By  Mia Bird, Omair Gill, Johanna Lacoe, Molly Pickard, Steven Raphael and Alissa Skog

Sentence enhancements are used to add time to an individual’s base sentence. California uses over 100 unique enhancements. This report analyzes data from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to understand the role of sentence enhancements in California’s corrections system. It finds that enhancements lengthen average sentences and are more likely to impact the sentences of men and Black and American Indian people who are sentenced to prison, application varies by county, and that enhancements contribute to the overall size of the state prison population. KEY FINDINGS • Prevalence: Roughly 40% of individual prison admissions since 2015 have sentences lengthened by a sentence enhancement. Among the currently incarcerated, the prevalence of enhanced sentences is much higher, impacting the sentences of approximately 70% of people incarcerated as of 2022. • Sentence length: Sentence enhancements increase the average sentence by roughly 1.9 years (or 48%) for all admissions. The impact is larger for people receiving longer sentences. • Four enhancement types account for 80% of sentence years added since 2015. Those four enhancements include the state’s Three Strikes law, firearm enhancements, the nickel prior (which adds five years for a prior serious offense), and gang enhancements. • Racial, ethnic, and sex disparities: Sentence enhancements are more likely to be applied to men. Black people and American Indian individuals are the most likely to receive enhanced sentences, followed by Hispanic people, White people, and Asian or Pacific Islander people. • Potential drivers of disparities: Most, but not all, of the inter-racial and inter-sex disparities in the use of enhancements can be explained by group-based differences in case characteristics observable in CDCR data, including the number of prior prison commitments, the number of conviction charges, the most serious conviction offense, and the county of sentencing. • County variation: Enhancements are applied unevenly across California counties, with the lowest application rates in Bay Area counties and Southern California coastal counties, and the highest rates among far Northern counties, the counties in the Central Valley, and Inland Empire counties.   

Los Angeles: California Policy Lab, 2023, 57p.

By  Brett Fischer, Johanna Lacoe and Steven Raphae

When someone is arrested and cannot afford bail or a private lawyer, they stay in jail and have to wait several days before they are assigned a public defender at arraignment. This time in jail imposes legal, social, and economic costs, from a higher chance of conviction to loss of employment or wages. Low-income individuals bear the brunt of these costs because many cannot afford to post bail to secure their own release, nor can they afford to hire a lawyer to negotiate their release. The County of Santa Clara Public Defender’s Office designed a program to address these problems by providing legal counsel to low-income people shortly after their arrest. In early 2020 they piloted the Pre-Arraignment Representation and Review (PARR) program using a rotating schedule that offered PARR services one day per week. This quasi-random implementation enabled the research team to estimate the impact receiving PARR services had on release and case outcomes. Participation in the program decreased jail time and convictions, and increased case dismissals. This policy brief is a condensed version of a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper: The Effect of Pre-Arraignment Legal Representation on Criminal Case Outcomes. Key Findings • Arrested individuals who received PARR services were detained in jail, on average, for 23 fewer days relative to comparable people who did not receive PARR services (6 total days vs. 29 total days). This reduction reflects both reductions in pretrial detention, as well as potential reductions in the probability and length of incarceration imposed at sentencing. • PARR participants were more than twice as likely to have their cases dismissed altogether, thereby avoiding a criminal conviction. Specifically, receiving PARR services reduced the probability that an individual was convicted by about 75% relative to comparable people whom PARR did not serve. These findings underscore how providing faster access to legal representation following an arrest can improve case outcomes for low-income individuals.

Los Angeles: California Policy Lab, 2024. 5p.

By NIla Bala, Casey Witte, Lars Trautman   

 The most pressing problems facing criminal justice policymakers and practitioners are racial disparities within the criminal justice system. In many instances, the data on outcomes at each stage of the criminal justice process are stark, with Black individuals disproportionately bearing the brunt of system involvement and severe sentences. While nearly every actor and policymaker associated with the criminal justice system can play a part in addressing this issue, prosecutors remain some of the most powerful. With a hand in decisions ranging from charging to plea bargaining, the policies and practices of prosecutors inevitably influence the existence and extent of any racial disparities. This paper examines the sources of racial disparities in the criminal justice system, how prosecutors may contribute to them, and finally, actions that prosecutors can take to help reduce these disparities. These recommendations include a better understanding of disparities, decreasing reliance on cash bail and pretrial detention, prioritizing diversion programs, and implementing algorithmic color-blind charging.  

Washington, DC: R Street, 2021. 6p.

By Cody Zoschak and Cosima von Moltke

This policy brief discusses the need to implement disengagement and reintegration programming for ISIS arrestees in the US penal system, a need that is particularly urgent given the number of such convicts that are expected to be released in the coming years. The brief examines six case studies of recently released ISIS arrestees to highlight the lack of disengagement from extremist ideology. The report explores deradicalization frameworks, existing programs, and limitations, and provides policy recommendations to improve reintegration. The six cases include Yousef Ramadan, Ali Shukri Amin, Sebastian Gregerson, Charlton LaChase, Mohammed Hamzah Khan, and Islam Natsheh; all of whom were released and promptly reincarcerated, either on new charges or for violating their parole. The policy recommendations emphasize programs inside federal and state penal systems, collaboration between law enforcement and civil society actors, and post-release support outside the scope of probation. The suggested policies are built to mitigate the risk of recidivism and are needed for the dozens of ISIS convicts who are scheduled to be released in the coming 3-5 years. 

