By Casey Witte and Emily Mooney

  Law enforcement agencies are the gatekeepers of the criminal justice system. Charged with responding to calls for service and investigating crimes, they also exercise a great deal of authority and discretion when it comes to how individuals are held accountable for misbehavior. Depending on the alleged act, state and agency, police officers can correct wrongdoing without an arrest or any court involvement. In some cases, police officers may be authorized to give an individual a warning or citation or to refer someone to community-based programming or services. Colloquially termed “diversion” opportunities due to their movement away from the formal court process, these decisions can be life-changing, particularly when a child is accused of committing a crime. Adolescents are especially prone to partake in risky behaviors, be affected by negative peer influences and struggle to adequately account for  the consequences of their actions—all of which put them at greater risk of coming into contact with the justice system. Youth misbehavior can also be a reflection of trauma or a mislabeling of typical child actions due to overbroad criminal laws, such as those that punish youth for “disorderly conduct.” Fortunately, what we know about child development suggests children naturally age-out of crime as their cognitive functions develop, and trauma can be treated outside of the justice process. Police officers can likewise work collaboratively with other community actors to ensure overbroad laws do not result in criminal justice responses to actions better dealt with by schools and parents. After all, when people are arrested, processed and marked with a criminal record all before the age of 18, the long-term consequences can be devastating. Simply being stopped by police can have detrimental effects on a young person’s future, with some research suggesting it can amplify the young person’s likelihood of future criminal activity. After an arrest, a youth is on track to earn less income over their lifetime and be substantially less-educated than their peers. And when a youth arrest is followed by a stint of detention or incarceration, research suggests young people are even more likely to return to crime, particularly when they have had few prior interactions with the justice system. This means that when we introduce our youngest to the justice system, without full consideration of effective alternatives to hold them accountable, we are at risk of crippling their future and accelerating further societal harm. In response to this problem, states and individual law enforcement agencies have begun to establish formal youth diversion programs with set eligibility criteria. These programs allow youth to avoid being formally processed further in the justice system if they complete certain requirements, such as community service. Often, they provide resources— such as referrals to counseling or job services—aimed at meeting the needs of the youth that enter these programs and addressing the factors that led to law enforcement contact. However, there is no uniform design for diversion programs nor is there a uniform understanding of which youth should be diverted. As a result, program components and utility can vary wildly from state to state or even town to town. Such is the case in the state of Maryland. From Allegany to Worcester, law enforcement-driven diversion programs— which for the purposes of this paper are defined as programs managed by law enforcement agencies to which youth can be referred rather than having their case sent to the Department of Juvenile Services (DJS)—have started to take hold, though successful iterations with proven efficacy are still few and far between.6 In recent years, many law enforcement agencies have taken a step in the right direction by creating or forming relationships with existing youth diversion programs in their communities. In some cases, diversion programs driven by State’s Attorney’s Offices have worked to divert young people prior to a DJS referral as well. However, there are still a substantial number of jurisdictions that have no law enforcement-driven diversion programs whatsoever. Accordingly, this policy study will address the importance of police diversion, the state of law enforcement-driven diversion programs in Maryland, and ultimately recommend policies aimed at creating a statewide environment in which all Maryland youth have opportunities to be diverted by law enforcement earlier and with more efficacy. 

Washington, DC: R Street, 2021. 15p

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, 16 pages

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, 66 pages

By Mona Lynch and Emily V. Shaw

Building on research demonstrating significant differences in how Black and White Americans view law enforcement, this study assesses how views of police shape potential jurors’ decision-making. The authors conclude that it is critical that citizens are not prevented from being seated on juries due to skepticism about police, given the risk of disproportionate exclusion of Black potential jurors. The legal processes relevant to juror excusals need to be reconsidered to ensure that views of police, rooted in actual experience or knowledge about the problems with fair and just policing, are not used to disproportionately exclude persons of color, or to seat juries overrepresented by people who blindly trust police. A sample of 649 Black and White jury-eligible U.S. citizens were exposed a federal drug conspiracy case in which the primary evidence against the defendant is provided by an FBI agent and an informant cooperating with the agent, in which a Black defendant is being tried, and where the informant-witness race (Black or White) was varied. Participants determined verdict, evaluated evidence, and completed additional measures. Results indicated that Black participants were significantly less likely to convict than White participants, especially in the White informant condition; rated the law enforcement witness as less credible; and viewed police more negatively across three composite measures. Exploratory analysis of how juror race and gender interacted indicates Black women largely drove racial differences in verdicts. Perceptions of police legitimacy mediated the relationship between juror race and verdict choice

