Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:07 pm
Time: 8:07 pm
Results for criminal courts
41 results foundAuthor: Wan, Wai Yin Title: The Impact of Criminal Case Conferencing on Early Guilty Pleas in the NSW District Criminal Court Summary: The aim of this study was to test whether the legislative Criminal Case Conferencing (CCC) trial scheme had any impact on the number of late guilty pleas in courts affected by the legislation. A quasi-experimental research design was used, whereby outcomes for matters affected by the legislation (the intervention site) were compared with matters committed from all other NSW Local Courts (the comparison site). Interrupted time series analyses were employed to test whether the scheme had any impact on four markers of late guilty pleas. Only one of the four measures showed effects consistent with a reduction in late guilty pleas. There was a small decrease in trial registrations in the intervention site, but no corresponding reduction in the comparison site. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2010. 8p. Source: Internet Resource; Bureau Brief Issue Paper no. 44 Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 118678 Keywords: Criminal CourtsGuilty Pleas (New South Wales, Australia) |
Author: Plotnikoff, Joyce Title: Measuring Up? Evaluating Implementation of Government Commitments to Young Witnesses in Criminal Proceedings Summary: This report follows on from an earlier report by the same authors on the experiences of 50 young witnesses, which demonstrated that at that time, reforms were urgently needed to improve the way young people are treated when giving evidence in court. Measuring up? considers whether the “implementation gap” between policy and practice has narrowed. It is based on a much larger sample of 182 young witnesses across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, aged between five and 19, who were interviewed, along with most of their parents, between May 2007 and October 2008. Information was also gathered from the managers of 52 Witness Services, seven young witness support schemes, and from each organisation that referred a young witness to the research project. The study compares recent government policies and guidance with children’s experiences before, during and after trial to evaluate: •how well criminal justice organisations identify young witness needs; whether support for young witnesses is made available consistently and appropriately; the treatment of young witnesses by the criminal justice system; and the experiences of young witnesses in the context of the desired Every Child Matters outcomes of “being healthy” and “staying safe” (in terms of the risk of secondary abuse from the court process) and “making a positive contribution” (in terms of the requirement to perform a public service). Details: London: National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, 2009. 200p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 3, 2010 at: http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/findings/measuring_up_report_wdf66579.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/findings/measuring_up_report_wdf66579.pdf Shelf Number: 120378 Keywords: Child Witnesses (U.K.)Criminal Courts |
Author: U.S. National Institute of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics Title: A Dialogue Between the Bureau of Justice Statistics and Key Criminal Justice Data Users Summary: In 2008 the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) convened a multidisciplinary workshop for professionals who use justice statistics. BJS asked participants — representatives from academia, court systems, victim advocacy, and law enforcement communities — to provide feedback about how they use BJS statistical information and to recommend ways that BJS could optimize the value of the data it collects and publishes. Four senior level researchers presented papers at the workshop, including: Current Issues in Victimization Research and the NCVS’s Ability to Study Them, by Lynn A. Addington; The Need for a National Civil Justice Survey of Incidence and Claiming Behavior, by Theodore Eisenberg and Henry Allen Mark; Improving Police Effectiveness and Transparency National Information Needs on Law Enforcement, by Brian Forst; and Understanding Violence Against Women Using the NCVS: What We Know and Where We Need to Go, by Karen Heimer. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2008. 156p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 28, 2008 at: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/duw.cfm Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/duw.cfm Shelf Number: 121542 Keywords: Crime StatisticsCriminal CourtsCriminal Justice StatisticsPolice PerformanceVictimization SurveysViolence Against Women |
Author: Vetten, Lisa Title: Tracking Justice: The Attrition of Rape Cases through the Criminal Justice System in Gauteng Summary: An exploration of how the criminal justice system processes complaints of rape is essential for at least two reasons. Firstly, it establishes the measure of justice afforded rape complainants and thus enables South African society to hold criminal justice system personnel to account. Secondly, it provides insight into how and why justice may be eroded and the criminal justice system’s consequent ability to deter sexual violence weakened. In pursuit of these objectives we undertook a study in Gauteng Province to describe the processing of rape complaints, as well as their outcome, from the time such complaints were reported in 2003, to the point at which they were disposed of by either the police or courts. The research also describes the characteristics of reported rape in the province. Our study was undertaken in Gauteng Province where, in 2003, a total of 11 926 rapes were reported at the 128 police stations in Gauteng Province. A sample was drawn for the study using a two stage procedure. The first stage drew a sample of 70 police stations using probability proportional to size, where size was based on the number of rape cases reported to the police in 2003. Within each police station all the closed rape cases for the year were identified by their CAS numbers and a random sample of 30 dockets was selected (or all cases if fewer than 30 cases were reported in that year to the sampled police station). The dockets were then located either at the police station or at the specialist Family Violence Child Protection and Sexual Offences (FCS) Units and data abstracted. There was no replacement of dockets that were unavailable. This procedure provided a sample of 2,068 cases for the study. Records for those cases that went to court were obtained from both High Courts in the province, as well as all 30 magistrates’ courts. Details: Johannesburg: Tshwaranang Legal Advocacy Centre, the South African Medical Research Council and the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, 2008. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 23, 2011 at: http://www.csvr.org.za/docs/tracking_justice.pdf Year: 2008 Country: South Africa URL: http://www.csvr.org.za/docs/tracking_justice.pdf Shelf Number: 115817 Keywords: Criminal CourtsProsecutionRape (South Africa)Sexual Violence |
