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.

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 Charlotte Herriott

This book provides an in-depth examination of current, high-profile debates about the use of sexual history evidence in rape trials and its impact on jurors. In doing so, it presents findings of the first mock jury dataset in England and Wales to explore how jurors interpret, discuss, and rely upon such evidence within their deliberations. Drawing on both qualitative and quantitative insights from the 18 mock jury panels, the book highlights the complex, nuanced and intersectional impact of sexual history evidence within the deliberative ideal. Indeed, findings exemplified routine and ongoing prejudicial framings of sexual history amongst jurors, and frequent endorsement of rape myths that served to mistakenly infer relevance and undermine the perceived credibility of the complainant. The findings discussed within this book are therefore key to addressing the current knowledge gap around the impact of sexual history evidence and are embedded within broader discussions about evidential legitimacy in rape trials. The book draws on good practice observed in other jurisdictions to makes numerous recommendations for change. Aiming to inform academic, policy, and legislative discussions in this area, Sexual History Evidence in Rape Trials will be of great interest to students and scholars of Criminal Law and Criminology, as well as policy makers and legal practitioners.

London; New York: Routledge, 2023. 191p.

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 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.

Edited by Wojciech Jasin´ski and Karolina Kremens  

This book presents a comprehensive comparative analysis of the substantive and procedural aspects of compensation for wrongful convictions in European countries and the USA, as well as the standard derived from the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The collection draws comparative conclusions as to the similarities and differences between selected jurisdictions and assesses the effectiveness of the national compensation schemes. This enables the designing of an optimum model of compensation, offering accessibility and effectiveness to the victims of miscarriages of justice and being acceptable to jurisdictions based on common law, and civil law traditions, as well as inquisitorial and adversarial types of criminal process. Moreover, the discussion of the minimum European standard as established in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights enables readers to identify how the Strasbourg Court can contribute to strengthening the compensation scheme. The book will be essential reading for students, academics and policymakers working in the areas of criminal law and procedure.

New York: London: Routledge, 2022. 261p.

By Karolina Kremens

This comparative analysis examines the scope of prosecutorial powers at different phases of criminal investigation in four countries: the United States, Italy, Poland, and Germany. Since in all four the number of criminal cases decided without trial is constantly increasing, criminal investigation has become central in the criminal process. The work asks: who should be in charge of this stage of the process? Prosecutors have gained tremendous powers to influence the outcome of the criminal cases, including powers once reserved for judges. In a system in which the role of the trial is diminishing and the significance of criminal investigation is growing, this book questions whether the prosecutor's powers at the early stage of the process should be enhanced. Using a problem-oriented approach, the book provides a parallel analysis of each country along five possible spheres of prosecutorial engagement: commencing criminal investigation; conducting criminal investigation, undertaking initial charging decisions; imposing coercive measures; and discontinuing criminal investigation. Using the competing adversarial–inquisitorial models as a framework, the focus is on the prosecutor as a crucial figure in the criminal process and investigation. The insights of this book will be of interest and relevance to students and academics in criminal justice, criminology, law, and public policy, as well as policymakers, government officials, and others interested in legal reform.

London; New York: Routledge, 2021. 379p.

By Steve Yeong and Elizabeth Moore

A new study by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) has found that Aboriginal people who participate in Circle Sentencing have lower rates of imprisonment and recidivism than Aboriginal people who are sentenced in the traditional way.

Circle Sentencing is an alternative sentencing method for Aboriginal offenders, which is available in 12 NSW Local Courts. Under Circle Sentencing, the magistrate works with Aboriginal elders, victims and the offender’s family to determine an appropriate sentence.

The BOCSAR study examined three issues:

The probability of imprisonment.

The probability of at least one reoffence within 12 months.

The number of days between sentencing and the offender’s first reoffence.

After controlling for a variety of defendant-case characteristics (e.g., prior offending, offence severity, age, gender and socioeconomic status), the study found that, when compared to Aboriginal offenders sentenced in the traditional way, offenders participating in Circle Sentencing:

Are 9.3 percentage points less likely to receive a prison sentence.

Are 3.9 percentage points less likely to reoffend within 12 months.

Take 55 days longer to reoffend if and when they do.

Sydney, AUS: NSW Bureau Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2020. 22p.

By Ilya Klauzner and Steve Yeong

The Early Appropriate Guilty Plea (EAGP) reforms were introduced in April 2018 to incentivise the entry of guilty pleas early in the court process. The reforms included early certification of charges, increased and earlier negotiation between the defence and prosecution, continuity of legal representation, and statutory sentencing discounts for early guilty pleas. The reforms substantially changed the court processes for defendants charged with the most serious (i.e., indictable) offences. We examine whether the EAGP reforms achieved its main aims. The reforms were intended to increase the proportion of cases with an early guilty plea as well as a guilty plea at any point in the court process. The increased efficiency associated with avoiding a committal to trial was also expected to contribute to: • A reduction in the time to case finalisation; • An increase in the weekly number of case finalisations in the District Court (DC). Our study examines these outcomes by comparing cases initiated after the EAGP reforms (i.e., with a charge date on or after the 30th April 2018 and finalisation date before the 16th March 2020) to cases initiated before the reforms (i.e., with a charge date after 13th June 2016 and a finalisation date before 30th April 2018).

