By Sharon Dolovich

When the state incarcerates, it assumes an affirmative, non-negotiable obligation to keep people in prison safe and to provide for their basic needs. In the United States, the three branches of government—legislative, executive, and judicial—are in theory collectively responsible for making certain that this obligation is fulfilled. In practice, the checks and balances built into the system have failed to ensure even minimally decent carceral conditions. This review maps this regulatory failure. It shows that, in all branches of government, rather than policing prison officials, the relevant institutional actors instead align themselves with the officials they are supposed to regulate, leaving people in custody unprotected and vulnerable to abuse by the very actors sworn to keep them safe. This pattern is no accident. It reflects a palpable normative hostility and contempt toward the incarcerated, an attitude with deep roots in the virulent race hatred endemic to the American carceral project from its earliest days.

Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2022. 5:153–77

By ACLU Smart Justice Nebraska

Fairness and freedom should not depend on how much money an individual possesses. Nebraskans who are struggling financially should have the same experience in the legal system as anyone else. Yet today, despite United States Supreme Court precedent and safeguards at the federal and state level, Nebraskans are still routinely confined simply because they lack the resources to pay fines or post bail or bond. This report reveals the findings of an intensive ACLU of Nebraska court watching project, the first of its scope in the state. ACLU staff and interns spent roughly three months in 2022 observing bail and sentencing hearings to document how recent reforms from the Nebraska Legislature — part of the nationwide movement to reform modern-day debtors’ prisons — are being implemented. What this project uncovered is a cause for concern. Observations from a combined 2,300+ bail and sentencing hearings show systemic disregard of laws meant to protect Nebraskans who are struggling financially. They also show continued reflexive practices that perpetuate a modern “debtors’ prison,” where Nebraskans are routinely confined simply because they cannot afford to post cash bail or pay fees or fines. This publication discusses the legal framework behind bail, fees and fines in Nebraska’s criminal legal system before detailing the court watching project’s findings and offering recommendations for reform. As readers progress through its pages, it is critical to remember that if the system were functioning as the Constitution and state law envision, in most cases, any person assigned cash bail or assessed a cou  

Lincoln, NE: American Civil Liberties Union - Nebraska, 2022. 36p.

By Elsa Augustine, Slissa Skog, Johanna Lacoe and Steven Raphael

Criminal justice reform has gained bipartisan support at a national level in recent years. One common reform practice is to divert some defendants from traditional criminal justice proceedings to alternative programs that provide social services or attempt to address underlying drivers of criminal justice involvement. San Francisco referred over 16,000 individuals between 2008 and 2018 through the Collaborative Courts and Pretrial Diversion programs; overall one quarter of filed criminal cases were referred to diversion. A larger share of new filings were referred to diversion in recent years as San Francisco's filing rates decreased at a faster pace than the diversion referral rate. In keeping with the general criminal justice-involved population in San Francisco, individuals referred to diversion programs were more likely to be young men of color than the average San Franciscan. People who were referred to diversion programs had longer criminal justice histories than those whose cases were not referred, but were otherwise demographically similar. Referred cases had lower conviction rates than nondiverted cases, but referred individuals had higher rates of subsequent criminal justice contact, on average. Individuals who were re-arrested after a diversion referral were typically arrested on less severe offenses than the original offenses. While this paper does not present causal estimates of the effects of diversion programs, future research will estimate the impacts of a referral to diversion on case outcomes and subsequent criminal justice contact, among other outcomes.

Los Angeles: California Policy Lab, 2020. 36p

By Aurelie Ouss and Megan T. Stevenson

Dozens of jurisdictions across the country are engaging in bail reform, but there are concerns that reducing monetary incentives will increase pretrial misconduct. We provide new evidence on this question by evaluating a prosecutor-led bail reform in Philadelphia. In February 2018, Philadelphia’s district attorney announced that his office would no longer request monetary bail for defendants charged with certain eligible offenses. This was an advisory change; bail magistrates retained final say. Using a difference-in-differences approach we find that this policy led to a 22% increase in the likelihood a defendant will be released with no monetary or supervisory conditions, but had no impact on pretrial detention. This provides a unique opportunity to evaluate the primary justification for cash bail: that it provides incentive for released defendants to appear in court. We find no evidence that cash bail or pretrial supervision has a deterrent effect on failure-to-appear or pretrial crime. We argue that one explanation is that asymmetric reputational penalties cause magistrates to set bail higher than necessary. In addition, our study provides evidence on the role of discretion within criminal justice reform. We find that discretion led to racial disparities in implementation, and diluted the impacts of the reform.

Working Paper, 2022. 59p

By Viet Nguyen

Criminal records can produce collateral consequences that affect access to employment, housing, and other outcomes. Adverse collateral consequences may be particularly acute for adults with limited professional capital and social networks. In recent years, there has been an expansion of prosecutor-led diversion programs that attempt to curb the effect of collateral consequences. However, the expansion of diversion programs may lead to net-widening if these programs simply substitute for cases that would have otherwise been dismissed. This study assesses the impact of an adult, misdemeanor diversion program on long-term recidivism outcomes and the future amount of court-imposed fees and sanctions. The misdemeanor diversion program reduced reconviction rates but produced a short-term net-widening effect by drawing in defendants whose cases would normally have been dismissed. The net-widening effects were curtailed over the longer term as the program significantly increased expungement rates. The results were driven by younger defendants. Implications of this study for theories of criminal desistance and policies around expunging criminal records are discussed.

Philadelphia: Working Paper, University of Pennsylvania, Criminology2022. 43p.

Edited by Kenneth E. Kerle, American Jail Association

“People familiar with the American jail scene realize that jails rank at the bottom of the criminal justice hierarchy in influence. Courts, prosecuting attorneys, police, and even probation and parole offi­cials exert more political clout than jail administrators. Jail popu­lation figures have nearly doubled in a decade, and now more than 300,000 ADP (average daily population) are found in the 3,338 jails in the 3,000 plus counties and cities that operate these institutions of incarceration. During 1987, there were more than 17 million ad­missions and releases from county and city jails. These local gov­ernment agencies serve as the dumping grounds for the arrested criminal, the chronic drunk, the DWI (driving while intoxicated), the mentally ill, the homeless, and juveniles ranging from the run­away to the amoral killer.”

Nelson-Hall. 1991. 299p.