By Matthew Clair, Jesus Orozco, and Iris H. Zhang

This article theorizes how space shapes access to state institutions, and with what consequences. Drawing on 125 interviews and over 400 hours of ethnographic observations concerning two criminal courthouses within the same county, we identify four spatial features that differentially shape access while working alongside institutional rules and norms: functional distance, neighborhood social life, exterior built forms, and interior built forms. When they constrain access, these features constitute spatial burdens, which contribute to distinct institutional and collateral costs concentrated among marginalized groups. We theorize how these costs likely reproduce systemic patterns of inequality by extending people’s burdensome interactions with the state institution they seek to access and compelling them to interact with other state institutions that further the state’s power over their lives. The theory of spatial burdens has implications for the study of poverty governance and institutional inequality.

Social Service Review, October 2024, 72 p.

By Terry-Ann Craigie

Ban the Box (BTB) policies mandate deferred access to criminal history until later in the hiring process. However, these policies chiefly target public employers. The study is the first to focus on the primary goal of BTB reform, by measuring the impact of BTB policies on the probability of public employment for those with convictions. To execute the analyses, the study uses data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 Cohort (2005–2015) and difference-in-difference (DD) estimation. The study finds that BTB policies raise the probability of public employment for those with convictions by about 30% on average. Some scholars argue that BTB policies encourage statistical discrimination against young low-skilled minority males. The study employs triple-difference (DDD) estimation to test for statistical discrimination, but uncovers no evidence to support the hypothesis.

Economic Inquiry, Volume 58, Issue 1 Jan 2020, 75p.

By The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General

  In the aftermath of the riot and breach of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, among the questions that were raised was how the breach had occurred and what was known by federal law enforcement in advance of January 6 about the possibility of a violent protest that day. On January 15, 2021, the Department of Justice (Department or DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) announced its review to examine the role and activity of DOJ and its components in preparing for and responding to the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Separately, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department prosecutors immediately began criminally investigating individuals who violated federal law in connection with the riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6. The Department—through the U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) for the District of Columbia (DC)— has reported that it has brought charges against over 1,500 individuals and described the January 6 investigations and prosecutions as having “moved forward at an unprecedented speed and scale.” In the public announcement of our review of the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, we took note of these ongoing criminal prosecutions, stating that the OIG was “mindful of the sensitive nature of the ongoing criminal investigations and prosecutions related to the events of January 6. Consistent with longstanding OIG practice, in conducting this review, the DOJ OIG will take care to ensure that the review does not interfere with these investigations or prosecutions.” As is customary for the OIG, we coordinated closely with the Department and the DC USAO to ensure that the OIG’s investigative work did not conflict with or compromise any ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution. To that end, and consistent with OIG practice, in spring 2022 the OIG paused aspects of our review. 1 Once the OIG determined last year, after consultation with federal prosecutors, that our review would no longer potentially interfere with pending prosecutions, we resumed our review. In doing so, we were cognizant of the amount of time that had passed in deference to the ongoing criminal investigations and prosecutions, as well as the number of other non-DOJ OIG oversight reports that have since been publicly released regarding the January 6 events, and we therefore decided to largely focus our inquiry on an issue that has not yet been thoroughly reviewed in oversight conducted by other entities, namely the FBI’s direction and handling of its confidential human sources (CHS) in the lead-up to and on January 6, and whether the FBI exploited its CHSs and other available information to determine the nature of threats in advance of the electoral vote certification on January 6. In addition to the DOJ OIG’s oversight efforts reflected in this report, several other Inspectors General have conducted reviews of their agency’s actions in connection with the events of January 6:  The U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) OIG immediately began a review to determine if the USCP, which is responsible for policing the Capitol Complex, (1) established adequate measures for ensuring the safety and security of the Capitol Complex as well as Members of Congress, (2) established adequate  internal controls and processes for ensuring compliance with Department policies, and (3) complied with applicable policies and procedures as well as applicable laws and regulations.  The Department of Defense (DoD) OIG initiated a review of the relevant events leading up to January 6, including the DoD’s review and approval of the DC government’s request for assistance from the DC National Guard; DoD’s coordination with DC and federal officials in preparation for January 6; DoD’s receipt and approval of the USCP’s request for assistance on January 6; and the planning involved for National Guard forces to help secure the Capitol in the immediate aftermath of the riot.  The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) OIG began a review to examine the role and activity of DHS and its components in preparing for and responding to the events of January 6, 2021, including DHS’s Office of Intelligence & Analysis’s responsibility for providing intelligence to law enforcement and DHS law enforcement components’ roles, responsibilities, and actions on January 6. The U.S. Secret Service (USSS), which was responsible for protecting then Vice President Mike Pence on January 6 during his time at the U.S. Capitol, is a law enforcement component within DHS. In addition, DHS is responsible for designating an event as a national special security event (NSSE) or as a Special Event Assessment Rating (SEAR) event, which it did not do for the electoral vote certification on January 6. 2 The FBI defines a special event as a “significant international event or a domestic event” formally designated as an NSSE event or a SEAR event, which requires the FBI “to plan, coordinate, develop, or provide FBI resources to mitigate potential threats the special event may cause to national security or threats of significant criminal activity that the FBI is responsible for identifying, preventing, investigating, or disrupting.”  The Department of Interior (DOI) OIG initiated a review of the actions of the National Park Service (NPS) and the U.S. Park Police (USPP) in preparing for and responding to the events at the Ellipse and the Capitol on January 6 and in information-sharing between the NPS, the USPP, and their law enforcement partners. The demonstration that preceded the violence at the Capitol occurred at the Ellipse, which is part of President’s Park—a national park under the control of the NPS. The USPP is a unit of the NPS authorized to conduct law enforcement in the national park system and, pursuant to local statutes, within DC generally. A further oversight effort was undertaken by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), at the request of Congress, which announced that it would conduct “a comprehensive overview of events leading up to, during, and following the January 6 attack.” The U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives also conducted oversight regarding the events of January 6. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (HSGAC) together with the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration (RAC) announced a joint investigation on January 8, 2021, to “examine the intelligence and security failures” that led to the events of January 6. On January 12, 2021, the House of Representatives and Senate leadership were briefed by senior FBI officials about the FBI’s posture leading up to January 6, its response and investigation into the events of January 6, and the threat picture and operational posture leading into the Inauguration on January 20, 2021. Subsequently, numerous congressional committee hearings addressed how various federal agencies prepared in advance of the January 6 Electoral Certification and how they responded on January 6, with the first one being held by the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee on January 26, 2021. In early March 2021, HSGAC/RAC jointly held an oversight hearing that included testimony from the FBI, Hearing Examining the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol, Part II, as well as from non-FBI witnesses. On June 30, 2021, the House of Representatives established a 13-member Select Committee to investigate the rioting and breaching of the Capitol on January 6, named the “House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol” (House Select Committee). The House Select Committee held 10 televised hearings beginning on June 9, 2022, and concluded the last hearing on December 19, 2022. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, 2024. 88p.

