By Dix, M.O.; Mecray, M.; Man, J.; Vetter, E.; Tucker, M.; Parsons, N.; Craig, T. 

ABST Drones, or unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), used to deliver contraband into correctional facilities pose three major threats to correctional facilities: 1) transporting/dropping contraband into correctional facilities; 2) creating a distraction to increase the chances of infiltration of contraband by other methods while security is distracted by the drone; and 3) the use of drones to monitor an area without detection to prepare for drops. Among the contraband smuggled into correctional facilities via drone use are cell phones, SIM cards, drugs, escape paraphernalia, and weapons. Successful strategies to reduce contraband entering correctional facilities combine technology-based solutions with associated policies and procedures. Technical complexities, legislative constraints, rules, and regulations limit correctional agencies’ options when planning regulations to counter the use of drones to facilitate providing contraband to inmates. Thus, most solutions must focus on technology-based detection to support improved facility contraband management. A variety of terms are associated with drones and are used interchangeably, but for the sake of consistency, this report poses a number of definitions.  This brief offers high-level insights on solutions to detect and react to drones and highlights some technologies and active strategies for detecting and countering or mitigating drone use to smuggle contraband into correctional facilities. When developing plans to manage drones, correctional agencies are strongly advised to review an interagency advisory published by the FAA, Federal Communications

Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, 2022. 12p.

By Dennis C. Benamati, Phyllis A. Schultze, Adam C. Bouloukos, and Graeme R. Newman

From the Introduction: “… Informa­tion is now available from any location—home, office, or classroom—and at any time of day or night. Tradi­tionally, the researcher had to go to a library to access information.There, he or she could find a librarian to assist with locating information and formulating que­ries. Today, the researcher does not have to be in the same room or building to access Internet and online information sources. The librarian, who would have normally assisted with the research, is remote or may not be on duty. Thus, the concept of the library as a physical location has lost some of its meaning.

We have written Criminal Justice Information: How to Find It, How to Use It to accommodate these fundamental changes in the way that criminal justice information is accessed and disseminated. We hope that this new guide will provide the distant researcher with guidance in the use of resources—guidance that would have traditionally been provided by a reference librarian at a library….

Our publisher has suggested that we provide the re­searcher with a “roadmap” of how to use this book. It is a well-meant suggestion…[but]…a roadmap is an altogether inadequate analogy to demonstrate how we would like our readers to use this guide. Indeed, for several reasons we encourage our readers to shed the bias that research and information gathering are linear processes. This perception has been part and parcel of a culture that has taught and related information linearly for generations. The media in which our culture and knowledge are re­corded—primarily books but also audio and video recordings—are linear because they are bome of the limited technologies of the printing press…”

Phoenix, Arizona. The Oryx Press. 1998. 247p.

By Graeme R. Newman, General Editor..

Fewer than 20 percent of countries have prohibited corporal punishment, while 35 percent retain the death penalty. Prison is still a universal punishment, regardless of culture or legal system. But what are the best ways to deter crime, while still recognizing civil rights? What lessons are there in the ways in which justice is administered—or abused—around the world? This comprehensive, detailed account explores crime and punishment throughout the world through the eyes of leading experts, local authors and scholars, and government officials.

NOTE: Theses digital versions are pre-publication proofs and may contain occasional typographical errors. and annotations.

Volume 1. Africa and Middle East. Edited by Mahesh K. Nalla

Volume 2. The Americas. Edited by Janet P. Stamatel And Hung-En Sung,

Volume 3. Asia and Pacific. Edited by Doris C. Chu.

Volume 4. Europe. Edited By Marcelo F. Aebi And Véronique Jaquier.

Edited  by The United Nations  

Seventy Years of the International Law Commission: Drawing a Balance for the Future brings together voices from academia and practice to celebrate and critically evaluate the work of the United Nations International Law Commission (ILC) over the past seventy years. The edited volume draws on the events commemorating the seventieth anniversary of the Commission, which took place in New York and Geneva in May and July 2018. At a time when multilateral law-making has become increasingly challenging, the edited volume appraises the role of one the most important driving forces behind the codification of international law and discusses the ILC’s future contribution to the development of international law. Readership: The prospective readership of the edited volume will be very diverse, including academics and practitioners of international law around the world.

Leiden; Boston: Brill Nijhoff,  2021. 475p.

Edited by Bruce A. Arrigo

A critical look at the relationship between law and psychology.

Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2004. 250p.