London: Institute for Strategic Dialogue (2024), 19p.

By: Oded Oren, Chad M. Topaz, and Courtney Machi Oliva.

Key Findings:

1. An analysis of public pretrial data from 2020 - 2022 reveals that some New York City judges are disproportionately carceral, i.e., these judges are substantially more likely to order pretrial detention than their peers, even when accounting for factors such as the severity of the case and the defendant’s prior criminal history.

2. The fourteen judges who exhibited the most carceral discretion compared to their peers are Felicia Mennin, Gerald Lebovits, Quynda Santacroce, Josh Hanshaft, Kerry Ward, Bruna DiBiase, Gerianne Abriano, Beth Beller, Phyllis Chu, Alan Schiff, Tara Collins, Derefim Neckles, Joseph McCormack, and Lumarie Maldonado-Cruz.

3. These fourteen judges’ disproportionately carceral decisions over 2.5 years resulted in an estimated 580 additional people detained, 154 additional years of pretrial detention, and over $77 million of additional costs borne by New York City taxpayers

Key Recommendations:

1. Closer scrutiny of judges’ bail decisions is crucial because of the link between pretrial detention and increased recidivism rates, exacerbated racial disparities, and influence over case outcomes.

2. New York (and other jurisdictions) must evaluate whether judicial discretion should be constrained given that legislative efforts to reform bail have not prevented some judges from exercising discretion in disproportionately carceral ways.

3. New York lawmakers should consider the following approaches to constraining disproportionately carceral judges:

• Making additional judge-level data publicly available to all New Yorkers.

• Removing disproportionately carceral judges from overseeing criminal cases.

• Limiting judges’ discretion to detain, including by mandating release from detention upon the preparation of a release plan by holistic teams of experts.

Scrutinize, Institute for the Quantitative Study of Inclusion, Diversity, and Equity Zimroth Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at NYU School of Law, 2023. 29p.

By: Oded Oren (Scrutinize) and Rachael Fauss (

Transparency is a cornerstone of a robust democratic governance system. It helps build public trust, fosters accountability, and promotes informed citizen participation. When it comes to the transparency of the state judiciary and court administration, there are notable shortcomings due to gaps in current law and practice. Since judicial data is a public good, there is a compelling public interest in making more judicial data publicly available. This report delves specifically into the limited publication of written decisions by criminal court judges.

Key Findings:

1. Only an estimated 6% of the total written criminal court decisions are published every year.

2. In New York, criminal court judges effectively decide whether or not to publish their decisions in criminal cases. Of the judges who published at least one decision a year, the average number of published decisions was two to three decisions a year.

3. The number of judges presiding over criminal cases each year is not made available by the court system, meaning that it is not possible to determine how many judges publish zero decisions each year.

4. Of the 600 New York criminal court judges who published at least one decision between 2010 and 2022, 20 judges (3%) were responsible for 28% of all published decisions, while 356 judges (59%) published three or fewer decisions.

Public Access to Criminal Court Decisions Boosts Transparency and Judicial Accountability:

• Judicial Assessment: Access to decisions is vital for evaluating a judge’s performance and qualifications during reappointment, reelection, or promotion.

• Legislative Oversight: Publicly available decisions provide a window for the Legislature to monitor the implementation of criminal law reforms.

• Legal Insight: Decisions offer valuable insights for appellate courts and attorneys into legal interpretations and trends, but only if they are available for review.

Recommendations:

1. New York should pass a law to increase transparency by requiring written decisions by criminal court judges to be publicly available online.

2. Judges would be able to submit transcripts of oral rulings instead of written decisions.

3. The new law would mandate the publication of decisions when they resolve a legal issue raised in a written motion or decide a pre-trial hearing.

4. The new law would also require the Office of Court Administration to make all written criminal court decisions authored in the past 15 years publicly available.

5. The Office of Court Administration should immediately begin implementing these policies administratively.

Scrutinize and Reinvent Albany, 2023. 28p.

By Jacqueline Pacvilon, Neil Agarwal, Rosie Wang ,, April Pierina , Hernandez Luperdi

Having legal representation helps ensure due process and is associated with more positive case outcomes for people facing deportation. In 2022, the Midwest Immigrant Defenders Alliance (MIDA) was formed by four organizations to provide legal representation for people in the Chicago immigration court whose cases begin in immigration detention: The National Immigrant Justice Center, The Resurrection Project, The Immigration Project, and the Law Office of the Cook County Public Defender. These organizations developed a collaborative model to provide legal representation on a merits-blind basis, which ensures equity in access to representation. A larger share of people on the Chicago detained docket are being represented one year into the MIDA program, despite an increasing number of cases before the court. In this report, the Vera Institute of Justice evaluates the impact of MIDA and this model of universal representation during the coalition’s first year.

Key Takeaway:

Cases with representation have historically fared much better in immigration court. One year after MIDA’s formation, a larger share of people on the Chicago detained docket have representation, despite an increasing number of cases before the court. This model ensures equity and has resulted in many MIDA clients establishing a right to remain in the United States.

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2024. 35p.