Author: Northern Ireland. Criminal Justice Inspection Title: A Corporate Governance Inspection of the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland Summary: One of the most radical reforms advocated by the ‘Review of the Criminal Justice System Northern Ireland’ in March 2000 arose from their recommendations to create the PPS. The Review Team made proposals to transfer all prosecutions from the police to the prosecution service with consequences for the resources, independence, structure and accountability of the new PPS. In many ways the Review set the strategic direction for the service for a number of years, dependent upon how long it would take to implement structural change, complete recruitment and training, as well as the impact of the future devolution of justice. Now that most of the major changes have occurred, the PPS management team should be less cautious in implementing change and strive to be more influential within the wider criminal justice system and specifically in developing more effective joint working with other agencies. Inevitably the early challenges facing the PPS shaped its assessment of success towards capacity and process in the shape of regional offices opened, numbers of files received, decisions made and prosecutions actioned. In many respects the PPS made good headway and recent Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJI) inspections and follow-up reviews charted substantial progress in a number of areas. Throughout this period the PPS delivered a very high quality of legal decision making - a testimony to the professionalism and commitment of its staff. On paper the governance structures meet the accepted models of good governance, including risk management, procurement policies and a management board with overall responsibility for setting the direction of the organisation. An independent audit report gave the governance arrangements of the PPS a satisfactory level of assurance and this was complemented by the annual PPS Audit Committee report that provided additional assurance to the Director covering governance and risk management. Whilst acknowledging the adequacy of the structural and procedural aspects of governance, CJI adopted the ‘Treasury’s Code of Good Practice’ with its wider emphasis on ‘the way in which organisations are directed and controlled... the distribution of rights and responsibilities among the different stakeholders and participants in the organisation... the rules and procedures for making decisions on corporate affairs, including the process through which the organisation’s objectives are set, and... the means of attaining those objectives and monitoring performance.’ Thus, the overall assessment of the inspection team was that the governance structures and associated processes within the PPS provided a sound governance framework to introduce further improvements and deliver their ultimate aim of providing a first class prosecution service. Details: Belfast: Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, 2013. 75p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 1, 2013 at: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/1b/1b8e142e-9f17-41b5-8674-fec5c0521706.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/1b/1b8e142e-9f17-41b5-8674-fec5c0521706.pdf Shelf Number: 128507 Keywords: Criminal CourtsCriminal Justice SystemsCriminal Prosecution (U.K.) |
Author: Jackson, Jonathan Title: Trust and Legitimacy Across Europe: A FIDUCIA Report on Comparative Public Attitudes Towards Legal Authority Summary: FIDUCIA (New European Crimes and Trust-based Policy) seeks to shed light on a number of distinctively ‘new European’ criminal behaviours which have emerged in the last decade as a consequence of both technology developments and the increased mobility of populations across Europe. A key objective of FIDUCIA is to propose and proof a ‘trust-based’ policy model in relation to emerging forms of criminality – to explore the idea that public trust and institutional legitimacy are important for the social regulation of the trafficking of human beings, the trafficking of goods, the criminalisation of migration and ethnic minorities, and cybercrimes. In this paper we detail levels of trust and legitimacy in the 26 countries, drawing on data from Round 5 of the European Social Survey. We also conduct a sensitivity analysis that investigates the effect of a lack of measurement equivalence on national estimates. Details: London: London School of Economics, 2013. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 18, 2013 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2272975 Year: 2013 Country: Europe URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2272975 Shelf Number: 129024 Keywords: Criminal CourtsLegitimacyPolice AuthorityPolice LegitimacyPolice-Citizen InteractionsPolicingPublic Confidence (Europe)Public OpinionTrust |
Author: McConkie, Daniel S. Title: Judges as Framers of Plea Bargaining Summary: The vast majority of federal criminal defendants resolve their cases by plea bargaining, with minimal judicial input or oversight. This presents significant issues concerning transparency, fairness, and effective sentencing. Federal prosecutors strongly influence sentences by the charges they select. The parties bargain informally outside of court and strike a deal. But defendants often plead guilty without a realistic understanding of their likely sentencing exposure. Instead, they plead guilty based on their best guess as to how judges will resolve certain issues and their own fear that they could get an unspecified but severe post-trial sentence. The judge is often reluctant to reject the parties deal, partly because the judge may have little information about the case, and partly because the judge lacks the resources for courtroom-clogging jury trials. What is needed is a public, court-supervised, advocacy procedure early in the case to guide the parties in considering key sentencing issues and fashioning a just and reasonable sentence based on the judges feedback. This article explores a proposed procedure that would do just that. Early in the case, and upon the defendants request, the parties would litigate a pre-plea motion procedure similar to sentencing proceedings. As part of those proceedings, a pre-plea, presentence report would be prepared with input from the parties. The motion would educate the judge about the case and enable the judge to issue two indicated sentences: one for if the defendant pleaded guilty as charged, and another for if the defendant were convicted at trial. This increased judicial participation through a regularized, advocacy procedure would allow judges to help frame the parties discussion of sentencing issues and likely sentencing consequences earlier in the case, all without involving the judge in the parties plea discussions. Several benefits would flow from this: the plea bargaining process would become more transparent, resulting in increased public accountability; the defense attorney would have greater incentives to properly investigate and present key issues; and the defendant could make a more informed decision about whether and on what terms to plead guilty. In short, plea bargaining is here to stay, but criminal justice would be greatly improved by bringing more of the plea bargaining process back into the courtroom where the judge could help frame the key issues for the parties. Details: Unpublished paper, 2013. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 13, 2014 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2405270 Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2405270 Shelf Number: 131894 Keywords: Criminal CourtsJudges Plea Bargaining |
