By Amos Irwin and Rachael Eisenberg

 U.S. cities rely on police as the default responders for most 911 calls, whether they concern a person shouting at a bus stop or a child who refuses to go to school. In most cities, these kinds of issues constitute a significant portion of calls made to 911 call centers. Too often, police are tasked with handling a host of situations that are not about criminal activity, but are about other social issues, without the additional training or resources to respond appropriately. Defaulting to dis patching a police response to these types of 911 calls undermines public safety by diverting resources away from serious and violent crime while neglecting the underlying needs that drive people to call 911 to begin with It can also have a range of unintended consequences, especially for people of color and people with behavioral health disabilities who have been disproportionately harmed by the criminal justice system, where an encounter with police could escalate rather than de-escalate matters. Dispatching community responders to 911 calls can improve both short- and long term outcomes by ensuring that specially trained professionals are available to assist people with certain situations that require de-escalation, conflict resolution, and connections to community-based care. Particularly as jurisdictions across the country struggle to recruit and retain police officers, they are beginning to address these issues by dispatching community responder teams to low-risk calls instead of police. When developing community responder programs, city leaders frequently ask how their 911 call center can best identify calls and direct them to the new teams. To ensure the right response is provided in each situation, 911 call centers may need to alter how they choose which team to dispatch. 911 call centers must effectively identify eligible calls without delaying call times or overburdening their already stretched staff.   

Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2023. 58p.

By Lauren Slagter, Trevor Bechtel, and Amanda Nothaft

The criminal legal system should provide accountability for people who threaten public safety, respect the rights of crime victims and defendants, and treat people fairly regardless of their race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. However, in Washtenaw County, there is evidence that people of color have different encounters with the legal system than white people. FEBRUARY 2024 The analysis did not find evidence of racial disparities in the following areas: • In acceptance into a pre-plea diversion program, nor • In granting Holmes Youthful Trainee Act (HYTA) status, which allows young defendants to avoid a criminal record. As part of the Prosecutor Transparency Project , the University of Michigan analyzed cases referred to the Washtenaw County Prosecutor’s Office from 2017 to 2022. That analysis found the largest racial disparity occurred in requests to file charges received by the prosecutor’s office from local law enforcement. Black people appear in 49.9% of requests for charges between 2017 and 2022 but make up only 12.2% of county residents. By comparison, white people appear in 47.8% of requests for charges and make up 70% of the county’s population. This suggests the demographic composition of the cases that come into the prosecutor’s office are a significant driver of previously observed racial disparities in Washtenaw County’s criminal legal system. 

Ann Arbor: Poverty Solutions at the University of Michigan, 2024. 8p.  

By Stephen Eide

“Trans-institutionalization” refers to the shift of seriously mentally ill adults from the care of psychiatric institutions to correctional institutions. Beginning in the 1950s, public mental health agencies have pursued the deinstitutionalization of the seriously mentally ill. These government agencies intended to meet that goal through creating a system of community-based care to replace the asylum-based systems. Deinstitutionalization did not succeed as planned. Consequently, jails and prisons became the custodians of hundreds of thousands of seriously mentally ill adults who in previous eras would have been committed to an asylum.

Some dispute the magnitude of trans-institutionalization. But no one denies the high rate of serious mental illness among the incarcerated, or that jails and prisons are poor settings in which to treat serious mental illness. Correctional mental health care now stands as one of the most important mental health care systems in the nation. Jails and prisons are legally obligated to serve the seriously mentally ill, whereas community-based systems are not. More effective community-based mental health remains an important goal to pursue. But equally important is the reform of corrections-based systems. Better correctional mental health care systems will benefit both community systems and the seriously mentally ill themselves.

This report will explain how corrections-based systems function. It will place those systems in the context of debates around “jail abolition,” explain their workforce and financial challenges, and recommend the following reforms:

1. State governments should assume more responsibility for funding jail-based mental health care.

2. Correctional mental health systems have special responsibility to the seriously mentally ill and are justified in targeting resources accordingly.

3. Collect, keep, and report better data.

4. Repeal Medicaid’s Institution for Mental Diseases (IMD) exclusion.

5. Correctional institutions should make more use of long-acting injectables during discharge.

6. Eliminate overuse of administrative segregation (solitary confinement); do not abolish it.

7. Do not use telehealth when reliance on onsite clinical staff is feasible.

New York: Manhattan Institute, 2024. 28p.

