By Kristine Denman and Ella Siegrist  

The New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center received funding from the Bureau of Justice Statistics to complete a multi-phase study assessing New Mexico’s bail reform efforts. The current report examines the impact of bail reform in six New Mexico counties. This study first explores the use and amount of bond judges ordered as recorded in criminal court cases where conditions of release were set, using data from the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). The data includes cases disposed between 2015 and 2019, and consists of misdemeanor and felony cases, both pretrial and post-disposition. Second, using data from New Mexico county detention centers and the AOC, the study explores the impact of bail reform among defendants booked between 2015 and 2019 for a new felony offense. This allows us to examine the impact of bail reform on pretrial practices among felony defendants—the target of New Mexico’s constitutional amendment on bail reform. Specifically, the study examines four outcomes: pretrial detention practices, the use of bond, failure/success rates among those released pretrial; and court efficiency. By analyzing pre- and post- bail reform data, we found that the amendment has been successful in reducing the average amount of bond ordered and the frequency with which it is ordered. Judges, however, ordered temporary no-bond holds when issuing a warrant for arrest more frequently after bail reform. Overall, defendants involved in new felony cases were detained for a shorter period of time. However, this was not true across the board: a slightly greater percentage were subject to a short period of detention (rather than immediate release), and those detained during the entire pretrial period spent more time in jail post-reform. During the pretrial period, new violent offenses increased slightly by 2%; new offenses overall increased by 1%. Failures to appear were more common after bail reform, with a 5% increase, but this varied significantly by county. In general, time to case resolution decreased post-bail reform, though cases involving defendants detained the entire pretrial period took slightly longer to resolve. 

Albuquerque: New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center   2022. 57p.

By Kristine Denman and Ella Siegrist

Felony criminal cases in New Mexico progress through multiple steps. New Mexico has a two-tiered system. Cases are typically initiated in the lower courts and bound over to the district court for felony prosecution after a finding of probable cause. Not all cases are bound over, however, and whether adjudication occurs is dependent on decisions made along the way. These decisions influence the trajectory and outcomes of the case. Prosecutors play a key role in this process. They decide whether to file charges against a particular defendant in a criminal case; which charges to pursue; whether to file felony charges, and if so, whether to pursue a finding of probable cause via preliminary examination or grand jury (if available); and whether to offer a plea bargain. These prosecutorial decisions, though, are not the only factors that influence this trajectory. Other factors, including court resources, judicial decision-making, defense decisions, and witness cooperation all play a role. Further, restrictions imposed due to COVID-19 altered some court processes. All of these factors can also influence the time that it takes to reach resolution on a court case. The current report is a part of a multi-part study on criminal case progression in the state of New Mexico. This report tracks the progression and outcomes of a sample of felony court cases initiated in magistrate and metropolitan courts across the state between January of 2017 and June of 2021. It also explores time to disposition and how the charges associated with a case change as the case progresses through the courts. 

Albuquerque: New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center 2024. 86p.

By Kristine Denman and Caitlyn Sandoval

Since its inception, the United States has used the grand jury system. Grand juries are an independent group of citizens whose job is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to charge an individual with a crime, thereby ensuring that the prosecutor does not abuse their discretion. Legal scholars, though, have long raised concerns about the use of grand juries. At least as early as the 1800s, scholars and others have questioned whether the practice should be abolished. They cite concerns that, in practice, not only are grand juries costly, they also do not result in the intended protections (see, e.g., Kinghorn, 1881; Younger, 1955). Despite this long-standing controversy, the criminal justice system continues to use grand juries at the federal level and in jurisdictions across the United States, including in New Mexico. In 2018, however, the Bernalillo County District Court (the largest judicial district in New Mexico) reported that they would be limiting the number of grand juries held from approximately 20 times per month to six (Guadaro, August 6, 2018). Proponents in New Mexico argue that preliminary examinations—the alternative to grand jury—are more transparent, cost-effective, and lead to improved case outcomes among cases that proceed to district court, mirroring many of the same arguments made nationally and historically. Opponents, on the other hand, argue that in the long run, preliminary examinations are not cost-effective and may have an adverse effect on crime (ibid). The purpose of the current study is to understand the processing of felony cases in New Mexico and the influence of prosecutorial discretion in that process. Specifically, the study explores case initiation type and whether this is associated with the ultimate disposition of cases. Further, the study reviews the efficiency of preliminary examinations. Finally, we examine whether offense type, jurisdiction, and COVID-19-related restrictions are related to these decisions and procedures.   

