By Kristin Porter, Cindy Redcross, Luke Miratrix
Across the country, release and detention decisions for defendants in the pretrial period — that is, the period after arrest while a criminal case is being adjudicated — are increasingly guided by risk assessments, which rely on data to estimate defendants’ risk of failing to appear for a court date or of being charged with new criminal activity if released pending trial. A risk assessment is generally used by a judicial body to help determine whether a defendant will be released while waiting for a case to be resolved, and if so, under what conditions (these are the defendant’s release conditions). The goal of pretrial risk assessments is to make any restrictions imposed on a defendant’s liberty better align with the risk that person poses to the community.

As has been widely discussed, these assessments — and the way they are used — have the potential to introduce new biases and further perpetuate racial disparities in the criminal justice system. This research brief describes the approach taken by MDRC’s Center for Criminal Justice Research and MDRC’s Center for Data Insights to understand, assess, and address bias in pretrial risk assessments and the systems that use them.

New York: MDRC, 2020. 11p.

By Elizabeth Neuland

On May 4, 2021, New York became the 20th state to restore the right to vote to individuals upon release from custody, regardless of parole status. In a time when the United States government is trying to protect voting rights through the “For the People Act” and “The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act,”  and while some states are seeing radical legislation proposed that would potentially suppress the right to vote, New York needs to abolish the antiquated practice of felony disenfranchisement and guarantee the right to vote to all eligible New Yorkers regardless of incarceration status. The practice of felony disenfranchisement does not align with the values and core curriculum of the programs being provided by the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”) within state correctional facilities. The overview statement for program services reads, “DOCCS offers an extensive array of programs and services for incarcerated individuals to assist them in redirecting their lives and becoming productive, law-abiding members  of society.” Although the word “rehabilitation” is absent, this statement essentially summarizes what rehabilitation is. The argument to abolish felony disenfranchisement is highlighted by the vast rehabilitation efforts taken by DOCCS, through numerous employment and vocational programs, temporary release programs, and educational opportunities. Felony disenfranchisement stands in stark opposition to rehabilitation because it alienates individuals from the very communities to which DOCCS is taking great measures to help them to return In addition to rehabilitation, restoring the right to vote to all eligible New Yorkers regardless of incarceration status would raise the level of accountability for state politicians, lawmakers, and DOCCS itself. It is no secret that correctional facilities can be dangerous places, due to both interpersonal violence and acts of self-inflicted harm, including suicide. Accountability should apply to those that are the guardians of a vulnerable population. In Parts I and II, this Comment provides a brief overview of international and national practices of felony disenfranchisement to see where New York fits into the landscape. Part III concentrates on New York State. Its legislation affecting disenfranchisement and the number of individuals incarcerated are discussed to highlight how many people are affected by felony disenfranchisement. The argument to fully abolish felony disenfranchisement is made through discussions of rehabilitation and accountability. Lastly, this Comment describes how all New York citizens could be enfranchised.  

 City University of New York Law Review. 2022, 25pg

by Shamena Anwar, Melissa M. Labriola, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, Matthew L. Mizel

In this report, RAND researchers share results of a process and outcome evaluation of Project Reset, a program that diverts adults arrested for low-level crimes into community-based support programs and out of the court system. Initially, the post-arrest pre-arraignment program was available only to individuals who did not have a criminal record, but the eligibility criteria eventually expanded to include those with prior convictions. The program served 2,149 individuals during the period analyzed. Researchers identified key program facilitators and barriers, documented participant experiences, determined the effect the program had on case outcomes and rearrest rates, and examined whether the program was cost-effective.

Key Findings

• Project Reset led to improved case outcomes for participants. The program allowed individuals to attend a one-time, two-hour programming session and have their arrest sealed immediately afterwards. If not for the program, these individuals likely would have received an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD) in the court system. Receiving an ACD would have required them to remain arrest-free and make multiple court appearances over a six-month to one-year supervisory period.