Sydney, AUS: NSW Bureau Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2021. 22p.

By Steve Yeong and Sara Rahman

In February 2019, the NSW Government appointed seven new judges to the NSW District Court (the DC7 reforms) as a measure to address the rising number of pending criminal matters. We examine whether the appointment of these judges resulted in an increase in the monthly number of finalised matters in the NSW District Criminal Court (DC). To do this, we compare DC finalisations before and after the reforms for six NSW courts who experienced an increase of at least 10 sitting weeks to eight NSW courts who did not experience any increase in sitting weeks following the reform. Monthly finalisations over the period 1 January 2014 to 30 September 2020 are examined.

Sydney, AUS: NSW Bureau Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2021. 23p.

By Stacey J. Bosick

An analysis of felony cases accepted for prosecution by the Denver District Attorney’s Office in the City and County of Denver REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The researcher found racial and ethnic differences across three of the four points of prosecutorial discretion examined: dismissals, deferred judgments, and referrals to drug court. • There was no evidence of racial and ethnic differences in plea offers, the fourth point of prosecutorial discretion examined. • Results of the study demonstrate a persistent set of disadvantages faced by Black and Hispanic defendants. • The findings point to the importance of increasing structures and processes to support racial justice, including collecting and examining data across multiple points of prosecutorial discretion.

Denver: University of Denver, 2021. 44p.

By Rose Cahn

On May 19, 2003, Angel Ramirez1 was pulled over while driving home from work. A careful driver, Angel was sure he hadn’t been speeding, but during this “routine stop,” police asked for proof of citizenship. Having none, he was immediately arrested, transferred to immigration custody, and placed in removal proceedings. At the time of his arrest, Angel had lived in the United States for 30 years. He was a well-liked, civically engaged, small-business owner. He and his U.S.-citizen wife had four children together and a fifth on the way. But due to a single marijuana conviction from 1999—when he was 18 and represented by counsel who never told him the lasting immigration consequences of a plea deal—Angel faced losing his family, his business, and the only country he had ever called home. Barred by his conviction from lawful permanent residency and any opportunity for discretionary relief, he faced deportation to Mexico. In August 2008, Maria Sanchez, a long-time lawful permanent resident (“LPR” or “green card” holder), was convicted of growing a marijuana plant in her backyard. Born in Mexico, Maria had lived in the United States for over three decades, raising her children and grandchildren here. Maria suffered from arthritis and turned to the same remedy her mother and grandmother had used: She grew a single marijuana plant, soaked it in rubbing alcohol, and rubbed the alcohol tincture on her painful joints. This was Maria’s first and only arrest. Her public defender got a good deal from a criminal perspective: four months of house arrest. Unbeknownst to Maria, however, that plea was the functional equivalent of signing her own deportation order. Considered an aggravated felony under immigration law, the conviction subjected Maria to mandatory deportation and mandatory imprisonment, with no opportunity for discretionary relief. She suddenly faced the real likelihood of being separated from her family forever.

Oakland, CA: Californians for Safety and Justice, 2019. 148p.

By Lauren Magee, Travis Carter, and Edmund F. McGarrell

In an effort to reduce the number of fatal and nonfatal shootings in Detroit, the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office (WCPO), working closely with the Detroit Police Department (DPD), developed an innovative approach to the investigation and prosecution of nonfatal shootings. The innovation involved the use of a One-Person Grand Jury focused specifically on nonfatal shootings. The One-Person Grand Jury was considered an investigatory resource that could increase the cooperation of shooting victims and witnesses. The grand jury provided victims and witnesses a safe environment in which to provide testimony they might otherwise be reluctant to provide. The short-term goals included the preservation of testimonial evidence that would result in identification, arrest, and conviction of perpetrators of nonfatal shooting incidents. The mission of the WCPO’s Violent Crime Unit: The mission of The Violent Crime Unit Is to ensure that Justice Is served by utilizing a non-traditional approach to the reduction of violent crime. This collaborative effort utilizes a combination of special judicial proceedings, vertical prosecution, crime analysis, social media analysis, and witness protection to target violent gangs and offenders that drive violent crime. The longer-term goal was to reduce shootings. The rationale was that building stronger cases would lead to an increase in arrests and better cases for court; future shootings would be prevented through two causal mechanisms. First, high risk individuals (shooters) would be more likely to be convicted and sentenced to a period of incarceration during which they would be unable to re-offend within the community (incapacitation effect). Second, the perceived risk of sanction among potential shooters would be increased (deterrence effect). Essentially, by holding shooters accountable at a higher rate than historically has been the case, there should be a reduction in shootings. Additionally, given that nonfatal shootings have historically had low levels of clearance by arrest and closure through prosecution, the focused attention of the OnePerson Grand Jury might have an additional effect of increasing the perceived legitimacy of police and prosecution by residents of neighborhoods affected by shootings through the effort to hold shooters accountable. Complementing the One-Person Grand Jury was increased cooperation and coordination among prosecutors and police investigators whereby designated prosecutors were available (via phone) to consult with police investigators at the scene of a nonfatal shooting. The intent was to provide prosecution resources to investigators, including the legal process of the One-Person Grand Jury, to enhance investigations and case preparation.