By Deniz Arıtürk , Michele M. Easter , Jeffrey W. Swanson, and Marvin S. Swartz

Despite significant scholarship, research, and funding dedicated to implementing criminal diversion programs over the past two decades, persons with serious mental illness and substance use disorders remain substantially overrepresented in United States jails and prisons. Why are so many U.S. adults with behavioral health problems incarcerated instead of receiving treatment and other support to recover in the community? In this paper, we explore this persistent problem within the context of “relentless unmet need” in U.S. behavioral health (Alegría et al., 2021). 

  The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 52 (2024): 65-75 

Stephen's New Commentaries on the Laws of England is a comprehensive legal treatise authored by Henry John Stephen. Published in the 19th century, this work is partly founded on Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. Stephen's Commentaries aim to update and expand upon Blackstone's original work, reflecting changes and developments in English law since Blackstone's time.The Commentaries are divided into multiple volumes, each addressing different aspects of English law. They provide detailed explanations and interpretations of legal principles, making them a valuable resource for legal professionals, scholars, and students. Stephen's work is known for its clarity and thoroughness, helping to bridge the gap between historical legal doctrines and contemporary legal practice.

The Blackstone Commentaries on Criminal Law are part of Sir William Blackstone's influential 18th-century work, Commentaries on the Laws of England. This comprehensive treatise, published between 1765 and 1769, is divided into four volumes. The fourth volume, "Of Public Wrongs," focuses on criminal law. The other volumes are "Of the Rights of Persons," "Of the Rights of Things," and "Of Private Wrongs. "”

In "Of Public Wrongs," Blackstone provides a detailed examination of the criminal laws of England, aiming to demonstrate their justice and mercy. Despite the severe penalties of the time, later known as the "Bloody Code," Blackstone's work sought to rationalize and justify the legal system's approach to crime and punishment.