By Solène Lugon Moulin, Emre Ertan, Didier Martin, Simon Baechler

The serial character of document fraud and its connection to organised crime groups who produce, sell and/or use fraudulent documents is a challenge for security and crime fighting. As a response, the added value of forensic intelligence is increasingly recognised. Using a forensic profiling method and a dedicated system deployed in Switzerland, document examiners can detect series (i.e., documents that share a common source) of fraudulent documents conveniently and efficiently. This detection can trigger or orientate investigations, supports crime intelligence efforts, and facilitates cross-jurisdictional cooperation. This study aims to assess the suitability of the forensic profiling system for international purpose and the efficiency of the method to detect cross-border series. The forensic profiling system has been deployed in France in the framework of a cross-border pilot project conducted by the School of Criminal Justice from the University of Lausanne and the French National Police (Division Nationale de Lutte contre la Fraude Documentaire et à l'Identité) over the period July 2019–May 2020. Data from the Swiss and French forensic profiling systems were compared to each other to detect cross-border series. The study sought to create operating conditions as close as possible to the real-life conditions of the profiling systems. The results are extremely positive both quantitatively and qualitatively. They demonstrate the benefit of setting up a systematic exchange of forensic data issued from profiling systems for fraudulent identity documents between France and Switzerland, let alone between any other countries. The results open up a very promising prospect for a sustained operational implementation by the police services of both countries and the extension of the exchanges internationally.

Science & Justice

Volume 64, Issue 2, March 2024, Pages 202-209

By Carrie Leonetti

This article presents a systematic and critical assessment of the reliability of forensic science in New Zealand. It documents the types of forensic-science being offered in criminal cases, the party presenting the evidence, the experts’ affiliations, how often there are challenges to the admissibility of the expert evidence and their timing in the proceedings, how often experts rely upon the uniqueness assumption, and how often experts testify to an individualised identification or ‘match’ of a source of forensic evidence. It finds that several of the common forensic disciplines in the criminal justice system in New Zealand have been the subject of critique and criticism internationally, the most common source of expert evidence was presented by the prosecution and provided by institutional police laboratories, and in most cases the forensic expert testified either to the uniqueness assumption or to an individualised match determination. It concludes that the New Zealand Parliament should amend the Evidence Act 2006 to require a demonstration of foundational validity and as-applied reliability as a precondition to the admissibility of any purported scientific evidence.

Common Law World Review, Online First, March 2024, 26pg

By Rebecca Tiger

The number of people incarcerated in the U.S. now exceeds 2.3 million, due in part to the increasing criminalization of drug use: over 25% of people incarcerated in jails and prisons are there for drug offenses. Judging Addicts examines this increased criminalization of drugs and the medicalization of addiction in the U.S. by focusing on drug courts, where defendants are sent to drug treatment instead of prison. Rebecca Tiger explores how advocates of these courts make their case for what they call “enlightened coercion,” detailing how they use medical theories of addiction to justify increased criminal justice oversight of defendants who, through this process, are defined as both “sick” and “bad.” Tiger shows how these courts fuse punitive and therapeutic approaches to drug use in the name of a “progressive” and “enlightened” approach to addiction. She critiques the medicalization of drug users, showing how the disease designation can complement, rather than contradict, punitive approaches, demonstrating that these courts are neither unprecedented nor unique, and that they contain great potential to expand punitive control over drug users. Tiger argues that the medicalization of addiction has done little to stem the punishment of drug users because of a key conceptual overlap in the medical and punitive approaches—that habitual drug use is a problem that needs to be fixed through sobriety. Judging Addicts presses policymakers to implement humane responses to persistent substance use that remove its control entirely from the criminal justice system and ultimately explores the nature of crime and punishment in the U.S. today.

New York; London: NYU Press,  2012

By National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice.