By Kim Shayo Buchanan

We at the Center for Policing Equity (CPE) advocate reducing the footprint of law enforcement by removing police from places where they do not belong and cannot help. People’s health care, their pregnancy outcomes, and their gender and queer identities exemplify situations that should not involve police. Law enforcement can and should step back from enforcing such laws, as police have traditionally done. Enforcement of anti-abortion, anti-trans, and anti-LGBTQ+ laws would divert finite police resources away from serious and violent crimes that communities care about; squander the goodwill police have built with communities; embolden extremist violence; and endanger vulnerable communities—all while doing nothing to keep the public safe. We urge mayors and municipal governments to instruct law enforcement agencies to deprioritize enforcement of these new, victimless crimes. Instead, officers’ time and departmental resources should be used to prevent and investigate serious crimes that affect public safety. Police and municipal governments can take the following steps to deprioritize enforcement and protect their communities against the threats and harms these laws create: Municipal governments and law enforcement should take these actions: 1. Affirm a public commitment to the rights and safety of LGBTQ+ and pregnant people. 2. Consult with affected communities, on a structured and ongoing basis, about how to deprioritize enforcement. 3. Consult with affected communities about how loud and public to be about deprioritizing enforcement. 4. Ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcome, and provision or receipt of reproductive health care, abortion care, and gender-affirming care (whether real or perceived). a. Ban discrimination against municipal employees, including police officers, on these bases. b. Ban discrimination by municipal employees, including police officers, on these bases. 5. Provide employment benefits such as medical leave, comprehensive health coverage, travel for out-of-state health care, and assurances that any investigation or prosecution by another agency for breach of anti-abortion, anti-trans, or anti-LGBTQ+ laws will not affect the person’s employment. Municipal governments should take these actions: 6. Direct law enforcement leadership to allocate no funds to enforce anti-trans, anti-LGBTQ+, and anti-abortion laws. 7. Ban discrimination by municipal contractors and by local businesses based on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcome, and receipt of abortion care and gender-affirming care. 8. Consider using municipal funds to ensure community access to health care needs such as prenatal care, doula care, lactation support, and out-of-state gender-affirming and reproductive health care. 9. Oppose any effort to criminalize use of municipal roads to access abortion, gender affirming care, or any other health care. Law enforcement should take these actions: 10. Protect people and communities against hate crimes and vigilante violence. Use and enforce restraining orders and, when warranted, laws against trespass and disorderly conduct. 11. Consult with abortion providers, reproductive justice advocates, and escorts; gender affirming care providers; hospital management and staffers; and trans and LGBTQ+ advocates about the risks they face and about how best to protect their rights and safety. 12. Amend policy manuals, as needed, to clarify that it is misconduct for police officers and civilian employees to discriminate against members of the public on the bases of sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, pregnancy outcome, or receipt of abortion care or gender-affirming care. 13. Do not enforce anti-trans, anti-LGBTQ+, or anti-abortion laws. Allocate no resources to their enforcement. Conduct no investigations and make no arrests. Amend policies and procedures to direct law enforcement employees as follows: a. Do not conduct electronic, in-person, or other surveillance to detect violations of these laws. b. Do not use traffic-safety laws, pretextual stops, or any other means to investigate whether drivers, passengers, or pedestrians may be pregnant, may be transgender, or may be traveling within or out of state to receive prohibited health care. c. Take no action on any report of a violation of anti-abortion, anti-trans, or anti-LGBTQ+ laws except, as needed, to protect the person against potential violence by the caller. d. Do not investigate whether anyone is or has been pregnant, or how or why their pregnancy may have ended. e. Do not investigate anyone’s gender identity, their biological sex, or their assigned sex at birth. f. Take no action when you see a person you think may be transgender unless you have reasonable grounds to suspect the person is committing a crime for which a cisgender person would be investigated. g. Do not enter bars, theaters, libraries, or anywhere else to identify drag performances. h. Apply the same standards of obscenity to LGBTQ+ content or performance as to heteronormative1 content or performance. i. Do not enter bathrooms, changerooms, or anywhere else to ascertain the assigned sex at birth or sex characteristics of people who are there. 14. Require multiple levels of written supervisory approval, including by the chief of police, before an officer can initiate an arrest or investigation for any alleged violation of an anti-abortion, anti trans, or anti-LGBTQ+ law. 15. Ensure that officers and dispatchers are aware of agency policy not to investigate alleged violations of such laws, and that they understand specific laws in the state and locality. 16. Remind officers that they and other people cannot know by looking whether someone is transgender, what their assigned sex at birth was, or whether they are pregnant. a. Do not assume that a person is engaged in sex work based on their gender presentation. b. Do not treat possession of condoms as evidence that a person intends to engage in sex work. 17. Do not treat the presence or existence of a person who is – or is perceived to be – transgender, queer, or gender-expansive as a threat to anyone. 18. Ensure that law enforcement does not interfere with provision of health care. a. Do not station police officers in emergency departments or at hospitals or clinics to investigate patients. b. Do not investigate or interrogate patients or health care providers about a patient’s health care, gender identity, biological sex, pregnancy, health condition, or any reason they may have sought or received medical treatment. c. Do not seek disclosure of patients’ health information or records to investigate any suspected violation of an anti-abortion, anti-trans, or anti-LGBTQ+ law. d. Do not partner with hospitals or health providers to surveil or investigate patients who are pregnant, miscarrying, birthing, thought to be transgender, or suspected of using substances. 19. Do not second-guess medical determinations of whether an abortion procedure was medically necessary within the meaning of a state’s criminal laws. 20. Meet with hospital management, together with local prosecutors – and with physician representatives and emergency health care providers – to understand their concerns about criminal liability and to clarify that police and prosecutors will not second-guess their medical decisions about pregnancy or gender-affirming care   

West Hollywood, CA: Center for Policing Equity, 2024. 35p.

