Edited by Michiel Van der Wolf

This edited collection provides an interdisciplinary and cross-national perspective on safeguarding the quality of forensic assessment in sentencing offenders. Taking an in-depth look at seven different Western countries, each chapter provides an overview of the role of assessment in sentencing offenders, as well as a focus on formal ways in which the respective country’s legal system and disciplinary associations protect the quality of forensic assessment. Each chapter explores how to assure better decision making in individual cases based on assessments of psycholegal concepts such as mental disorder/insanity, criminal responsibility and dangerousness. Combining the perspectives of lawyers, legal scholars, and clinicians working in the field, this book is essential for those working in and with forensic assessment.

New York; London: Routledge, 2022. 281p.

By S. C. Leung

Overview: “Handwriting is produced by finely coordinated and precisely articulated movements of the hand, finger, and arm, manipulating a tool which leaves a trace on a surface with the ultimate control being responsible – the brain. It is a very complex activity requiring intelligence that distinguishes human being from the rest of the animal species. By way of writing, the author can convey and preserve ideas or information. With the advancement of technology, the writing instrument changes considerably, but handwriting, being the most personal and immediate means of graphic communication, and the movements associated with it remain virtually the same since the creation of the strokes and the alphabets..”

Scientific Consultancy Limited, Hong Kong, China.

By Kim Thomas

Summary The Prevention of Organised Crime Act’s anti-gang provisions are not meeting their objectives. They were originally meant to fill the gaps in common law and help prosecutors gain convictions for gang-related crimes. But the act is severely underutilised for these specific crimes. For this paper’s recommendations to have a substantial effect on addressing organised crime, the various departments involved in South Africa’s criminal justice process need to be cleaned up and resources improved. Key points • Post-apartheid South Africa experienced an increase in organised crime and gangrelated activity. The South African legislature responded with enacting the Prevention of Organised Crime Act in 1999 and specifically addressed criminal gang activity, money laundering and racketeering. • Over 20 years later, very few gang-related cases have been prosecuted under this legislation. Most gang activity is still prosecuted under common law and other legislation. • Interviews with key stakeholders reveal that the main cause for failed/limited implementation lies in the scarcity of human resources, skills and training across the South African Police Service, National Prosecuting Authority and Crime Intelligence, and the lack of meaningful cooperation among them. • Further shortfalls of the act include a lack of provision for targeting gang leaders and Research Paper weak sentencing

ENACT-Africa, 2023. 32p.

By Christopher Lowenkamp, Matthew DeMichele, and Lauren Klein Warren

This report presents findings related to impacts associated with criminal justice improvements underway in Lucas County, Ohio. The current report, however, focuses on impacts related to one of Lucas County’s initiatives - the use of the Public Safety Assessment (PSA). The report shows that Lucas County made serious reductions to the number of people booked into jail during the post-PSA period. For the entire seven-year study period, of those released pretrial, 27% experienced a failure to appear (FTA), 17% were arrested for any offense, and 5% were arrested for a violent offense during the pretrial period. There were reductions in the pretrial outcomes between the pre- and post-PSA periods: a six-percentage point decrease in FTA rates (30% vs. 24%), a five-percentage point decrease in new criminal arrest (NCA) rates (20% vs. 15%) and a two-percentage point decrease in new violent criminal arrest (NVCA) rates (6% vs. 4%). The results demonstrate that the PSA meets standards of predictive validity. For the three scales, we found that the Area Under the Curve (AUC) values are in the good (NCA) and fair (NVCA and FTA) ranges, there is incremental increase in failures as scores increase, and significant increases in the predicted likelihood of failure as scores increase across a series of regression models. The report shows that the PSA meets validity standards used for criminal justice assessments, and the report includes tests for predictive bias.

Advancing Pretrial Policy and Research, 2020. 84p.