Albuquerque: New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center , 2023. 62p.

By Robin Joy

From 2015-2019 Black people in Vermont were more likely to experience violent crime than White people in Vermont. This paper explores the circumstances and the criminal justice system response to violent crime against Black individuals. To do so, we use two data sources: the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) and the Vermont Court Adjudication Database maintained by the Crime Research Group (CRG). This paper focuses on the experience of Black victims1 and mentions White victims only when there is a divergence in patterns or responses that highlight specific policy needs to reduce Black victimization. For example, efforts to reduce violence against women will have lesser impact on Black victimization. This is because Black men make up the majority of Black victims of violence. White women make up the majority of victims of White victims of violence. This will be discussed more fully below. It is mentioned here to frame the readers’ attention as to when White victimization is referenced and when focusing policy discussions on Black experiences will benefit all Vermonters.   

Montpelier: Crime Research Group, 2022/ 12p.

By Robin Joy

 This brief explores female offenders and court processing in Vermont. The brief draws on three sources: the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) accessed via the Crime Data Explorer (CDE), which captures crimes reported to the police, the Court Adjudication Database maintained by Crime Research Group (CRG), and Criminal Histories maintained by Vermont Crime Information Center (VCIC). These data cover different aspects of the criminal justice process. Please refer to the Criminal Justice Data Pyramid submitted with this document and found on the CRG website. Highlights: • Women are likely to be arrested for assault and larceny offenses. • Violation of bail conditions and drug possession charges drive incarceration for women. • Black women are overrepresented in arrests and sentences to incarceration. • Washington and Windham counties send the most women to prison. • Women starting a sentence of incarceration in 2023 were an average age of 38 and had spent about 10% of their lives (3.5 years) incarcerated. • Probation Violations, Violation of Conditions of Release (Bail), and Escape from Furlough are some of the more common crimes women serve incarceration for.  

Montpelier: Vermont Crime Research Group. 2024. 16p.

By Guha Krishnamurthi

We are in the age of the Data State. Increasingly capable artificial intelligences, equipped with vast amounts of data, will integrate into every aspect of our lives. Penal systems are no exception-algorithms are already being deployed in criminal investigations, bail determinations, and sentencing decisions. Thinkers of all stripes-including scholars, activists, and science-fiction authors-have warned us of the dire consequences of such algorithmic criminal systems. Philip K. Dick's Minority Report presaged an apocalyptic society predicting and preemptively punishing criminal behavior. Minority Report featured precognitives-or "precogs"-individuals that had psychic ability to predict premeditated murders. Today, we are warned, algorithms are the new precogs, with an uncannily accurate but impenetrable method of determining the future. And we can expect that society will pervasively use such predictions to pre-punish individuals. Our societal desire to stop criminal wrongs will come at the heavy cost of our freedom. Understandably, this has led people to stridently oppose the use of algorithmic criminal systems. In this Article, I proffer a vision of how to integrate algorithms into criminal systems that aims to enhance, rather than curtail, our freedom and minimize the reach of the draconian criminal law. Consider a simple example: Jaywalking. Under the Minority Report view, police would use algorithms to predict jaywalkers and ticket them preemptively. But under an alternative system, algorithms would predict vehicle movement, and allow people to cross the street safely whenever they wish. Similarly, an algorithmic criminal system could probabilistically predict the occurrence of other crimes, including violent crimes, and first deploy alternative interventions to stop the crime while zealously avoiding penal responses.

From these examples, the Article derives the Liberty-Enhancing View, with a concrete set of principles for implementing an algorithmic criminal system: First, algorithmic systems should seek to avoid imposing punishment on individuals. Second, algorithms should seek to eliminate pretextual, intrusive conduct by the government. Third, algorithms should seek to eliminate malum prohibitum laws, through superior coordination. Fourth, algorithms should seek to eliminate inchoate liabilities. And fifth, algorithms should not seek to discover and punish bad character of individuals, especially through criminalizing inchoate conduct. This Liberty-Enhancing View does not seek to shelter the penal system from algorithms. Instead, it focuses our use of algorithms to advance the principles underlying our criminal justice system, with the aspiration of eliminating the harms of the penal state.

Houston Law Review, 2025, 56p.

