By Jingxuan Zhao; Jessica Star,  Xuesong Han, 

IMPORTANCE People with a history of incarceration may experience barriers in access to and receipt of health care in the US. OBJECTIVE To examine the associations of incarceration history and access to and receipt of care and the contribution of modifiable factors (educational attainment and health insurance coverage) to these associations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Individuals with and without incarceration history were identified from the 2008 to 2018 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 cohort. Analyses were conducted from October 2022 to December 2023. MAIN MEASURES AND OUTCOMES Access to and receipt of health care were measured as self-reported having usual source of care and preventive service use, including physical examination, influenza shot, blood pressure check, blood cholesterol level check, blood glucose level check, dental check, and colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screenings across multiple panels. To account for the longitudinal study design, we used the inverse probability weighting method with generalized estimating equations to evaluate associations of incarceration history and access to care. Separate multivariable models examining associations between incarceration history and receipt of each preventive service adjusted for sociodemographic factors; sequential models further adjusted for educational attainment and health insurance coverage to examine their contribution to the associations of incarceration history and access to and receipt of health care. RESULTS A total of 7963 adults with 41 614 person-years of observation were included in this study; of these, 586 individuals (5.4%) had been incarcerated, with 2800 person-years of observation (4.9%). Compared with people without incarceration history, people with incarceration history had lower percentages of having a usual source of care or receiving preventive services, including physical examinations (69.6% vs 74.1%), blood pressure test (85.6% vs 91.6%), blood cholesterol level test (59.5% vs 72.2%), blood glucose level test (61.4% vs 69.4%), dental check up (51.1% vs 66.0%), and breast (55.0% vs 68.2%) and colorectal cancer screening (65.6% vs 70.3%). With additional adjustment for educational attainment and health insurance, the associations of incarceration history and access to care were attenuated for most measures and remained statistically significant for measures of having a usual source of care, blood cholesterol level test, and dental check up only. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The results of this survey study suggest that incarceration history was associated with worse access to and receipt of health care. Educational attainment and health insurance may contribute to these associations. Efforts to improve access to education and health insurance coverage for people with an incarceration history might mitigate disparities in care. 

JAMA Health Forum. 2024;5(2):e235318. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.5318  

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.

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

BY W. J. WILLIAMS

MORIARTY'S POLICE LAW, now in its 19th edition, continues to serve as a comprehensive guide for police officers navigating the complex legal landscape of their profession. With a meticulous arrangement of laws and regulations, this authoritative volume provides officers with the knowledge and insights they need to uphold law and order effectively. From the basics of criminal procedure to the latest updates in policing standards, this essential resource remains a trusted companion for law enforcement professionals seeking clarity and guidance in their daily duties.

LONDON. BUTTERWORTHS. 1968. 728p.

BARON DE MONTESQUIEU.. TRANSLATED FROM FRENCH BY THOMAS NUGENT,, VOL. 1.

In "The Spirit of the Law," readers are taken on a thought-provoking journey through the intricate workings of legal systems and the moral compass that guides them. This compelling exploration delves into the essence of laws beyond their literal interpretations, examining the underlying principles and values that shape our understanding of justice and accountability. As the narrative unfolds, readers are challenged to reflect on the profound relationship between law and ethics, shedding light on the critical interplay between rules and righteousness. "The Spirit of the Law" is a captivating read that raises compelling questions about the true nature of justice and the timeless quest for a fair and equitable society.

LONDON. VOLLINGWOOD, CLARKE, LONGMAN, HURST, REES, ORME,& BROWN, CADDELL, J & A ARCH, WHITAKER AND SCHOLEY. DEIGHTON AND SONS., 1823. 375p.

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

BY ARYE RATTNER AND GIDEON FISHMAN

"Justice for All? Jews and Arabs in the Israeli Criminal Justice System" provides a comprehensive examination of the complex dynamics that shape the experiences of Jews and Arabs within Israel's legal framework. Through meticulous research and insightful analysis, this book delves into the intricacies of how the Israeli criminal justice system navigates issues of identity, power, and discrimination in cases involving Jewish and Arab individuals.

By shedding light on the unique challenges and disparities faced by these two communities, "Justice for All?" prompts readers to critically reflect on the notions of equality and fairness within the legal landscape of Israel. With a nuanced approach, the authors navigate through a range of perspectives, offering a compelling exploration of the multifaceted interactions between ethnicity, religion, and the pursuit of justice.