Edited by Andrea Krizsán

Domestic violence, one of the most prevalent forms of gender-based violence, is a policy ield where spectacular progress took place worldwide in the last decades. Importantly the issue was put on the policy agenda across diferent regions and countries almost invariably by women’s movements (Htun and Weldon 2012). Awareness of domestic violence as a policy issue which needs state intervention has also showed spectacular progress in the last decade or so in most countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Yet, considerable variety emerges in the achieved policy outputs and the extent to which these outputs are gender equality sensitive and serve the interests of women victims/survivors (Krizsan and Popa 2014). his volume asks how this variation can be connected to women’s movements in the region. Is women’s rights advocacy and autonomous women’s organizing an equally important component of progress in countries of this region?

The literature on women’s movements in the region has widely discussed their weakness and dependency on foreign donors, in the context of transition to democracy. Weak capacity to mobilize as well as to generate policy change, vulnerability to the inluence of foreign donor agendas, as well as the wide refusal of the feminist label because of its association with the communist project, were among the reasons for skepticism. he very existence and potential of women’s movements was sometimes questioned (McBride and Mazur 2010, Stetson and Mazur 1995, Jaquette and Wolchik 1998, Rueschemeyer 1993, Einhorn 1993). Even though major progress in policies advancing women’s rights took place in the irst two decades after the transition, two main caveats were attached to this progress. On the one hand, the newly adopted policies were attributed to international influence coming from global and regional human rights instruments as well as conditionality linked to European Union accession, rather than women’s rights activism and women’s movements’ mobilization (Avdeyeva 2007, Miroiu 2004). On the other hand, research has shown that many policies were adopted for window-dressing purposes, their implementation failed, was limited or oppositional to the initial gender equality intents, thus, ultimately minimizing their potential for gender transformation. Indeed, gender policies remained largely disconnected from domestic realities and domestic women’s rights advocacy.

While these trends may apply in general terms to post-communist countries, recent research has challenged the idea of regional homogeneity and is increasingly pointing to diversity in terms of gender equality policy processes and their outputs across the diferent countries of the region (Krizsan et al. 2010). In some countries of the region there is a staggering lack of gender equality progress, while other countries are deinitely faring better, adopting better policies, having more participatory policy processes and as a result are better at implementing gender policies. Furthermore, some gender policy issues are discussed more than others, and some bring more gender equality progress than others. Some gendered issues are discussed in more gendered ways, others in either non-gendered or outright hostile ways. he signiicant variation between countries points to the crucial inluence of domestic factors on gender policy change: most importantly for this volume the signiicance of domestic women’s movements and their interactions with domestic structures.

This volume aims to contribute to the debate on gender policy change in Central and Eastern Europe by placing the emphasis on the importance and relevance of domestic policy dynamics, and primarily domestic women’s rights advocacy vis-a-vis the state for understanding gender equality policy change in various countries of the region. It aims to challenge the general understanding about the weakness and lack of capacity of women’s groups for successfully advocating for policy change, and to highlight various domestic dynamics in diferent countries that have led to gender equality sensitive change and success. Our starting point in the volume is that diverse women’s movements exist in the region, and that they are the main protagonists of policy change in this ield in multiple and diferently eicient ways.

Central European University in 2012-2013.

By: Paula Whitacre, Steven Kendall, and Anne-Marie Mazza

The COVID-19 pandemic raised challenging legal and policy issues—as reflected in numerous, often inconsistent, health-related decisions made in the United States at the national, state, and local level and in COVID-related judicial opinions issued after the onset of the pandemic. The response to the pandemic provides an opportunity to consider whether federal, state, and local governments had the necessary authority to deal with the crisis, how authority was applied, whether there was sufficient clarity as to responsibility, and what should be changed for the future.

On May 30–31, 2024, an ad hoc committee under the auspices of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Committee on Science, Technology, and Law (CSTL) convened a virtual workshop to examine the allocation of responsibility among levels of government when dealing with a public health crisis; the extent to which federal, state, and local governments have the necessary authority to act; whether there is sufficient clarity as to which levels of government are responsible for particular actions; and lessons that can be learned from the pandemic to inform government responses to pandemics in the future.

The National Academies Press 2024

By: Timothy R. Wyatt and Conner Gwyn Schenck

Background

State departments of transportation have a continuing need to keep abreast of operating practices and legal elements of specific problems in highway law. The NCHRP Legal Research Digest and the Selected Studies in Transportation Law (SSTL) series are intended to keep departments up-to-date on laws that will affect their operations.

Foreword

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many transportation departments and authorities, their contractors, and consultants looked to the force majeure provisions of their contracts to determine what conditions or terms would govern their performances, what risks and obligations would be upheld, and what potential waivers would apply.

NCHRP LRD 93: Pandemics and Contractual Issues addresses the legal impacts that transportation agencies can expect to have as a result of an unusual occurrence when the nature of the occurrence (e.g., a pandemic) is not explicitly identified in contractual force majeure provisions, and the sufficiency or reasonableness of consequences for noncompliance with contract performance levels and with risk transfers.