• Project Reset did not lead to an increase in rearrests.

• Project Reset was viewed favorably among staff and program participants.

• Lack of reliable and accurate contact information for participants was a major barrier to recruitment, as 49 percent of those referred to Project Reset could not be reached by the provider.

• Inequities in program completion may compound existing disparities in the criminal legal system. Outreach difficulties resulted in White Hispanic, Black non-Hispanic, and Black Hispanic individuals composing 65.2 percent of the population referred to Project Reset, but only 58.8% of program completers.

• Under the existing program cost structure, the program costs outweighed the costs of traditional court adjudication. However, this relationship varied substantially by provider, and the program costs were actually significantly less expensive than court costs for the provider that served the largest number of clients.

• Program cost-effectiveness would improve if the ratio of program staff to participants were lower, which could be accomplished either by lowering staff levels or increasing the number of participants.

Recommendations

• Strategize how to collect better contact information for participants.

• Increase public awareness of the program to improve its credibility when programs conduct outreach.

• Examine whether current program eligibility criteria are leading to racial and ethnic disparities in program referral rates.

• Reduce program provision costs by lowering the staff-to-participant ratio, which could be accomplished by either reducing the number of staff or increasing program caseloads.

• Assess whether other populations could benefit from diversion programming.

• Continue to hire, support, and keep well-qualified staff.

• Support staff autonomy and program flexibility.

• Continue to connect participants with needed services after completion.

Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2023. 129p.

by Nicola Palena and Francesca De Napoli

 Research shows that lying is a common behaviour, and that verbal cues can be effective for lie detection. However, deception detection is not straightforward as there are several factors at play, such as interpersonal differences and the content of the lie. Consequently, the effectiveness of available cues for deception detection can vary significantly. In a pre-registered study involving 80 participants (a priori sample size analyses were conducted), we instructed participants to either tell the truth or lie about an autobiographical event and an opinion. The participants also completed questionnaires on personality traits and cognitive tasks, resulting in two participant clusters. Surprisingly, when analysing verbal behaviour, truthfulness, cluster memberships, and their interactions were not found to be significant. Only lie content affected verbal cues. Additional, non-pre-registered analyses revealed that liars displayed more micro-expressions than truth tellers, but only when describing their memories and when focusing on the latency time between the investigator’s question and the interviewee’s answer. The results were interpreted in terms of the experimental design, which encouraged only short answers from the interviewees, leaving limited room for verbal content to be effective.

Soc. Sci. 2024, 13(2), 85; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13020085

Steve van de Weijer a,* , Rutger Leukfeldt a,b,c , Asier Moneva a,b 

The outbreak of the COVID-19 virus in December 2019 and the restrictive measures that were implemented to slow down the spread of the virus have had a significant impact on our way of life. The sudden shift from offline to online activities and work may have resulted in new cybersecurity risks. The present study therefore examined changes in the prevalence, nature and impact of cybercrime among Dutch citizens and SME owners, during the pandemic. Qualitative interviews with ten experts working at various public and private organizations in the Netherlands that have insights into cybercrime victimization and data from victim surveys administrated in 2019 and 2021 were analyzed. The results show that there was only a small, non-statistically significant increase in the prevalence of cybercrime during the pandemic among citizens and SME owners. Nevertheless, the COVID-19 pandemic did have an impact on the modus operandi of cybercriminals: victims indicated that a considerable proportion of the offenses was related to the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in the case of online fraud. Moreover, the use of new applications and programs for work was associated with an increased risk of cybercrime victimization during the COVID-19 crisis. These results suggest that increases in rates of registered cybercrime that were found in previous studies might be the consequence of a reporting effect and that cybercriminals adapt their modus operandi to current societal developments. 