Race and Justice Volume: Online Dated: 2023 Pages: 1-25

By Elisabeth Semel, Dagen Downard, Emma Tolman, Anne Weis, Danielle Craig, and Chelsea Hanlock

Racial discrimination is an ever-present feature of jury selection in California. This report investigates the history, legacy, and continuing practice of excluding people of color, especially African Americans, from California juries through the exercise of peremptory challenges. Unlike challenges for cause, each party in a trial has the right to excuse a specific number of jurors without stating a reason and without the court’s approval. In California, peremptory challenges are defined by statute. Historically, the main vice of peremptory challenges was that prosecutors wielded them with impunity to remove African Americans from jury service. These strikes were part and parcel of the systematic exclusion of Blacks from civil society. We found that prosecutors continue to exercise peremptory challenges to remove African Americans and Latinx people from California juries for reasons that are explicitly or implicitly related to racial stereotypes. In 1978, in People v. Wheeler, our state supreme court was the first court in the nation to adopt a three-step procedure intended to reduce prosecutors’ discriminatory use of peremptory challenges. Almost a decade later, in Batson v. Kentucky, the United States Supreme Court approved a similar approach with the goal of ending race-based strikes against African-American prospective jurors. An essential feature of the “Batson/Wheeler procedure” is that it only provides a remedy for intentional discrimination. Thus, at step one, the objecting party must establish a sufficient showing—known as a “prima facie case”—of purposeful discrimination. At step two, if the trial court agrees that the objecting party has made such a showing, the burden of producing evidence shifts to the striking party to give a “race-neutral” reason. At step three, the trial court decides whether the objecting party has established purposeful discrimination. If the court finds that the striking party’s reason was credible, it denies the Batson objection. In his concurring opinion in Batson, Justice Thurgood Marshall warned that Batson’s three-step procedure would fail to end racially discriminatory peremptory strikes. He anticipated that prosecutors would easily be able to produce “race-neutral” reasons at Batson’s second step, and that judges would be ill-equipped to second-guess those reasons. Further, Justice Marshall doubted Batson’s efficacy because the procedure did nothing to curb strikes motivated by unconscious racism—known more often today as implicit bias. Justice Marshall was prescient: 34 years after Batson was decided, prosecutors in California still disproportionately exercise peremptory challenges to exclude African Americans and Latinx people from juries. The Berkeley Law Death Penalty Clinic explored the shortcomings of the Batson procedure. Our report investigates how the California Supreme Court went from a judiciary that championed the eradication of race-based strikes to a court that resists the United States Supreme Court’s limited efforts to enforce Batson. We conclude that Batson is a woefully inadequate tool to end racial discrimination in jury selection.

Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley, School of Law, 2020. 166p.

By Elisabeth Semel , Willy Ramirez, Yara Slaton, Casey Jang and Lauren Havey

In a new report, the Death Penalty Clinic expands on “Whitewashing the Jury Box: How California Perpetuates the Exclusion of Black and Latinx Jurors,” a 2020 report which investigated the history, legacy, and ongoing practice of excluding people of color — especially African Americans — from state juries through prosecutors’ peremptory challenges.

“Guess Who’s Coming to Jury Duty?: How the Failure to Collect Juror Demographic Data Contributes to Whitewashing the Jury Box” continues the clinic’s racial justice research and advocacy by cataloging the states that gather prospective jurors’ self-identified race and ethnicity and those that do not. It examines what courts do with the information, including whether it is provided to the court and counsel for use during jury selection, and the consequences of these choices in furthering or obstructing jury representativeness and diversity. In particular, the report shows why the collection of prospective jurors’ self-identified race and ethnicity is vital to meeting state and federal fair cross-section guarantees and eliminating the discriminatory exercise of peremptory challenges.

Racial/ethnic representation and diversity matter to jury decision-making and hence justice cannot be achieved unless courts take a race-conscious approach to jury composition and selection.

Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley, School of Law, 2024. 89p.