This digest focuses on typical force majeure provisions and conditions in transportation construction, maintenance, or toll road operation contracts. It also addresses the legal aspects of government-mandated and imposed quarantine and business disruptions caused by the 2020-21 COVID-19 pandemic.

The digest provides a review of:

• Applicable force majeure clauses and the key criteria and circumstances weighed in favor of the conclusion that force majeure applies;

• How performance, time of completion, and financial provisions in the contracts affected the transportation agency and the contractor;

• The defenses or remedies a transportation agency could assert to counter the claim of force majeure legal arguments to make in support of the declaration of force majeure; and

• How the cost of shortfalls is allocated to each side without the force majeure clause.

This digest will be helpful to all involved in the legal obligations of parties to contracts concerning force majeure impacted by pandemics and other unanticipated occurrences, including attorneys representing transportation departments and authorities, their contractors and consultants, policymakers, local, state, and federal personnel, transportation practitioners, decision-makers, and stakeholders.

The National Academies Press 2024

By David Hausman

Prioritization by criminality, in which noncitizens who have been convicted of serious crimes are deported ahead of those with little or no criminal history, is the most consequential principle governing who is deported from the interior of the United States. This Article argues that, intuitive as prioritization by criminality may appear, it is only rarely justifiable. I show, empirically, that the interior immigration-enforcement system is successful at such prioritization. Being convicted of a crime makes deportation at least a hundred times more likely. And I show that center left attempts to reduce deportations over the last decade have sharpened this prioritization: both sanctuary policies and President Obama’s Priority Enforcement Program, which caused the two largest reductions in interior immigration enforcement in the last decade, prioritized deportations by criminality. Because well under one percent of undocumented noncitizens are deported in any given year, some principle for prioritizing deportations is needed (to the extent that deportations continue at all), but criminality should not be the primary principle. First, the crime-control rationales for punishing noncitizens more severely than citizens convicted of the same crime are surprisingly weak. Second, the immigration-policy rationale for prioritization by criminality is strongest among recent entrants to the United States. The longer a noncitizen has lived in the United States, and the stronger his or her ties here, the less deportation resembles a retroactive admission decision and the more it resembles punishment. Finally, the relationship between ties and criminality is asymmetric: there are better arguments for deporting people with weak  ties and no convictions than for deporting people with strong ties and serious convictions. If noncitizens convicted of crimes were mostly recent entrants, then the current prioritization might make sense. But the limited existing evidence on deportees’ ties to the United States suggests that prioritization by criminality leads the government to target people with deep roots in this country. The result is that interior immigration enforcement functions more as a method of social control of long-term noncitizen residents than as a tool of immigration policy. 

THE GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 110:973 2022

By: Omair Gill, Mia Bird, Johanna Lacoe, Molly Pickard, Steven Raphael and Alissa Skog

Consecutive sentencing is a practice where people serve sentences for separate convictions sequentially rather than concurrently. We analyze the application of consecutive sentences among all people admitted to California’s prisons since 2015, as well as the population of people incarcerated as of March 2023. KEY FINDINGS: • Frequency. Most prison admissions (56%) are ineligible for consecutive sentencing because they do not involve convictions for multiple offenses. Among admissions with multiple convictions, half (51%) receive consecutive sentences. In total, consecutive sentences are applied to less than a quarter of prison admissions in California (22%). • Contribution to sentence length. Overall, the time added by consecutive sentences increases the average prison sentence of the entire prison population by 8.5 months (roughly 13%). ◦ Among those admitted with consecutive sentences, it increases the average sentence by 35%, or three years (from 8.6 to 11.6 years). ◦ Consecutive sentences typically involve either the full sentence for an additional offense tagged on to the primary sentence or an additional sentence equal to one-third the prescribed sentence for the lesser ofense. While only 20% of consecutive sentences are for full additional prison terms (80% are for one-third terms), full-term sentences account for roughly 70% of the additional sentence years added through consecutive sentences since 2015. • Contributing factors. Among cases with multiple convictions, consecutive sentences are more likely to be applied when criminal cases involve offenses that occurred in multiple counties, the offenses are serious or violent, the most serious offense is a crime against a person, or the individual has prior prison admissions for serious or violent crimes. ◦ Multivariate models show that the likelihood of a consecutive sentence increases with the number of prior prison admissions, number of convictions, and age of the person admitted. People admitted with second- and third-strike enhancements are more likely (by roughly 12 to 18 percentage points) to receive consecutive sentences relative to admissions with multiple convictions without these enhancements ◦ Offenses receiving one-third consecutive sentences are more likely to involve property offenses, weapons offenses, as well as offenses like evading a police officer or identity theft. By contrast, the offenses receiving full-term consecutive sentences often involve crimes against a person, child victims, and various sex offenses. • County variation. The use of consecutive sentences varies across the state. Counties in far Northern California, excluding the coast, as well as those in the Central Valley, are more likely to impose consecutive sentences. Bay Area counties and most counties in Southern California are less likely to impose consecutive sentences. ◦ Average differences across counties in the types of cases resulting in a prison admission do not explain cross-county differences in the use of consecutive sentencing. ◦ American Indian/Alaskan Native and White people are more likely to receive consecutive sentences largely because they tend to be convicted in counties that are more likely to use consecutive sentencing. The opposite is true for Black, Hispanic, and Asian people. .   