By Ethan Lowens

Many of the most widely discussed and influential criminal legal reform proposals of the last several years, including "defund the police," "no new jails," and plea strikes, are resource attacks. Resource attacks reduce the footprint of the criminal legal system by creating an imbalance between the resources available to it and the resources it needs to continue status quo operations. Forced into a resource crunch, the theory goes, institutions such as the police, prosecutors, and criminal courts will triage and scale back. There is substantial evidence that resource attacks can, and have, meaningfully reduced incarceration, misdemeanor prosecutions, and executions. Yet, despite their effectiveness, popularity, and political influence, resource attacks presently exist without a name or identity in the criminal legal scholarship. This article fills that gap, beginning with a definition and a catalog of resource attack case studies and proposals. The catalog includes a novel case study: in 2020, New York rewrote its discovery law to impose substantial new burdens on prosecutors. Prosecutors were quickly overwhelmed-following the law's implementation, the rate of dismissals of misdemeanor cases in New York City jumped from 32.6% of cases just prior to reform to 55.2% after. Resource attacks can deliver tremendous impact quickly and at low political cost. However, their effects are often temporary as affected institutions adapt to constraints or secure additional funding. Resource attacks can even backfire, forming the foundation for a bigger, more destructive criminal legal system. The article concludes with guidance for architects of prospective resource attacks: they should tailor their plans to a jurisdiction's particular legal and institutional features, prepare to stay engaged well after their intervention's launch, and promote statutory changes that make the temporary effects of a resource attack permanent.

 N.Y.U. Review of Law & Social Change Volume 47, Issue 4, 2025, pp. 479-538 pages

By Daniel Loehr

They are widely understood to have emerged from the “tough-on-crime” movement in the 1980s and 1990s. During this time period, a number of states passed these laws, often in the form of “Three Strikes and You’re Out” laws, which require judges to impose life sentences for third convictions for certain offenses. Washington state passed such a law in 1993, California amended a prior version of its law in 1994 adding a number of violent and non-violent crimes that would qualify for life sentences, and the federal government included a three strikes law in the 1994 Crime Bill. Despite these prominent examples of “habitual offender” laws enacted during this time period, the origination of these laws extends back much further. “Habitual offender” laws first spread across the country in the early 1900s as part of the eugenics movement, which grew in the 1880s and reached its peak in the 1920s. The aim of the eugenics movement was to create a superior race in order to address social problems such as crime and disease, which the movement assumed had a biological basis. Applying pseudoscience, laws and policies were created to prevent those who were deemed inferior, such as the mentally ill, those convicted of criminal offenses, or the physically frail, from reproducing. Eugenics and racism are deeply entwined, and the “projects” of eugenics supported “racial nationalism and racial purity.” One example of the relationship between race and eugenics is found in Nazi Germany, where "Nazi planners appropriated and incorporated eugenics as they implemented racial policy and genocide.  

The report reveals that many of the United States’ “habitual offender” laws, are rooted in eugenics – a widely discredited theory once deployed by Nazis during World War II, that humans can be improved through selective breeding of populations, deeming certain groups as inferior and inhibiting their ability to reproduce. “Habitual offender” laws first spread across the United States in the early 1900s as part of the eugenics movement, and many endure today in 49 states and the federal government.    

American eugenicists promoted “habitual offender” laws – laws that impose longer sentences based on an individual's past convictions – because they believed that certain people who committed crimes were genetically predestined to commit those crimes and could spread their criminality to their children. Although the country shifted away from eugenics after World War II, states like California continue to enforce “habitual offender” sentencing laws that emerged from the eugenics movement.

The report provides a list of current “habitual offender” laws in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government and highlights the eugenic principles used to advocate and pass these laws in states like California, Vermont, and Colorado. 

• California’s “Three Strikes and You’re Out” law results in life sentences for offenses that typically would not warrant such extreme punishment. The law’s origins can be traced to 1923. Leading up to its passage, California eugenicists called for a sentencing law that would prevent reproduction.

• Colorado’s “habitual offender” law retains the same operative core as its eugenics-era version from 1929. After vetoing the state’s sterilization bill in 1927, Colorado's Governor noted that long-term sentences would be the better option, noting that “the end sought to be reached by the [sterilization] legislation can be obtained by the exercise of careful supervision of the inmates, without invoking the drastic and perhaps unconstitutional provisions of the act.”

• Vermont passed its first “habitual offender” law in 1927. The then-Governor proposed sterilization or long sentences for “habitual criminals” in order to “restrict the propagation of defective children.” That law remains in force today with only minor textual changes. 

The history of "habitual offender" laws in America is deeply rooted in the racist and pseudoscientific eugenics movement which has left a lasting legacy of irreparable harm to Black and brown communities. These laws were never about justice – they were based on exclusion and false, dangerous belief in hereditary criminality. Dismantling "habitual offender" laws is not just a matter of policy – it is a moral imperative.

