By Corinna Lain

They say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and our failed implementation of deinstitutionalization in the 1970s is a prime example of the point. In this symposium contribution—a response to Jeffrey Bellin’s book Mass Incarceration Nation—I offer a historical account of deinstitutionalization of state mental hospitals, tracing how severely mentally ill patients were discharged from state hospitals and eventually made their way back to secure beds, but in our nation’s jails and prisons instead. Mental health and mass incarceration are not separate crises, I argue, but rather interconnected problems with an interconnected past that require an interconnected solution. The lessons of deinstitutionalization’s failures can inform how our decarceration story plays out, offering an opportunity to avoid the mistakes of our past and move toward a more just, humane, and equitable future—a future that takes the “mass” out of mass incarceration.

William & Mary Law Review, Vol. 65, No. __, 2024

By Thomas Frampton

Supreme Court opinions involving race and the jury invariably open with the Fourteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, or landmark cases like Strauder v. West Virginia (1880). Legal scholars and historians unanimously report that free people of color did not serve as jurors, in either the North or South, until 1860. In fact, this Article shows, Black men served as jurors in antebellum America decades earlier than anyone has previously realized. While instances of early Black jury service were rare, campaigns insisting upon Black citizens’ admission to the jury-box were not. From the late 1830s onward, Black activists across the country organized to abolish the all-white jury. They faced, and occasionally overcame, staunch resistance. This Article uses jury lists, court records, convention minutes, diaries, bills of sale, tax rolls, and other overlooked primary sources to recover these forgotten efforts, led by activists who understood the jury-box to be both a marker and maker of citizenship. A broader historical perspective—one that centers Black activists in the decades before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868—offers a new way of thinking about the relationship between race, rights, citizenship, and the jury.

New York University Law Review, 2024.

By The Welsh Parliament Equality and Social Justice Committee

Women who commit crime are generally some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in society, often with multiple and complex needs. Women now make up around 5 per cent of the prison population, estimated to be twice as many as twenty years ago.

Wales, The Committee. 2023, 56pg

By Nisha Waller and Naima Sakande

In England and Wales, the requirement for a unanimous jury verdict in criminal cases was abolished in 1967, marking a significant departure from a centuries-old legal tradition. Majority verdicts are now common practice, yet no research to date explores the origins of this sudden change to the jury system. In contrast, recent research in the US uncovered a connection between the conception of majority verdicts in Louisiana and Jim Crow era law-making, finding that majority verdicts were strategically introduced to suppress the black juror vote and facilitate quicker convictions to fuel free prison labour. The US Supreme Court later outlawed majority verdicts in a case known as Ramos v. Louisiana, amid recognition of their racist origins. Adopting the critical epistemological position guiding the US research, we consider how race and class underpinned the decision to introduce majority verdicts in England and Wales. Drawing on Home Office files and other archival materials, we find that an increase in eligible jurors from different racial and class backgrounds led to a perceived decline in the ‘calibre’ of jurors – reflective of wider public anxieties about Commonwealth immigration, Black Power and white disenfranchisement. We conclude that a desire to dilute the influence of ‘coloured’ migrants on juries contributed to the introduction of majority verdicts in England and Wales.

Race & Class, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/03063968231212992 Online First, 2024.

By Ross Miller, Paul Heaton, Haley Sturges

Presumptive field tests for illicit substances have become an integral part of policing. Inexpensive and fast, these tests have become a tool of choice for law enforcement agencies. Unfortunately, they are notoriously imprecise and are known to produce “false positives,” where innocuous legal substances (e.g., baking soda) provide the same result as an illegal substance (e.g., cocaine) and leading to frequent wrongful arrests and wrongful convictions. Although originally developed as a preliminary-only testing method due to their unreliability, these tests have become de facto and inaccurate determinants of guilt or innocence in thousands of cases, causing considerable negative and undeserved consequences for thousands upon thousands of Americans. In the modern U.S. criminal legal “system of pleas, not...of trials” (Lafler v. Cooper, 2012) where 95% of cases are resolved by plea bargain, the unreliability of these tests undermines public trust in the justice system and creates a liability risk for jurisdictions that rely on them. This research report provides the first-ever comprehensive analysis of presumptive drug field test usage across law enforcement agencies in the United States. Utilizing a nationwide survey of agencies, the report offers national estimates on the frequency of test usage, finding that each year approximately 773,000 drug-related arrests involve the use of presumptive tests. Using the survey data and national estimates of drug arrests, this report examines the impact of the tests on wrongful arrests, racial disparities in their use, and their subsequent impact on drug possession prosecutions and dispositions.