By: The United States Sentencing Commission

This is the twenty-eighth edition of the United States Sentencing Commission’s Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics. This Sourcebook contains descriptive statistics on the application of the federal sentencing guidelines and provides selected district, circuit, and national sentencing data. The volume covers fiscal year 2023 (October 1, 2022, through September 30, 2023, hereinafter “2023”). This Sourcebook, together with the 2023 Annual Report, constitutes the annual report referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 997, as well as the analysis, recommendations, and accounting to Congress referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 994(w)(3). The Commission received documentation on 64,124 federal felony and Class A misdemeanor cases involving individuals sentenced in fiscal year 2023.[1] The Commission coded and edited information from the sentencing documents in these cases into its comprehensive, computerized data collection system.

The Commission first released sentencing data in its 1988 Annual Report and reported this data annually until 1996. That year, the Commission compiled sentencing data into a new publication, the Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics. In 2019, the Sourcebook edition reporting fiscal year 2018 data was substantially revised and expanded. Existing tables were revised to reflect current sentencing practices. Many figures were updated to make them easier to understand and were presented in color while others were removed and the data on them presented in new ways. Additional analyses regarding drug and immigration crimes were added, and new sections on firearms and economic offenses were included. Trend analyses were added to each of the major sections to show how sentencing patterns had changed over the last ten years. The section on Sentenced Organizations was also expanded. Finally, Appendix B, which provides sentencing data for each judicial district, was completely redesigned to reflect current sentencing practices.

Beginning with that 2018 Sourcebook, important methodological changes were made in the way the data was presented. Principal among them was the way cases were assigned to a “type of crime” (previously called offense type). Beginning with fiscal year 2018 data, the guideline (or guidelines) that the court applied in determining the sentence determines the crime type category to which a case is assigned. Also, the names of some of the crime type categories were revised and some outdated categories were removed from the tables and figures. Another important methodological change was that sentences were capped at 470 months for all analyses. Additionally, cases involving the production of child pornography were reassigned to the sexual abuse crime type. Previously, these cases were assigned to the child pornography offense type in the Sourcebook.

Finally, beginning with the 2018 Sourcebook, the methodology used to analyze the sentence imposed relative to the sentencing range for the case as determined under the Commission’s Guidelines Manual was substantially revised. Sentences now are grouped into two broad categories: Sentences Under the Guidelines Manual and Variances. The former category comprises all cases in which the sentence imposed was within the applicable guideline range or, if outside the range, where the court cited one or more of the departure reasons in the Guidelines Manual as a basis for the sentence. Variance cases are those in which the sentence was outside the guideline range (either above or below) and where the court did not cite any guideline reason for the sentence. Data for important subgroups within these two categories are also reported.

Because of these methodological changes, direct comparisons between data for Sourcebooks from fiscal year 2018 and later years cannot always be made to data reported in the Sourcebook for years before fiscal year 2018.

Washington, DC: USSC, 2024.

Edited by Gavin E. Oxburgh, Trond Myklebust, Mark Fallon and Maria Hartwig

Data-driven decision-making and science-based policies are critical to ensuring that the most effective tools and methods are being used to address real-world issues, such as the challenge of how to effectively elicit information from people during an interview. Academics and practitioners alike have been calling for investigators to transition away from customary, experience-based approaches to interviewing and detecting deception, and toward adoption of science-based approaches in their stead. Increasingly, there are hopeful signs this transition is welcomed by many members of the practitioner community, and a growing number of organizations are seeking out science-based interview and interrogation training.2A fundamental premise of this volume is that science-based methods of interviewing–skills and techniques that have been validated through an objective process of systematic empiricism–are the most effective means of eliciting reliable information from interviewees, and the current volume provides the practitioner community with a comprehensive summary of the state of the science of interviewing (with the irony being that, at some point after this volume is published, the science will have advanced). Each chapter in this volume is written by leading scholars in the field or practitioners who have become versed in the science of interviewing and have key insights to share about their use of science-based approaches in the field. The findings and conclusions are based on hundreds, if not thousands, of studies using a wide variety of complex re-search methodologies and statistical analyses, none of which is particularly easy to understand for people without advanced scientific training. Just as it is fool-hardy for academics to assume they understand the challenges and realities of interviewing in the ‘real world’ without critical insights from and partnerships with experienced practitioners, it is not realistic to expect practitioners to be-come scientists in their own right, able to consume and put the science into practice without assistance. That said, it is imperative that practitioners are armed with enough knowledge of scientific methods to become critical consumers of purported scientific information