Washington, DC: Sentencing Project, 2025. 20p.

By Grant Duwe and Valerie Clark

Using a sample of nearly 2,100 people incarcerated in Minnesota’s prison system, this study examined the concurrent and predictive validity of a needs and responsivity assessment system. For concurrent validity, we evaluated the relationship between the 13 needs and responsivity domains with assessed recidivism risk levels. For predictive validity, we analyzed the association between the domains and recidivism for a subsample that had been released from prison prior to 2023. The hypothesized needs domains—anti-social thinking, anti-social peers, education, employment, substance use disorder, housing/homelessness, and family/domestic—were significantly associated with assessed and observed recidivism, while most of the hypothesized responsivity domains—mental health, religiosity, motivation and learning style—were not. The results suggest self-identity is a distinct criminogenic need. Gender and racial/ethnic differences for concurrent and predictive validity were relatively minimal across the 13 domains.

St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2023. 33p.

By Michael Palmieri and Valerie Clark

Across the United States, a significant proportion of people in jails and prisons suffer from some form of substance use disorder. In recent years, opioids have become a concern as the country has entered an epidemic in which opioid overdoses occur with relative frequency. Given that drugs have a significant impact on all aspects of crime, some jails and prisons in the U.S. have started implementing medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) programs to, one, save lives, but also help address one criminogenic need associated with criminal behavior. This study used a retrospective quasi-experimental design to generate a comparison group (357 incarcerated persons) to a group of individuals who received treatment for opioid use disorder (357). Using competing risks models, results provide evidence that MOUD does reduce recidivism among those who have received it. Results also suggest that when paired with traditional substance use disorder treatment, MOUD can have a somewhat higher magnitude of effect. These results suggest that the use of MOUD should be expanded across the U.S.

St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2024. 35p.

By Australia. Parliament. Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade

Detailing the inquiry into Australia’s advocacy efforts against the death penalty, this report finds that Australia’s advocacy strategies must be reevaluated and revamped in order to be effective in a contemporary human rights environment.

The inquiry reviewed progress since the committee's 2016 report on the same issue, taking into consideration the current global landscape and challenges to abolition. It examines Australia's strategy for abolition, international cooperation, and engagement with civil society, finding that Australia has a role to play globally in advocating for the abolition of the death penalty through every avenue possible.

Recommendations

The Australian Government continues to advocate for the abolition of the death penalty in all retentionist countries through bilateral, multilateral and regional forums, and with a particular focus on the Asia-Pacific region.

In addition to advocating for abolition, the Australian Government should advocate for a reduction in the categories of crimes that carry the death penalty in retentionist countries and for discretion in sentencing.

Provide an annual statement against the death penalty, to be delivered in Parliament and across multiple platforms.

Consider the development of a strategy for domestic education and awareness raising.

Consider providing adequate funding for civil society organisations to more accurately gather data on trends and current areas of concern regarding the use of the death penalty.

The Attorney-General’s Department should consult Capital Punishment Justice Project to ensure the competency and qualifications of the local lawyers engaged to represent Australian nationals in capital cases.

The Australian Government should undertake annual reviews of the mechanisms and operations of the Australian Federal Police’s Sensitive Investigations Oversight Board.

Canberra: Australia. Parliament. Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade2025.

By Sam Worrall  

  Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities face additional barriers throughout the criminal justice system (CJS); inequalities in mental health and diagnosed conditions, lack of appropriate educational opportunities and no knowledge of systems, among other factors. This report is designed to offer insight into the experiences of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities relating to all stages of the criminal justice system, to help improve knowledge and understanding of how to approach policy and practice for people from these communities. The report draws on primary data collection from surveys, focus groups, and individual interviews. The insight and voices of members of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities provide the key evidence for policy makers, service providers and commissioners working across the criminal justice system, to ensure that the guidance authentically reflects experiences and needs. We found: • Alternatives to custody were not considered for the majority of cases related to Gypsy, Roma and Traveller individuals. • Lack of support throughout the custodial journey for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people and their families. • Lack of accessible and culturally appropriate support provided for mental health needs. • Prison and probation/parole staff did not have the cultural competency required to work with Gypsy, Roma and Traveller individuals. • Lack of resources and staff capacity for delivering equalities requirements for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller prisoners. • Prisoners did not have easy access to culturally appropriate education and/or practical courses and workshops to support them in prison. • Lack of consistency across the prison estate for regular Gypsy, Roma and Traveller forums or meet ups. • Lack of awareness and information about Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities and significant calendar events around prisons. • Lack of consistency across the prison estate, in managing Gypsy, Roma and Traveller prisoner needs. The Ministry of Justice must prioritise its Gypsy, Roma, Traveller Strategy to ensure a level playing field across prisons.

