By Andrew Jordan,  Ezra Karger,  Derek Neal

   We examined 70,581 felony court cases filed in Chicago, IL, from 1990–2007. We exploit case randomization to assess the impact of judge assignment and sentencing decisions on the arrival of new charges. We find that, in marginal cases, incarceration creates large and lasting reductions in recidivism among first offenders. Yet, among marginal repeat offenders, incarceration creates only short-run incapacitation effects and no lasting reductions in the incidence of new felony charges. These treatment-impact differences inform ongoing legal debates concerning the merits of sentencing rules that recommend leniency for first offenders while encouraging or mandating incarceration sentences for many repeat offenders. We show that methods that fail to estimate separate outcome equations for first versus repeat offenders or fail to model judge-specific sentencing tendencies separately for cases involving first versus repeat offenders produce misleading results for first offenders.  

 Working Paper 31939. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2024. 73p.

By Jingxuan Zhao; Jessica Star; Xuesong Han, et al

IMPORTANCE People with a history of incarceration may experience barriers in access to and receipt of health care in the US. OBJECTIVE To examine the associations of incarceration history and access to and receipt of care and the contribution of modifiable factors (educational attainment and health insurance coverage) to these associations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Individuals with and without incarceration history were identified from the 2008 to 2018 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 cohort. Analyses were conducted from October 2022 to December 2023. MAIN MEASURES AND OUTCOMES Access to and receipt of health care were measured as self reported having usual source of care and preventive service use, including physical examination, influenza shot, blood pressure check, blood cholesterol level check, blood glucose level check, dental check, and colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screenings across multiple panels. To account for the longitudinal study design, we used the inverse probability weighting method with generalized estimating equations to evaluate associations of incarceration history and access to care. Separate multivariable models examining associations between incarceration history and receipt of each preventive service adjusted for sociodemographic factors; sequential models further adjusted for educational attainment and health insurance coverage to examine their contribution to the associations of incarceration history and access to and receipt of health care. RESULTS A total of 7963 adults with 41 614 person-years of observation were included in this study; of these, 586 individuals (5.4%) had been incarcerated, with 2800 person-years of observation (4.9%). Compared with people without incarceration history, people with incarceration history had lower percentages of having a usual source of care or receiving preventive services, including physical examinations (69.6% vs 74.1%), blood pressure test (85.6% vs 91.6%), blood cholesterol level test (59.5% vs 72.2%), blood glucose level test (61.4% vs 69.4%), dental check up (51.1% vs 66.0%), and breast (55.0% vs 68.2%) and colorectal cancer screening (65.6% vs 70.3%). With additional adjustment for educational attainment and health insurance, the associations of incarceration history and access to care were attenuated for most measures and remained statistically significant for measures of having a usual source of care, blood cholesterol level test, and dental check up only. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The results of this survey study suggest that incarceration history was associated with worse access to and receipt of health care. Educational attainment and health insurance may contribute to these associations. Efforts to improve access to education and health insurance coverage for people with an incarceration history might mitigate disparities in care.

JAMA Health Forum. 2024;5(2):e235318. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.5318

By Tom Smith

Deprivation of liberty as part of the criminal process is always a significant step, and arguably even more so when the person so deprived has not yet been convicted of an offence. Remand decision making – that is, granting bail or requiring detention of a defendant prior to trial – in the courts of England and Wales is a common and important part of modern criminal procedure, yet has been under-examined in the last two decades. This article presents some of the findings of the first empirical study of remand law and practice in this jurisdiction in many years. It concludes that, notwithstanding that the rate of pretrial detention is comparatively low and practice is broadly in line with domestic and regional standards, there remain significant issues – particularly in relation to the time spent on such decisions and the information provided to courts when considering remands on bail or in custody.

Howard Journal of Crime and Justice Volume60, Issue, March 2021, 29 pages

By Penal Reform International and the Life Imprisonment Worldwide Project

This briefing, co-published by Penal Reform International and the Life Imprisonment Worldwide Project, therefore examines informal life imprisonment worldwide, drawing on key findings from international research. It places these findings in the context of the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules) and other relevant criminal justice and human rights standards.

This briefing calls on policymakers and practitioners to reflect on informal life sentences and to include within them the more general constraints that should apply to the use of all forms of life imprisonment. It also provides specific recommendations on the imposition and implementation of informal life sentences.

There is growing recognition that life imprisonment is a severe sentence that, if it is used at all, should be imposed sparingly, implemented humanely and give people serving life sentences hope of release when they cease to pose a danger to society. Informal life imprisonment can be as harsh, and in some cases even harsher, than formal life imprisonment. Whilst attention has been given to formal life imprisonment, little is known about informal life sentences. Failure to examine the imposition and implementation of informal life sentences allows for a further class of harsh sanctions and their shortcomings to go unnoticed.

London: PRI. 2024, 24pg