By Julian V. Roberts,  Elaine Freer and Jonathan Bild (Sentencing Academy)

This report provides an introduction to the concept of deferred sentencing. Courts in England and Wales have long had the power to defer sentencing for up to six months. The Government’s 2020 White Paper, A Smarter Approach to Sentencing, expressed an intention to encourage greater use of deferred sentencing. To date, very little research has explored this little-known element of sentencing law. The only peer-review publications exploring the subject appeared approximately 40 years ago. This report summarises the limited research on this topic and reports recent trends in the use of deferred sentencing in England and Wales. The power to defer sentence was conceived to respond to those individuals whose personal and professional circumstances are most likely to be in transition and evolving in ways that have consequences for the sentencing decision. For this reason, deferred sentencing may be particularly appropriate for young adults whose personal and professional lives are changing rapidly. The idea behind the deferred sentence is that the offender has a limited time (up to six months) to address the problems which gave rise to the offending for which he or she is being sentenced. When a court defers sentencing, the offender is required to comply with a number of requirements during the period of deferral. If the offender complies successfully with these requirements, there is a strong presumption that a non-custodial sanction will ultimately be imposed. This may mean imposing a suspended sentence order or community order in a case which would normally have resulted in a short immediate prison sentence. The deferred sentence therefore should serve as a powerful incentive for the offender to take steps towards desistance and away from offending. The deferral order commonly involves completing or undertaking a drug or alcohol treatment programme. The deferred sentencing provision was introduced in 1973 to provide an opportunity for the offender to demonstrate a change in personal circumstances during the period of deferral. Compliance with requirements designed to promote desistance normally resulted in the imposition of an alternative to immediate imprisonment. Deferred sentencing thus targeted offenders convicted of an offence serious enough to justify the imposition of a custodial sentence. The limited statistics available from the early period showed that almost all cases deferred ultimately attracted a non-custodial sentence. The volume of deferred sentences has declined considerably from a high of almost 10,000 cases a year in the mid-1970s although it is unclear why courts have moved away from exercising the power to defer sentence. Most deferrals (approximately half of all cases) over the more recent period covered by the statistics we have been provided with by the Ministry of Justice in response to requests under the Freedom of Information Act (2005-2020) involved theft or minor fraud. Crimes involving violence or sexual offences accounted for 3% or less of all cases. No data are currently available on the requirements imposed as part of a deferred sentence, the outcome of the deferment, or the sentence ultimately imposed.  

London: Barrow Cadbury Trust, 2022. 39p.

Edited by José A. Brandariz, Witold Klaus and Agnieszka Martynowicz   

Forced Mobility of EU Citizens is a critical evaluation from an empirical perspective of existing practices of the use of transnational criminal justice instruments within the European Union. Such instruments include the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), prisoner transfer procedures and criminal law-related deportations. The voices and experiences of people transferred across internal borders of the European Union are brought to the fore in this book. Another area explored is the scope and value of EU citizenship rights in light of cooperation not just between judicial authorities of EU Member States, but criminal justice systems in general, including penitentiary institutions. The novelty of the book lays not only in the fact that it brings to the fore a topic that so far has been under-researched, but it also brings together academics and studies from different parts of Europe – from the west (i.e. the expelling countries) and the east (the receiving countries, with a special focus on two of the jurisdictions most affected by these processes – Poland and Romania). It therefore exposes processes that have so far been hidden, shows the links between sending and receiving countries, and elaborates on the harms caused by those instruments and the very idea of ‘justice’ behind them. This book also introduces a new element to deportation studies as it links to them the institution of the European Arrest Warrant and EU law transfers targeting prisoners and sentenced individuals. With a combination of legal, criminological, and sociological perspectives, this book will be of great interest to scholars and students with an interest in EU law, criminal law, transnational criminal justice, migration/immigration, and citizenship.

New York: London: Routledge, 2024. 227p.