This report provides criminal justice policymakers and practitioners with a priority agenda to prepare the nation’s criminal justice system for future public health crises. Through its recommendations, the Commission seeks to better balance the roles and responsibilities of the public health and public safety fields. Through its recommendations, the Commission seeks to better balance the roles and responsibilities of the public health and public safety fields. Launched at the end of July, the Commission received multiple reports and extensive testimony from leading national and local experts. Key findings include: + Crime: Property crime and drug offense rates fell from 2019 to 2020, but violent crime increased significantly. In particular, homicide rates increased by 42% during the summer months (June to August) in a sample of more than 20 medium to large cities, and by 34% in the fall (September to October).1 + Prisons: Prison populations have been reduced by about 5% nationally. On average, the COVID-19 mortality rate within prisons (61.8 deaths per 100,000 people in prison) was double the mortality rate for the general population, after adjusting for the gender, age, and race/ethnicity of those incarcerated. There are also substantial differences among states in the rate of prison infections and deaths.2 + Jails: Jail populations fell by 31% in the early weeks of the pandemic but have been slowly climbing toward prior levels since May.3 During the pandemic, the rates at which people have been rebooked on new charges 30, 60, and 180 days after release remain below pre-pandemic rates. Unfortunately, data regarding COVID-related infections and deaths in jails is scarce. + Racial and Ethnic Disparities: The COVID-19 pandemic may have exacerbated some racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system. As jail populations began to fall in March at the onset of the pandemic, there were increases in the proportion of people who were Black, who were booked on felony charges, who were male, and who were 25 or younger. These changes in the population composition persisted even as jail populations began to rise again in early May.4 + Substance Use and Mental Health Disorders: More than 40 states have reported increases in opioid-related fatalities since the onset of the pandemic. Mandatory lockdowns, restrictions on movement, social distancing guidelines, orders limiting access to facilities for nonessential workers, and the absence of in-person treatment have created gaps in the system's ability to identify and monitor the needs and legal 3 requirements of people with substance abuse and mental health disorders, and to intervene when they are in distress.5 + Budgets: State and local governments face daunting budget deficits that will worsen as the pandemic wears on, and unemployment levels remain high. Because criminal justice operations (law enforcement, courts, and corrections) are funded more heavily by state and local governments than most other government functions, revenue shortfalls will disproportionately damage the criminal justice system without effective policy interventions.

Washington, DC: Council on Criminal Justice. 2020, 43pg

By Sandra Susan Smith and Cierra Robson    

In the year following Humphrey, a judicial decision mandating that judges consider both defendants’ ability to pay cash bail and non-monetary release options, San Francisco Sheriff’s Office (SFSO) reported a 308% increase in the number of people court-ordered for pretrial electronic monitoring (EM) – from 178 to 725. Although proponents of pretrial EM have described it as an effective alternative to pretrial incarceration – one that ensures public safety and court appearances – critics contend that it is simply an alternative form of incarceration, with many of jail’s attendant harms. With this debate in mind, we explore people’s recent experiences on pretrial EM in San Francisco – the extent and nature of difficulties program participants face while attempting to meet program obligations, the extent to which and how these difficulties put them at risk for noncompliance, and how threats of noncompliance interact with other major issues that system-involved people face to affect program outcomes. Through in-depth, semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of 66 people court ordered to participate in pretrial EM between 2018 and 2020, we find that prior struggles, especially with housing insecurity and co-occurring disorders, made it much more difficult to meet program obligations, amplifying risks of noncompliance. Further, conditions of pretrial EM release also created hardships for many, making it even more difficult to find safe, affordable, and stable housing; to protect health and well-being; to secure employment and keep jobs; and to maintain physical, emotional, and psychological connections to loved ones. Indeed, pretrial EM often placed program participants in the untenable position of constantly having to choose between two or more equally awful options, such as program compliance or maintaining employment. These findings have major implications for debates about pretrial EM’s net-widening effects but also the inherent stickiness of the criminal legal system.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Kennedy School. 2022, 53pg

By Arthur L. Rizer

Over the past 20 years, conservatives have often been at the forefront of criminal justice reform efforts, including to reduce mandatory minimum sentencing, lengthy prison terms, and excessive criminal fines and fees and to improve conditions in prisons and jails. Rejecting the Nixonian “law and order” impulse, criminal justice reform has increasingly become incorporated into the conservative political self-identity. But this has been an elite-driven phenomenon, and it is open to question whether the roots of that political identity are deep enough to withstand the rising salience of crime as a political issue. This review traces how criminal justice reform came to be incorporated into the conservative political identity, raises questions concerning its staying power in the face of rising crime and increasingly strident progressive demands, and proposes some principles that might ground a more lasting conservative commitment to a just, proportionate system of criminal justice.