 2023. 68p.

By Gillian Slee

Research shows that street-level bureaucrats rely on notions of deservingness to manage their caseloads. Accounts traditionally identify how workers use mainstream cues to categorize clients, but a growing literature calls for situated accounts of discretion. This study draws on fieldwork with public defenders to describe how institutional position and professional knowledge condition discretion. I analyze how the dynamics of representation inform defenders’ understandings of and advocacy for clients with varying criminal-legal backgrounds and needs. In this case study, defenders’ perceived strategic options penetrate their estimations of clients’ deservingness and drive their advocacy. Tailored representation elevates the needs of individuals without records and those with unremitting criminal-legal contact, helping attorneys manage their caseloads and advance their aspirations, but it produces uneven defense. I develop a role concept, “structural antagonist,” to signify and describe a uniquely situated street-level bureaucrat whose mandate includes both serving and straining the institution.

Social Service Review, volume 97, number 4, December 2023.

By James R. Acker, Bethany Backes, Catherine L. Bonventre, Eric Martin, Angela Moore,  Robert J. Norris,  Allison D. Redlich

This report contains three chapters: Chapter 1 reviews 100 years of scholarship on wrongful convictions, ranging from early case studies of exonerations to more recent scientific analyses of wrongful convictions. The review finds that knowledge about the prevalence and causes of these serious miscarriages of justice remains limited and mixed at best. Chapter 2 focuses on several “elephants in the courtroom” that have not garnered significant attention among wrongful conviction scholars, practitioners, policymakers, and activists. This section examines the deep linkages between race, society, the administration of justice, and wrongful convictions. Chapter 3 discusses the major themes that emerged during the listening sessions in an effort to better understand the problems victims and those who have been exonerated face during the review of post-conviction innocence claims and after the exoneration. The report concludes with policy recommendations to help address the most pressing issues.

This report builds on the listening sessions for victims or survivors of crimes that resulted in wrongful convictions during a three-day meeting hosted by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Office for Victims of Crime, and external organizations. The three-day meeting allowed NIJ and its federal partners to hear directly from participants who had been victimized and revictimized due to errors of justice. On the third day, the federal observers met to discuss possible actions to be taken for research and practice. The report contains three chapters: Chapter 1 reviews 100 years of scholarship on wrongful convictions, ranging from early case studies of exonerations to more recent scientific analyses of wrongful convictions. The review finds that knowledge about the prevalence and causes of these serious miscarriages of justice remains limited and mixed at best. Chapter 2 focuses on several “elephants in the courtroom” that have not garnered significant attention among wrongful conviction scholars, practitioners, policymakers, and activists. This section examines the deep linkages between race, society, the administration of justice, and wrongful convictions. Chapter 3 discusses the major themes that emerged during the listening sessions in an effort to better understand the problems victims and those who have been exonerated face during the review of post-conviction innocence claims and after the exoneration. The report concludes with policy recommendations to help address the most pressing issues. 

Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 2023. 64p.

By Akhi Johnson, Stephen Roberts, Erin Ross, et al. 

The reform prosecution movement faces a critical moment. With the nationwide uptick in violent crime, reform prosecutors face unprecedented attacks: legislation to limit their discretion, politicians seeking to remove them from office, and demands for recall elections. The movement has weathered the storm, but reform prosecutors need continued support in pursuing agendas aligned with the communities that elected them, and the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) is well positioned to help them do so. In 2017, Vera launched the Reshaping Prosecution initiative in response to a wave of reform prosecutors winning office across the country. Reform prosecutors ran campaigns promising a systemic approach to pursuing justice, and Reshaping Prosecution sought to help them transform those promises into measurable policy changes. Vera piloted an engagement with St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner and her office from 2017 to 2019 that contributed to significant gains for the city. Gleaning lessons learned from that pilot, Vera launched a request for proposal process to select new partners. Vera selected each office based on a vetting process that included the district attorney’s demonstrated commitment to pursuing reforms, community support for reform efforts, sufficient staff capacity to work with the Vera team, and adequate data systems to allow an analysis of office practices. After receiving 14 applications, Vera selected six partners: Boulder County, Colorado; Contra Costa County, California; DeKalb County, Georgia; Ingham County, Michigan; Ramsey County, Minnesota; and Suffolk County, Massachusetts. This report describes Vera’s partnerships with each jurisdiction to take a systemic approach to justice by examining racial disparities and collaborating with the offices and their communities to develop solutions. These partnerships faced significant challenges, beginning with the pandemic, which halted work in the early stages; the racial justice movement in the summer of 2020 and its unique impacts on each jurisdiction; and pushback from opponents of change.   