By R. D. Mackay

Mental condition defences have been used in several high-profile and controversial criminal trials in recent years. indeed, mental abnormality is increasingly an important yet complex source of defence within the criminal trial process. The author offers a detailed critical analysis of those defences within the Criminal Law where the accused relies on some form of mental abnormality as a source of defence. Topics covered include: the defences of automatism, insanity, diminished responsibility, and infanticide; self-induced incapacity; and the doctrine of fault. It also includes a chapter on unfitness to plead, which although not a defence has been included because of its important relationship to mental disorder within the criminal process. Drawing upon a wide variety of legal, psychiatric, and philosophical sources, this is a timely contribution to a controversial and complex topic.

Oxford, UK; New York: Oxford University Press, 1996p. 278p.

Edited by Antony Duff

Five preeminent legal theorists tackle a range of fundamental questions on the nature of the philosophy of criminal law. Their essays explore the extent to which and the ways in which our systems of criminal law can be seen as rational and principled. The essays discuss some of the principles by which, it is often thought, a system of law should be structured, and they ask whether our own systems are genuinely principled or riven by basic contradictions, reflecting deeper political and social conflicts

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998. 272p.

Edited by Julian V Roberts and Lucia Zedner

Celebrating the scholarship of Andrew Ashworth, Vinerian Professor of English Law at the University of Oxford, this collection brings together leading international scholars to explore questions of principle and value in criminal law and criminal justice. Internationally renowned for elaborating a body of principles and values that should underpin criminalization, the criminal process, and sentencing, Ashworth's contribution to the field over forty years of scholarship has been immense. Advancing his project of exploring normative issues at the heart of criminal law and criminal justice, the contributors examine the important and fascinating debates in which Ashworth's influence has been greatest.

The essays fall into three distinct but related areas, reflecting Ashworth's primary spheres of influence. Those in Part 1 address the import and role of principles in the development of a just criminal law, with contributions focusing upon core tenets such as the presumption of innocence, fairness, accountability, the principles of criminal liability, and the grounds for defences. Part 2 addresses questions of human rights and due process protections in both domestic and international law. In Part 3 the essays are addressed to core issues in sentencing and punishment: they explore questions of equality, proportionality, adherence to the rule of law, the totality principle (in respect of multiple offences), wrongful acquittals, and unduly lenient sentences. Together they demonstrate how important Ashworth's work has been in shaping how we think about criminal law and criminal justice, and make their own invaluable contribution to contemporary discussions of criminalization and punishment.

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 375p.

By Reid Griffith Fontaine

In American criminal law, if a defendant demonstrates that they lack certain psychological capabilities, they may be excused of blame and punishment for wrongdoing. However, criminal defense law often fails to consider the developmental science of individual differences in ability and functioning that may inform jurisprudential issues of rational capacity and responsibility in criminal law. This book discusses the excusing nature of a range of both traditional and nontraditional criminal law defenses and questions the structure of these defenses based on scientific findings from social and developmental psychology. This book explores how research on individual differences in the development of social perception, judgment, and decision making explain why some youths and adults develop psychological tendencies that favor criminal behavior, and considers how developmental science can guide the understanding of criminal excuses and affirmative defense law.

Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012. 282p.

By Color Of Change and ACLU’s Campaign for Smart Justice

Every year in the United States, millions of people are forced to pay cash bail after their arrest or face incarceration before trial. This is despite the fact that they are presumed innocent and have not been convicted of a crime. To avoid being locked up while their cases go through the courts—which can sometimes take months or even years—people who cannot afford bail must pay a non-refundable fee to a for-profit bail bonds company to front the required bail amount. The financial burden of this fee harms individuals, it harms families, and it disproportionately affects Black and low-income communities. The only winner is the bottom line of big for-profit businesses. These harms are perpetuated by the large insurance corporations that control the two-billion dollar for-profit bail bonds industry, which is both unaccountable to the justice system and unnecessary to justice itself. Large companies whose only goal is profit should not be the gatekeepers of pretrial detention and release. The for-profit bail system in the United States fuels mass incarceration and contributes to racial and economic inequalities. It is a destructive force that undermines the rights of people who come into contact with the criminal justice system, and it must be abolished.

New York: American Civil Liberties Union, 2017. 64o,

By Christopher T. Lowenkamp, Marie VanNostrand and Alexander Holsinger,

Each time a person is arrested and accused of a crime, a decision must be made as to whether the accused person, known as the defendant, will be detained in jail awaiting trial or will be released back into the community. But pretrial detention is not simply an either-or proposition; many defendants are held for a number of days before being released at some point before their trial. The release-and-detention decision takes into account a number of different concerns, including protecting the community, the need for defendants to appear in court, and upholding the legal and constitutional rights afforded to accused persons awaiting trial. It carries enormous consequences not only for the defendant but also for the safety of the community" (p. 3). This study examines the relationship between pretrial detention and sentencing. Sections following an executive summary include: introduction; sample description; and findings for eight research questions regarding the relations between pretrial detention and sentencing. Defendants who are detained for the entire pretrial period are three times more likely to be sentenced to jail or prison and to receive longer jail and prison sentences.