The Commentaries were groundbreaking for their readability and accessibility, making complex legal principles understandable to a broader audience. They played a significant role in the development of both British and American legal systems and continue to be referenced in legal education and court decision

Professor Nadja Capus, Dr Cornelia Griebel, and Dr Ivana Havelka

This is an open access title available under the terms of a CC-BY-4.0 License. It is free to read, download and share on Elgaronline.com. Multilingual Communications Surveillance In Criminal Law highlights the vital yet overlooked roles of Intercept Interpreters and Translators (IITs) in criminal justice operations. Nadja Capus, Cornelia Griebel and Ivana Havelka conduct an interdisciplinary investigation, exploring IITs navigation of complex legal, linguistic and translational challenges. They advocate for improved practices to ensure quality, fairness and integrity in investigations within criminal proceedings when communication is monitored in multiple languages.

Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK · Northampton, MA, USA, Swiss National Science Foundation, 2024, 218p.

By Rachel Rogers and Susan VanderPlas

We investigate how the use of bullet comparison algorithms and demonstrative evidence may affect juror perceptions of reliability, credibility, and understanding of expert witnesses and presented evidence. The use of statistical methods in forensic science is motivated by a lack of scientific validity and error rate issues present in many forensic analysis methods. We explore what our study says about how this type of forensic evidence is perceived in the courtroom – where individuals unfamiliar with advanced statistical methods are asked to evaluate results in order to assess guilt. In the course of our initial study, we found that individuals overwhelmingly provided high Likert scale ratings in reliability, credibility, and scientifically regardless of experimental condition. This discovery of scale compression - where responses are limited to a few values on a larger scale, despite experimental manipulations - limits statistical modeling but provides opportunities for new experimental manipulations which may improve future studies in this area

Journal of Data Science; Volume 22, Issue 2, 2024, 19p.

By Nicholas Dempsey , Reena Sarkar , & Richard Bassed

The remains of unlawfully killed individuals can provide evidence concerning human rights violations. The intricate challenges of extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances can complicate legal and procedural processes. These cases often present indicators of suspicious circumstances, necessitating specialised investigative approaches to ascertain the circumstance and cause of death as well as potential human rights violations. This review explores the legal and procedural dimensions of handling the remains of individuals who have been unlawfully killed, critically examining the implementation of legal instruments and their impact on the sociocultural and political landscape regarding cases of extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances. This study utilised a Python-based web scraper, with an HTML parsing library to aggregate articles on three themes of 1) International law, humanitarian law and laws protecting human remains 2), protection of human remains in cases of extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances and 3), Considerations of socio-cultural, psychosocial factors in the protection of human remains and institutional failures. The programming-based method for locating articles is innovative, and the search covered both English and Spanish languages. This review establishes the tension between psychosocial/cultural requirements and legal practice, and describes community mechanisms such as social services, mental health support for affected families, and citizen initiatives. By emphasising the gap between legal standards and practical execution, the study highlights the need to refine legal guidance and strengthen procedura

Forensic Science International, Volume 366, January 2025, 13p.

By The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Arkansas Advisory Committee

On January 19, 2024, the Arkansas Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights adopted a proposal to study the right to counsel for indigent defendants in Arkansas. The focus of the Committee’s inquiry was to examine the role public defenders play in ensuring equal protection of the laws in the administration of justice. The Committee considered public investment and funding available to support the right to counsel for those who cannot afford it and the impact such counsel (or the lack thereof) may have on persistent disparities throughout the criminal justice system based on race, color, sex, disability, and national origin.

Washington, DC: USCCR, 2024. 27p.

By Kyra Hanemaaijer, Nadine Ketel, Olivier Marie 

When decision-makers overemphasize salient features under limited attention, biased decisions can result in settings in which decisions should be unbiased. We exploit a sudden shock in the salience of individuals of Moroccan descent in the Netherlands to test the vulnerability of decisions of various actors in the Dutch criminal justice system to biases. Using high-quality data on decisions made from arrest through appeal in the Dutch CJS, we find that the sentence length of individuals of Moroccan descent convicted of a crime increased by 79% after the shock. Heterogeneity analyses indicate that more-experienced judges mitigate this effect. Finally, we find suggestive evidence of longer-term costs for defendants of Moroccan descent in that their labor income drops by 40% over the four years following their judgment of conviction. 

Bonn:  IZA – Institute of Labor Economics, 2024, 54p.

By Peter Leasure

The current paper aimed to estimate the likelihood of an OVI (operating vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs) arrest across race/ethnicity and gender using data from the Ohio State Highway Patrol (OSHP). Black and Hispanic males and females had higher probabilities of an OVI arrest than White males and females. However, males and females in the other category had lower probabilities of an OVI arrest than White males and females. For gender differences, males in all race/ethnicity categories had higher probabilities of an OVI arrest than females. 