Annual Review of Criminology, v. 6. 2023, 18pg

By Oceana R. Gilliam, Brett Taylor, Lindsey Price Jackson, and Jarred Williams

In partnership with the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s Office, this study looks at the potential for offering meaningful alternatives to traditional prosecution for people accused of felony offenses in Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, laying out key aspects of planning a successful diversion program.

New York: Center for Justice Innovation. 2023, 40pg

By Brandon L. Garrett, JD, Monitor, et al.

The ODonnell Consent Decree

• Misdemeanor Bail Reform: In Harris County, secured money bonds are no longer required for most misdemeanor cases under the court rule adopted as part of the ODonnell v. Harris County settlement. Most people arrested for misdemeanors are released promptly without a hearing.

• Bail Options Unchanged for Cases with Public Safety Concerns: People charged with misdemeanors that potentially present public safety risks (e.g., repeat DWIs, family violence, prior bond violations or outstanding warrants) are not automatically released. A hearing officer makes a bail decision, usually following a hearing at which magistrates have the traditional options to require financial bonds, protective orders, pretrial supervision requirements, or other release conditions.

• Better Bail Hearings: Defense attorneys continue to represent people at bail hearings, as required by Rule 9 and the Consent Decree. Before 2017, people arrested in Harris County usually had no defense attorney at these hearings. Judges also must give greater attention to more rigorous bail requirements.

Major Consent Decree Accomplishments:

• Court Appearance: The County is currently implementing an approved plan to make use of the budget allocation to improve court appearance. The County is now piloting a new website, https://myharriscountycase.com, where people can readily look up information about upcoming appearances in their cases.

• Data: Much of the relevant information about the misdemeanor bail process is now available in an automated report. We have continued work to provide feedback on Harris County’s public data portal. We now have improved data regarding persons flagged as homeless or with mental health assessment requests, as well as data concerning pretrial supervision conditions, and report these new analyses in this report.

• Training: The Deason Criminal Justice Reform Center at the SMU Dedman School of Law conducted trainings in 2023, which resume in early 2024.

• Indigent Defense: The County is continuing to develop plans in response to the National Association for Public Defense (NAPD) evaluation of Harris County’s misdemeanor indigent defense systems. We hope the County will implement a plan for the earlier appointment of counsel.

Ongoing Work by the Monitor Team:

• Data Development: We analyzed data prepared by Harris County and provided continual feedback on data development in regular meetings concerning the assembly and validation of data regarding misdemeanor cases.

• Community Work Group: We convened quarterly meetings of our Community Work Group, to share our work and solicit input from our diverse community stakeholders. Members share their perspectives for the “Community Viewpoints” column found in our reports.

• Regular Meetings: We held regular meetings with the parties and Harris County stakeholders, including weekly calls, monthly meetings with both judges and hearing officers, and periodic calls with public defenders and prosecutors. Our next public meetings will be held in-person on April 18, 2024.

• Feedback: We provided feedback to the parties on several improvements to the hearing process, the designed and implemented training, and the assessment work regarding holistic defense services and nonappearance. o Review of Violations: We are extremely grateful for the work that has begun to build an improved system to permit all County actors to review potential Rule 9 violations and prevent delays and errors in case processing.

Our Findings:

• Data Analysis: Our updated findings largely confirm what we reported in our first six reports. The bail reforms under the ODonnell Consent Decree have saved Harris County and residents many millions of dollars, improved the lives of tens of thousands of persons arrested for misdemeanors, and these large-scale changes have produced no increase in new offenses by persons arrested for misdemeanors.

  • Overall, the work suggests that repeat offending by persons arrested for misdemeanors has remained stable in recent years.

  • The numbers of persons arrested for misdemeanors have declined since 2015.

  • The numbers of those arrested for misdemeanors who had new charges filed within one year have also declined.