This book is essential reading for anyone interested in understanding the complexities of the Israeli criminal justice system and its implications for the diverse communities it serves. "Justice for All?" serves as a thought-provoking contribution to the ongoing dialogue surrounding issues of representation, equity, and human rights in the context of Israel's legal institutions.

Westport, Connecticut London. Praeger. 1998. 142p.

Author(s) Mark A. Motivans

This report presents data from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) describing the federal criminal justice response to opioids. It focuses on heroin, fentanyl, and other opioids, including how they are classified under the Controlled Substances Act, the number of deaths due to overdose, and the number of persons arrested and sentenced for federal offenses involving these substances. The report uses data from BJS’s Federal Justice Statistics Program (FJSP). The FJSP includes data received from the DEA, the USSC, and other federal criminal justice agencies.

Highlights:

• From fiscal year (FY) 2020 to FY 2021, the number of drug arrests the DEA made for fentanyl increased by 36% from 2,305 to 3,138.

• In FY 2021, for the first time, the number of drug arrests the DEA made for fentanyl (3,138) surpassed the number of arrests for heroin (2,591).

• Of the 28,224 total drug arrests by the DEA in FY 2021, 3,138 (11%) were for fentanyl, 2,591 (9%) were for heroin, and 676 (2%) were for other opioids.

• DEA arrests for heroin, fentanyl, and other opioids increased from 4,830 in FY 2001 to a peak of 8,258 in 2015 and declined to 6,405 in FY 2021.

• In FY 2021,

  • 97% of persons sentenced for a drug offense involving opioids were sentenced for drug trafficking.

  • most persons sentenced for drug offenses involving heroin (89%) or fentanyl (87%) had a prior criminal history at sentencing

  • persons sentenced for drug offenses involving heroin or fentanyl received a median prison term of 46 months, persons sentenced for oxycodone received a median prison term of 26 months, and persons sentenced for hydrocodone received a median prison term of 24 months.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2024. 25p.

By Jennifer Skeem, Lina Montoya, Christopher Lowenkamp

IN THE U.S., many jurisdictions are trying to reduce incarceration by improving pretrial decision-making. The pretrial decision is either to release the defendant until the court date or keep the defendant in jail to prevent re-offending or absconding. Rates of pretrial detention can be remarkably high, particularly in the federal system. There, the majority of defendants are detained before trial, even though less than 10 percent are arrested for a new crime or fail to appear while on pretrial release (Cohen & Austin, 2018; see also Rowland, 2018). Pretrial detention has serious consequences, including an increased likelihood of conviction, a harsh sentence, future re-offending, and unemployment (Dobbie et al., 2018; Leslie & Pope, 2017; Lowenkamp, 2022; Oleson et al., 2017). These consequences, in turn, are disproportionately borne by Black defendants (Didwania, 2021; Dobbie et al., 2018; Kutateladze et al., 2014; Leslie & Pope, 2017). Based on a sample of over 337,000 defendants drawn from 80 federal districts, Didwania (2021) found that 68 percent of Black defendants were detained - - - - - pretrial, compared to 51 percent of White defendants. Increasingly, efforts to improve pretrial decision-making include the goal of reducing racial disparities. In pursuing this goal, stakeholders probably assume that personal bias is to blame—i.e., that racial disparities in pretrial detention reflect the influence of implicit racism on human decision-making, and therefore that (perhaps) diversity training for practitioners would prevent such discrimination (see Devine & Ash, 2022). The majority of Americans frame racism as an interpersonal rather than structural problem—meaning that they focus on “a few bad apples” who discriminate, rather than on laws, policies, and systems that have a disparate impact (Rucker & Richeson, 2021). But disparities can also reflect “upstream” structural forces like socioeconomic and geographic conditions that lead to racial differences in the likelihood of rearrest or failure to appear. Black defendants tend to have more serious criminal histories and other potential risk factors for poor pretrial outcomes than White defendants (Didwania, 2021; Grossman et al., 2022; Spohn, 2008). Because risk of rearrest or flight are legitimate considerations for pretrial release, disparities related to differences in risk are hard to address via pretrial reform. Efforts to address disparities that flow from these kinds of structural forces would better be directed toward approaches like well-timed and well-targeted early prevention programs. In short, understanding the extent to which structural factors play a role in racial disparities is a matter of primary concern for shaping effective solutions (see Beck & Blumstein, 2018). In this study, we use federal data to explore the association between place—in this case U.S. district and geographic region—and racial disparities in pretrial officers’ recommendations for detention. We focus on officers’ recommendations in the federal system for three reasons. First, pretrial officers play a central role in assisting federal judges with the pretrial release decision, and officers’ detention recommendations strongly predict detention itself (see below, Pretrial Recommendation Context). Second, we conducted this work with the Probation and Pretrial Services Office of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, as part of their effort to reduce disparities by specifying targets for change. Third, the vastness and diversity of the federal system provide a unique opportunity to characterize the districts and regions of the U.S. where racial disparities in pretrial detention are greatest, so that they can be prioritized in problem-solving efforts. The federal system encompasses 93 districts that differ geographically, socially, and culturally—but they are governed by a common set