Used book-may contain mark-up

By Alan M. Dershowtiz

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed that "hard cases make bad law." In Taking Liberties, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz writes for the layperson about the hard cases and thorny issues that come before our courts today. Should parents be compelled to testify against their own children? Can your employer force you to submit to a random drug test, even if you never have used drugs? Does the government have the right to find out what home videos you have rented? Should an otherwise qualified nominee to the Supreme Court be rejected solely on grounds of his ideology? Where is the line between vigilantism and self-defense? Does the jury have the final say on matters of truth? How should the victims of AIDS be treated in the workplace and in the schools? To scores of questions like these, each arising from the issues of an actual case or controversy, Dershowitz offers incisive and often surprising an- swers. Outspoken, thought-provoking, Taking Liberties is a book to savor and enjoy--a rare opportunity to watch one of America's foremost legal minds at work.

New York. Contemporary Books. 1988. 348p.

  Edited by Gizem Guney, David Davies and Po-Han Lee  

This Open Access book aims to find out how and why states in various regions and of diverse cultural backgrounds fail in their gender equality laws and policies. In doing this, the book maps out states’ failures in their legal systems and unpacks the clashes between different levels and forms of law—namely domestic laws, local regulations, or the implementation of international law, individually or in combination. By taking off from the confirmation that the concept of law that is to be used in achieving gender equality is a multidimensional, multi-layered, and to an extent, contradictory phenomenon, this book aims to find out how different layers of laws interact and how they impact gender equality. Further to that, by including different states and jurisdictions into its analysis, this book unravels whether there are any similarities/patterns in how these states define and utilise policies and laws that harm gender equality. In this way, the book contributes to the efforts to devise holistic and universal policies to address various forms of gender inequalities across the world. This volume will be of interest to scholars and students in Gender Studies, Sociology, Law, and Criminology.

Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022. 262p.

By Nancy J. King; Fred L. Cheesman II; Brian J. Ostrom

The purpose of the study discussed in this report was to provide empirical information about habeas corpus cases filed by state prisoners in U.S. District Courts under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). This report first provides an overview of federal habeas review and the current statutory scheme before discussing the five categories of empirical information about habeas review: time before filing; claims for relief; operation of defenses; time for processing; and merits review and case outcomes. The report is divided into five sections, with the introduction providing the federal habeas review and research review, as well as a discussion of the study design and methodology. The second section provides descriptive findings of: petitioner demographics; state proceedings; representation of petitioner in federal court; timing of petitions; type of proceedings challenged; claims raised; intermediate orders; litigation steps; processing time; non-merits dispositions; merits dispositions; and appeals. The third section provides comparative findings, of post- and pre-AEDPA studies, capital and non-capital cases. The fourth section provides explanatory findings of capital and non-capital cases, and discusses factors associated with likelihood of relief in capital cases. And the fifth section consists of Appendices, providing statistical tables, cases, writs granted, and lists of districts and variables collected.

Nashville: Vanderbilt University, Law School, 2023. 127p.

By Marea Beeman, Kellianne Elliott, Rosalie Joy, Elizabeth Allen, and Michael Mrozinski

  In the United States of America, individuals accused of crime who cannot afford to hire a lawyer have a constitutional right to have one appointed to represent them at government expense. In 2021, the National Legal Aid & Defender Association (NLADA) set out to investigate the national landscape of laws and local practices relating to fees that are assessed upon individuals when they exercise their constitutional right to counsel. Findings from the resulting eighteen-month investigation show that in the overwhelming majority of states, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not mean that counsel for those who cannot afford it is provided free of charge. In 42 states, plus the District of Columbia, laws authorize courts to impose public defense system fees – both upfront application or administrative fees, and fees recouping the cost of counsel – on people who are represented by court-appointed attorneys. NLADA’s review finds that these fees do more harm than good. For instance, in no state with available data does collection of public defense recoupment fees amount to more than five percent of assessed recoupment costs. Yet individuals assessed these fees who cannot pay them down are essentially sentenced to years of court entanglement and consequences that can sharply limit efforts to move forward in life. Unpaid court debt, including public defense system fees, can result in years of, among other things, inability to secure reliable housing and employment, tarnished credit, and risk of arrest or incarceration for failure to pay. …

 Washington DC:  National Legal Aid & Defender Association, 2022. 136p.