Ohio State Legal Studies Research Paper No. 886 Columbus: Ohio State University (OSU) - Michael E. Moritz College of Law, 2024. 11p.

By Johanna Lacoe, Brett Fischer & Steven Raphael 

Objectives

Low-income individuals facing criminal charges experience disproportionately high rates of pretrial detention and conviction. We study a pilot program in Santa Clara County, CA that aims to address this inequity by providing access to public defenders immediately following arrest.

Methods

The Santa Clara Public Defender agreed to provide pilot services one day per week, rotating the intervention day across weeks. Individuals booked on an intervention day were eligible for early legal representation, while individuals booked on control days received public defender services as usual. The study leverages the rotating treatment day to compare pretrial release and case outcomes between eligible individuals booked on treatment days and eligible individuals booked on control days.

Results

Pilot program participants were 28 percentage points more likely to secure pretrial release, and 36 percentage points more likely to see their cases dismissed, relative to comparable individuals who generally first meet with their public defender at arraignment.

Conclusions

Providing prompt access to legal representation could improve release and case outcomes for low-income individuals and the efficacy of public defense.

Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2024.

By Christopher Uggen, Ryan Larson, Sarah Shannon, Robert Stewart and Molly Hauf

  Laws in 48 U.S. states ban people with felony convictions from voting. In 2024, an estimated 4 million Americans, representing 1.7% of the voting-age population, will be ineligible to vote due to these laws, many of which date back to the post-Reconstruction era. In this historic election year, questions persist about the stability of democratic institutions, election fairness, and voter suppression in marginalized communities. The systematic exclusion of millions with felony convictions should be front and center in these debates.

This report updates and expands upon a quarter century of work chronicling the scope and distribution of felony disenfranchisement in the United States.1 As in 2022, we present national and state estimates of the number and percentage of people disenfranchised due to felony convictions, as well as the number and percentage of the Black and Latino populations impacted. This year, we also present state-level data on the degree of disenfranchisement among men and women. Although these and other estimates must be interpreted with caution, the numbers presented here represent our best assessment of the state of U.S. felony disenfranchisement as of the November 2024 election. Among the report’s key findings: • An estimated 4 million people are disenfranchised due to a felony conviction, a figure that has declined by 31% since 2016, as more states enacted policies to curtail this practice and state prison, probation, and parole populations declined. Previous research finds there were an estimated 1.2 million people disenfranchised in 1976, 3.3 million in 1996, 4.6 million in 2000, 5.1 million in 2004, 5.7 million in 2010, 5.9 million in 2016, 4.9 million in 2020, and 4.4 million in 2022.2 • One out of 59 adult citizens – 1.7% of the total U.S. voting eligible population – is disenfranchised due to a current or previous felony conviction. • Seven out of 10 people disenfranchised are living in their communities, having fully completed their sentences or remaining supervised while on felony probation or parole. • In two states – Florida and Tennessee – more than 6% of the adult population, one of every 17 adults, is disenfranchised. • Florida remains the nation’s disenfranchisement leader in absolute numbers, with over 961,000 people currently banned from voting, often because they cannot afford to pay court-ordered monetary sanctions. An estimated 730,000 Floridians who have completed their sentences remain disenfranchised, despite a 2018 ballot referendum that promised to restore their voting rights. • One in 22 African Americans of voting age is disenfranchised, a rate more than triple that of non-African Americans. Among the adult African American population, 4.5% is disenfranchised compared to 1.3% of the adult non-African American population. In 15 states, 5% or more of the African American adult population is banned from voting due to a felony conviction. • More than one in 10 African American adults is disenfranchised in five states – Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, South Dakota, and Tennessee. • Although data on ethnicity in correctional populations are unevenly reported and undercounted in some states, a conservative estimate is that at least 495,000 Latino Americans or 1.5% of the voting eligible population are disenfranchised. • Based on available correctional data that records an individual’s sex, approximately 764,000 women are disenfranchised, comprising about 0.6% of the female voting eligible population and approximately one-fifth of the total disenfranchised population.3 We estimate that approximately 3.2 million men or 2.7% of the male voting eligible population is disenfranchised, consistent with the overrepresentation of men in the criminal legal system.   

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2024. 40p.