By Don Stemen and David Olson

Bail reform efforts across the United States have accelerated in recent years, driven by concerns about the overuse of monetary bail, the potentially disparate impact of pretrial detention on poor and minority defendants, and the effects of bail decisions on local jail populations. Proponents of bail reform advocate for reducing or eliminating the use of monetary bail, arguing that many defendants are held in jail pretrial solely because they cannot afford to post bail. Opponents counter that reducing the use of monetary bail or increasing the number of people released pretrial could result in more defendants failing to appear for court hearings (FTAs) or committing crimes while on pretrial release. Evaluations of recent bail reform efforts indicate that these efforts have not been associated with increases in new criminal activity….. A debate has played out in the media regarding the link between GO18.8A, the types of individuals released pretrial, and the number and percent of individuals charged with a new crime while on pretrial release. The debate centers around an evaluation of GO18.8A conducted by the Office of the Chief Judge (OCJ).5 The OCJ’s evaluation found that the number and percent of felony defendants released pretrial increased after GO18.8A but that the percent of felony defendants charged with a new crime while on pretrial release was similar before and after GO18.8A. Subsequent analyses by the media6 and academics7 suggested that the OCJ’s evaluation underestimated the percent of defendants charged with a new crime after GO18.8A. …. These critiques suggested that GO18.8A may have led to an increase in new criminal activity of those released pretrial and contributed directly to increases in crime in Chicago and Cook County. These subsequent analyses, however, also suffer from methodological problems similar to those in the OCJ’s evaluation. By relying on the same public data collected and distributed by the OCJ, these analyses were unable to correct for the critiques made of the OCJ’s analyses – namely a truncated follow-up period and a failure to account for seasonality – without making assumptions about, and estimations of, underlying recidivism rates of those released.8 More importantly, the analyses were unable to verify or refute the OCJ’s analyses of bond court decisions, release rates, or new criminal activity through the independent analysis of defendant- and charge-level court or jail data. As a result of these methodological shortcomings and contradictory findings, the actual impact of GO18.8A remains unclear. ….

Chicago: Loyola University Chicago, 2020. 34p

By James Hess and Susan Turner

Jurisdictions across the country have joined a movement to rethink how individuals are handled at the pretrial stage of case processing. Although alternatives to cash bail systems have been around since the 1960s, 1 renewed interest has focused on the use of risk assessment algorithms to help determine which pretrial individuals might be released safely into the community. These types of tools hold promise as a means to move away from “debtor prisons” for individuals who do not have the financial resources to pay for their release. However, the field is still in the relatively early stage of testing these tools for predictive ability, potential racial bias in administration, as well as whether their use actually reduces incarceration.2 California has recently entered the pretrial risk assessment arena. Senate Bill 10 was passed in 2018 to change from a cash-based pretrial system to a risk-based release and detention system; although it is on hold until November 2020 when California voters determine its fate. 3 However, legislation passed as part of the 2019 Budget Act created a pilot program to test the use of various risk assessment tools in a number of counties across California. This report presents findings from the Los Angeles pilot effort under the Act to validate the Public Safety Assessment (PSA). The PSA is a risk assessment instrument developed by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation to inform pretrial judicial decisions on whether to release or detain a defendant. The tool predicts three outcomes after pretrial release: Failure to Appear (FTA); New Criminal Activity (NCA, arrest on any misdemeanor or felony charge); and New Violent Criminal Activity (NVCA, arrest on a violent misdemeanor or felony charge). The tool’s nine risk factors include prior convictions, incarceration, and failures to appear, violent offenses, pending cases at the time of arrest and age. Risk factor counts are weighted by an integer multiplier and summed to create a risk score. Several sets of adjacent scores are collapsed together into one score to produce a final 6-point risk scale for each of the outcomes.

Irvine, CA: University of California Irvine, Center for Evidence-Based Corrections, 2021. 103p

By Alex Albrigh

Are the effects of money bail on misconduct large enough to justify its costs? Money bail advocates argue that its usage is critical for averting misconduct, while skeptics counter that its effects are small and not worth the consequent human costs of pretrial detention. I address this debate directly by using administrative data and a policy reform in Kentucky. An automatic release program removed financial bail conditions for a subset of low-level cases, creating an opportunity to estimate the program’s effects on detention and misconduct using a differences-in-differences approach. The program cut the usage of financial bail by 50.5 p.p., while it increased the rate of failure to appear by 3.3 p.p. The program’s effect on pretrial rearrest is indistinguishable from zero, and the data rules out even modest sized increases. Effects on misconduct are primarily driven by substitution away from money bail, rather than from unsecured bail (which only requires payment in the event of misconduct). …

Unpublished paper, 2021. 61p.