Author: Bluett-Boyd, Nicole Title: Victim/Survivor-Focused Justice Responses and Reform to Criminal Court Procedure: Implementation, Current Practice and Future Directions Summary: Many of the key narratives of sexual assault that have informed approaches to law reform highlight the unique disadvantage that victim/survivors face within the criminal justice process. Primarily, these concepts - including definitions of the "real" rape standard and the existence of an "ideal" "victim/survivor" draw on problematic, gendered social constructs and requirements that are rarely met by the reality of sexual assault. When projected onto trial settings, these constructs are often exploited through the practices of legal actors and the flexibility of current legislation. This ensures that the process of a criminal trial, and of providing testimony in particular, is traumatising for victim/survivors of sexual assault. The past three decades have seen reform at numerous levels to address these issues, both within and outside of the criminal justice process. While reforms are variable across jurisdictions, key changes include: - the expansion of counsellor/advocate services; - increased specialisation of police and prosecutions; - legislative amendments to the types of evidence that can be introduced at trial; - alternative provisions for giving evidence at trial; and - changes to the instructions given by the judiciary to the jury, including efforts to contextualise sexual assault. Many of these reforms are based on an understanding of the needs of victim/survivors within the criminal justice process. Until relatively recently these needs have conceptually been aligned with those of the justice system; with a focus on increasing convictions and ensuring punitive measures are taken. Recent reforms, including those identified above, appear to reflect an expanded definition of "justice needs", recognising that the criminal justice process intersects with therapeutic and social forms of redress. Details: Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2014. 89p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Report No. 27: Accessed April 28, 2014 at: http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/resreport27/rr27.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/resreport27/rr27.pdf Shelf Number: 132184 Keywords: Criminal CourtsRapeSex OffendersSex OffensesSexual AssaultSexual ViolenceVictim ServicesVictims of Crime |
Author: Henderson, Emily Title: Expert Witnesses Under Examination in the New Zealand Criminal and Family Courts Summary: This is a qualitative empirical research project examining the experiences of experts who testify in both the criminal and Family Courts in New Zealand regarding child abuse and neglect and sexual assault generally. The study considers whether there is truth in the anecdotal accounts of widespread reluctance amongst experts and it also examines lawyers' and judges' suspicions of bias amongst experts. It considers the areas of the court process which experts find most difficult and proposes a number of solutions. The study group was limited to experts in the field of child abuse and neglect and of sexual assault generally. However, we believe that our findings will be relevant to other areas of expert evidence. This report is divided into three parts: the remainder of this chapter summarises the literature on expert witnesses to date, describing, first, the problems various researchers and commentators have found with expert evidence and, second, outlining the main reform proposals those same writers have put forward. This is not a discussion of the law pertaining to expert evidence, as many legal analyses already exist. The second section contains the empirical part of this project: Chapter Two sets out the project's methodology; Chapter Three describes the findings of the interviews with expert witnesses; Chapter Four describes the smaller companion study of lawyers' opinions. The final chapter recaps the findings of the previous chapters and sets out a number of recommendations for reform. Details: Auckland, NZ: School of Psychology, University of Auckland and New Zealand Law Foundation, 2013. 169p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 4, 2014 at: http://www.lawfoundation.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Final-Research-Report-Henderson-Seymour-Expert-Witnesses-Under-Examination.pdf Year: 2013 Country: New Zealand URL: http://www.lawfoundation.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Final-Research-Report-Henderson-Seymour-Expert-Witnesses-Under-Examination.pdf Shelf Number: 132874 Keywords: Child Sexual AbuseCriminal CourtsExpert Witnesses (New Zealand)Family CourtsSex CrimesSex OffendersSexual Assault |
Author: Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Education Trust Title: Set Up to Fail: Bail and the Revolving Door of Pre-trial Detention Summary: On any given day in 2012/2013, approximately 25,000 people were detained in Canada's provincial jails. Over half of them were in pre-trial custody - legally innocent and waiting for their trial or a determination of their bail. Canada's jails have not always looked like this. The remand rate has nearly tripled in the past 30 years, and 2005 marked the first time in Canadian history that our provincial institutions were primarily being used to detain people prior to any finding of guilt, rather than after they had been convicted and sentenced. While questions remain about what is driving the rise in pre-trial detention, it is clear that it is not a response to increasing crime. Canada's overall crime rate has been declining for at least 20 years. The violent crime rate is at its lowest rate since 1987. In 2012, property offences and other non-violent Criminal Code offences, such as breaching court orders or mischief, accounted for four-fifths (79%) of police-reported crime. The law governing bail aims to safeguard individual liberty, the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial by putting in place a strong presumption of release and only imposing restrictions on liberty or detaining a person where absolutely necessary. Not only does the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("the Charter") guarantee our right to liberty, but it specifically enshrines a constitutional right to reasonable bail. In many courts across the country, however, the bail system is operating in a manner that is contrary to the spirit - and, at times, the letter - of the law. Legally innocent individuals are processed through a bail system that is chaotic and unnecessarily risk-averse and that disproportionately penalizes - and frequently criminalizes - poverty, addiction and mental illness. Canadian bail courts regularly impose abstinence requirements on those addicted to alcohol or drugs, residency conditions on the homeless, strict check-in requirements in difficult to access locations, no-contact conditions between family members, and rigid curfews that interfere with employment and daily life. Numerous and restrictive conditions, imposed for considerable periods of time, are setting people up to fail - and failing to comply with a bail condition is a criminal offence, even if the underlying behaviour is not otherwise a crime. Details: Toronto: Canadian Civil Liberties Association, 2014. 111p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 6, 2014 at: http://ccla.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Set-up-to-fail-FINAL.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Canada URL: http://ccla.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Set-up-to-fail-FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 132909 Keywords: Bail (Canada)Criminal CourtsPretrial Detention |
Author: Victoria (Australia). Department of Justice Title: Defensive Homicide: Proposals for Legislative Reform Summary: This consultation paper contains a detailed analysis of the operation of defensive homicide. This includes an examination of the 28 defensive homicide convictions since the introduction of the offence, three of which involved a female accused. The paper also presents a number of related proposals to improve the effectiveness of the criminal justice system, including reform of the operation of self-defence and evidence laws. The paper includes draft proposals for possible legislation in this area to assist in consideration of the issues raised. Informed by the submissions, the department will provide advice to the Attorney-General about whether reforms should be introduced. Details: Melbourne: Department of Justice, Criminal Law Review, 2013. 74p. Source: Internet Resource: Consultation Paper: Accessed August 23, 2014 at: http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/home/justice+system/laws+and+regulation/criminal+law/defensive+homicide+-+prosposals+for+legislative+reform+-+consultation+paper Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/home/justice+system/laws+and+regulation/criminal+law/defensive+homicide+-+prosposals+for+legislative+reform+-+consultation+paper Shelf Number: 131259 Keywords: Criminal CourtsCriminal Defense Criminal Law Homicide (Australia) |