Los Angeles: California Policy Lab, 2024. 39p.

Edited by Steven Teutsch, Yasmin Hurd, and Elizabeth Boyle

Over the past several decades, more than half of all U.S. states have legalized cannabis for adult and/or medical use, but it remains illegal at the federal level. The public health consequences of cannabis policy changes have not been comprehensively evaluated. Therefore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health tasked the National Academies with reviewing cannabis and cannabinoid availability in the U.S., assessing regulatory frameworks for the industry with an emphasis on equity, and describing the strengths and weaknesses of surveillance systems for cannabis. The resulting report finds that there has been limited federal guidance to states regarding protecting public health, which has led to inconsistent protection across the states. The report recommends a strategy to minimize public health harms through stronger federal leadership, a robust research agenda, and more.

Washington DC: National Academies Press, 2024. 340p.

By Malore Dusenbery, Joshua Fording, and Jennifer Yahner with Jeanette Hussemann and Robbie Dembo  

Victims of crime can experience serious harm and face significant costs with long-term implications for their economic security and safety. From 2022 to 2024, the Urban Institute and NORC at the University of Chicago conducted a National Study of Victim Compensation Program Trends, Challenges, and Successes, which included evaluations of four state crime victim compensation programs. This brief summarizes our evaluation of Delaware’s victim compensation program to understand its utilization and professionals’ and victim claimants’ perspectives on its ability to meet victims’ needs. We conclude that the Delaware compensation program is well-respected by and connected to providers in the community and provides valuable benefits to victims in a mostly efficient, effective, and responsive way. Program staff and assistance providers noted great improvement in the program’s functioning since it switched from oversight by a board to the current structure that standardizes decision-making by investigative staff. Being located in the state’s Department of Justice allows for efficiency with legal system agencies, though it may increase distrust among some communities. The compensation program recently enacted several major changes to improve its comprehensiveness, efficiency, and accessibility; these included introducing an online application and portal, removing the statutory cap on the number of program staff, and changing the contributory conduct policy. While we saw some effects of these changes in the data, we encourage the program to identify the effects of these changes through ongoing assessment (particularly effects on racial disparities for Black and Hispanic claimants) and to find new areas for improvement. Many disparities in the data related to race and gender are attributable to differences in the crimes experienced and reported by different racial and gender groups, which receive different amounts of compensation. Future research could dive deeper into these findings to better understand these patterns. The professionals interviewed also suggested that further legislative changes be made to law enforcement cooperation requirements to more consistently address differences in denial rates for groups with greater distrust of the legal system. Professionals in the compensation program and providers in the community offered recommendations for improving Delaware’s victim compensation program regarding victim awareness and accessibility, program staffing, compensation coverage, and program funding. A number of additional recommendations focused on policy changes to the compensation program’s coverage. In general, compensation staff and assistance providers we interviewed would like to increase many of the amounts covered in response to rising costs. They would also like to see the program include other costs and crimes, such as mental health benefits for witnesses of homicide or mass casualty events, more coverage for attorneys’ fees and damaged or stolen goods, or mental health care for past trauma triggered by the covered crime. Many of these findings and recommendations align with those emerging nationally in conversations about how to improve victim compensation programs. We are grateful that programs such as Delaware’s remain open to evaluation and eager to understand how to continue expanding and improving their accessibility, responsiveness, and compensation coverage to provide meaningful benefits to victims in need.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2024. 23p.

By Mary Catlin, David Wilson, Allison D. Redlich, Talley Bettens, Christian Meissner, Sujeeta Bhatt, Susan Brandon

Background

False confessions are often the product of an interrogation process, and the method by which an interrogation is conducted likely affects both the rate of truthful confessions and false confessions. An optimal interrogation method will maximize the former and minimize the latter.

Objectives

The current study was a partial update and extension of Meissner and colleagues' (2012) prior Campbell systematic review titled Interview and Interrogation Methods and their Effects on True and False Confessions. Our objective was to assess the effects of the interrogation approach on the rates of true and false confessions for criminal (mock) suspects.

Search Methods

PsycINFO, Criminal Justice Abstracts, and 15 other databases were searched starting October 20, 2022, with the final search conducted on May 23, 2023; together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with authors to identify additional studies.

Selection Criteria

All eligible studies experimentally manipulated interrogation approaches (i.e., accusatorial, information-gathering, or direct questioning) were conducted with mock suspects accused of wrongdoing where ground truth was known and included information about confession rates.

Data Collection and Analysis

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Campbell Collaboration for our selection of studies and data collection. However, we developed our own risk of bias items and analyzed our data using network meta-analysis methods. Data were synthesized via random-effects network meta-analysis based on the logged odds ratio.

Main Results

Across the 27 research articles that provided statistical information sufficient to calculate an effect size, 29 individual studies provided a total of 81 effect sizes. Most studies were conducted with college students in the United States. Overall, our risk of bias assessment indicated that authors generally adhered to double-blind procedures and avoided selective reporting of outcomes. Of note, however, it was often unclear how violations of the randomization process were dealt with.