• The analyses conducted show:

• Misdemeanor Case and Defendant Characteristics

• The number of misdemeanor arrestees has declined by more than 15 percent between 2015 (N=49,359) and 2023 (N=41,177).

• The count has been slightly increasing since 2020, which marked the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic period.

Durham, NC: Duke University, 2024. 107p.

By The Center for Justice Innovation

Within the context of a national movement toward criminal legal system reform— including the use of alternatives-to incarceration (ATIs) for non-violent and drug cases—legal responses to crimes of violence still largely involve incarceration. Few jurisdictions apply alternatives to address violent crime, instead continuing to rely on carceral approaches, despite evidence pointing to the overall negative effects. The current study explores alternative responses to crimes of violence outside of incarceration. Specifically, this document presents 

  Specifically, this document presents findings from five in-depth case studies. In it, we highlight some of the unique approaches to responding to violent crime implemented in each site, in hopes that they may prove instructive for other jurisdictions seeking to explore or further develop alternative approaches to crimes of violence. The featured approaches are implemented at various stages of the criminal legal system process—from after charging and the initial appearance, to pretrial and plea, to post-plea, pre- sentencing, to post-conviction and sentencing. We explore a pretrial  supervision program, restorative justice programs, pretrial diversion programs, specialty courts, and post-conviction resentencing initiatives. Each study also includes specific recommendations made by those in the featured site and based on the information learned from the featured site. The companion piece, A New Approach: Alternative Prosecutorial Responses to Violent Crime, presents a comprehensive summary of study findings, along with resultant recommendations for policy and practice. 

New York: Center for Justice Innovation. 2024, 41pg

By Jennifer A. Tallon

To effectively address the problem of mass incarceration, prosecutors must adopt ways to respond to cases involving violence that don’t rely on jails and prisons. The "Prosecutors and Responses to Crimes of Violence: Notes from the Field" document offers in-depth case study findings and is intended as a tool for jurisdictions looking to expand alternative approaches to crimes of violence.

New York: Center for Justice Innovation. 2024, 18pg

By Fred Butcher, Amanda B. Cissner, and Michael Rempel

  Mandatory minimum sentencing laws gained traction in the late 1970s and early 1980s amidst rising crime rates, a “tough-on-crime” push, and punitive enforcement related to the “War on Drugs.”. Under mandatory minimums, individuals receive a stipulated amount of prison time, with no accounting for the circumstances of the offense or the characteristics of the person charged. As minimums typically flow from the charge and a person’s criminal history, they confer outsized power on prosecutors; in plea negotiations, prosecutors can wield the threat of a higher charge with a minimum for someone hesitant to accept a plea. Judges also lose discretion, and defense attorneys lose opportunities to present mitigating circumstances. In 1984, the federal Sentencing Reform Act established the U.S. Sentencing Commission, requiring that federal courts impose sentences within a range specified by the Commission and eliminating parole for federal charges. Many states took their cue from federal efforts, introducing minimum sentences and restricting the ability of parole boards to reduce sentences through good-time or earned-time credits. Proponents viewed sentencing guidelines (including mandatory prison) as a limit on judicial discretion and a means to eliminate disparities in sentencing. They touted the idea of “truth in-sentencing”—giving people charged, crime survivors, and the public an accurate idea of how much time those sentenced would actually serve. Minimums also arose in response to the perception—ginned up at the time and since debunked—that the more rehabilitative approach of the 1960s had failed to tamp down crime rates and recidivism. Recent decades, however, have seen mandatory minimums fall into disrepute. Several decades of harsh sentencing policies contributed to the astronomical growth of the U.S. prison population, which peaked at 1.6 million people held on an average day in 2009, a total which omits about 750,000 additional people held in local jails that year. The rapid consolidation of mass incarceration over these decades did not increase safety; evidence points instead to a modest increase in recidivism among individuals subject to custodial sanctions. Similarly, mandatory minimums and other sentencing laws passed in the 1970s and 1980s increased (and here more than modestly) persistent racial disparities in the criminal legal system. Black Americans today continue to be disproportionately represented in prison populations and are more likely to be charged with offenses subject to mandatory minimums—leading to longer sentences—than white Americans.8 According to the most recent analysis by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, among those detained in prisons nationwide, there were nearly identical Black and white populations (34% vs. 32%). Considering their representation in the general population, Black people are imprisoned at a rate five times greater than white people. Over the past two decades, numerous states, including New York, have weakened or eliminated mandatory minimum sentencing laws.10 Many of these reforms focused on eliminating minimums that apply primarily to drug offenses. This narrow focus has neglected much of the imprisoned population, as drug offenders make up a small percentage of those in prison. In 2022, the Vera Institute of Justice estimated just over half of New York’s approximately 300,000 prison sentences were the result of mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Declaring the laws “morally and fiscally unsustainable,” the organization called for their abolition.