Author: Victoria (Australia). Sentencing Advisory Council Title: Community Correction Orders in the Higher Courts: Imposition, Duration, and Conditions Summary: Using both quantitative and qualitative analyses of judges' sentencing remarks, Community Correction Orders in the Higher Courts examines CCOs imposed by Victorian higher courts in the 18 months to June 2013. 1.1 This report builds on the findings from the Council's Community Correction Orders: Monitoring Report, which examines a range of factors associated with the use of community correction orders (CCOs). This report presents the findings of a quantitative and qualitative analysis of sentencing remarks for CCOs imposed by the Supreme and County Courts (the higher courts) between January 2012 and June 2013 (inclusive). The analysis has been undertaken to identify case variables influencing the imposition of CCOs, long CCOs (over 2 years duration), and the most frequently imposed conditions. 1.2 The methodology can be summarised as follows: - the sentencing remarks of 437 of the 460 CCOs imposed in the higher courts over this 18 month period are analysed; - the quantitative analysis examines 32 case variables, focusing on the offender, the offence, the victim, and the legal process, and is based on a binary logistic regression; - the imposition of CCOs is compared to short terms of imprisonment for armed robbery, aggravated burglary, and cause serious injury (both intentionally and recklessly); and - the qualitative analysis considers 157 CCO sentencing remarks and a smaller sample of short terms of imprisonment remarks involving the examination of a range of variables associated with the case characteristics. 1.3 With respect to the imposition of a CCO relative to a short term of imprisonment, the quantitative analysis finds that: - the majority of case variables do not predict if a CCO or short term of imprisonment will be imposed; - the only variable that consistently increases the likelihood of the imposition of a CCO (although non-significant for armed robbery) is whether the offender is currently employed and/or involved in an educational program; and - the involvement of drugs and/or alcohol in the offence has an inconsistent predictive influence, increasing the likelihood of a CCO for aggravated burglary, decreasing the likelihood for armed robbery, and having no consistent predictive influence for serious injury. 1.4 Examination of the specific case variables collected for the qualitative research reveals that, for certain judges, some additional factors influence the imposition of a CCO relative to a short term of imprisonment for specific cases. For example: - youth, mental illness, and a significant delay between the offending and sentencing, particularly where accompanied by demonstrated efforts at rehabilitation, influence the imposition of a CCO in some cases; and - previous offending and the seriousness of the instant offending consistently influence the imposition of an order of imprisonment. 1.5 As each sentencing decision is the result of instinctive synthesis, the differences in the sentences imposed could point to differences in the case facts (for example, offender age, nature and extent of prior offending). However, relevant similarities in those case facts, as evidenced by the sentencing remarks on either side of the dispositional divide, indicate that the difference may also be attributable to differences in the weighting of similar case facts. 1.6 With respect to duration, the qualitative analysis of sentencing remarks reveals that the courts provide little explicit guidance on, or clear explanation of, the sentencing purposes intended to be achieved by the imposition of a long CCO. Where comment has been made, the length of the order has been determined by issues of parity, the need to allow appropriate time for completion of rehabilitation courses, or the decision to make the sentence more onerous. 1.7 With respect to the combination of conditions attached to each CCO, the majority of quantitative variables do not make a significant contribution to predicting when a particular CCO condition will be imposed. There is also little judicial comment in the sentencing remarks that directly addresses the sentencing purposes for imposing certain CCO conditions. 1.8 The methodology examines the subjective and objective factors that interact in the complex sentencing process. There are inherent difficulties in clearly assessing the role of quantitative and qualitative factors in judgments based on instinctive synthesis. However, traditional legal analysis of sentencing remarks - in conjunction with the quantitative and qualitative techniques used in this study - allows certain inferences to be made. 1.9 A CCO is a new and different form of sanction. It is not a rebranded version of earlier forms of community-based sanctions. A much broader range of conditions can be imposed on a CCO, and a CCO can be imposed in the higher courts for a period up to the maximum penalty for an offence. However, the duration (85% - 2 years) and conditions attached to CCOs are very similar to those attached to community-based orders (CBOs). An analysis of a range of case factors indicates that the majority of these variables do not contribute to predicting the imposition of a CCO or the duration or conditions attached to a CCO. 1.10 Further research is necessary to gain a better understanding of what is influencing sentencing behaviour in the imposition of CCOs. Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2014. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 10, 2014 at: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Community%20Correction%20Orders%20in%20the%20Higher%20Courts.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Community%20Correction%20Orders%20in%20the%20Higher%20Courts.pdf Shelf Number: 134311 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity-Based CorrectionsCriminal CourtsSentencing (Australia) |
Author: Great Britain. Home Office Title: Pre-charge bail: summary of consultation responses and proposals for legislation Summary: The Government consulted1 on a series of measures whose intended impact was to reduce both the number of individuals subject to, and the average duration of, pre-charge bail. This consultation was open from 18 December 2014 until 8 February 2015 and was complementary to that carried out by the College of Policing between 27 March and 21 July 20142, the responses to which were published on 11 December 20143. The Government published proposals to reform the statutory framework for pre-charge bail on 18 December 2014 and the consultation period closed on 8 February 2015. Exactly 300 responses were received; a statistical breakdown and list of respondents are at the end of this document. The key themes emerging from the responses were: The main benefit of introducing statutory limits for pre-charge bail durations that people expected to see was a more focussed police investigation leading to speedier justice for the victim and accused. Other commonly raised benefits were that it would be a fairer system, protecting suspects' human rights and civil liberties; that there would be a reduction in the negative effects for individuals on bail and their families, including emotional or mental trauma and financial implications. 