Federal Probation, 2022.

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 Kelly Roskam, Chiara Cooper, Philip Stallworth, and April M. Zeoli

For more than a decade after the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to possess a handgun i  the home for  self-defense in District of Columbia v. Heller, 1 courts relied on the well documented connection between domestic abusers and firearm violence to uphold the laws prohibiting persons subject to domestic violence protective orders (DVPOs) from purchasing or possessing firearms. Research finds that these laws are associated with reductions in intimate partner homicide, making them a valuable tool for protecting victimized partners.2 However, the constitutionality of those evidence-based laws is now in question due to the sea change in Second Amendment jurisprudence represented by New York State Rifle and Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen. 3 Bruen repudiated the use of tiers of scrutiny and requires that the government bear the burden of showing that a modern law is relevantly similar to historical firearms laws to be constitutional.4 The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in United States v. Rahimi5 to decide whether the 30-year-old federal law prohibiting the purchase and possession of firearms by persons subject to DVPOs, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), is consistent with the Second Amendment. Before Bruen, public health research played a straightforward role in Second Amendment analyses of § 922(g)(8). Lower courts had no trouble using such research in their tiers-of-scrutiny analyses to determine that reducing firearm-involved domestic violence was an important    governmental interest and that there was a reasonable fit between § 922(g)(8) and that interest. After Bruen, public health and social science research plays a more nuanced role in Second Amendment analyses. Such research must be connected to an underlying historical argument that implicates either the original plain text of the Second Amendment or the relevance of an historical analogue. 6 In this Article, we illustrate how this connection can be made in the context of § 922(g)(8). We first introduce § 922(g)(8) and discuss how state analogs do or do not implement its proscription of firearm possession by those subject to DVPOs. We then lay out the relevant legal background, including Heller, post-Heller Second Amendment case-law concerning § 922(g)(8), and Bruen, before turning to the meat of our argument. We next discuss Rahimi and other post-Bruen cases addressing § 922(g)(8), arguing that the law satisfies Bruen’s requirement that statutes regulating firearm access must be sufficiently similar to historical firearm laws. We argue that firearm-involved domestic violence is an “unprecedented societal concern” that requires a more nuanced approach to analogy.7 A myopic search for founding-era bars on firearm possession by domestic abusers ignores both important differences in social norms surrounding women, marriage, and domestic violence and the significantly increased role of firearms in domestic violence today. Instead, § 922(g)(8) is more aptly analogized to historical laws evidencing the longstanding tradition of prohibiting “dangerous people from possessing guns,”8 such as so-called “going armed laws,” surety laws, and racist and discriminatory laws that prohibited firearm possession by enslaved persons, Native Americans, Catholics, and those who refused to swear loyalty oaths.