Recommendations • Offer effective alternatives to remand for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller offenders. Instead of holding an individual on remand, the prison system should offer programmes to support diversion, improve mental health, and offer meaningful community service. • Provide effective signposting for individuals at every stage of the criminal justice pathway. From the point of being accused of a crime, through custodial sentence and including post-custody (after prison). Ensure individuals are put in contact with Gypsy, Roma and Traveller-friendly legal support and other organisations who offer support throughout the CJS. Ensure police stations and courts are signposting to trusted organisations. • Offer programmes of support to Gypsy, Roma and Traveller prisoners to support future diversion, and improve mental health. • Ensure individuals receive mental health support at all stages. Develop a consistent model across the criminal justice system, especially in the prison estate, such as pastoral support, and/or a programme of community mentor listeners. Remove barriers that prevent individuals from accessing this support by, for example, allowing pastoral care to be available to those on basic mental health support. • Co-produce accessible resources such as videos for young Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people and their families. • Develop cultural competency training for staff including probation/parole staff across CJS. Explore co-produced options such as Q&A sessions with community members and display boards raising awareness. • Provide specific resources for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities to be available in forums and libraries. • Ensure funding is targeted to increase Equalities teams and ensure those in post are committed to equality across all communities. • Provide culturally appropriate education and additional practical courses for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller prisoners. Offer educational workshops and programmes such as those run by the Shannon Trust, ensuring extra support is in place to encourage young people to enrol. • Hold regular Gypsy, Roma and Traveller forums in prison. Celebrate key community events, create safe spaces, and encourage prisoner interaction and other activities. Raise awareness of the communities to non-community prisoners and prison staff. Co-produce the events programme with community prisoners. • Include regular evaluation and monitoring of all of the above as part of the delivery of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller strategy for the criminal justice system 

Brighton, East Sussex, UK: Friends, Families and Travellers (FFT), 2025. 57p.

By The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Government, Criminal Justice Innovation Lab

In North Carolina, thirty-seven of the state’s 100 counties offer some kind of pretrial supervision and support services. The National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies identifies two primary roles of pretrial services agencies. First, to assist judicial officers in making informed release decisions that promote court appearance and public safety. And second, to offer supervision and support options for individuals who require oversight while on pretrial release. These options can include services such as court date reminders, check-ins with staff, electronic monitoring, and providing referrals to community service providers. Numerous North Carolina counties use pretrial risk assessments to assist judicial officers in making informed release decisions. As used here, the term pretrial risk assessment refers to tools that are designed to predict the likelihood that someone will appear in court and remain arrest-free while on pretrial release. This briefing paper provides information about the use of pretrial risk assessments in North Carolina, including the types of assessments being used and how they are implemented. We also share lessons learned from stakeholders about implementation. This information was gathered as part of a larger partnership between the UNC School of Government Criminal Justice Innovation Lab (the Lab) and the North Carolina Pretrial Services Association (NCPSA) to assess the feasibility of research on the impact of pretrial services.

Durham, NC: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Government, Criminal Justice Innovation Lab: December 2024, 15p.

By Gabriele Paolini, Elena Kantorowicz-Reznichenko, Stefan Voigt

Over the last three decades, plea bargaining has been adopted by many jurisdictions worldwide. However, a comprehensive account of both its adoption as well as its use is still missing. We survey 174 jurisdictions, finding that 101 allow plea-bargaining. For 52 jurisdictions, we also compute plea-bargaining rates, as the percentage of convictions imposed through plea bargaining over all criminal convictions. Relying on this novel dataset, we find that Muslim-majority populations and the French and Scandinavian legal origins are associated with lower probabilities of formalizing plea bargaining, while democracies are associated with higher probabilities. The Spanish and Socialist legal origins, a looser regulation of the procedure, and jury trials are associated with higher plea-bargaining rates, while higher income levels correlate with higher plea-bargaining rates only up to a certain point.