62 respondents (including 50 from police forces) also said that they perceived no benefits from introducing a statutory limit for pre-charge bail. While 62.3% of respondents did not respond to Question 10, which asked if any other criteria should be added or substituted for the authorising of a bail extension, the most commonly raised suggestion was that matters outside of police control should be taken into account, for example Crown Prosecution Service timescales, forensic examinations (including digital) and international enquiries. Other common suggestions included consideration of the needs of victims of crime, including safeguarding requirements and where there are special interview requirements. Also raised were the need to safeguard complex investigations, and introducing a proportionality and necessity test to releasing people on pre-charge bail. Of the 119 people (40%) who provided a response highlighting resource implications of each model, the most commonly raised issues were around the need for increased resources, including greater staff numbers. A number of respondents raised the increase in time and cost that would result from the proposals, and also raised concern around safeguarding of victims and witnesses, that the proposals would reduce the ability to investigate crime and lead to more cases being marked for "no further action" resulting in a potential lack of justice. Other themes included an increased court workload, and increase in officer time spent at court. Having considered the volume data compiled on the basis of the police's data collection, the Ministry of Justice was concerned that the number of cases that would fall to be considered in the Crown Court would exceed the available capacity in Crown Court centres. Given that the overwhelming majority of cases where pre-charge bail exceeds twelve months are dealt with in large urban centres, where District Judges (Magistrates Courts) sit regularly, it would be possible for applications to be considered by professional judges in the magistrates' courts and we will work with HM Courts & Tribunals Service and the judiciary to ensure there is a presumption that this should happen with these cases. On that basis, the Government has decided to have all pre-charge bail hearings dealt with in the magistrates' courts. Responses were received from across the country, the highest response rates were received from the South East of England (27.3% of responses), Greater London (15%) and the West Midlands (11.3%). The lowest levels of response were from Wales (3.7% of responses), North East England (1.7%) and Yorkshire and the Humber (1.3%). Two thirds of respondents favoured tightening of pre-charge bail and agreed to the principle of judicial oversight. Of the 135 respondents who expressed a preference, 78 favoured Model 2 (58%). Reasons for this included the cost implications of early court hearings, given the high volumes of cases at the earliest stage, and noted that many straightforward investigations require a degree of forensic analysis that will not be completed within 28 days, but would be within three months. Concern was also expressed that, particularly with a 28-day "limit", investigations might be rushed inappropriately to the potential detriment of victims. A number of respondents argued for the 28-day review to be done by a Superintendent rather than a Chief Superintendent, as this rank is being phased out in a number of forces; we will change this. Taking account of the consultation responses and the various factors set out above, we propose to legislate to provide for Model 2 as the Government's preferred approach to the reform of pre-charge bail. However, in their response to the consultation, the police proposed a third model, which retains pre-charge bail authorisation within police forces for six months (judicial oversight thereafter) but with clear necessity and proportionality tests at 28 days and three months and with strong senior oversight. While, in the absence of legislative change, we would support all voluntary steps that police forces take to improve scrutiny and accountability for pre-charge bail decisions, the Government is clear that the police's proposed model does not go far enough. The Government also proposes to legislate to: - Enable the police to release someone pending further investigation without bail in circumstances where bail is not considered to be necessary; - Provide for a presumption to release without bail, with bail only being imposed when it is both "necessary" (e.g. where there is a need for conditions) and "proportionate" (for example, bail with onerous conditions is unlikely to be proportionate in a case where a low level non-custodial sentence would be the likely outcome, even if convicted); - Set a clear expectation that pre-charge bail should not last longer than a specified finite period of 28 days, as recommended by the College of Policing; - Set the extenuating circumstances in which that period might be extended further, and who should make that decision; - Establish a framework for the review by the courts of pre-charge bail; - Make clear that, where an individual has been released without bail while analysis takes place of large volumes of material, the police can make a further arrest where key evidence is identified as a result of the analysis of that material that could not reasonably have been done while the suspect was in custody or on bail; and - Provide in rules of court for a Public Interest Immunity-type procedure to withhold sensitive information from a suspect where its disclosure could harm the investigation, such as where disclosure might enable the suspect to dispose of or tamper with evidence, with a presumption of full disclosure at any subsequent trial. Legislation to give effect to these proposals would need to be taken forward in the next Parliament. As well as these changes in legislation, we will begin work immediately with the College of Policing and other bodies across the public sector to put in place memoranda of understanding to enable the police to access material required as part of a criminal investigation in a timely and efficient manner. We will also explore with the senior judiciary and the College of Policing what guidance might be given to custody officers and magistrates on the appropriate conditions of bail in particular circumstances. Details: London: Home Office, 2015. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 3, 2015 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/418226/150323_Pre-Charge_Bail_-_Responses___Proposals.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/418226/150323_Pre-Charge_Bail_-_Responses___Proposals.pdf Shelf Number: 135152 Keywords: Bail (U.K.)Criminal CourtsJudgesJudicial Decision-Making |
Author: George, Christine C. Title: An Evaluation of the Cook County States Attorneys Office Deferred Prosecution Program Summary: The study looks at the development, implementation, and impact of the Cook County State Attorneys' Deferred Prosecution Program (DPP). Researchers used a mixed methodological approach involving qualitative and quantitative methods including a quasi-experimental design to measure outcomes. Following we summarize the program model, key findings and recommendations. The DPP Model The model is predicated on an ongoing operational collaboration of the State's Attorney's Office with the Cook County First Municipal District Judicial Circuit Court, the Department of Probation Pre-Trial Services Division, and TASC, all of which have key operational roles in the DPP model. The Assistant State's Attorneys (ASA) at various Cook County Branch Courts identify potential candidates, first time non-violent felony offenders, before preliminary hearings are conducted. If victims agree and DPP candidates accept the 12-month program offer, the preliminary hearing is waived and the case is transferred to the DPP program. The low demand program requirements includes regular court appearances in a DPP branch court, assessment, monthly meeting with pre-trial services officer, meeting of certain conditions, dependent on their particular offense and their educational and employment status and not reoffending. Upon successful completion of the program, the felony charge is dismissed by the SAO, exercising its prosecutorial discretion and the participant can then have his or her record expunged. Details: Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2015. 102p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 15, 2015 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/Cook_County_Deferred_Prosecution_Evaluation_0715.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/Cook_County_Deferred_Prosecution_Evaluation_0715.pdf Shelf Number: 136063 Keywords: Criminal CourtsPretrial Services ProsecutionProsecutorial Discretion |