Computers & Security Volume 139, April 2024, 103693

William P. McClanahan  Carmen S. Sergiou , Aniek M. Siezenga , Dominik Gerstner , Henk Elffers , Job van der Schalk  Jean-Louis van Gelder

High levels of Fear of Crime (FOC) are associated with people engaging with their community less, lower use of public spaces, and a general sense of overall anxiety. In short, such fear may reduce the livability of an area. The primary goal of this research was to examine the potential consequences of environmental interventions intended to reduce crime on FOC and perceived livability of the area. Using immersive Virtual Reality (VR) technology, in two studies we examined how environmental interventions in residential neighborhoods influence FOC. In Study 1, we examined how motion-activated, dynamic street lighting and sound may decrease FOC. In Study 2, we applied an adapted ‘watching eyes’ intervention and examined how it may inadvertently increase FOC in a neighborhood. In Study 1 the intervention did not affect feelings of safety. In Study 2, the ‘watching eyes’ intervention indirectly increased FOC via feelings of being watched. In the Discussion, we highlight the importance of better understanding the boundary conditions of such environmental interventions.

Volume 147, April 2024, 104823

By Brian D. Graves , Michael Fendrich 

introduction For adults involved with the criminal justice system who are reentering their communities post-incarceration, there is a large need for community-based substance use treatment. Little is known, however, about the types, availability, and benefits of programs targeting the reentry population in community settings that operate independently from the criminal justice system. Methods We conducted a scoping review of community-based treatment programs for substance use among reentering justice-involved adults to examine the contemporary state of literature and identify research gaps. We searched four databases for peer-reviewed articles conducted in the United States and published between 2017 and 2021. Results The final sample included 58 articles. Interventions varied, but the two most prominent were medications for opioid use disorder (35%) and peer support or social support interventions (22.4%). Studies were more likely to show positive impact on substance use outcomes than criminal justice outcomes. Themes were identified around participant characteristics, treatment delivery, and treatment benefits. Conclusions Findings from this scoping review suggest that the range of evidence-based strategies for substance use treatment targeting the reentry population is growing, but there is a need for additional research that examines implementation, cost effectiveness, and racial/ethnic disparities.
February 2024 Drug and Alcohol Dependence Reports 10(1):100221

By Eric Reinhart,  Daniel L. Chen

IMPORTANCE Mass incarceration is known to foster infectious disease outbreaks, amplification of infectious diseases in surrounding communities, and exacerbation of health disparities in disproportionately policed communities. To date, however, policy interventions intended to achieve epidemic mitigation in US communities have neglected to account for decarceration as a possible means of protecting public health and safety. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the association of jail decarceration and government anti-contagion policies with reductions in the spread of SARS-CoV-2. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cohort study used county-level data from January to November 2020 to analyze COVID-19 cases, jail populations, and anti contagion policies in a panel regression model to estimate the association of jail decarceration and anti-contagion policies with COVID-19 growth rates. A total of 1605 counties with data available on both jail population and COVID-19 cases were included in the analysis. This sample represents approximately 51% of US counties, 72% of the US population, and 60% of the US jail population. EXPOSURES Changes to jail populations and implementation of 10 anti-contagion policies: nursing home visitation bans, school closures, mask mandates, prison visitation bans, stay-at-home orders, and closure of nonessential businesses, gyms, bars, movie theaters, and restaurants. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Daily COVID-19 case growth rates. RESULTS In the 1605 counties included in this study, the mean (SD) jail population was 283.38 (657.78) individuals, and the mean (SD) population was 315.24 (2151.01) persons per square mile. An estimated 80% reduction in US jail populations, achievable through noncarceral management of nonviolent alleged offenses and in line with average international incarceration rates, would have been associated with a 2.0% (95% CI, 0.8%-3.1%) reduction in daily COVID-19 case growth rates. Jail decarceration was associated with 8 times larger reductions in COVID-19 growth rates in counties with above-median population density (4.6%; 95% CI, 2.2%- 7.1%) relative to those below this median (0.5%; 95% CI, 0.1%-0.9%). Nursing home visitation bans were associated with a 7.3% (95% CI, 5.8%-8.9%) reduction in COVID-19 case growth rates, followed by school closures (4.3%; 95% CI, 2.0%-6.6%), mask mandates (2.5%; 95% CI, 1.7%-3.3%), prison visitation bans (1.2%; 95% CI, 0.2%-2.2%), and stay-at-home orders (0.8%; 95% CI, 0.1%-1.6%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Although many studies have documented that high incarceration rates are associated with community-wide health harms, this study is, to date, the first to show that decarceration is associated with population-level public health benefits. Its findings suggest that, among other anti-contagion interventions, large-scale decarceration and changes to pretrial detention policies  are likely to be important for improving US public health, biosecurity, and pandemic preparedness. 