New York: Center for Justice Innovation. 2022, 31pg

By Melanie Skemer, Emily Brennan

The U.S. jail population has tripled over the last 30 years due to surges in the use of pretrial detention and money bail.  On any given day, nearly 450,000 people in the United States are detained while awaiting the resolution of their criminal charges. Many of these individuals, still legally innocent, are in jail because they cannot afford to pay the bail amount set as a condition of their release. Pretrial detention takes a significant toll on the lives of affected individuals, putting them at increased risk of continued involvement with the criminal legal system as well as of losing their jobs, housing, and child custody.

As a result, jurisdictions across the United States are reforming their pretrial systems to reduce the number of people who are held in pretrial detention—that is, who remain in jail while they await the adjudication of their cases. As part of this effort, many jurisdictions are moving away from money bail as a primary means of encouraging people to return for future court dates. Instead, they are increasingly relying on alternatives such as pretrial supervision, which requires released people to meet regularly with supervision staff members while their cases are pending. Pretrial supervision has traditionally required clients to report for in-person meetings, particularly for those assessed as being at relatively high risk of failing to attend a court hearing or of being rearrested. 

With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, however, many pretrial supervision programs shifted in-person meeting requirements to remote check-ins to protect the health of both clients and staff members. For many jurisdictions, this shift highlighted some of the benefits of remote supervision, which include time savings for clients balancing work, school, caregiving, or other responsibilities, and less resource-intensive administration for supervision providers, potentially generating cost savings. At the same time, some members of the pretrial community questioned whether remote supervision was as effective as in-person interaction at meeting clients’ needs and protecting public safety. As the pandemic waned, it remained unclear whether remote supervision was as effective as in-person or hybrid (a mix of in-person and remote) supervision in achieving the main goals of supervision programs: helping clients make their court appearances and avoid new arrests during the pretrial period.

New York: MDRC. 2024, 37pg

By Sam J. Merchant

Many observers claim that judges are imposing disproportionately lenient sentences on January 6, 2021, “Capitol Breach” offenders. Some have even suggested a racial or political motivation for lighter sentences. Comparative data on these sentences and offenders, presented here for the first time, refute this narrative. Individuals convicted of felonies related to the Capitol Breach appear to actually receive longer sentences than individuals convicted of the same crimes outside of the Capitol Breach context.

But sentences in Capitol Breach cases may indeed be “lenient” for a deeper, more structural reason—the current Federal Sentencing Guidelines do not adequately account for the severity of the conduct that occurred on January 6, 2021. There is a qualitative difference between federal offenses and the same offenses committed in the context of the “treason spectrum.” English and American legal traditions have historically viewed treason, rebellion, and subversive activities as “the worst crimes of all” because they are crimes against all citizens and threaten the constitutional order. Yet no sentencing enhancement addresses the increased severity of conduct involving offenses that are on the treason spectrum.

Recognizing the increased seriousness of other conduct, Congress and the Sentencing Commission have enacted an array of enhancements to punish, incapacitate, and deter offenders whose conduct involves a dangerous weapon, body armor, or even use of a fake website during an offense. This Article proposes a new sentencing enhancement in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines that properly accounts for the relative severity of conduct involving offenses on the treason spectrum. To reaffirm a commitment to democratic values, to deter future subversive conduct, and ensure that the legal system is equipped to respond to the severity of subversive conduct, policymakers and judges should send clear signal that subversive activities are indeed among “the worst crimes of all.”

Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law Research Paper Series. 2024, 41pg

By Randolph Atkins, Trisann Jodon, Jennifer Davidson Conlon, and Amy Schick

This report was prepared in accordance with Section 25025 (Drug-Impaired Driving Data Collection) of the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act (IIJA), Pub. L. 117-58. The report summarizes what is known about the collection of drug-impaired driving data and its reporting to the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). The report describes the FARS data collection process and its toxicology reporting framework, the Recommendations for Toxicological Investigations of Drug-Impaired Driving and Motor Vehicle Fatalities – 2021 Update, identifies barriers that States encounter in submitting alcohol and drug toxicology results to FARS, provides recommendations on how to address those barriers, and describes the actions that the U.S. Department of Transportation and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are taking to assist States in improving toxicology testing in cases of motor vehicle crashes, and the reporting of alcohol and drug toxicology results in cases of motor vehicle crashes.

Washington, DC: United States. Department of Transportation. 2024, 34pg

By Jue Jiang

This research provides a rare yet much-needed gender perspective on authoritarian legality in China, drawing upon sentencing and punishment for the crime of rape. First, several controversial cases – cases extensively discussed in the media or online – are reviewed to identify the attributes that triggered the controversy. Four categories of cases were selected, based on four sexual relationships embodying various power dynamics between the offender and the victim: public official and citizen/sex worker; husband and wife; adult and child; caregiver and dependent. A search was then made for “like cases” using these attributes as keywords in the China Judgments Online database. Finally, a qualitative analysis of these cases was carried out, in particular of the judicial reasoning provided by the judges, to explore how these controversial cases are handled by the judiciary, and the implications of this on the interplay between gender, sex, sexuality and authoritarian power in the context of authoritarian legality in China. This research argues that the criminal justice system in China embodies and reinforces a particular gendered order and “sex hierarchy,” instrumentalised by the state to maintain its authoritarian power.

The Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy series Law and Authoritarianism. 2023, 69pg

By Nathan T. Connealy, Eric L. Piza, Rachael A. Arietti,  George O. Mohler &  Jeremy G. Carter 

Objectives

We examine the potential effects of gunshot detection technology longitudinally in Chicago through a synthetic control quasi-experiment.

Methods

Police districts receiving gunshot detection technology were compared to a synthetic control unit via a staggered difference-in-difference design. Across eleven unique gunshot detection technology deployment phases, the analyses produce results for aggregate, initial versus expanded, and phase-specific deployment effects across five gun violence outcome measures.

Results

Gunshot detection technology had no effect on fatal shootings, non-fatal shootings, general part I gun crimes, or shots fired calls for service. Gun recoveries significantly increased in the aggregate, initial, and expanded models, and in several individual phases relative to controls.

Conclusions

The results align with prior literature that has found a procedural benefit, but not a crime prevention benefit, of gunshot detection technology. Law enforcement agencies seeking crime prevention or reduction solutions may be better served by investing in other options. 

J Exp Criminol (2024).

By  Michael L. Perlin,  Heather Cucolo,  Deborah Dorfman

In this article, we offer – we believe for the first time in the scholarly literature -- a potentially (at least partially) ameliorative solution to the problems faced by persons with autism(ASD) and fetal alcohol syndrome/disorder (FAS/FASD) in the criminal justice system: the creation of (separate sets of) problem-solving juvenile mental health courts specifically to deal with cases of juveniles in the criminal justice system with ASD, and with FAS/FASD. There is currently at least one juvenile mental health court that explicitly accepts juveniles with autism, but there are, to the best of our knowledge, no courts set up specifically for these two discrete sets of populations.

If mental health courts (or any other sort of problem-solving courts) are to work effectively, they must operate in accordance with therapeutic jurisprudence principles, concluding that law should value psychological health, should strive to avoid imposing anti-therapeutic consequences whenever possible, and when consistent with other values served by law should attempt to bring about healing and wellness.

If such courts are created, we believe this will (1) make it less likely that sanism and other forms of bias affect legal decisionmaking; (2) make it more likely that those aspects of the defendants’ underlying conditions that may have precipitated (or contributed to) their criminal behavior be placed in a context that understands such conditions, and (3) best ensure that therapeutic jurisprudence principles be employed in the dispositions of all cases.

NYLS Legal Studies Research Paper No. 4515470, 80 pages