Author: Victoria (Australia). Sentencing Advisory Council Title: Community Correction Orders Monitoring Report Summary: The community correction order (CCO) was introduced as a sentencing option in Victoria in January 2012. The purpose of a CCO is to provide a non-custodial sentencing option that is more flexible than the orders it replaced, in particular the community-based order (CBO), the intensive correction order (ICO), and the combined custody and treatment order (CCTO). Relative to the orders that have been replaced, CCOs can be imposed for longer maximum durations in the higher courts and all courts can order a higher maximum number of hours for unpaid community work. This allows the courts to use CCOs for a wider range of offending behaviours. Also, a greater range of conditions can be attached to a CCO than to the orders it replaced. This provides the courts with increased capacity to address the specific circumstances of the offender. The new order was introduced at a time when another sentencing option, the suspended sentence of imprisonment, was being phased out. CCOs are also intended to be a replacement for suspended sentences in cases where the court considers immediate custody unnecessary to fulfil the purposes for which the sentence is imposed. In light of these sentencing reforms, this report examines three questions: 1. How have sentencers used CCOs and what are the characteristics of offenders who receive them? 2. Have CCOs only replaced CBOs and ICOs in sentencing practice? 3. To what extent, if any, have CCOs replaced suspended sentences of imprisonment in sentencing practice? The questions have been addressed in relation to the Magistrates' Court and the higher courts (the County and Supreme Courts) through analyses of relevant sentencing data. Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2014. 72p. Source: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Community%20Correction%20Orders%20Monitoring%20Report_0.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Community%20Correction%20Orders%20Monitoring%20Report_0.pdf Shelf Number: 136086 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community-Based Corrections Criminal CourtsSentencing (Australia) |
Author: New Zealand. Law Commission. Title: Alternative pre-trial and trial processes : possible reforms Summary: This project arose from the Commission's recommendation in their Report, Disclosure to Court of Defendants' Previous Convictions, Similar Offending, and Bad Character (R103, 2008). The Commission recommended that Government should undertake an inquiry into whether the present adversarial trial process should be modified or replaced with an alternative model, with particular reference to cases involving sexual violence. In 2012, the Commission completed a preliminary review of the use of alternative pre-trial and trial processes for criminal offending, with a specific focus on sex offences. The Commission published Issues Paper 30 and received a large number of submissions from the public. The project was then put on hold by the Minister Responsible for the Law Commission at the time. In late 2014, the project was reactivated on request of the current Minister of Justice. The terms of reference for the project have not changed. Details: Wellington: New Zealand Law Commission, 2012. 117p. Source: Internet Resource: Law Commission issues paper, 2012, no. 30: Accessed August 10, 2015 at: http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/sites/default/files/projectAvailableFormats/NZLC%20IP30.pdf Year: 2015 Country: New Zealand URL: http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/sites/default/files/projectAvailableFormats/NZLC%20IP30.pdf Shelf Number: 136373 Keywords: Criminal CourtsPretrial DetentionSex OffendersSexual Violence |
Author: Victoria (Australia). Sentencing Advisory Council Title: Guilty pleas in the higher courts: rates, timing, and discounts Summary: This report examines the rate and timing of guilty pleas, and their effect on sentence, in the Supreme Court of Victoria and the County Court of Victoria ('the higher courts') from July 2009 to June 2014. The study includes a total of 9,618 cases and 35,902 charges sentenced in the higher courts during the reference period (2009-10 to 2013-14). Since 2008, section 6AAA of the Victorian Sentencing Act 1991 has required sentencing judges (in certain circumstances) to state the sentence that they would have imposed if the offender had not pleaded guilty. Subtracting the actual sentence from this notional undiscounted sentence reveals the stated reduction in sentence, or 'discount' for the guilty plea. As well as making the discounts more transparent to the parties in the case, the very high compliance with section 6AAA in the higher courts has enabled extensive data collection on plea-based sentence discounts for the first time in Victoria. During the reference period (2009-10 to 2013-14), there were over 7,000 higher court cases with sufficient detail in the 6AAA statement to analyse the reductions awarded for guilty pleas. A unique feature of these data is that the information about the plea-based reduction is sourced directly from the sentencing judges. Details: Melbourne: Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council, 2015. 106p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 13, 2015 at: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Guilty%20Pleas%20in%20the%20Higher%20Courts_2.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Guilty%20Pleas%20in%20the%20Higher%20Courts_2.pdf Shelf Number: 136387 Keywords: Criminal CourtsGuilty PleasJudgesPlea BargainingSentencing |
Author: Kirchengast, Tyrone Title: Participation of Victims of Crime in New South Wales Court Processed Summary: This is the Final Full Report of the study, Participation of Victims of Crime in NSW Court Processes. It presents the main analysis of data, findings and recommendations and may be read in conjunction with the Final Report - Executive Summary. An information sheet is also available. This study determines the extent of victim participation in NSW criminal courts via a four stage methodology by 1. scoping the current laws, regulations and rules that determine victim participation in NSW criminal courts, 2. surveying victims of crime as to their modes, expectations and levels of satisfaction with court participation, 3. interviews with justice officials as to their experience and expectations with victim participation in court, and 4. synthesis of a typology of modes of participation following the analysis of stages 1-3. 