By Kelsie Chesnut and Jennifer Peirce

  From 2019 to 2022, the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera), along with Black and Pink National, developed and conducted a large-scale survey of currently incarcerated transgender people regarding their experiences in state prisons. In 2015, Black and Pink National published a landmark survey of more than a thousand LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer/questioning) incarcerated people, Coming Out of Concrete Closets. The present survey provides updated information on similar issues as Black and Pink’s 2015 survey but focuses solely on transgender people. Vera and Black and Pink National are grateful to the incarcerated people who took the time to thoughtfully respond to the survey, often sharing sensitive and traumatic experiences. The survey used regular mail to reach participants, who were already connected with Black and Pink National, and this allowed people to respond in 2021–2022 despite ongoing COVID-related constraints on inperson access to prisons. This report highlights the key findings from the survey responses and open-ended comments shared by the 280 people who participated. 1 Vera and Black and Pink National codesigned all stages of this project, with input from researchers and advocates working on this topic. Vera independently managed the data collection, analysis, and production of findings included in this report, with guidance and input from Black and Pink National and an external expert research consultant.2 The goals of this report are to • share the experiences and insights of transgender people living behind bars in state prisons in their own words, • provide policymakers and people who work with incarcerated people with findings that update and expand their understanding of how transgender people in state prisons experience conditions of confinement, • improve correctional policy and practice as it relates to transgender people who are incarcerated in the United States, and  • contribute to a larger national discussion about incarceration and decarceration in a way that advances transgender justice.  

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2024. 96p.

By John McGhee, Scott McMillan & James Reilly

This scoping document was commissioned by the BF programme to better understand the impact of long-term imprisonment in Scotland, drawing on the expertise of SPARC. Initial background research from SPARC found that many of the issues faced by long-term prisoners in England and Wales are also faced by those in Scottish prisons. This document highlights these similarities and considers the differences. The Scottish context - On 23 May 2022 there were 1,044 prisoners serving 10 years or more in Scotland. • - This means 19% of the convicted population in Scotland were serving over 10 years compared with 16% in England and Wales. • The average sentence for murder has increased from eight to nine years in the 1970’s to nearly 20 years in 2021. • Successful parole applications in the early 2000’s were just under 30%, this has now reduced to 12%. • Progression is a major issue in Scottish prisons and 36 of 100 judicial reviews are concerned with progression or parole. - SPARC have had requests from Scottish prisoners for advocacy work to navigate the progression and parole system. - Most advocacy requests related to “critical dates” which are those dates specific and relevant to progression, availability of spaces on offence focused programmes, spaces in community testing facilities, and the misapplication of risk scoring tools. - These issues were also highlighted during SPARC’s community consultations for Glasgow University’s ‘Scotland in Lockdown’ project. - In 2018 SPARC delivered a training workshop to the Independent Prison Monitors in Scotland on the failings of the progression system. ....

London: Prison Reform Trust, 2023. 26p.

By Prison Reform Trust

The use of force in prison is only justifiable if it is legal, proportionate in the circumstances, reasonable, and necessary.

This briefing brings together evidence that, we think, casts doubt on the legality of the use of PAVA spray in prisons.

The first section describes the expansion of PAVA availability in adult male prisons. The second discusses the evidence of disproportionate use of PAVA by race, religion and disability. Third, we show how disproportionate use of PAVA has become the norm. Fourth, we explain the legal context, and argue that the current provision of PAVA spray to prison establishments does not comply with HMPPS’ legal obligations. Fifth, we re-examine arguments that PAVA spray contributes to prison safety. Finally, building on evidence, the briefing makes recommendations designed to reduce the disproportionate use of PAVA.

London: Prison Reform Trust, 2023. 18p.