By Julien Grenet, Hans Grönqvist and Susan Niknami

Electronic monitoring (EM) is a popular instrument to reduce large prison populations. Evidence on the effects of EM on criminal recidivism is, however, limited and it is unclear how this alternative to incarceration affects the labor market outcomes of offenders. Moreover, little is known about potential spillover effects on family members. We study the introduction of EM in Sweden in 1997 wherein offenders sentenced to up to three months in prison were given the possibility to avoid entering prison by substituting to EM. Our difference-in-differences estimates comparing the change in the prison inflow rate of eligible offenders to that of non-eligible offenders with slightly longer sentences show that the reform dramatically decreased incarcerations. Our main finding is that EM lowers criminal recidivism and improves offenders’ labor market outcomes. There is also some evidence of improvements in the short and intermediate run outcomes of the children of the offenders. The main channels through which EM operates seem to be by allowing offenders to maintain regular work and potentially also by reducing employer discrimination. Our calculations suggest that the social benefits of EM are at least six to nine times larger than the fiscal savings from reduced prison expenditure. This makes the welfare improvements from EM potentially much greater than what has been previously recognized.

Paris: Paris School of Economics, 2022. 41p.

By Alicia Virani

Electronic monitoring is a system that uses a GPS-equipped ankle monitor, to track, monitor, record and analyze the location of people accused or convicted of a crime who are placed on house arrest. Los Angeles County currently has two electronic monitoring (EM) programs. The first, which has been in existence for decades, is the Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP) that operates across all twenty-four criminal courthouses in the County and can be used for individuals both pretrial and post-sentence. The second, which began in 2020, is called the Supervised Release Program (SRP) and is a pilot program that operates out of two courthouses in Los Angeles County and is only used for individuals pretrial. Both programs are operated by the Los Angeles County Probation Department….

Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles, 2022. 24p.

By Brandon L. Garrett, Brett O. Gardner , Evan Murphy, Patrick Grimes

In criminal cases, forensic science reports and expert testimony play an increasingly important role in adjudication. More states now follow a federal reliability standard, which calls upon judges to assess the reliability and validity of scientific evidence. Little is known about how judges view their own background in forensic scientific evidence, and what types of specialized training they receive on it. In this study, we surveyed 164 judges from 39 different U.S. states, who attended past trainings at the National Judicial College. We asked these judges about their background in forensic science, their views concerning the reliability of common forensic disciplines, and their needs to better evaluate forensic science evidence. We discovered that judges held views regarding the scientific support for different forensic science disciplines that were fairly consistent with available literature; their error rate estimates were more supported by research than many estimates by laypersons, who often assume forensic methods are nearly infallible. We did not find any association between how judges rate forensic reliability and prior training. We did, however, find that training corresponded with judges’ views that they should, and do in fact, take on a more active gatekeeping role regarding forensics. Regarding the tools judges need to vet forensic experts and properly evaluate forensic science evidence, they reported having very different backgrounds in relevant scientific concepts and having forensic science education needs. Judges reported needs in accessing better material concerning reliability of forensic science methods. These results support new efforts to expand scientific evidence education in the judiciary.

Forensic Science International. Volume 321, April 2021, 110714

By Brandon L. Garrett; William E. Crozier.; and Rebecca Grady

Forensic examiners regularly testify in criminal cases, informing the jurors whether crime scene evidence likely came from a source. In this study, we examine the impact of providing jurors with testimony further qualified by error rates and likelihood ratios, for expert testimony concerning two forensic disciplines: commonly used fingerprint comparison evidence and a novel technique involving voice comparison. Our method involved surveying mock jurors in Amazon Mechanical Turk (N = 897 laypeople) using written testimony and judicial instructions. Participants were more skeptical of voice analysis and generated fewer “guilty” decisions than for fingerprint analysis (B = 2.00, OR = 7.06, p = <0.000). We found that error rate information most strongly decreased “guilty” votes relative to no qualifying information for participants who heard fingerprint evidence (but not those that heard voice analysis evidence; B = 1.16, OR = 0.32, p = 0.007). We also found that error rates and conclusion types led to a greater decrease on “guilty” votes for fingerprint evidence than voice evidence (B = 1.44, OR = 4.23, p = 0.021). We conclude that these results suggest jurors adjust the weight placed on forensic evidence depending on their prior views about its reliability. Future research should develop testimony and judicial instructions that can better inform jurors of the strengths and limitations of forensic evidence.

Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2020

By Brandon L. Garrett and Gregory Mitchell

William Blackstone famously expressed the view that convicting the innocent constitutes a much more serious error than acquitting the guilty. This view is the cornerstone of due process protections for those accused of crimes, giving rise to the presumption of innocence and the high burden of proof required for criminal convictions. While most legal elites share Blackstone’s view, the citizen jurors tasked with making due process protections a reality do not share the law’s preference for false acquittals over false convictions. Across multiple national surveys sampling more than 12,000 people, we find that a majority of Americans consider false acquittals and false convictions to be errors of equal magnitude. Contrary to Blackstone, most people are unwilling to err on the side of letting the guilty go free to avoid convicting the innocent. Indeed, a sizeable minority view false acquittals as worse than false convictions; this group is willing to convict multiple innocent persons to avoid letting one guilty person go free. These value differences translate into behavioral differences: we show in multiple studies that jury-eligible adults who reject Blackstone’s view are more accepting of prosecution evidence and are more conviction-prone than the minority of potential jurors who agree with Blackstone. These findings have important implications for our understanding of due process and criminal justice policy. Due process currently depends on jurors faithfully following instructions on the burden of proof, but many jurors are not inclined to hold the state to its high burden. Courts should do away with the fiction that the reasonable doubt standard guarantees due process and consider protections that do not depend on jurors honoring the law’s preference for false acquittals, such as more stringent pretrial screening of criminal cases and stricter limits on prosecution evidence. Further, the fact that many people place crime control on par with, or above, the need to avoid wrongful convictions helps explain divisions in public opinion on important policy questions like bail and sentencing reform. Criminal justice proposals that emphasize deontic concerns without addressing consequentialist concerns are unlikely to garner widespread support.

Michigan Law Review Volume 121 Issue 5 2023

By Brandon L. Garrett, William E. Crozier, Kevin Dahaghi, Elizabeth J. Gifford, Catherine Grodensky, Adele Quigley-McBride & Jennifer Teitcher

Where the vast majority of criminal cases are resolved without a trial, the criminal system in the United States is a system of pleas, not trials. While a plea, its terms, and the resulting sentence entered in court are all public, how the outcome was negotiated remains almost entirely nonpublic. Prosecutors may resolve cases for reasons that are benign, thoughtful, and well-calibrated—or discriminatory, self-interested, and arbitrary—with very little oversight or sunlight. For years, academics and policymakers have called for meaningful data to fill this crucial void. In this Article, we open the “black box” of prosecutorial discretion by tasking prosecutors with documenting detailed case-level information concerning plea bargaining. This is not a hypothetical or conceptual exercise, but rather the product of theory, design, and implementation work by an interdisciplinary team. We collected systematic data from two prosecutors’ offices for one year. The Article describes how the data-collection methodology was designed, piloted, and implemented, as well as the insights that have been generated. Our system can be readily adapted to other offices and jurisdictions. We conclude by discussing how documenting the plea-bargaining process can affect prosecution practices, defense lawyering, judicial oversight, and public policy, its constitutional and ethical implications, and its broader implications for democratic legitimacy. An open-prosecution approach is feasible and, for the first time in the United States, it is in operation.

75 STAN. L.REV. 1365 (2023)

By Brian J. Ostrom and Jordan Bowman

Since Gideon v. Wainwright, the provision of an attorney to a criminal defendant is an accepted constitutional right. The past 50 years has witnessed the ongoing development by defense practitioners of what it means to “provide the effective assistance of counsel” through strong legal advocacy. More recently, many practitioners contend that in addition to the defense attorney, professional support services, such as social workers, paralegals, and criminal investigators, are critical to effective assistance of counsel in indigent defense cases. Investment by defender offices in resources and skills beyond traditional legal expertise promises to bring positive returns not just for clients, but for the criminal justice system and taxpayers as well. The umbrella of what we will call the holistic defense model covers the most developed concepts and practices of an integrated defense team. Proponents of holistic defense claim a wide range of enhanced client outcomes including more favorable court dispositions and successful treatment for recurring needs (e.g., addiction, joblessness, mental illness) as well as associated public benefits such as reduced recidivism and less reliance on costly incarceration. As positive as these meritorious claims may be, the current dearth of rigorous evaluative research means they remain unverified

Williamsburg, Virginia, National Center for State Courts, 2019. 53p.

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.