142 victims participated in the survey of victim expectations and 19 justice officials were interviewed in this study. Victims' self-identified across a range of injuries and harms that spanned family members of homicide victims, offences to the person, sexual and indecent assault, robbery, and fraud. Victims also identified other offences, specifically, domestic violence. Justice officials included judicial officers from all NSW criminal courts, members of the NSW State Parole Authority, Mental Health Review Tribunal, NSW Police, Police prosecutors, ODPP prosecutors and a solicitor working with victims of domestic violence. The data was assessed in the context of a thematic analysis that determined consistent points or issues of concern amongst survey participants. These themes were also used to group interview data and assess the ways in which justice officials categorised and permitted victim participation in court. Both victims and justice officials tended to conceptualise victim participation in terms of an adversarial exchange between state and offender, such that victims were usually always removed from court processes unless otherwise asked to attend to assist the state in its prosecution of crime. This led to a range of problems for victims regarding the representation of their interests, feelings of removal and at times ill treatment, from court processes that otherwise concern them. While some victims praised justice officials, specifically investigating police and police prosecutors in local court proceedings, other victims felt removed and excluded from the system, especially for longer or ongoing matters dealt with on indictment before judge and jury. Tests for significance and correlation between demographics and court processes indicated that certain victim groups had significantly different expectations of NSW court processes. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ('ATSI') victims were less satisfied with overall court processes and sentencing than non-ATSI victims. Victims in rural and remote locations were less likely to want further participation, however, financial and property loss victims wanted greater participation. There were also statistical differences as to the perceived helpfulness of witness assistance officers by gender. The aims of this study sought to determine levels of victim participation generally including impediments to participation and as such the following recommends were made: that Victims Services NSW offers legal education to the criminal justice professions to further enhance the understanding and significance of victims' rights, to consider the potential role of victim advocates as professional members of the criminal justice system charged with supporting the victim throughout their justice journey, and to consider the characterisation of the Charter of Victims Rights as relevant to all justice officials. Recommendations for further research were also made in light of the outcomes of this study, in particular, to focus on the needs of identified victim groups to determine their acute needs with regard to court participation, and to determine the extent to which further assistance and organisation of services through an advocacy scheme affects the current role of service providers, including lawyers, the courts and judiciary, in terms of the overall coherence of the NSW criminal justice system. Details: Parramatta, NSW: Victims Services, NSW, 2014. 313p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 23, 2016 at: http://www.victimsclearinghouse.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Kirchengast_Victim%20Participation%20Study%20Final%20Report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: http://www.victimsclearinghouse.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Kirchengast_Victim%20Participation%20Study%20Final%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 138780 Keywords: Criminal CourtsVictims of CrimeVictims Services |
Author: Bowen, Phil Title: Better courts: Cutting crime through court innovation Summary: The report suggests that by embracing principles of fairness, swiftness, authority and a focus on people as well as cases, our criminal courts can do more to reduce crime and make better use of resources. The report highlights 11 case studies that exemplify better court innovation. The report argues that successful innovation must be started from the local level and calls for more freedom for local courts to act on their own initiative. The report points to a range of innovations which ought to be explored as simpler approaches to resolving low-level crime and anti-social behaviour problems; a new generation of 'accountability' courts in which judges regularly supervise offenders on community sentences; courts, prosecutors and others engaging with court users to help improve the court process, and the government to explore how redesigning the current administrative structure can unlock greater frontline innovation. Details: London: Centre for Court Innovation, 2016. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 5, 2016 at: http://www.justiceideas.org/sites/default/files/documents/Better%20Courts.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justiceideas.org/sites/default/files/documents/Better%20Courts.pdf Shelf Number: 139637 Keywords: Criminal CourtsCriminal Justice Reform |
Author: Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice Title: A report on Chicago's felony courts Summary: At Chicago's Criminal Courts Building at 26th Street and California Avenue, the sheer volume of felony cases has overwhelmed the judges, the prosecutors, and the public defenders. The jail houses nearly 10,000 inmates awaiting trial. It is estimated that at least 20% and perhaps as many as 50% of these inmates suffer from untreated mental illness. The courtrooms hear more than 28,000 cases per year, half of which are non-violent, drug-related charges. Each judge at 26th Street has on average 275 pending cases at any one time. The adult probation department seeks to handle more than 23,000 felony offenders at any one time. Many improvements have been made as the courts struggle to adapt to the realities of operating beyond capacity, but patchwork adaptations are not good enough. This report is a result of unprecedented collaboration among leaders with a commitment to reform. Presiding Judge Paul Biebel, State's Attorney Richard Devine, and Public Defender Edwin Burnette opened their offices to this study and provided both advice and data. An advisory committee of local experts served to identify issues and review findings. Ultimately, the public gets the criminal justice system that it chooses. The choices are made in elections and in decisions on legislation, enforcement priorities, and taxes. The resulting system may not be chosen consciously, but it is chosen nonetheless. Because we disapprove of conduct that we consider immoral, our instinct is to punish it. This may be the case even if the conduct does not directly touch our own lives. But we often do not consider the costs of imposing punishment. Some money is well-spent - the incapacitation of harmful offenders is necessary to the maintenance of an orderly society. Every person put in jail, however, requires that money be spent for police, prosecutors, judges, public defenders, and jailers, and money to house and feed the offender. T1he public, therefore, needs to decide how much the incapacitation is worth. Punishment is purchased at a price, often a high one. Public policy decisions involve tough choices: we want safety, moral rectitude and, at the same time, low taxes, but in criminal justice, as in so much else, we cannot have all we want. We may hope, however, to make informed choices, based on fact. It is our objective here to provide recommendations based on facts and on the informed observations of those most familiar with the criminal justice system. The costs we should take into account are not limited to the expense of operating the criminal justice system; citizens and institutions outside the system bear much of the burden. Imprisonment removes workers from the labor force - in many cases, not just during the period of their imprisonment but permanently. Dealing with drug offenders on a "revolving door" basis, processing their cases but failing to rehabilitate them, produces ruined lives and