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2023. 40p.

By  Alissa Pollitz Worden, Kaitlin Moloney, et al.

New York’s groundbreaking 2019 bail reforms aimed to curtail pretrial detention, diminish the role of finances in release decisions, and tackle racial disparities in pretrial outcomes. This study is the first to examine pretrial decision-making in New York’s under-examined Town & Village Justice Courts, addressing a knowledge gap in public understanding and serving as a companion to related research on the topic. This report was authored by DCJ’s partners at The John F. Finn Institute for Public Safety.

1.     Increased Pretrial Release Under Bail Reform:

• Higher percentage of Justice Court cases released without bail for misdemeanors (82% in 2018 vs. 93% in 2021) and nonviolent felonies (59% in 2018 vs. 71% in 2021).

2.     Absence of Racial Disparities in Release Rates:

• Release rates were similar across racial and ethnic groups throughout the study period (both pre- and post-reform).

3.     No Progress Towards Affordable Bail:

• Bail amounts did not become more affordable, and people did not become more likely to post bail, after the reforms went into effect (echoing prior Data Collaborative for Justice research on City and District Courts across the State).

4.     Justice Courts vs. City Courts from the Same Counties:

• Justice Courts released people at higher rates than City Courts both pre- and post-reform. By 2021, less than 7% of people charged with misdemeanors were detained in the Justice Courts compared to 11% in urban City Courts and 13% in small City Courts from the same counties.

Albany, NY:  John F. Finn Institute for Public Safety, Inc., 2024. 41p.

By Julius Yam 

Authoritarianism has significant implications for how judges should discharge their duties. How should judges committed to constitutionalism conduct themselves when under authoritarian pressure? To answer this question,the article proposes a two-step adjudicative framework, documents a variety of judicial strategies, and proposes how principles and strategies can and should be incorporated into the framework in different scenarios. The first step of the adjudicative framework involves judges identifying the ‘formal legal position’ while blindfolding themselves to extra-legal factors (such as potential authoritarian backlash). In the second step, depending on the level of risk incurred by maintaining the formal legal position, judges should lift the blindfold to check whether, and if so how, the formal legal position should be supplemented with or adjusted by judicial strategies. Through this analysis, the article offers a guide to judicial reasoning under authoritarianism 

Modern Law Review Limited.(2023) 00(0) MLR 

By U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance

This article provides details about Louisiana’s Orleans Reentry Court Program (ORCP), which originated in the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola from a desire to equip inmates with vocational, educational, and other skills that could lead to gainful employment and reduce the likelihood of recidivism. The document describes the requirements of the in-jail portion, which involves participants being mentored by other inmates, typically those who are serving life sentences; it also provides details of the probation portion of ORCP. The document notes that after ORCP had been established, one of the program founders recognized that participants suffering from opioid use disorder were lacking the necessary services to maintain their recovery and successfully complete the program. In order to address that, Orleans Parish Criminal District Court applied for and received a fiscal year 2018 Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Program grant, which introduced an enhanced substance abuse treatment aspect, including medication-assisted treatment (MAT) services, and more wraparound case management services into the existing reentry court model. The discussion of lessons learned reviews what Comprehensive Opioid, Stimulant, and Substance Abuse Program (COSSAP) covers, and the importance of strategically leveraging available resources.

Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2020. 4p.

By Christopher M. Bellas

This Article features the many factors that influence jurors' decision making in trials involving police use of excessive force. First, there is a discussion of what exactly police use of force is and how much exists. Second, there is a review of the relevant case law regarding police use of force that focuses primarily on the doctrine of qualified immunity (a code that affords police protection from being sued, most often under 18 U.S.C. § 1983). Third, in those rare police use of excessive force trials, the final decision regarding the liability of the defendant most often rests with a jury. Because the Sixth and Seventh Amendments to the U.S. Constitution states one is to be tried by a jury of one's peers, which comes from the community, I investigate the importance of community relations with the criminal justice system, in particular policing, and how these relationships shape a potential jury pool. Finally, I assess the psychology behind juror decision making and its impact in police use of force trials regarding the psychological schema already impressed on jurors prior to rendering verdicts or that could color or negate their interpretation of the evidence presented at trial.