By Lorinda Riley

his research report describes a collaboration between the University of Hawaii and Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate Tribal Court. The research team sought to understand when and how tribal judges use restorative approaches in their cases, and they specifically hoped to look at the role of substance use and crime severity in the decision-making process of when to use restorative approaches. The report provides a summary of the research, including conceptualization and re-conceptualization prompted by legal changes and the Covid-19 pandemic, a statement of problem and research question, justice system background, research methodology, and findings; it details the process of collaboration; and provides author reflections on challenges experienced, lessons learned, and successes; and the appendices include supporting documents. The author describes how the research team developed the survey that would be used in the research study, including questions about the role of a tribal court in describing the strength of identification with restorative principles. Survey responses indicated that respondents self-rated their knowledge of traditionally appropriate behavior as a 7.2 and knowledge of modern-day behavior as 7.6 out of 10; respondents overwhelmingly believed that the Tribal Court should focus on “getting to the truth” and “making the perpetrator a productive member of society,” but were equally split about whether the court should “punish the offender” or “make the victim whole.” The author suggests that the results indicate the community has endorsed a desire for a restorative-focused tribal justice system. The author also noted the cultural differences and experiences of individuals living on reservation compared to those in the general population.

University of Hawaiʻi Mānoa: 2023. 64p.

By  Besiki Luka Kutateladze; et al.

One of the key decisions that prosecutors make is whether or not to file charges against a defendant. Depending on the office, this decision point may be called initial case assessment, screening, review, or filing. Prosecutors, or in some instances paralegals, review evidence provided by law enforcement and decide whether to file any charges in each case. The core purpose of case screening is to identify and eliminate cases that cannot or should not be prosecuted. In other words, prosecutors have the difficult task of assessing limited case facts in front of them and rejecting cases 1) that do not involve enough evidence to support a conviction, and 2) for which prosecution would not be in the best interest of justice and victims. The decision to reject a case is highly consequential because it means that the defendant will avoid formal charges and conviction. Cases can also be dismissed after they are filed. While judges can dismiss cases— due, e.g., to missing case processing deadlines or 4th amendment violations—most dismissal decisions are made by prosecutors. Cases may be dismissed by a prosecutor due to evidentiary issues (including victim or witness cooperation) or plea negotiations in other cases, for example. PPI 2.1 examines the relationship between these two highly discretionary case outcomes: case rejection and case dismissal. While there is no agreed-upon standard for what proportion of referred cases should be rejected for prosecution, or what proportion of filed cases should be dismissed, we suspect that these proportions will vary across jurisdictions and by offense types. 

Prosecutorial Performance Indicators , 2022. 12p.

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 Ronald Wright and Jenny Roberts  

This review collects and critiques the academic literature on criminal defense lawyering, with an emphasis on empirical work. Research on criminal defense attorneys in the United States has traditionally emphasized scarcity of resources: too many people facing criminal charges who are “too poor to pay” for counsel and not enough funding to pay for the constitutionally mandated lawyers. Scholars have focused on the capacity of different delivery systems, such as public defender offices, to change the ultimate outcomes in criminal cases within their tight budgetary constraints. Over the decades, however, theoretical understandings of the defense attorney’s work have expanded to include client interests outside the criminal courtroom, reaching the broader social conditions connected to the alleged criminal act. Researchers have responded by asking a broader range of questions about the effectiveness of defense counsel outside the courtroom and by using improved data to study the effectiveness of lawyers at discrete procedural stages

Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2023. 6:241–64 

By Katherine Hood, Daniel Schneider

  Despite growing interest in bail and pretrial detention among both academic researchers and policymakers, systematic research on pretrial release remains limited. In this article, we examine bail and pretrial release practices across seventy-five large U.S. counties from 1990 to 2009 and look at the contextual correlates of bail regime severity. We find tremendous intra-county variation in bail practices, as well as a nationwide decline in the use of nonfinancial release and doubling of bail amounts during this period. This variation is not accounted for by differences in case composition across jurisdictions or over time. Patterns of bail practices are associated with political, socioeconomic, and demographic factors, however. Implications of these findings for future research on bail and pretrial detention are discussed.  

RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, Vol. 5, No. 1,  (February 2019), pp. 126-149

By  Joshua Page, Victoria Piehowski, Joe Soss

  Among the institutions that link criminal justice and inequality in the United States, commercial bail remains one of the most important yet least understood. Each year, the bail industry extracts millions of dollars from lower-income Americans, disproportionately draining resources from poor communities of color. We draw on ethnographic research to explore how the bail system operates as a predatory social process, arguing that gender interacts with class and race to structure resource extraction in this field. Poor women of color are especially subject to bail predation because they are seen within the larger social organization of care as bearing primary responsibility for defendants. Gendered care work and emotional labor are thus central to the field’s logic of practice and to bail industry profits.

RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 5(1): 150–72  

By René Ropac and Michael Rempel

This report examines the impact of New York’s bail reform law on recidivism in New York City. We sought to produce a credible analysis of the impact of releasing people under reform who would have otherwise faced bail or pretrial detention. 

Key Findings:

• Eliminating bail for most misdemeanor and nonviolent felony charges reduced recidivism. There were reductions for any re-arrest (44% vs. 50%) and felony re-arrest (24% vs. 27%) over two years.

• For people remaining legally eligible for bail (most of whom were charged with violent felony offenses), reducing the use of bail through measures such as supervised release expansion or requiring judges to set the least restrictive condition did not affect recidivism in either direction.

• The 2020 amendments targeted a specific subgroup of people whose re-arrest rates had increased under the original reforms.

• Beyond the aforementioned overall takeaways, bail reform had varying recidivism effects depending on people’s charges and recent criminal history.

New York: Data Collaborative for Justice, 2023. 56p.

By Joshua Page and Christine S. Scott-Hayward

In this review of scholarship on bail and pretrial justice in the United States, we analyze how the field of bail operates (and why it operates as it does), focusing on its official and unofficial objectives, core assumptions and values, power dynamics, and technologies. The field, we argue, provides extensive opportunities for generating revenue and containing, controlling, and changing defendants and their families. In pursuit of these objectives, actors consistently generate harms that disproportionately affect low-income people of color and amplify social inequalities. We close with an analysis of political struggles over bail, including current and emerging possibilities for both reformist and radical change. In this, we urge scholars toward sustained engagement with people and organizations in criminalized communities, which pushes scholars to reconsider our preconceptions regarding safety, justice, and the potential for systemic change and opens up new avenues for research and public engagement.

   Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2022. 5:91–113

By Lauren Nickolls

This Library briefing paper provides an overview of police powers to release suspects from custody under investigation and on pre-charge bail. It also discusses the two major reforms that pre-charge bail has undergone in the last decade, first in 2017 and then in 2022.   When the police have arrested and detained a suspect but do not have the evidence to charge them, the suspect must be released. They can be released either on pre-charge bail (also known as police bail), “under investigation” (RUI) or with “no further action”.  

London: UK Parliament, House of Commons Library, 2023. 36p.