Houston, TX: Laura and John Arnold Foundation, 2013. 21p.

By Trevor J. Saunders

This book assesses Plato's penal code within the tradition of Greek penology. Saunders provides a detailed exposition of the emergence of the concept of publicly controlled, rationally calculated, and socially directed punishment in the period between Homer and Plato. He outlines the serious debate that ensued in the fifth century over the opposition by philosophers to popular judicial assumptions, and shows how the philosophical arguments gradually gained ground. He demonstrates that Plato advanced the most radical of the philosophical formulations of the concept of punishment in his Laws, arguing that punishment is or should be utilitarian and strictly reformative. This first comprehensive and detailed study of Plato's penology gives deserved attention to the works of a most important political and legal thinker.

Oxford, UK; New York: Clarendon Press/Oxford, 1991. 438p.

By Michael Rempel

This research brief summarizes what we know about New York City’s jail population since the COVID-19 outbreak. The data point to a 30 percent reduction in the city’s daily jail population from March 18 to April 29—attributable to urgent efforts to gain people’s release as well as to declining arrests, as people sheltered indoors at the start of the pandemic. Since then, the use of jail re-increased, reversing over half of the prior reductions. If the current trend continues, the jail population will return to its pre-COVID-19 level by mid-February 2021. The COVID-19 era has also seen considerable variations in the jail trends applicable to different subgroups, with the numbers held in pretrial detention progressively rising, even as incarceration has remained low among people convicted and serving sentences of one year or less. After reviewing key emergency release strategies adopted at the outset of the pandemic, this research brief documents overall jail trends and more specific changes in the composition of the jail population from mid-March to the beginning of November 2020.

New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2020. 22p.

ByTodd D. Minton, Zhen Zeng and Laura M. Maruschak

From March to June 2020, about 208,500 inmates received expedited release in response to COVID-19. „ During the pandemic, jail facilities became less crowded, as indicated by the decrease in occupied bed space from 81% at midyear 2019 to 60% at midyear 2020. „ The number of inmates held for a misdemeanor declined about 45% since midyear 2019, outpacing the decline in the number of inmates held for a felony (down 18%). „ The percentage of inmates held for a felony increased from 70% at midyear 2019 to 77% at midyear 2020. „ From March to June 2020, jails conducted 215,360 inmate COVID-19 tests. More than 11% of these tests were positive. „ Jails in counties with confirmed residential COVID-19 infection rates of 1% or more tested nearly 21% of persons admitted to their jails from March to June 2020. „ From March to June 2020, nearly 5% (10,850) of all local jail staff (233,220) tested positive for COVID-19.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs ,Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2021. 28p.

By Kyla Wasserman, Johanna Walter, Beata Luczywek, Hannah Wagner, and Cindy Redcross

This report presents findings from a feasibility evaluation of the Bridges to Pathways (Bridges) program. Bridges was a program for young men in Chicago between the ages of 17 and 21 years who were involved with the criminal or juvenile justice system and lacked a high school credential. The program offered intensive mentoring and case management, as well as the opportunity to earn a high school credential, attend social-emotional learning workshops, and participate in a subsidized internship.

The Bridges evaluation enrolled 480 young people between June 2015 and July 2016. This report provides a detailed description of the Bridges model and how the program providers adapted the model. It also presents findings about whether the program improved young people’s outcomes and decreased criminal activity during the first year after study enrollment. The implementation study concluded that the program succeeded in enrolling a high-risk population, and it focused its services on keeping participants engaged with the program and removing barriers to their participation.

New York: MDRC, 2019. 114p.

By Melanie Skemer, Cindy Redcross, Howard Bloom

On any given day in the United States, nearly half a million people are detained in jail while awaiting the resolution of their criminal cases, many because they cannot afford to pay bail. Bail is meant to ensure that defendants appear for court dates and are not arrested for new charges while they wait for their cases to be resolved. However, research has shown that setting bail as a condition of release can lead to unequal treatment and worse outcomes for defendants who do not have the ability to pay, regardless of the risk they pose. Additionally, systemic racial inequities throughout the criminal justice system mean that communities of color are disproportionately affected by cash bail and pretrial detention.