East Lansing, MI: Michigan Justice Statistics Center, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, 2021. 31p.

By Shannon Tomascak, Preeti Chauhan, and Allie Meizlish

In this report, the Data Collaborative for Justice (DCJ) examines how criminal summons issuance and outcomes have changed in New York City from 2003 to 2019, adding six years of data to update DCJ’s prior report on criminal summons enforcement between 2003 and 2013. This new report builds on DCJ’s prior research by: (1) examining trends in criminal summons issuance and outcomes within the context of significant policy reforms including the implementation of the Criminal Justice Reform Act (CJRA) and changes in marijuana enforcement; (2) assessing trends in summonses by charge type, demographics, borough, warrant issuance, and dispositions; and (3) focusing on the most recent year of data (2019) to help the public and policymakers assess recent enforcement of criminal summonses and identify opportunities for further reform.

New York: The Data Collaborative for Justice (DCJ) at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2020. 47p.

By Ella J. Siegrist, Jenna L. Dole, Kristine Denman, Ashleigh Maus, Joel Robinson, Callie Dorsey, and Graham White

In November 2016, New Mexico voters approved a constitutional amendment altering pretrial release and bail practices for felony cases within the state. As part of a multi-phase study, this report evaluates the implementation of bail reform thus far. We primarily used information from stakeholder interviews; this was supplemented with court observations, media coverage, and legal documents. In this report, we document the current pretrial process; the way that pretrial release and detention decisions are made; the perceived impact of the amendment; reform success and areas for improvement; and recommendations for how New Mexico and other states may improve pretrial practices.

Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center. Institute for Social Research, 2020. 131p.

By Kristine Denman, Ella Siegrist, Joel Robinson, Ashleigh Maus, Jenna Dole

Like other jurisdictions and states across the nation, New Mexico recently reformed its bail system. In 2016, New Mexico voters passed a constitutional amendment intended to ensure that defendants are not detained solely because they are unable to post bond, while simultaneously protecting the safety of the community. The New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center has engaged in an ongoing project to assess bail reform efforts in New Mexico. The current report focuses on one aspect of bail reform: the use of preventative detention.1

Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center. Institute for Social Research, 2021. 50p.

By Micaela M. Alvarado

The author of this theses examines the multifaceted factors that are in play during sentencing in the criminal justice system and to fill a gap in the literature regarding sentencing disparities based on race and sex across types of counties, such as rural or urban counties, and whether those patterns have changed over time. The author lists three reasons for the importance of this research: it helps inform recent sentencing reforms aimed at targeting inequalities in the criminal processing system; filling a research gap on county-by-county variation in sentencing disparities by demographic characteristics; and examining longitudinal trends in sentencing constitutes an important step in better understanding influential factors in judicial decision making. The thesis examines trends over time as it addresses two specific research questions: do individuals from urban counties receive harsher sentences than those from rural counties; and does an offender’s race, sex, and county of residence influence the sentencing severity. Results showed that individuals in rural counties received harsher sentences, and revealed evidence of overall increased punitiveness for both urban and rural counties over the last several years. Results also revealed differences in sentencing outcomes based on race/ethnicity and sex between rural and urban counties; specifically, Black males experienced the most severe punishment in both rural and urban counties as well as receiving the most punitive form of punishment over time. Results also demonstrated that rural counties provided more punitive sentences in general, while urban counties have more offenders. The author suggests that urban counties may, as a result, rely on different punishment options due to limited resources. Analyses revealed more lenient sentences for females across rural and urban counties over time.

Huntsville, TX: Sam Houston State University, 2019. 105p.

By K. Alexander Adams and Youngsung Kim

This paper uses panel data from 1980 to 2018 in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia to examine the relationship between liberalized concealed carry laws, homicide, and firearm homicide. Multivariate regression analysis was conducted with state and time fixed effects. A general-to-specific procedure was also used to reduce the arbitrariness of choosing control variables in the crime equation. Various robustness checks were also employed, including the use of a generalized synthetic control model. The relationship between shall-issue and constitutional carry laws and homicide were statistically insignificant at the 1%, 5%, and even 10% level. The results were robust to multiple alternative model specifications. We find no evidence that looser concealed carry laws pose a significant public health or criminological risk.

Unpublished paper, 2023. 

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.