By Kate Weisburd

The day-to-day operation of criminal court supervision—including probation, parole, and electronic ankle monitoring—is understudied and undertheorized. To better understand the mechanics of these systems, this study comprehensively analyzes the rules governing people on criminal court supervision in the United States. Drawing on the analysis of 187 public records from all fifty states, this study documents how criminal court supervision functions and impacts daily life. In particular, this study examines the various ways that supervision rules limit or restrict privacy, bodily autonomy, liberty, dignity, speech, and financial independence. This study also explores the nature and prevalence of supervision rules across the United States. Ultimately, the analysis of the rules offers empirical evidence that court supervision imposes significant restraints on people’s ability to thrive and, in doing so, risks legitimating the subordination of historically marginalized groups.

58 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 1, 2023.

By Becca Cadoff, Preeti Chauha, Erica Bond,

• Misdemeanor Arrest Rates: The misdemeanor arrest rates in all Research Network jurisdictions decreased in recent years. These declines often followed a period of significant increases in misdemeanor enforcement. • Misdemeanor Arrests by Race: Black people were arrested at the highest rates of any racial/ ethnic group for all jurisdictions across the entire study period. Racial disparities between Black people and White people existed in all jurisdictions, and these disparities persisted despite the recent overall declines in arrest rates. However, the magnitude of the disparities varied by jurisdiction and over time -- ranging from approximately three to seven arrests of Black people for one arrest of a White person. • Misdemeanor Arrests by Age: Arrest rates were highest for younger age groups (i.e., 18-20-year-olds and 21-24-year-olds) at the beginning of the study period. At the same time, arrest rates were generally much lower for the oldest age group (i.e., 35-65-year-olds). Over time, arrest rates for the younger age groups fell the most, sometimes to rates lower than 25-34-year-olds. • Misdemeanor Arrests by Sex: Males were arrested at higher rates than females in all jurisdictions across the study period. Although the arrest rates for males fell more than for females, this gender gap in arrest rates persisted over the study period. • Misdemeanor Arrests by Charge: Within the context of fluctuating misdemeanor arrests, the composition of misdemeanor charges changed over time across most sites. Cross-jurisdiction trends indicate a move away from more discretionary, drug-related charges and an increase in the share of charges where there is an identifiable complainant or victim (“person-related” offenses)….

New York: Data Collaborative for Justice (DCJ) at John Jay College of Criminal Justice , 2020. 34p.

By North Carolina School of Government, Criminal Justice Innovation Law

In 2015, former Chief Justice Mark Martin convened the North Carolina Commission on the Administration of Law & Justice and tasked it with making recommendations to strengthen the state’s court system. In 2017, that Commission released its reports, including a recommendation that North Carolina embark on pilot projects supporting evidence-based pretrial justice reform.2 With the support of the Director of the NC Administrative Office of the Courts,3 North Carolina Judicial District 30B (JD 30B) became the state’s first such pilot project. The JD 30B pretrial justice pilot project sought to improve the district’s pretrial system, promoting public safety, efficient use of taxpayer resources, and fairness of the judicial process. The project had two core components: (1) developing and implementing consensus pretrial system reforms; and (2) an empirical evaluation to assess the impact of those reforms. In the project’s first effort, JD 30B stakeholders unanimously agreed to reforms including: • Implement a new decision-making framework for determining conditions of pretrial release. • Provide first appearance proceedings for all in-custody defendants. • Provide for the early involvement of counsel at pretrial proceedings.  • Promote the increased use of summons in lieu of arrest in appropriate cases. • Promote the increased use of citation in lieu of arrest in appropriate cases. Reforms took effect January 1, 2019. Part II of this report details the findings from an empirical evaluation of the project.

Chapel Hill, NC: North Carolina School of Government, 2020. 15p. 55p.

Part I: Background, Process & Implemented Reforms March 20201 [PDF]

Part II: Final Evaluation Report  [PDF]

By American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana

For two years, the ACLU of Louisiana gathered and analyzed thousands of jail records and interviewed people directly affected by pretrial incarceration to compose a snapshot of who Louisiana incarcerates pretrial, for how long, and at what cost. The landmark report – Justice Can't Wait – showed that after a 10.3 percent increase, Louisiana’s pretrial incarceration rate is now three times the national average and the highest of any state on record since 1970. The study, based on an analysis of thousands of jail records, found that 57 percent of people in jail had been arrested for non-violent offenses and that pretrial incarceration costs Louisiana taxpayers nearly $290 million per year. On average, the people represented in the study had been held behind bars for 5 and a half months – without trial or conviction.

New Orleans: ACLU of Louisiana, 2022. 44p.