In 2016, New York City rolled out a citywide program known as Supervised Release (SR). SR offers judges the option of releasing defendants under supervision in lieu of setting bail. Defendants released to SR are required to report to program staff members regularly and are offered reminders of their court dates, case management support services, and voluntary connections to social services. The city developed the SR program to reduce the number of defendants detained in jail because they could not afford to pay bail, while at the same time maintaining court appearance rates and public safety. The findings presented in this report offer strong evidence that SR achieved these overarching goals.

New York: MDRC, 2020.185p.

By the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

This report examines current approaches to reforming the pre-trial and bail systems in the U.S. criminal justice system. The report reveals that between 1970 and 2015, there was a 433% increase in the number of individuals who have been detained pre-trial, and pre-trial detainees represent a larger proportion of the total incarcerated population.

Washington, DC: The Commission, 2022. 281p.

By Joanna Carraway Vitiello

This book examines the administration of justice in the small northern Italian town of Reggio Emilia at the end of the fourteenth century. Through an examination of material from the judicial archives from the period 1371-1409, this study investigates the development of public justice, inquisition procedure, and dispute resolution in late medieval Reggio Emilia, also incorporating comparative material, especially archival material from Bologna at the end of the fourteenth century. This study seeks to add to the discussion on dispute resolution and court processes in late medieval Europe, moving the discussion outside the major urban centers of late medieval Italy to the periphery of urban life.

Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2016. 232p.

By Advancing Pretrial Policy and Research (APPR)

The pretrial system has, in recent years, become a focus of attention for governments, civil rights advocates, the media, and nonprofit organizations. Understandably so: it is the front door of the criminal legal system, and decisions made in the early stages of a criminal case have major impacts on everything that follows. As Berkeley law professor Caleb Foote wrote in 1956, “Pretrial decisions determine mostly everything.” This adage is true for individual cases: whether or not someone is detained while awaiting trial has major impacts on whether they are found guilty, whether they are sentenced to incarceration, and how long those sentences are.Unnecessary detention can also disrupt lives, leading to lost jobs and housing, family instability, and even increased likelihood of rearrest. It is also true for the system as a whole: virtually all of the growth in the U.S. jail population in the 21st century is attributable to pretrial incarceration. Housing people before trial costs county and state governments at least $14 billion annually. So, it is critical that we get pretrial decisions right. But in most of the country, the pretrial system is deeply flawed. There is an overreliance on custodial arrest instead of citations or summonses; release and detention are determined more by money than by judicial officers making intentional decisions about public safety or flight; defense counsel is not present, despite someone’s liberty being at stake; and pretrial services focus on monitoring rather than supporting people in the community. In addition, like the rest of the criminal legal system, the pretrial system suffers from systemic racism, with Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) disproportionately arrested and booked, subjected to higher financial conditions of release, and more frequently detained. These practices result in many people who could safely be released remaining in jail, often for long periods. And they do not enhance—and frequently undermine—community safety and well-being. Improving the pretrial system requires a comprehensive approach; we cannot focus on a single decision point or a single agency. And the problems will not be fixed with a single solution such as an actuarial assessment tool or even the abolishment of financial conditions. Rather, we need to look at the system as a whole, involve policymakers from all agencies, and engage the community meaningfully in the improvement process.

Silver Spring, MD: Advancing Pretrial Policy and Research (APPR) , 2022. 29p.

By John D. Ciorciari and Anne Heindel

More than thirty years after the fall of the Pol Pot regime, a UN-backed tribunal, fusing Cambodian and international law, procedure, and personnel, was established to try key Khmer Rouge officials for atrocities committed in the late 1970s. In this definitive scholarly treatment of the “Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia” (ECCC) from legal and political perspectives, John D. Ciorciari and Anne Heindel examine the ECCC’s institutional features, compare it to other hybrid and international criminal courts, evaluate its operations, and draw lessons for the future. Ciorciari and Heindel begin by discussing the political factors and historical contingencies that led the United Nations and Cambodian Government to create a hybrid tribunal with a number of unique features. Next, they examine the tribunal’s operations to date, focusing on how its institutional form has affected its various intended functions. They argue that many aspects of the ECCC’s judicial proceedings have been broadly consistent with international standards and that the Court’s in-country location has provided important benefits in terms of public outreach and victim participation. Nevertheless, the authors demonstrate that the ECCC’s complex, divided institutional structure and wrangling between national and international actors have slowed the proceedings, contributed to administrative irregularities, led to due process concerns, and jeopardized the Court’s public legitimacy and ability to leave a legacy of credible justice. Ciorciari and Heindel argue that the ECCC’s experiences reveal many of the challenges of managing a mass crimes process, especially in the context of a hybrid court. They conclude with recommendations on measures that can be taken to meet some of those challenges going forward.

Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2014. 462p.