By Sophie Ellis and Alex Hewson

  Introduction It’s hard to find the right adjectives to describe the tumultuous year the prison and probation service has had. The chief inspector of prisons issued five urgent notifications (UN)—raising immediate concerns about conditions—the highest number in a single year. The prison service ran out of places, forcing the government to adopt emergency measures to hold people in police cells; release people from prison early; delay court hearings; and warn judges about the pressure on our already overcrowded prisons. Meanwhile, staff leave the service in droves, quickly burnt out by the conditions they face each day as they pick up their keys to start their shift. Prisons continue to be places of hopelessness and despair for too many people, with self-harm now higher than before the pandemic, and reaching the highest level on record for women. Whilst crisis and scandal can trigger defensiveness, they can also act as a launch pad for bold reform. The Government should seize this opportunity to show that the status quo is not working and present a positive alternative vision for our criminal justice system. One that is rooted in the things that matter to the communities that they serve—safety, fairness, effectiveness and decency—and which relies on evidence rather than rhetoric. Alex Chalk, our current Secretary of State for Justice, has to his credit begun this journey. A swift reconsideration of his predecessor’s intransigence to ending the injustice of the Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence; reversing measures which prevented people progressing in their sentences; and introducing legislation currently before Parliament for a presumption that prison sentences of a year or less should be replaced with a suspended prison sentence. All of these are causes for celebration in a sector where the wins are few and hard fought for. As the former Governor of HMP Liverpool, I know first-hand the powerful impact that reducing prisoner numbers had on my ability to bring about much needed reform measures. Overcrowding is the single biggest barrier in providing a safe, decent and rehabilitative prison. Prisons will always be messy, complex places to live and work in, but by hitting the reset button it reduced the relentless day-to-day crisis we faced when the next full escort van turned up. Having fewer people in the prison not only reduced the flow in and out of the gates each day, but it also gave me and my team some breathing space to work through the plethora of problems we needed to fix. It unlocked the much-needed funding and focus for refurbishment to take place. It allowed us to develop a vision; to articulate our values and to see the wood for the trees. But most importantly, it allowed us—the operational experts—to shape our prison in a way that worked best for those who lived and worked there. But what happens when you have a prison system with so little slack that you can’t simply transfer 500 people to another prison down the road? We’ve witnessed the very real consequences on prisons when politicians talk about the need to “toughen up” sentences with little thought given to the implications—or to the long line of similar measures that preceded them. Governors up and down the country—good, hard working and well-intentioned leaders—must despair at how straightjacketed they are. They are expected to be omnipotent leaders—ultimately responsible when it hits the fan—but are often left feeling that they have little autonomy.    They fulfil the insatiable requests for information from higher management; they react with knee jerk responses in anticipation of events that could cause their ministers political embarrassment; and they live with the constant threat of doing something which turns out to be career limiting. In the new world, the decision-making structure has well and truly moved from the governor’s office to outside the prison......

London: Prison Reform Trust, 2024. 86p.

By Kees Sterk

For the identity and well-functioning of Europe, independent national judiciaries are key, and the selection processes of judges and Court Presidents essential. During the last decade, however, several European Governments have been undermining this by trying to establish political control over national judges, especially through political dominance over the selection and appointment processes for judges and Court Presidents.

In his inaugural speech, Sterk addresses the topic of selection processes, both on substance as well as on procedure. He analyses the case law of the European Court of Justice as well as the European Court of Human Rights, and the enforcement policies of the European Commission. 

Sterk identifies problems and recommends five steps to protect independent justice in Europe including the systemic enforcement gap, an effective enforcement duty, the standards for selection bodies, a duty to reason selection decisions, and on limiting the power of the executive to refuse candidates selected by selection bodies.

The Hague: Eleven International Publishing, 2023. 56p.

By Coletta A. Youngers

The incarceration of women is growing at alarming rates worldwide and in Latin America it is driven by strict drug laws, with devastating consequences for the women impacted and their families. Their stories unveil contexts of poverty, lack of opportunity, and physical and sexual violence, and also reveal the discrimination of unjust legal systems and societies plagued by stigmatization and patriarchal attitudes. But they are also stories of resilience, as women coming out of prison in Latin America today are organizing and fighting for their human rights and the right to live with dignity.

In response to the growing crisis of women’s incarceration in Latin America, in 2015 organizations, experts and activists created a Working Group on Women, Drug Policies, and Incarceration, led by the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC), and the Colombian NGO, Centro de Estudios de Derechos, Justicia y Sociedad – Dejusticia. Our objective is to significantly reduce the number of women deprived of liberty in Latin America, providing analysis and public policy recommendations and participating in advocacy initiatives at the international, regional, and national levels.

The purpose of this report is to reflect on almost ten years of collective research and joint advocacy by the working group, its achievements and disappointments, as well as challenges and opportunities for the future.

Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America, 2023.. 82p.