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, Volume22, Issue1, March 2025, Pages 27-75

By The Arizona Statistical Analysis Center

As part of the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission’s (ACJC) work as required by A.R.S. §41-2405, section A, the Commission is to: - Monitor the progress and implementation of new and continuing criminal justice legislation; - Analyze criminal justice programs created by the legislature in the preceding two years; and, - Analyze the effectiveness of the criminal code, with a discussion of any problems and recommendations for revision if deemed necessary This report is an update to the original felony code review report released in 2018 and adds an additional five-year period. ACJC’s Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) and policy staff reviewed those Arizona Revised Statutes containing a felony criminal penalty to determine the frequency of statute charges at the time of arrest across five-year, ten-year, 15-year, and 20-year periods. Staff reviewed an extract of the Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH) repository, maintained at the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS), to capture arrest charging frequency across Arizona Revised Statute criminal codes. Key Findings The resulting data span from Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 to FY 2024 for a total of 20 years provided the following key findings (see overview on page 3): 􏰀 1,557 individual statutes contain a felony criminal penalty currently enforceable by Arizona law enforcement across nearly every A.R.S. Title. This is an increase of 71 new felony charges over the last five years 􏰀 545 of the 1,557 statutes (35 percent) have no arrest charges recorded. This

includes 28 statutes passed and signed into law since 2018 with no arrest charges. 􏰀 Many A.R.S. Titles have a very high percentage of statutes with a felony penalty that have not been charged in the past 20 years: o Title 06 – Banks and Financial Institutions (4 out of 6) o Title 08 – Child Safety (2 out of 3) o Title 16 – Elections and Electors (30 out of 43) o Title 20 – Insurance (20 out of 32) o Title 32 – Professions and Occupations (86 out of 107) o Title 35 – Public Finances (8 out of 12) o Title 38 – Public Officers and Employees (16 out of 20) o Title 36 – Public Health and Safety (20 out of 31) o Title 38 – Public Officers and Employees (14 out of 20) o Title 40 – Public Utilities and Carriers (7 out of 7) o Title 41 – State Government (30 out of 39) o Title 43 – Taxation of Income (1 out of 1) o Title 44 – Trade and Commerce (63 out of 90) o Title 45 – Waters (3 out of 3) o Title 49 – The Environment (47 out of 53) Expected Outcomes The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission hopes that this report, outlining the Arizona Revised Statutes that contain a felony criminal penalty and their use over the past twenty years, will spark a dialogue among Arizona’s legislators and policymakers about the increasingly complex landscape that has been created for Arizona citizens and law enforcement to navigate regarding illegal activities. Possible activities that could occur might include: 􏰀 Convening of stakeholder groups that deal with specific issue areas to review existing statutes that contain felony penalties to determine if they are still applicable and necessary 􏰀 Review by the legislature to determine if penalties contained in one statute are duplicative of penalties contained in another (for example is A.R.S. §5-115A2, Bribe of a Racing Personnel is a class 4 felony and has not been charged in the past 20 years, but A.R.S. §13-2309, Bribery of Participants in Professional or Amateur Games, Sports, Horse Races, Dog Races, Contests is also a class 4 felony and is regularly being charged) 􏰀 Action by the legislature to repeal statutes that are determined to be duplicative or have not been utilized after a specific period of time has elapsed

Phoenix: Arizona Statistical Analysis Center, 2024. 40p.

By The Center for Justice Research and Evaluation.

In response to feedback from Illinois Correctional Officers (COs) seeking stronger consequences for occurrences of indecent exposure and harassment by inmates within the confines of their correctional facilities, the Illinois legislature amended the Criminal Code of 2012, 750 ILCS 5 (Illinois Senate Democrats, 2023). The criminal offense of “lewd sexual display in a penal institution” became effective January 1, 2024 (Public Act 103- 283), with support from the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police and staff at Illinois correctional facilities (Kluver, 2023). This is defined specifically in 720 ILCS 5/11-9.2-1: (Section scheduled to be repealed on January 1, 2028) Sec. 11-9.2-1. Lewd sexual display in a penal institution. a) A person commits lewd sexual display in a penal institution when he or she is in the custody of a penal institution and knowingly engages in any of the following acts while he or she is confined in a penal institution: engages in a lewd exposure of the genitals or anus, for the purpose or effect of intimidating, harassing, or threatening one whom he or she believes to be in the presence or view of such acts. For purposes of this Section, "penal institution" does not include a facility of the Department of Juvenile Justice or a juvenile detention facility. b) Sentence. Lewd sexual display in a penal institution is a Class A misdemeanor. A person convicted of a second or subsequent violation for lewd sexual display in a penal institution is guilty of a Class 4 felony. c) A person charged with a violation of this Section shall be eligible for an evaluation for a mental health court program under the Mental Health Court Treatment Act, the provisions of Section 20 of that Act notwithstanding, and shall be given an eligibility screening and an assessment, pursuant to the provisions of Section 25 of the Mental Health Court Treatment Act, administered by a qualified mental health court professional independent of the penal institution where the individual is in custody. d) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (e) of Section 25 of the Mental Health Court Treatment Act, a person who has been charged with a violation of this Section shall not be liable for any fines, fees, costs, or restitution unless the person fails to successfully complete that person's court-ordered mental health court treatment program. e) All charges against a person for a violation of this Section shall be dismissed upon the court's

