By Christina Das and Jackie O’Neil

Across the country, thousands of elected officials wield considerable power over the function and outcomes of the criminal legal system. Each year, in some states and districts, voters elect state attorneys general, district attorneys, sheriffs, state supreme court judges, and trial court judges. These elected officials make choices and take actions that formatively influence the functions of the criminal legal system. For example: district attorneys have considerable discretion when deciding whether to file criminal charges against someone accused of committing a crime, and trial court judges make decisions that significantly impact the outcomes of criminal trials, such as determining what evidence can be shown to a jury. However, millions of Americans who have a vested interest in the fairness of our criminal legal system – those who are detained while awaiting their criminal trial – are denied a meaningful opportunity to vote, despite their right under the law to do so. Most individuals held in city or county jail at any given time have not been convicted of any crime and are awaiting a trial, meaning they retain their legal right to vote, but procedural and logistical barriers make it difficult or impossible for them to do so. Reforms that make it easier to vote from jail, up to and including the establishment of polling locations inside jail facilities, will help eligible incarcerated voters to actualize their right to vote from jail.

New York: NAACP Legal Defense Fund and Educational Fund, Thurgood Marshall Institute, 2023. 15p.

Edited by Shampa Bissau and Zane Zalloua

From the Introduction: “Given the events of the last decade, the topic of torture, democ­racy, and the human body hardly needs any justification. Yet it is its apparent obviousness that makes the topic all the more urgent. What is torture? Who defines it? What are its immediate and long­term effects on the human body, on the social body, and the poliucal bond that ties these bodies together, that is, democracy. These quesuons resist easy answers. Torture, like any other contenuous concept, has its own twisted history. In this respect, we might do well to keep in mind Friedrich Nietzsche’s observation that “only that which has no history is definable.” The challenge at hand, however, is not simply to recognize that the interpretation of torture becomes an endless task and battle of interpretive wills, something that we never define once and for all. Rather, a genealogical perspective on the subject displaces the essentialist question “What is torture?" in order to ask instead “What meaning have we given to torture?” or “What is the function and purpose of torture today?” In other words, torture as such cannot be defined in isolation but refers back to systems of belief, social networks of power, and ideological worldviews thai invariably ascribe to torture a certain meaning. The nature of that meaning is precisely what is in question in contemporary debates on torture, and the authors in this volume approach that ques­tion from diverse angles.”

Seattle. University of Washington Press. 2011. 290p.