73(3) Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 895 (2023)

By Lisa Bailey Vavonese and Alysha Hall

Are public defenders the answer hiding in plain sight? Imagine that you are arrested and charged with a crime. You likely have a picture in your mind of how your first interactions with the police, your attorney, and the judge should go— interactions that are fair and just and protect your rights. The picture we paint next is that story. It is simple yet, to many, unfamiliar. We could have told the version that is true for so many people charged with a crime—a story of injustice and unfairness, a story so familiar it feels unchangeable. Instead, what follows is a thought experiment, a sadly unrepresentative one.  

New York: Center for Justice Innovation, 2023. 34p.

By National Institute of Justice, Office for Access to Justice

"Two-thirds of states (34) do not have full statewide oversight of public defense, meaning they do not set standards or monitor whether people receive counsel in all cases where they have a right to it."

In collaboration with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office for Access to Justice (ATJ), the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) sponsored a report on public defense system models in recognition of the 60th anniversary of Gideon v. Wainwright, which established the right to counsel to indigent persons charged with felonies in state courts. Researchers conducted a national scan of the public defense service models used in state, local, and tribal adult, trial-level, criminal cases. The report addresses the prevalence of different models, factors contributing to how jurisdictions select models, and variations in outcomes associated with each model. The report found that 16 states have a commission and/or statewide defender program overseeing public defense services, while in 34 there are gaps in state oversight. States need a mechanism for monitoring and supporting access to quality public defense counsel. States also need to ensure that the people overseeing and administering public defense do not have professional conflicts of interest. Finally, defender systems need meaningful input on practice and policy from people who have been represented by public defenders or been impacted by the criminal justice system. Recent reform efforts have resulted in more states creating oversight commissions and shifting to greater use of state funds to provide access to quality counsel and public defense delivery methods. Experts recommend states collect data on the percentage of people who enter uncounseled guilty pleas and on defendant characteristics not limited to race and ethnicity to ascertain whether equitable access to counsel is available. Findings are based on interviews with experts and a review and synthesis of publicly available material; the report is a national and current scan of public defense models and is intended to complement research based on more rigorous statistical surveys and program evaluations that may be dated or limited in coverage of jurisdictions. 

Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2023. 87p.

By Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Mission in Kosovo
Since 1999, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (“OSCE”) Mission in Kosovo has held a pivotal role in monitoring the justice system in Kosovo for compliance with fair trial and international human rights standards. Trial monitoring is conducted by OSCE personnel in courts across Kosovo, focusing on identifying systemic issues affecting the justice system. The OSCE is concerned that the Kosovo judicial system is not adequately exercising its criminal calendaring authority. The caseload challenges facing the Basic Courts of Kosovo are staggering. During the first three months of 2023, the Basic Courts presided over 46,852 criminal cases: of those 40,707 were inherited and 6,145 cases were newly filed.1 However, only 5,833 cases were resolved leaving 41,019 pending at the end of the three month reporting period. Despite these circumstances, courts2 regularly fail to schedule criminal trials on consecutive or uninterrupted days. This practice exacerbates court backlogs, is an inefficient use of judicial resources, and ultimately creates a barrier to justice. This report analyzes the issue of criminal case backlogs and delays, which is a widespread problem in Kosovo that negatively affects access to justice and the efficient administration of justice. Specifically, the report focuses on how systemic criminal case management practices relating to scheduling trials over a prolonged period of time aggravate criminal case backlogs. The report is based on the direct field monitoring conducted by OSCE staff of criminal hearings observed in 2023. Its purpose is to make actionable recommendations to the relevant judicial system actors in order to improve criminal case management at the trial stage.
Vienna: OSCE, 2023. 16p.