determination that the person has successfully completed the person's court-ordered mental health court treatment program. Unwillingness to participate in a court-ordered mental health court treatment program may result in prosecution under this Section. Failure to complete a mental health treatment court program shall have the consequences prescribed by the rules and regulations of that treatment court program. f) A person is not guilty of a violation of this Section for engaging in the conduct prohibited by this Section, if any of the following are true: a. The person is under 18 years of age or not confined to a penal institution. b. The person suffered from a behavioral health issue at the time of the prohibited conduct and that behavioral health issue was the direct cause for the person having engaged in the prohibited conduct. c. The person was not in the actual presence or view of another person. (g) This Section is repealed on January 1, 2028.

Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. 2025. 12p.

By Lauren Knoth-Peterson, Whitney Hunt

The purpose of this resource is to identify whether states have established unique sentencing policies for individuals convicted of a sex offense authorizing community supervision for life. In states where lifetime supervision policies were identified, we also examined whether the state has an established pathway off of lifetime supervision status. This resource highlights each state’s relevant statutes to lifetime supervision policies with the green text emphasizing the pathway off of supervision (when applicable). There are limitations to this resource. First, we looked only for unique sentencing policies for individuals convicted of a sex offense. In some instances, states may have general

indeterminate sentencing structures by which convicted defendants may end up under supervision orders for life. For example, states may allow defendants sentenced to life in prison to apply for parole. If granted, parole may include community supervision for life, consistent with the underlying life incarceration sentence. Since these parole policies are not unique to sex offenses, but instead are applicable only when the court explicitly imposes a life sentence, we did not include these statutes in this report. For example, Idaho is an indeterminate sentencing state with a parole system. In some cases, individuals convicted of a sex offense may receive a sentence of life incarceration with the possibility of parole. If paroled, those individuals would be under parole supervision for the remainder of their sentence, which is for life. The Board of Correction in Idaho may submit a request to the Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole for early termination of parole after serving at least 5 years on parole. However, since these parole policies do not apply to all sex offenses and are related to the underlying life imprisonment sentence and standard parole processes, we do not include these statutes in this report. State laws frequently change. Please note that any statutory language included in this document may be subject to change over time, and readers should verify that statutes have not been amended after publication of this resource.

Olympia, WA: Washington State Office of Financial Management, Public Safety Policy & Research Center. 2025. 96p.

By Nicole D. Porter

The United States has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. Nearly two million people – disproportionately Black – are incarcerated in the nation’s prisons and jails. In the early 1970s, 360,000 persons were incarcerated in correctional facilities.

Criminal legal reform trends in 2024 were divergent at a time when politicians used punitive-sounding talking points to move voters fearful of a recent uptick in crime. However, stakeholders, including formerly incarcerated activists and lawmakers, saw some success in scaling back mass incarceration. Advocacy organizers and officials in at least nine states advanced reforms in 2024 that may contribute to decarceration, expand and guarantee voting rights for justice impacted citizens, and advance youth justice reforms.

Highlights include:

Decarceration Reforms: State lawmakers enacted legal reforms to reduce prison admissions and to adjust penalties to criminal sentences to more fairly hold persons convicted of certain crimes accountable. During 2024, policymakers in Oklahoma and Michigan adopted or expanded second look and compassionate release policies authorizing reconsideration of certain criminal legal sentences after a term of years.

Guaranteeing Voting Rights: While over 4 million people are ineligible to vote because of a felony conviction, voting rights reforms have expanded the vote to over two million people since 1997. This year, officials in Nebraska and Oklahoma approved measures to expand voting rights to persons after incarceration while lawmakers in Colorado passed legislation requiring all county jails to establish polling stations guaranteeing access to the ballot for incarcerated voters.

Youth Justice: Lawmakers in Indiana and Pennsylvania adopted policies that demonstrated a commitment to supporting young defendants including eliminating automatic charging of youth as adults for certain offenses and establishing practices that may reduce length of detention stays.