United States, 51 Fordham Urb. L.J. 2023, 39pg

By Jess Zhang, Jacob Kang-Brown, and Ari Kotler

  Electronic monitoring (EM) is a form of digital surveillance that tracks people’s physical location, movement, or other markers of behavior (such as blood alcohol level). It is commonly used in the criminal legal system as a condition of pretrial release or post-conviction supervision—including during probation, parole, home confinement, or work release. The United States also uses electronic monitoring for people in civil immigration proceedings who are facing deportation. This report fills a gap in understanding around the size and scope of EM use in the United States. The Vera Institute of Justice’s (Vera) estimates reveal that, in 2021, 254,700 adults were under some form of EM. Of these, 150,700 people were subjected to EM by the criminal legal system and 103,900 by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Further investigation revealed that the number of adults placed on EM by ICE more than tripled between 2021 and 2022, increasing to 360,000.1 This means that the total number of adults on EM across both the civil immigration and criminal legal systems likely increased to nearly half a million during that time. From 2005 to 2021, the number of people on EM in the United States grew nearly fivefold—and almost tenfold by 2022—while the number of people incarcerated in jails and prisons declined by 16 percent and the number of people held in ICE civil detention increased but not nearly as dramatically as EM.2 Regional trends in the criminal legal system reveal how EM has been used more widely in some states and cities but increased sharply from 2019 to 2021 across the country: The Midwest has the highest rate of state and local criminal legal system EM, at 65 per 100,000 residents; this rate stayed relatively constant from 2019 to  midyear 2021. In the Northeast, EM rates are the lowest of all the regions at 19 per 100,000 residents, but they increased by 46 percent from 2019 to 2021. The South and West have similar rates, 41 and 34 per 100,000 residents respectively, but the growth rate in the South has outpaced that of the West in recent years—up 32 percent in the South compared to 18 percent in the West. Prior to this report, the most recent estimate of the national EM population was from a 2015 Pew Charitable Trusts study—which studied the use of criminal legal system EM via a survey of the 11 biggest EM companies. For this report, Vera researchers collected data from criminal legal system agencies in all 50 states and more than 500 counties, as well as from federal courts, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and ICE. Therefore, Vera’s study represents the most comprehensive count of the national EM population to date, as it accounts for the rise of smaller EM companies, immigration system surveillance, and new EM technologies. For this report, Vera researchers also reviewed existing literature and spoke with local officials to better understand the impacts of EM programs. Vera’s findings contradict private companies’ assertions that EM technology is low-cost, efficient, and reliable. EM in the criminal legal system is highly variable and subject to political decisions at the local level. In many jurisdictions, EM is not used as a means to reduce jail populations. Rather, it is often a crucial component of highly punitive criminal legal systems. This challenges the dominant narrative that EM is an “alternative to incarceration.” Nonetheless, this report also highlights several jurisdictions that demonstrate how decarceration can occur alongside reduced surveillance. 

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2024. 54p.

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 Nisha Waller and Naima Sakande

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

Race & Class, online first, 2024.

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 User Voice

This report brings forth the experiences of people who are diagnosed and self-diagnose as neurodivergent. As the health and criminal justice sectors are learning more about the experiences of neurodivergent service users, User Voice wants to bring their voices front and centre, and to give them real agency. Their quotes are unedited and based on their personal experiences. As part of this study User Voice interviewed 104 service users across 11 prisons nationwide between September 2022 and February 2023. To gain as full a picture as possible, User Voice additionally surveyed 250 neurodivergent service users about their experiences in the criminal justice system. All interviewed or surveyed service users were either diagnosed or self-diagnosed as neurodivergent. To provide as holistic a picture as possible, User Voice spoke to service users about their lives before they were involved in the criminal justice system. In early life, most service users we spoke to came from lower socio-economic backgrounds, over half had experienced abuse and neglect, and one third had been in care. At a crisis point, service users often found that they did not have the needed support networks, and therefore as a result, many had turned to alcohol and drugs which then had led to a life of criminality. Many told us that due to their neurodiversity, they are easily manipulated, coerced, groomed, or susceptible to peer pressure. This report shines a light on the lack of support for people who end up in the criminal justice system. Half of the service users who took part in this report told us they had been diagnosed before they turned 17 years old. Nine had been diagnosed between ages 17 – 26, and 17 when they were older than 27 years. None of them had been told how to live with their conditions. This study finds a criminal justice system ill-prepared to help neurodivergent people. In police custody, only 2 service users had adjustments made around their neurodiversity, whereas in prison, 15 said adjustments had been made. Because of lack of assessments and screening in prisons, we found that only few were receiving the support they needed. We believe that lived experience has a crucial part to play in the formulation of policy and practice in every sector, whether it be criminal justice, health, or education. To benefit those who are neurodivergent, we advocate for more peer support as well employing staff with lived experience in neurodiversity. This would guarantee that services and resources are tailored to the needs of neurodivergent service users. As prison populations grow, a commitment to more neurodiversity qualified health care staff is a must. The prison population would benefit from clinical psychologists in prison as well as better management of medication. This report is a snapshot of people’s lived experience. To drive true reform, we hope that more resources are given to projects that share the voices and experiences of neurodivergent people. To stop neurodivergent people ending up in the criminal justice system, we need to learn from those who have been there.

London: User Voice, 2023. 41p