Singapore, and Malaysia — to examine key aspects of the law of homicide. Key areas include the structure of the law of homicide and the meaning of fault elements. For example, the definition of murder, or its equivalent, is very different in France and Germany when compared to the definition used in England and Wales. French law, like the law in a number of US states, ties the definition of murder to the presence or absence of premeditation, unlike the law in England and Wales. Unlike most other jurisdictions, German law makes the killer's motive, such as a sadistic sexual motive, relevant to whether or not he or she committed the worst kind of homicide. England and Wales are in a minority of English-speaking jurisdictions in that these two countries do not employ the concept of 'wicked' recklessness, or of extreme indifference, as a fault element in homicide. Understanding these often subtle differences between the approaches of different jurisdictions to the definition of homicide is an essential aspect of the law reform process, and of legal study and scholarship in criminal law. Every jurisdiction tries to learn from the experience of others.

Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing, 2007. 265p.

By Cody Tuttle

I test for racial disparities in the criminal justice system by analyzing abnormal bunching in the distribution of crack-cocaine amounts used in federal sentencing. I compare cases sentenced before and after the Fair Sentencing Act, a 2010 law that changed the 10-year mandatory minimum threshold for crack-cocaine from 50g to 280g. First, I find that after 2010, there is a sharp increase in the fraction of cases sentenced at 280g (the point that now triggers a 10-year mandatory minimum), and that this increase is disproportionately large for black and Hispanic offenders. I then explore several possible explanations for the observed racial disparities, including discrimination. I analyze data from multiple stages in the criminal justice system and find that the increased bunching for minority offenders is driven by prosecutorial discretion, specifically as used by about 20-30% of prosecutors. Moreover, the fraction of cases at 280g falls in 2013 when evidentiary standards become stricter. Finally, the racial disparity in the increase cannot be explained by differences in education, sex, age, criminal history, seized drug amount, or other elements of the crime, but it can be almost entirely explained by a measure of state-level racial animus. These results shed light on the role of prosecutorial discretion and potentially racial discrimination as causes of racial disparities in sentencing.

College Park, MD: University of Maryland, 2019. 121p.

By Color Of Change and ACLU’s Campaign for Smart Justice

Every year in the United States, millions of people are forced to pay cash bail after their arrest or face incarceration before trial. This is despite the fact that they are presumed innocent and have not been convicted of a crime. To avoid being locked up while their cases go through the courts—which can sometimes take months or even years—people who cannot afford bail must pay a non-refundable fee to a for-profit bail bonds company to front the required bail amount. The financial burden of this fee harms individuals, it harms families, and it disproportionately affects Black and low-income communities. The only winner is the bottom line of big for-profit businesses. These harms are perpetuated by the large insurance corporations that control the two-billion dollar for-profit bail bonds industry, which is both unaccountable to the justice system and unnecessary to justice itself. Large companies whose only goal is profit should not be the gatekeepers of pretrial detention and release. The for-profit bail system in the United States fuels mass incarceration and contributes to racial and economic inequalities. It is a destructive force that undermines the rights of people who come into contact with the criminal justice system, and it must be abolished.

New York: American Civil Liberties Union, 2017. 64o,

By Christopher T. Lowenkamp, Marie VanNostrand and Alexander Holsinger,

Each time a person is arrested and accused of a crime, a decision must be made as to whether the accused person, known as the defendant, will be detained in jail awaiting trial or will be released back into the community. But pretrial detention is not simply an either-or proposition; many defendants are held for a number of days before being released at some point before their trial. The release-and-detention decision takes into account a number of different concerns, including protecting the community, the need for defendants to appear in court, and upholding the legal and constitutional rights afforded to accused persons awaiting trial. It carries enormous consequences not only for the defendant but also for the safety of the community" (p. 3). This study examines the relationship between pretrial detention and sentencing. Sections following an executive summary include: introduction; sample description; and findings for eight research questions regarding the relations between pretrial detention and sentencing. Defendants who are detained for the entire pretrial period are three times more likely to be sentenced to jail or prison and to receive longer jail and prison sentences.

Houston, TX: Laura and John Arnold Foundation, 2013. 21p.

By Christopher T. Lowenkamp, Marie VanNostrand and Alexander Holsinger

The release-and-detention decision takes into account a number of different concerns, including protecting the community, the need for defendants to appear in court, and upholding the legal and constitutional rights afforded to accused persons awaiting trial. It carries enormous consequences not only for the defendant but also for the safety of the community … Using data from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, this research investigates the impact of pretrial detention on 1) pretrial outcomes (failure to appear and arrest for new criminal activity); and 2) post-disposition recidivism" (p. 3). Sections following an executive summary include: introduction; sample description; research objective one—investigate the relationship between length of pretrial detention and pretrial outcome; and research objective two—investigate the relationship between pretrial detention, as well as the length of pretrial detention, and new criminal activity post-disposition (NCA-PD). There appears to a direct link between how long low- and moderate-risk defendants are in pretrial detention and the chances that they will commit new crimes.

Houston, TX: The Laura and John Arnold Foundation, 2013. 32p.

By Sara Rahman

Aim: To estimate the effect of bail decisions on the likelihood of receiving a prison sentence, failure to appear and offending on bail. Method: A dataset of 42,362 first bail hearings taking place after the ‘show cause’ amendments to the Bail Act (2013) was constructed and linked to final case outcomes and offending data. Quasi-random assignment of bail magistrates with differing propensities to grant bail was used to address problems of selection bias and partial observability. Further analyses were undertaken to determine the proportion and characteristics of defendants who were sensitive to magistrate leniency. Robustness checks were conducted to determine the sensitivity of estimates to different specifications. Results: The marginal effect of additional releases is an increase in the rate of offending from 2.3 per cent to 13.3 per cent, a decrease in the rate of imprisonment from 59.0 to 49.0 per cent and an increase in the rate of failure to appear from 2.1 per cent to 11.1 per cent for those defendants. Thus, remanding ten additional defendants increases the number imprisoned by one, and reduces the number of offending and failing to appear by 1.1 and 0.9 on average. These estimates are causal and net of differences in observed characteristics and selection bias, but applicable only to a subset of defendants whose bail status is sensitive to magistrate leniency. The likelihood of failing to appear and of offending on bail for these defendants does not exceed the general rate among those released on bail. Conclusion: Taken together, the results show that bail refusal has a significant incapacitation effect on crime and failure to appear. These benefits should, however, be considered alongside the considerable cost to the correctional system and the individual arising from increased imprisonment rates. There is limited evidence for the influence of selection bias in regards to imprisonment but not in relation to crime or failure to appear.

Brisbane: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research , 2019. 24p.