By Adam I. Biener  

  Introduction The Association of Prosecuting Attorneys (APA), a non-profit organization composed of US prosecutors, conducted a survey to understand the prevalence of and factors associated with case backlogs. Backlogs occur when a large number of cases are pending before the court for a longer period than typically experienced and/or a period longer than prescribed by the court. In a survey of 50 of the largest prosecutors’ offices conducted by APA in 2020, 14 responding offices reported just under 9,000 cases awaiting trial on average. 1 Following court disruptions due to COVID-19, there was an average increase of 5,565 cases per office, a 62% increase. Case backlogs can occur when the caseload per individual prosecuting attorney rises holding all other productive capability constant. In practice, the level of staffing (measured by caseload per attorney) is extremely varied.2 Further, models of prosecution vary across offices3 and different models can require a different mix of attorney specialties.4 Despite this complexity, office staffing is very idiosyncratic and not often tied to per attorney caseloads1, which can result in significant and potentially burdensome individual caseloads.3 Excessive caseloads for individual attorneys can result in longer case processing time, a greater risk for decision-making errors, increased plea bargains and dismissals, career burnout, and employee turnover. 6 Funding shocks have likely exacerbated the size of individual attorney caseloads over the past 20 years. The great recession following the financial crisis in 2008 reduced state budgets, employment, and payroll, shrinking the resources available to meet staffing and resource requests from prosecutors’ offices,5 leading to rising prosecutor workloads and stagnating or shrinking budgets.6 The expectations of prosecutors and their obligations when working cases have evolved significantly since 2007 due to changing legal requirements and new technologies. Victims’ rights laws, which require additional engagement with victims, increase the amount of time spent on person-involved cases (e.g. CA Prop 9 in 20087 ). There are presently Open Discovery laws in 46 states, up from roughly a third of states in 2004, 8 that increase the requirements for timely evidence collection. Body-worn cameras have become more commonplace for law enforcement, as nearly 50% of 15,238 general-purpose law enforcement agencies had body-worn cameras in 2016.9 Video evidence generated by body-worn cameras are more labor-intensive to review, extending the amount of labor hours required to prepare a case. Additionally, the demand for specialized attorneys to review cases as part of conviction review/integrity units, 10 while improving the equitable administration of justice, can potentially strain limited staffing resources. All of these staffing and resource constraints were tested during the COVID-19 pandemic, which put unusual demands on offices to continue their essential functions despite health concerns and court closures. While many offices were able to adopt new technologies to maintain their functioning, these pivots did not alleviate the rising caseloads and work burdens on individual prosecutors

Washington, DC: The Association of Prosecuting Attorneys (APA) , 2024. 19p.

By Meredith Rossner and Helen Taylor

Restorative justice is an idea and a practice that has had a significant impact on criminology over the past four decades and has proliferated throughout the criminal justice system. Yet from the beginning of this movement, there have been worries that the mainstreaming of restorative justice will lead to its dilution, or even corruption, and undermine its transformative potential. Developing alongside the growing institutionalization of restorative justice has been a transformative justice movement that has arisen from larger movements for racial and gender justice, drawing on similar foundational values to restorative justice. This review interrogates the relationship between restorative and transformative justice by examining a flourishing of ideas and experiments at the margins of the restorative justice movement in three key areas—responses to racial injustice, sexual violence, and environmental harm—and finds that restorative justice has the capacity to work at multiple levels to respond to harm, transform relationships, and prevent future injustices.

Annual Review of Criminology, Volume 7, Page 357 - 381

By Valerie Jenness and Alexis Rowland

A growing body of research reveals that transgender people are disproportionately in contact with the criminal legal system, wherein they experience considerable discrimination, violence, and other harms. To better understand transgender people's involvement in this system, this article synthesizes research from criminology, transgender studies, and related fields as well as empirical findings produced outside of academe, to conceptualize a “transgender criminal legal system nexus.” This article examines historical and contemporary criminalization of transgender people; differential system contact and attendant experiences associated with police contact, judicial decision-making, and incarceration; and pathways to system involvement for transgender people. The analytic focus is on cultural logics related to institutionalized conceptualizations of gender, discriminatory people-processing in various domains of the criminal legal system, and institutionally produced disparities for transgender people involved in the criminal legal system, especially transgender women of color. The article concludes with a discussion of directions for future research, including a focus on administrative violence, organizational sorting, intersectionality, and measurement challenges.

Annual Review of Criminology, Volume 7, Page 283 - 309

By Hedwig Lee

I describe how cultural and structural racism operate the entire contemporary American criminal justice system via five features: devaluation of certain human lives, ubiquitous adaptation, networked structure, perceived neutrality, and temporal amnesia. I draw from specific historical and contemporary examples in policing, courts, and corrections to further emphasize the foundational nature of racism and its role in shaping racial/ethnic inequities not just in relationship to criminal justice outcomes but also in relationship to health, economic, and social well-being.

Annual Review of Criminology, Volume 7, Page 233 - 255

By Rainer Forst

Over the past 15 years, Rainer Forst has developed a fundamental research programme within the tradition of Frankfurt School Critical Theory. The core of this programme is a moral account of the basic right of justification that humans owe to one another as rational beings. This account is put to work by Forst in articulating - both historically and philosophically - the contexts and form of justice and of toleration. The result is a powerful theoretical framework within which to address issues such as transnational justice and multicultural toleration. In this volume, Forst sets out his ideas in an extended essay, which is responded to be influential interlocutors including: Andrea Sangiovanni, Amy Allen, Kevin Olson, Anthony Laden, Eva Erman and Simon Caney. The volume concludes with Forst's response to his interlocutors.

London: Bloomsbury Academic,  2014.  249p.