By Andrew Galley,  Frank Sirotich, and Sara Rodrigues  

This report is based on a scoping review by a team of researchers at the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA), who analyzed existing research and policy documents on the mental health care needs of justice-involved persons in Canada’s criminal justice system and in peer jurisdictions. It aims to guide future research and policy development by highlighting what is currently known about this topic and what knowledge gaps may exist in the literature on mental health in the criminal justice system. While it highlights research on the prevalence of mental health problems and mental illness in the criminal justice system, experiences of justice-involved persons with mental health problems and mental illness, and promising practices and principles for mental health care, it is not intended to be a comprehensive review of the literature.   

Ottawa: Mental Health Commission of Canada , 2020. 124p.

By Donald Kerwin & Brendan Kerwin

This paper examines the staffing needs of the US Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), as it seeks to eliminate an immigration court backlog, which approached 2.5 million pending cases at the end of fiscal year (FY) 2023. A previous study by the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS) attributed the backlog to systemic, long-neglected problems in the broader US immigration system. This paper provides updated estimates of the number of immigration judges (IJs) and “judge teams” (IJ teams) needed to eliminate the backlog over ten and five years based on different case receipt and completion scenarios. It also introduces a data tool that will permit policymakers, administrators and researchers to make their own estimates of IJ team hiring needs based on changing case receipt and completion data. Finally, the paper outlines the pressing need for reform of the US immigration system, including a well-resourced, robust, and independent court system, particularly in light of record “encounters” of migrants at US borders in FY 2022 and 2023.

United States, Journal on Migration and Human Security. 2024, 10pg

By The United States Sentencing Commission

This report examines variations in sentencing practices—and corresponding variations in sentencing outcomes—in the federal courts since the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in United States v. Booker. The United States Sentencing Commission analyzed the sentencing practices of federal district judges in 30 major cities located throughout the country to determine the extent of the judges’ variations in imposing sentences in relation to the city average. This report is the second in a series of reports updating the analyses and findings of the Commission’s 2012 Report on the Continuing Impact of United States v. Booker on Federal Sentencing.

Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission, 2019. 138p.

By The United States Sentencing Commission

This report is the third in a series of reports. It examines variations in sentencing practices—and corresponding variations in sentencing outcomes—across federal districts since the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in United States v. Booker.  The Commission’s ongoing analysis in this area directly relates to a key goal of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984: reducing unwarranted sentencing disparities that existed in the federal judicial system.  In particular, the Act was the result of a widespread bipartisan concern that such disparities existed both regionally (e.g., differences among the districts) and within the same courthouse. Having analyzed the differences within the same courthouse in its Intra-City Report, the Commission now turns in this report to examining regional differences since Booker.

Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission, 2020. 100p.

By Kelly Lyn Mitchell

  When a person is charged and convicted of a criminal offense in Minnesota, a number of consequences flow from that conviction. The person may experience arrest and booking into the county jail. They may have to post bond or bail to gain pretrial release from jail while the case is pending. And if convicted, they may be sentenced to a period of incarceration in prison or jail or they may be ordered to serve a period of time on probation, during which they will have numerous court-ordered conditions to comply with. Each of these touchpoints with the criminal justice system may incur additional challenges for the person, such as potential loss of employment, and impacts on family members who may have to post bail or oversee care for their children. One area that is less visible is the financial side of the experience. There are three different types of financial obligations a person may be required to pay following conviction for a criminal offense: fines, restitution, and fees (Table 1). Fines serve as a form of punishment for the offense committed, while also generating revenue for the system. Restitution, on the other hand, is a financial obligation that aims to compensate the victim for any losses sustained as a result of the crime. Fees are different, in that their primary function is revenue generation. Fees are financial obligations that are used to fund specific aspects of the criminal legal system, such as public defender representation, or to provide funding for the state, county, or city’s general budget

Minneapolis: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 2023. 20p.

By Tyler Giles

This paper estimates the government revenue, recidivism, and financial health effects of an increase in misdemeanor fines/fees. I leverage a statutory change in Milwaukee whereby convicted defendants were assessed an average additional $279 if sentenced after a certain date. Exploitation of this date in a regression discontinuity design reveals that about 28 cents of each additional dollar charged was eventually collected, often through the automatic application of posted cash bail to court debt. The increase in fines/fees increased the likelihood of felony recidivism, especially among Black defendants, but had no effect on credit score or other credit report outcomes.

Working paper, 2023. 75p