By Will Dobbie and Crystal S. Yang

  We measure the economic costs of the US pretrial system using several complementary approaches and data sources. The pretrial system operates as one of the earliest points of entry in the criminal justice system. It typically represents an individual’s first opportunity to be incarcerated, potentially leading to subsequent long-term damage in the form of family separation, work interruption, loss of housing, and so on. We find that individuals lose almost $30,000 in forgone earnings and social benefits when detained in jail while awaiting the resolution of their criminal cases. These adverse consequences are also present in aggregate measures of economic well-being, with increases in county pretrial detention rates associated with increases in poverty rates and decreases in employment rates. Counties with high levels of pretrial detention also exhibit significantly lower levels of intergenerational mobility among children, consistent with pretrial detention having an adverse impact on young children who may be the dependents of individuals affected by the pretrial system.

Washington DC: Brookings,, 2021. 41p.

By Jay Gormley, Julian V. Roberts, Jonathan Bild and Lyndon Harris

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.

Guidance for courts regarding the use of deferral is provided by the Court of Appeal, the Sentencing Council, and the Crown Court Compendium. The Sentencing Council guidance advises that deferred sentences will be appropriate in only very limited circumstances. Some academics have questioned this restrictive view of the power to defer sentence. In addition, a number of groups have called for deferred sentencing to be used more frequently, and in particular for young adults, female offenders, pregnant offenders as well as individuals commencing or undertaking treatment. There are many gaps in our knowledge of how deferred sentencing currently operates. We know almost nothing about this little-known provision beyond the limited research summarised in this report. The report concludes by calling for better statistics relating to deferred sentencing and noting a number of key issues and research priorities.

Sentencing Academy. Dec.2020. 22p.

By Joshua Page, Joe Soss

  Over the past 35 years, public and private actors have turned US criminal justice institutions into a vast network of revenue-generating operations. Today, practices such as fines, fees, forfeitures, prison charges, and bail premiums transfer billions of dollars from oppressed communities to governments and corporations. Guided by scholarship on racial capitalism, we argue that to understand how and why criminal justice operates as it does today, one must attend to its predatory dimensions. Analytically and politically, the concept of predation connects diverse forms of criminal legal takings to one another, to the extractive regimes of earlier eras, and to contemporary businesses that financially exploit subjugated communities. Analyses that focus on predatory relations   encourage a reconsideration of some dominant understandings in the study of criminal justice today.

Science • 15 Oct 2021

By The Working Group

The Minister for Justice Helen McEntee T.D has today published the final report and recommendations of the Working Group examining the Disregard of Convictions for Certain Qualifying Offences Related to Consensual Sexual Activity between Men. The report contains 95 recommendations regarding the introduction of a statutory scheme to enable the disregard of relevant criminal records.

“Nearly 30 years on from decriminalisation, Ireland has become a much more tolerant society. But there are many people who still feel the hurt and stigma created by the laws that criminalised consensual sexual activity between men.

By Allison P. Harris

How does racial diversity impact institutional outcomes and (in)equality? Discussions about diversity usually focus on how individuals’ identities shape their behavior, but diversity is a group-level characteristic. Scholars must, therefore, consider the relationship between group composition and the individual decisions that shape institutional outcomes. Using felony data from a large U.S. court system, I explore the relationship between racial diversity among the judges comprising a court and individual judges’ decisions. I find that as the percent of Black judges in a courthouse increases white judges are less likely to render incarceration sentences in cases with Black defendants. Increases in racial diversity decrease the Black–white gap in the probability of incarceration by up to 7 percentage points. However, I find no relationship between judge’s racial identities and disparities in their decisions. This study highlights the importance of conceptualizing diversity as a group characteristic and the relationship between institutional context and outcomes.

  American Political Science Review (2023) 1–16  

By Bruce A. Green and Rebecca Roiphe

There is broad agreement that federal prosecutors should not use their power to pursue partisan political objectives, but there is stark disagreement about how to prevent them from abusing their power in this way. Geoffrey Berman, a former United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, recently argued that U.S. Attorneys should have complete autonomy and independence from the Attorney General and administration. Attorney General Bill Barr, in contrast, has insisted that Attorneys General should have full control over prosecutors so the administration can be held politically accountable. Neither view fully addresses the problem. Barr minimizes the significant risk that the Attorney General will undermine the interests of justice by doing the bidding of the administration, and Berman ignores the possibility that U.S. Attorneys will act on their own inappropriate political bias.

We propose a system of checks and balances in which prosecuting a politically sensitive case would require approval from both the Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney. Recognizing Berman’s argument that the greatest threat of politicization comes from the Attorney General, we offer two additional proposals to help preserve the independence and integrity of U.S. Attorneys. First, Congress should clarify that the President and Attorney General lack authority to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys who are appointed by district courts prior to the confirmation of presidential nominees; and second, the Attorney General should be restricted from handpicking partisan prosecutors to oversee politically-charged investigations and prosecutions. While there is no simple solution to the politicization of federal prosecution, restructuring prosecutorial and political power within the DOJ to reduce partisanship, both real and apparent, is, as Berman recognizes, an important component

 Denver Law Review, Vol. 100, No. 2, 2023, NYLS Legal Studies Research Paper No. 4373301

By Helen Mills, Matt Ford and Roger Grimshaw

The usual suspects uses national data to assess the use of joint enterprise laws in prosecutions and convictions for serious violence in England and Wales over the last fifteen years. It is the first publication to track information over this significant period of years, and features up-todate figures inclusive of the period post the 2016 Supreme Court judgment, which ruled the law had taken‘a wrong turn’ for more than thirty years. In this report we use the best available data to answer questions about the scope, demographics and changes over time in the use of joint enterprise. Until it is routinely recorded when a prosecution and conviction relied on joint enterprise or secondary liability laws, these approximations are the best available sources to address such important questions.  