AMA Network Open. 2021;4(9):e2123405 

By Interrogating Justice

The cash bail system used throughout every state in the U.S. leaves many innocent people incarcerated. That’s one of the reasons why so many advocacy groups are pursuing cash bail reform efforts to replace the discriminatory system with one that works. The term “cash bail” describes the funds that someone has to pay to be released from pretrial detention. Generally, the amount of cash bail that must be posted is based on the characteristics of the charged crime and alleged offender. But judges may raise or lower that amount as well. Once the amount is paid, it serves as a promise that the person will show up for their trial or hearing. If the person consistently appears for court, the money is returned. In they don’t appear, the money is not returned. And, if someone cannot afford to pay the cash bail, they won’t be released until their case is resolved. There are certain alternatives for when someone cannot come up with the bail amount on their own. For example, someone could get the money through a bail-bond company. The bond company covers the fee but will typically also charge a certain percentage of the bond to be paid back to them. If someone goes this route and does not show up to their trial or hearing, the bond company will use collateral to get its money back. WHY THE CASH BAIL SYSTEM IS FLAWED If you’re thinking that it seems unfair for someone to have to pay their way out of jail — whether that involves the fee alone or the cost of going through a bond company — other criminal justice advocates and allies would agree with you. Overcrowding in jails and prisons is already an issue in and of itself, so individuals being placed into that population simply because they don’t have the money to post bail only furthers the problem. There are two other significant reasons why the cash bail system is flawed, ultimately leading to an unnecessary burden on those in jail: racial and socioeconomic discrimination and psychological impacts. 

Durham, NC: Interrogating Justice, 2021. 5p.

By William M. Carlucci

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that bail, when afforded to a criminal defendant, not be excessive. However, there is no provision as to what form bail must take or how it is to be determined. Starting in the twilight of the nineteenth century, monetary conditions of bail became increasingly prevalent throughout the United States. Yet, in recent years, there has been a movement to eliminate the requirement that defendants pay their way to pretrial freedom. States have taken measures to move away from cash bail, ranging from significantly limiting its use to outright prohibitions against monetary conditions on bail. The impetus behind such reform measures is that monetary conditions on bail discriminate against lower income defendants by disparately leading to pretrial detention of individuals who cannot afford to pay the required sum. This Comment analyzes the relative success of the risk-based, non-monetary bail systems that several states have implemented. This Comment begins by analyzing the history of the right to bail in the United States, starting with how such a right was understood at the time of the founding. Next, the evolution of the application of bail and the considerations behind pretrial release or detention determinations, are discussed. This Comment then proceeds to analyze how risk-based, non-monetary bail systems have been codified and applied. Last, this Comment evaluates the impact that these schemes have had on the states of implementation and potential alterations that would allow for better administration of such legislation.