Highlights include:

Decarceration Reforms: State lawmakers enacted legal reforms to reduce prison admissions and to adjust penalties to criminal sentences to more fairly hold persons convicted of certain crimes accountable. During 2024, policymakers in Oklahoma and Michigan adopted or expanded second look and compassionate release policies authorizing reconsideration of certain criminal legal sentences after a term of years.

Guaranteeing Voting Rights: While over 4 million people are ineligible to vote because of a felony conviction, voting rights reforms have expanded the vote to over two million people since 1997. This year, officials in Nebraska and Oklahoma approved measures to expand voting rights to persons after incarceration while lawmakers in Colorado passed legislation requiring all county jails to establish polling stations guaranteeing access to the ballot for incarcerated voters.

Youth Justice: Lawmakers in Indiana and Pennsylvania adopted policies that demonstrated a commitment to supporting young defendants including eliminating automatic charging of youth as adults for certain offenses and establishing practices that may reduce length of detention stays.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2024.

By Michael Vitiello

The United States’ War on Drugs has not been pretty. Moral panic has repeatedly driven policy when states and the federal government have regulated drugs. Responding to that panic, legislators have authorized severe sentences for drug offenses.

By design, Article III gives federal judges independence, in part, to protect fundamental rights against mob rule. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has often failed to protect fundamental rights in times of moral panic. For example, it eroded Fourth Amendment protections during the War on Drugs. Similarly, it failed to protect drug offenders from excessive prison sentences during the War on Drugs. This Article examines whether it is time for the Supreme Court to rethink its precedent upholding extremely long sentences for drug crimes.

In 1983, in Solem v. Helm, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause applies to terms of imprisonment. There, it found the imposition of a true-life sentence imposed on a repeat offender to be grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the defendant’s offense. Whatever hope Solem created that courts might limit excessive sentences proved to be false.

Two Supreme Court cases dealing with drug sentences, bracketing Solem, demonstrate the Court’s unwillingness to override legislatures’ discretion in imposing sentences. In 1982, the Court upheld a 40-year term of imprisonment imposed on an offender who possessed less than nine ounces of marijuana. In 1991, the Court upheld a true-life sentence imposed on an offender who possessed 672 grams of cocaine. The Court’s refusal to curtail such extreme sentences reflects its willingness to accede to the nation’s moral panic over drug usage.

Since the height of the War on Drugs, Americans have changed their views about drugs. Significant majorities of Americans favor legalization of marijuana for medical and recreational use. Many Americans favor a wholesale rethinking of drug policy. Despite studies in the 1950s and 1960s demonstrating beneficial use of drugs like LSD and psilocybin, Congress yielded to moral panic and included them in Schedule I when it enacted the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. Efforts are afoot at the state level to legalize the study of and to decriminalize the use of those and other drugs.

This Article argues that the Court should rethink its Eighth Amendment caselaw upholding severe drug sentences. The Court’s Eighth Amendment caselaw balances the severity of punishment against the gravity of an offense. In turn, the gravity of an offense turns on its social harm and the culpability of the offender. The Court upheld extreme drug sentences based on the view that drugs were a national scourge. Moral panic led it to overstate the social harm and the culpability of drug offenders. Scientifically based examination of drugs and drug policy should compel the Court to rethink its excessive punishment caselaw because the balance between severity of punishment and the gravity of drug offenses looks different when one has a better understanding of true costs and benefits of drug use.

Clev. St. L. Rev., 69, 441 2921

By Claire Austin

In the U.S., death row is made up of a disproportionate number of black persons. In capital trials, black defendants often face all white juries. The deep-rooted racial discrimination in the justice system impacts jury selection because prosecutors use peremptory strikes to remove black jurors from the jury panel. As the law stands today, the Sixth Amendment guarantee of an impartial jury made up of a fair representation of the jury applies only to the pool of jurors called in for jury service, not those who are actually selected to hear the case. This comment analyzes the Supreme Court decision, Holland v. Illinois 493 U.S. 474 (1990), which held that the Sixth Amendment does not prevent prosecutors from striking potential jurors based on their race. In doing so, the Court missed an opportunity to provide meaningful relief to black capital defendants who faced all-white juries. This comment argues for the reversal of Holland, extension of Sixth Amendment protections, and a change in the framework for questioning the use of peremptory challenges to remove black jurors.

Marquette Benefits and Social Welfare Law Review, 25 Marq. Ben. and Soc. Welfare L. Rev. 59 (2023)