For true confessions, there were 12 studies estimating the effect between accusatorial and direct questioning, five estimating the effect between information-gathering and direct questioning, and another five estimating the effect between accusatorial and information-gathering. Compared to information-gathering, on average, the accusatorial conditions observed fewer true confessions, although not statistically significant (combined OR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.29, 1.05). The largest effects were between information-gathering and direct questioning, with the former producing significantly more true confessions on average (combined OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.29, 4.59). This model showed good consistency between the direct and indirect effects.

For false confessions, there were 20 studies estimating the effect between accusatorial and direct questioning, 4 studies estimating the effect between information-gathering and direct questioning, and 7 estimating the effect between accusatorial and information-gathering. On average, accusatorial conditions yielded more false confessions than direct questioning (combined OR = 3.03, 95% CI 1.83, 5.02) or information-gathering (combined OR = 4.41, 95% CI 1.77, 10.97), both of which are statistically significant. In contrast, direct questioning and information-gathering had roughly similar rates of false confessions with nonsignificant and small effects that slightly favored information-gathering (combined OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.27, 1.78). This model showed good consistency between the direct and indirect effects.

For true confessions under a six-node model, most of the direct, indirect, and combined network estimated mean odds ratios were not statistically significant. The only significant effects were for (1) information-gathering versus direct questioning, with the former resulting in more true confessions (combined OR = 2.57, 95% CI 1.38, 4.78); and (2) accusatorial-evidence ploy versus information-gathering with the former resulting in fewer true confessions (combined OR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.16, 0.84).

For false confessions under a six-node model, we found significant effects for (1) accusatorial-evidence ploys versus direct questioning, with the former resulting in more false confessions (combined OR = 2.98, 95% CI 1.59, 5.59); (2) accusatorial-evidence ploys versus information-gathering, with the former resulting in more false confessions (combined OR = 4.47, 95% CI 1.46, 13.68); (3) accusatorial-other versus direct questioning, with the former resulting in more false confessions (combined OR = 3.12, 95% CI 1.37, 7.10); (4) accusatorial-other versus information-gathering, with the former resulting in more false confessions (combined OR = 4.67, 95% CI 1.61, 13.55); and (5) information-gathering versus minimization, with the latter resulting in more false confessions (combined OR = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.08, 0.83). No other combined effects were significant. This model should be interpreted cautiously, however, as the Q statistics raised concerns regarding model consistency.

Author's Conclusions

Overall, results support calls for reforming policies related to interviewing and interrogation practices to prohibit the use of accusatorial approaches and require the adoption of science-based approaches.

Campbell Systematic Reviews Volume 20, Issue 4 December 2024

By MacArthur Foundation

The fair and just treatment of racial and ethnic minorities at all stages of the criminal justice system is of significant importance to communities of color, practitioners, and scholars alike. Central to this discourse is a recognition of the discretionary power that prosecutors wield in shaping the outcomes of criminal cases. This includes, among other things, the decision to file or drop a case, amend the severity and number of charges, and dispose of criminal cases through plea bargaining. This report focuses on the outcomes of prosecutorial decision making in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. Specifically, it assesses the extent to which racial and ethnic disparities exist across the following five decision points in criminal case processing: (1) Case charging; (2) Charge changes from arrest to charging; (3) Disposition type; (4) Charge changes from charging to disposition; and (5) Sentencing. We encourage the reader to interpret the results while recognizing that criminal case processing can trigger disparate outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities for a number of different reasons. Some of these reasons, such as defense attorney role and judicial discretion, are beyond the immediate control of prosecutors. At the same time, our partners are keenly aware that prosecutors can and should play a vital role in uncovering and addressing racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system, and this report stems from that recognition. The intent of this report is to prompt discussion and raise questions, rather than provide definitive answers. We also want to stress that the findings presented throughout this report cannot be used to support or refute possible racial and ethnic biases. Our methodology simply does not permit that. Rather than serving as an end point, we view this report as a starting point from which to engage in meaningful discussions concerning policies and procedures that can ameliorate racial and ethnic disparities in case outcomes. Furthermore, given that prosecutorial decision making does not operate in a vacuum, certain findings direct attention to ways district attorney’s offices, the defense bar, law enforcement agencies, and the judiciary can galvanize future reform efforts. Even more importantly, continued efforts to engage with minority communities will be critical for increasing public trust in and cooperation with the criminal justice system. This report is part of a series of publications resulting from this partnership. The first report, Prosecutorial Attitudes, Perspectives, and Priorities: Insights from the Inside, was released in December, 2018. The second report, Race, Ethnicity and Prosecution in Hillsborough County, Florida, was released in July, 2019. The final report in the series, focused on prosecutorial performance indicators, will be released near the end of 2019.   

2019. 62p.