By Robin M. Maher, Leah Roemer

While all eyes are on the race for U.S. President, it is local races for prosecutor, state judge, legislator, and governor that will decide whether and how the death penalty is used. The President only has jurisdiction over federal death penalty cases, which currently represent about 2% of all death row prisoners and 1% of all executions carried out in the U.S. since 1976. He or she selects the Attorney General, who determines whether to seek death sentences in eligible federal cases and how to defend existing federal death sentences. The President also has clemency power for people convicted of federal crimes, including those on federal death row. 

Washington, DC: Death Penalty Information Center, 2024. 32p.

By Jane Arnold Lincove, Catherine Mata & Kalena Cortes

This research analyzes the implementation of a school suspension ban in Maryland to investigate whether a top-down state-initiated ban on suspensions in early primary grades can influence school behavior regarding school discipline. Beginning in the fall of 2017, the State of Maryland banned the use of out-of-school suspensions for grades PK-2, unless a student posed an "imminent threat" to staff or students. This research investigates (1) what was the effect of the ban on discipline outcomes for students in both treated grades and upper elementary grades not subject to the ban. (2) did schools bypass the ban by coding more events as threatening or increasing the use of in-school suspensions? and (3) Were there differential effects for students in groups that are historically suspended more often? Using a comparative interrupted time series strategy, we find that the ban is associated with a substantial reduction in, but not a total elimination of, out-of-school suspensions for targeted grades without substitution of in-school suspensions. Disproportionalities by race and other characteristics remain after the ban. Grades not subject to the ban experienced few effects, suggesting the ban did not trigger a schoolwide response that reduced exclusionary discipline.

Bonn:  IZA – Institute of Labor Economics, 2024. 65p.

By the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR)

Meaningful federal guidelines and oversight for responsible FRT use have lagged behind the application of this technology in real-world scenarios. With the advent of biometric technology and its widespread use by both private and government entities, the Commission studied how the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are utilizing this technology, in compliance with existing civil rights laws. Currently, there are no laws that expressly regulate the use of FRT or other AI by the federal government, and no constitutional provisions governing its use.

Washington DC: USCCR,, 2024. 194p.

By The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Arkansas Advisory Committee

On January 19, 2024, the Arkansas Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights adopted a proposal to study the right to counsel for indigent defendants in Arkansas. The focus of the Committee’s inquiry was to examine the role public defenders play in ensuring equal protection of the laws in the administration of justice. The Committee considered a public investment and funding available to support the right to counsel for those who cannot afford it and the impact such counsel (or the lack thereof) may have on persistent disparities throughout the criminal justice system based on race, color, sex, disability, and national origin.

Washington, DC: USCCR, 2024. 27p.

By Johanna Lacoe, Alissa Skog, Mia Bird

Pretrial reform is driving criminal justice policy debates across the nation. The In re Humphrey decision required the San Francisco County criminal court to set bail levels based on defendant ability to pay rather than the county bail schedule. Under this new policy, the rate of pretrial detention fell by 11%. We find defendants released pretrial were less likely to be convicted (a decline of 3 percentage points) in the post-Humphrey period. This decline in conviction rates was driven primarily by a reduction in the likelihood of plea bargaining. These case outcome results are robust to an alternative strategy using propensity score matching and a difference-in-difference estimator to estimate effects for those most likely to be affected by the policy change. There was no consistent, statistically significant change in subsequent arrests or convictions post-Humphrey across the estimation strategies.

Policy Implications

Although the Humphrey decision originally applied only to San Francisco, a state supreme court decision in March 2021 extended the ruling to courts throughout California. The results also have implications for other states engaged in bail reform. These findings suggest that requiring bail to be set at affordable levels increases pretrial releases overall, specifically releases to pretrial supervision programs, with improvements in case outcomes and no apparent increase in subsequent criminal justice system contact. Counties or states without robust pretrial service options may not experience the same change in releases or other outcomes. Further, jurisdictions that detain people booked on lower-level offenses at higher rates than San Francisco may experience a greater response to a policy change like Humphrey.

Criminology & Public Policy, 1–Nov. 2024.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12688

By Christoph Feldhaus, Lukas Reinhardt, Matthias Sutter:

In a democracy, it is essential that citizens accept rules and laws, regardless of which party is in power. We study why citizens in polarized societies resist rules implemented by political opponents. This may be due to the rules' specific content, but also because of a general preference against being restricted by political opponents. We develop a method to measure the latter channel. In our experiment with almost 1,300 supporters and opponents of Donald Trump, we show that polarization undermines rule-following behavior significantly, independent of the rules' content. Subjects perceive the intentions behind (identical) rules as much more malevolent if they were imposed by a political opponent rather than a political ally.

Bonn:  IZA – Institute of Labor Economics, 2024. 36p.