69 Emory L. J. 1205 (2020).

By City of San Jose.  Office of the City Auditor 

The City of San José Police Department (SJPD) has more than 1,700 sworn and non-sworn staff who provide public safety services to San José’s residents, including responding to calls for police services, investigative efforts, crime prevention and education, and regulatory services. The largest number of sworn officers is dedicated to supporting patrol efforts across the city and responding to calls for service. Civilian staff, which accounts for about one-third of SJPD’s staff, provide administrative support, perform crime prevention analysis, staff the Police Communications Center, and assist patrol staff through the Community Service Officer program. In total, the Department’s Adopted Operating Budget for FY 2020-21 was $471.5 million. The objective of this audit was to review and compare SJPD staffing, spending, and calls for service over time, including an allocation of staff by bureau or division, vacancies, and use of overtime. This audit was requested by multiple Councilmembers. As the City undergoes its reimagining community safety process, the information and recommendations in this report can provide insight into the Department’s staffing history, expenditures, and workload as it moves forward. Finding 1: Reductions in Sworn Staffing Over 20 Years Present Challenges for SJPD. Over the last two decades, SJPD has experienced major staffing reductions in sworn officers. Layoffs and reductions in budgeted staffing during the Great Recession, along with high numbers of resignations and retirements in subsequent years, resulted in a decline in the number of active sworn officers. The Department continues to fill vacancies through recruitment and has begun to add budgeted sworn officer positions in recent years. We found:  In FY 2000-01, the Department was budgeted for 1,358 sworn staff; in FY 2020-21, that number had decreased to 1,157. Staffing reached its lowest point in FY 2016-17 when there were 1,107 budgeted positions; more than 200 of these budgeted positions were vacant that year.  SJPD has been actively recruiting to fill sworn vacancies, adding nearly 200 recruits in the past two years. Although the Department has begun to grow again, the Department’s police force is overall less experienced than it was ten years ago.  While there are different factors that may contribute to staffing decisions, San José primarily uses a budget-based model to determine its overall staffing from year to year. Finding 2: Increases in SJPD Expenditures Have Outweighed Staffing Changes. Despite having less staff, SJPD expenditures have increased over time. In FY 2020-21, SJPD’s adopted budget was $471.5 million, more than double its adopted budget in FY 2001-02. We found:  The largest increase in expenditures has been in retirement and fringe benefit costs, growing from $65 million in FY 2008-09 to $168 million in FY 2019-20.  Overtime costs grew by over 300 percent in the past decade and accounted for 10 percent of total expenditures in FY 2019-20.  Personal services account for 92 percent of the Department’s budget. However, overall spending on salaries declined beginning in FY 2008-09 and did not fully recover until FY 2018-19. This decrease was due to vacancies, fewer budgeted staff, and a 10 percent pay cut in FY 2010-11.  Other costs, including computer software expenses, professional services, vehicle costs, workers’ compensation, travel and training, and supplies and materials (including ballistic equipment, ammunition, and other police supplies) accounted for the remaining 8 percent of expenditures in FY 2019-20. Finding 3: SJPD’s Workload Has Increased as It Has Struggled to Meet its Response Time Goals. Officers respond to incidents dispatched through the Police Communications Center and initiate calls if they observe a need for police service or conduct a vehicle or pedestrian stop. The Department categorizes each response into one of six priorities, depending on the nature of the incident. We found:  In FY 2019-20, the Police Communications Center received over 1.2 million calls for emergency and nonemergency service. This resulted in 331,000 officer responses, up from 274,000 responses in FY 2016-17.  SJPD did not meet its response time target in FY 2019- 20 for the highest priority incidents, with SJPD only meeting the Priority 1 response time target in one district (District D at the Airport).  Queuing time, or the amount of time a call waits for an officer to be dispatched, was a major driver for SJPD for not hitting its Priority 2 response time target indicating not enough staff were available to respond. Finding 4: Reorganizing San José’s Patrol Districts and Reviewing Shift Schedules Could Optimize Workload and Available Staffing. SJPD deploys staff across three shifts and 16 patrol districts, in addition to the Airport District. Several studies have concluded that SJPD should review how it organizes its patrol districts and shifts. We found: 

San Jose, CA: City of Jose, Office of the City Auditor, 2021. 101p.

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.