By Florida International University and Loyola University Chicago

This project is a groundbreaking partnership between prosecutors and researchers to promote more effective, just, and transparent decision-making in prosecution. It is a bipartisan effort to be smart on crime, to think about new ways to maximize public safety, to enhance fairness, and to create a new system of accountability to the public. It involves four forward-thinking prosecutors in Cook County (IL), Jacksonville (FL), Milwaukee County (WI), and Tampa (FL) working with researchers at Florida International University and Loyola University Chicago to take a new look at prosecutorial performance and decision-making. This partnership is supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Improving prosecutorial performance and decision-making is impossible without data. Data takes center stage in the project because it tells prosecutors what problems are the biggest threats to community well-being, and it points to ways to tackle those problems. Data helps measure the overall impact of prosecutors’ work, and it alerts them that a policy or practice needs to be continued or changed. Unfortunately, most prosecutors’ offices cannot collect, analyze, and apply data to these ends. Many offices do not record the data they need. Others are missing the staff and knowledge necessary to analyze their data. Still other offices—probably most—do not have the ability and commitment to use data to guide their decisions and reforms. This project focuses on helping our partner offices and other interested jurisdictions overcome these hurdles. The project has four distinct objectives: What The Project Is About While the project targets performance in our four partner jurisdictions, it also aims to use the knowledge generated from this experiment to advance the field of prosecution nationally. There are more than 2,300 local prosecutors’ offices in the United States, but very few organizations specialize in prosecutorial research and technical assistance. Realistically, most prosecutors’ offices will not receive any direct meaningful assistance. By building sustainable data collection, performance measurement, and communication practices for the four offices, this project provides a set of blueprints that offices across the country can use to make their own internal improvements. We realize there is no one-size-fits-all approach to prosecutorial office management that will meet every office’s needs. Writing a prescription for a patient we have not examined is hard. However, the project provides a model that other offices can use to start thinking about forming local partnerships, improving data capacity, and producing metrics for assessing their own impact. The backdrop for this project is the Safety & Justice Challenge, the MacArthur Foundation initiative to reduce jail misuse and overuse as both a crucial component and a major driver of America’s over-reliance on incarceration. Unnecessary jail incarceration carries significant costs to individuals, families, communities, and society at large. These costs take their greatest toll on low-income people and communities of color. The Safety & Justice Challenge supports local leaders who are dedicated to safely reducing jail populations, improving justice systems, and ultimately strengthening their communities. To expand offices’ data and analytical capacity by assessing case management systems, making better use of existing data, and exploring options for capturing new information without creating additional burdens for prosecutors. To assist prosecutors with tracking their progress toward greater efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness using prosecutorial performance indicators at the office and unit levels (as opposed to the individual prosecutor level). To identify possible racial and ethnic disparities at various stages of case processing across offense categories, and to work with stakeholders to develop specific solutions to reduce them. To establish a practice of using data to measure monthly or quarterly performance and engage with the communities While the project targets performance in our four partner jurisdictions, it also aims to use the knowledge generated from this experiment to advance the field of prosecution nationally. There are more than 2,300 local prosecutors’ offices in the United States, but very few organizations specialize in prosecutorial research and technical assistance. Realistically, most prosecutors’ offices will not receive any direct meaningful assistance. By building sustainable data collection, performance measurement, and communication practices for the four offices, this project provides a set of blueprints that offices across the country can use to make their internal improvements. We realize there is no one-size-fits-all approach to prosecutorial office management that will meet every office’s needs. Prescribing for a patient we have not examined is hard. However, the project provides a model that other offices can use to start thinking about forming local partnerships, improving data capacity, and producing metrics for assessing their impact. The backdrop for this project is the Safety & Justice Challenge, the MacArthur Foundation initiative to reduce jail misuse and overuse as both a crucial component and a major driver of America’s over-reliance on incarceration. Unnecessary jail incarceration carries significant costs to individuals, families, communities, and society at large. These costs take their greatest toll on low-income people and communities of color. The Safety & Justice Challenge supports local leaders who are dedicated to safely reducing jail populations, improving justice systems, and ultimately strengthening their communities. This report presents findings from an assessment of racial and ethnic disparities in prosecution and sentencing in Cook County, Illinois. Multiple decision points are analyzed, including case charging, changes in charge severity from arrest to charging, disposition type, changes in charge severity from charging to conviction, and sentencing. Because the findings vary by decision points and offense categories, each finding should be examined and assessed independently

Miami; Florida International University and Chicago: Loyola University Chicago, 2019. 50p.

By Florida International University and Loyola University Chicago

Diversion is increasingly used by prosecutors in the United States. As an alternative to formal prosecution, diversion programs provide opportunities to avoid conviction, address substance use and mental health needs, and maintain employment and community ties. However, the diversion process can be a source of racial and ethnic disparities. Who gets diverted and who completes diversion successfully has a lot to do with income. Irrespective of skin color, poor individuals are disadvantaged for a variety of reasons, ranging from the quality of legal advice to hefty fees. While we acknowledge that diversion differences can stem from socioeconomic factors, this report focuses specifically on how race and ethnicity influence diversion decisions.

Miami: FIU; Chicago: Loyola University Chicago: 2021. 26p.

By Lee Kovarsky  

The tailwinds might be behind criminal justice reform, but American mercy power remains locked in a sputtering clemency model. Centralized leadership should be braver or the centralized institutions should be streamlined, the arguments go—but what if the more basic mercy problem is centralization itself? In this essay, I explore that question. In so doing, I defend the normative premise that post-conviction mercy is justified, and I address the questions of institutional design and political economy that follow. I ultimately encourage jurisdictions to layer decentralized mercy powers on top of their clemency mechanisms, and for the newer authority to be vested in local prosecutors. I present less a single proposal than a collection of principles for mercy decentralization. Governors and presidents simply cannot deliver the punishment remissions appropriate for an American prison population bloated by a half-century love affair with over-criminalization, mandatory minimums, and recidivism enhancements.  

24 New Criminal L. Rev. 326 (2021)