By Sandra G. Mayson 

ABSTRACT An unaffordable bail requirement has precisely the same effect as an order of pretrial detention: the accused person is jailed pending trial. It follows as a logical matter that an order requiring an unaffordable bail bond as a condition of release should be subject to the same substantive and procedural protections as an order denying bail altogether. Yet this has not been the practice. This Article lays out the logical and legal case for the proposition that an order that functionally imposes detention must be treated as an order of detention. It addresses counterarguments and complexities, including both empirical and normative ambiguity in the concept of “unaffordable” bail. It explains in practical terms what it would entail for a court system to treat unaffordable bail as a detention order. One hurdle is that both legal and policy standards for pretrial detention are currently in flux. Recognizing unaffordable bail as a detention order foregrounds the question of when pretrial detention is justified. This is the key question the bail reform movement must now confront.  

69 Duke L.J. 1643 (2020)  

By Don Stemen and David Olson

  In response to widely voiced criticism that monetary bail imposes an unfair burden on poor defendants, many of whom remain in jail because they are unable to acquire the money for bail, numerous jurisdictions—cities, counties, and states—have enacted changes in pretrial practices and policy intended to reduce or eliminate the use of bail. Although under long-established practices and policies most defendants required to post bail eventually do so, critics of these reforms contend that they endanger the public by allowing arrestees to remain at liberty while awaiting trial, leading to substantial increases in crime. To assess these arguments, we considered eleven bail-reform jurisdictions to determine the effect, if any, of these policy changes on crime. Violent crime trends after reforms present no clear or obvious pattern in these jurisdictions. In six places, violent crime decreased in the year after reforms. In all these instances, it decreased more than the national average did in that year, or it decreased while the national average increased. In four jurisdictions, violent crime increased while the national average decreased in the same year….

New York: Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation , 2023. 23p.

By  Ilya Klauzner

A program designed to keep young people out of remand significantly reduces the likelihood of custody. However, its limited reach means very few young people receive this assistance. The NSW Bail Assistance Line is an after-hours helpline that assists young people who are likely to be remanded by police gain access to bail.  Young people can be connected with accommodation, transport and other support services to help them satisfy the conditions of a bail order. A new evaluation by the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research considers the number of young people helped by this program and how placement impacts the likelihood of incarceration and reoffending. The study found that the number of young people receiving bail through the Bail Assistance Line is low.   In the first half of 2019, the Bail Assistance Line placed 51 young people; or 9.4% of the 542 cases that were bail denied by police or placed by the Bail Assistance Line.  While the number of placements is low, the number of bail placements through the service has in fact more than doubled over the 8 years from 2011. Young people helped by the Bail Assistance Line are more likely to be female, non-Aboriginal defendants with shorter criminal histories. Services are strongly concentrated in urban areas and Greater Sydney. While reach is low, the study found positive outcomes for those assisted.  In particular, in the six months after the bail decision, young people placed by the Bail Assistance Line were 16% less likely to be incarcerated. According to Jackie Fitzgerald, Executive Director at BOCSAR, “Expanding the Bail Assistance Line has the potential to increase the number of young people placed on bail. However, the impact depends on police engaging the Bail Assistance Line earlier in the bail process and police willingness to consider varying a young person’s bail determination.”

Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Crime and Justice Bulletin No. CJB237. 2021. 32p.

By Min-Taec Kim

The aim of this study is to estimate the causal impact of appearing via audio-visual link (AVL) on the likelihood of being granted bail. Audio-visual link describes the video conferencing equipment to facilitate court appearances without the defendant being physically present. To estimate the impact of appearing via AVL on bail outcomes, we compare individuals who have their first court bail hearing via AVL at two NSW Correctional Centres, Amber Laurel and Surry Hills, between Jan 2018 and Feb 2020 with similar individuals over the same period. The credibility of the estimates hinge on two factors:
1) The extent to which we have observed and modelled the factors that influence the bail decision of the magistrate, and 2) The extent to which the allocation of AVL is ‘as good as random’ after controlling for all observed factors. Three statistical approaches (logistic regression, Mixed effects regression and a generalised random forest) are used to adjust for the observed differences between these two groups and estimate the causal impact of appearing via AVL.

Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR), Crime and Justice Bulletin No. CJB235. 2021. 40p.