London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies 2022. 24p.

By Phil Bowen

  As the Government’s recent White Paper states, “failures in sentencing lead to never-ending cycles of criminality, with low-level offenders stuck in a revolving door of crime…in many cases their offending is fuelled or exacerbated by poor mental health or substance misuse. Yet our system of sentencing is not properly equipped to support them to address these and other causes of their offending. This means they have little hope of rehabilitation and we as a society have little hope of cutting the crime they commit in the longer term.” Taking inspiration from a number of different jurisdictions, we outline ways that deferred sentences can be used in England and Wales as part of structured and targeted approaches to address these issues. In suggesting these innovative approaches, we see deferred sentence schemes of these types as part of a vital spectrum of responses to the otherwise endless cycle of offending that some people are caught in. Starting with diversion at the arrest stage for lowlevel and first time offenders, through to problem-solving substance misuse courts providing an alternative to longer periods of custody, we see innovation in deferred sentencing as playing a crucial role in ensuring we have a justice system that is “agile enough to give offenders a fair start on their road to rehabilitation.”

London: Centre for Justice Innovation , 2020. 7p.

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.

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 Todd Foglesong, Ron Levi, et. al.

This report analyzes recent data on homicide and robbery to understand whether there is a relationship between violent crime and “progressive prosecution.” We pooled data on recorded crime from 65 major cities, conducted a statistical regression of trends in violent crime as well as larceny in two dozen cities, and compared the incidence of homicide before and after the election of progressive prosecutors in Philadelphia, Chicago, and Los Angeles, cities where we are conducting on-going research on changes in criminal justice. We also compared trends in recorded crime across all counties in Florida and California since 2015. We find no evidence to support the claim that progressive prosecutors were responsible for the increase in homicide during the pandemic or before it. We recommend that further statistical analyses of data on violent crime be supplemented by qualitative research and direct evidence about the practices of prosecutors in cities that recorded divergent patterns in homicide.

Toronto: University of Toronto, Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, 2022. 48p.

By Kristina Gray, Rachael Finn, Joanna Gent & Kezia Huttlestone

A pre-sentence report is advice given to the court following the facts of the case, expert risks and needs assessments, including an independent sentencing proposal and additional relevant information. They must be as objective as possible and exist to assist the judiciary with sentencing.

The number of pre-sentence reports written in England and Wales has decreased in recent years. This was an area of concern in the 2020 white paper, A Smarter Approach to Sentencing, which stated that “The purpose of a pre-sentence report (PSR) is to facilitate the administration of justice, and to reduce an offender’s likelihood of reoffending and to protect the public and/or victim(s) from further harm. A PSR does this by assisting the court to determine the most suitable method of sentencing an offender (Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 158)”.

London: UK Ministry of Justice 2023. 54p.

By The Scottish Government,  HM Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland

he aim of this review was to assess the operation and impact of diversion from prosecution in Scotland. We sought to provide an overview of diversion practice from a policing, prosecution and justice social work perspective, highlight what is working well and explore any barriers to the more effective use of diversion. The review was carried out by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland, HM Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland, the Care Inspectorate and HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland. Given that effective partnership working is essential to the delivery of diversion, we considered that a similarly collaborative approach was required for its scrutiny.

The number of diversion from prosecution cases commenced rose by 12% between 2019-20 and 2020-21, the highest level in the last seven years. This rise is likely linked to changes in prosecution policy in 2019. Prosecution policy now states that diversion should be considered for all people where there is an identifiable need that has contributed to their offending and which can best be met through diversion. For children under the age of 18 in particular, there is a presumption that an alternative to prosecution will be in the public interest. More broadly, there has been a shift in public policy in recent years, with a greater focus on community justice and early intervention to address the underlying causes of offending.

We welcome this shift in focus as well as plans to optimise the use of diversion even further. Many accused persons require support for mental health, substance use or other issues and diversion from prosecution offers an opportunity for that support to be provided swiftly. Early intervention can help address the underlying causes of offending, avoid the person being drawn further into the criminal justice system and reduce or prevent further offending, to the benefit of the person, victims and communities. We therefore welcome the efforts made by a range of agencies involved in diversion at a national and local level to encourage greater use of diversion, to work in partnership and to deliver effective interventions.

Glasgow: HM Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland , 2023. 78p.