neighborhoods infested with drug dealers. Misallocation of scarce law enforcement resources imposes costs on the business community because of lost productivity and increased security and healthcare costs, and it imposes costs on the working poor because of lost wages and because the poor are likely to be victims of crime. We can continue to devote our resources to the processing of minor drug cases, with little effect on the markets for drugs, or we can provide more resources aimed at drug and mental health rehabilitation and treatment - and target the criminal justice system on serious crime. If the problems described in this report are not addressed, Cook County's criminal justice system will continue to be unmanageable, costly, and inefficient. It will be a system that fails to do justice fairly and effectively. This report offers recommendations for achieving justice through accountability, independence, diversion, and rehabilitation. Accountability and independence require funding, political insulation, and legislative restraint. Diversion and rehabilitation keep defendants away from the criminal justice system entirely and stop the proverbial "revolving door" of justice through treatment services. There is almost universal acknowledgment among the major players at 26th Street that the Cook County criminal justice system needs significant improvement. Moreover, public opinion data suggest that the majority of the public supports restorative justice. For nonviolent offenders, there is considerable support for "intermediate sanctions" and for "restorative justice." There is not, however, a consensus on what can be done to improve the system. The gap between support for action and necessary action looms large. This study, along with the collaboration of the system's major stakeholders, is a step toward reform and change that is long overdue in Cook County. Details: Chicago: Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice, 2007. 124p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 29, 2016 at: http://chicagoappleseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/criminal_justice_full_report.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://chicagoappleseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/criminal_justice_full_report.pdf Shelf Number: 107838 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCriminal CourtsDiversionFelony OffendersMentally Ill OffendersPublic Defenders |
Author: Thorburn, Hamish Title: Trends in conditional discharges in NSW Local Courts: 2004-2015 Summary: Courts are increasingly choosing to give offenders a section 10(1)b bond rather than fine them according to new research by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR). A 10(1)b bond is one of the least severe penalties a court can impose on an offender. Offenders given a section 10(1)b bond are released without conviction on condition that they enter into a good behaviour bond. Breach of a bond may result in resentencing for the original offence. BOCSAR examined the penalties imposed by the NSW Local Courts between January 2004 and September 2015 for assault, drug, weapons, property damage and traffic offences. These offences account for around 80 per cent of all section 10(1)b bonds. Between January 2004 and September 2015, the percentage of offenders in these categories receiving a section 10(1)b bond rose from 15.2 per cent to 23.6 per cent. Over the same period the proportion of fines being imposed by the Local Court for the same offences fell from 66 per cent to 55.9 per cent; almost perfectly matching the increase in the use of section 10(1)b bonds. The growth in the use of section 10(1)b bonds remained significant even after controlling for changes in offender characteristics such as Indigenous status, gender, level of disadvantage, age, remoteness of residence, number of concurrent offences and prior criminal record. Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2016. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, no. 196: Accessed September 15, 2016 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/Report-2016-Trends-in-conditional-discharges-cjb196.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/Report-2016-Trends-in-conditional-discharges-cjb196.pdf Shelf Number: 147882 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationsConditional DischargeCriminal CourtsDrug OffendersSentencing |
Author: Sixth Amendment Center Title: The Right to Counsel in Utah: An Assessment of Trial-Level Indigent Defense Services Summary: Under Supreme Court case law, the provision of Sixth Amendment indigent defense services is a state obligation through the Fourteenth Amendment. Utah is one of just two states requiring local governments to fund and administer all indigent defense services. Though it is not believed to be unconstitutional for a state to delegate its constitutional responsibilities to its counties and cities, in doing so the state must guarantee that local governments are not only capable of providing adequate representation, but that they are in fact doing so. The state of Utah, however, has no institutional statewide presence, and a limited statewide capacity, to ensure that its constitutional obligations under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments are being met at the local level. The result is that more people accused of misdemeanors are processed through Utah's justice courts without a lawyer than are represented by counsel - upwards of 62 percent of defendants statewide, according to the state Administrative Office of Courts' data. In fact, the data suggests that in most misdemeanor justice courts, the number of misdemeanor defendants proceeding without representation is closer to 75 percent. To the degree that many of these defendants are entitled to a lawyer, the U.S. Supreme Court calls this an "actual denial of counsel." Right to counsel issues in Utah's felony courts are different in kind than those of the misdemeanor courts. There, most indigent defendants are indeed provided with a lawyer. However, depending on the local jurisdiction, that lawyer may work under financial conflicts of interest, or may be beholden to a prosecutor to secure future work, or may be appointed too late in the process or be juggling too many cases to be effective. The U.S. Supreme Court calls this a "constructive" denial of counsel. These conclusions were reached after an 18-month study of public defense services in ten sample counties (Cache, Davis, Salt Lake, San Juan, Sanpete, Tooele, Uintah, Utah, Washington and Weber). The sample counties encompass 90 percent of the state's population and represent all eight felony-level trial court districts. The Utah Judicial Council Study Committee on the Representation of Indigent Criminal Defendants ("Study Committee") authorized the report funded through the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance. Details: Boston: Sixth Amendment Center, 2015. 124p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 16, 2016 at: http://sixthamendment.org/6ac/6AC_utahreport.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://sixthamendment.org/6ac/6AC_utahreport.pdf Shelf Number: 140318 Keywords: Criminal CourtsIndigent DefenseLegal AidRight to Counsel |
Author: Phillips, Nicholas Title: CARSI In Guatemala: Progress, Failure, and Uncertainty Summary: To the extent that the Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) is a coherent policy, Guatemala is its centerpiece. This land of sultry jungles, volcanic highlands and buzzing cities boasts a population of nearly 16 million-the largest on the isthmus, with roughly 39 percent self-identifying as indigenous. During the first five years of CARSI, no country in Central America received more of the initiative's funds, or was allocated more non-CARSI security aid. Thus it would appear that the U.S. Congress is aware of Guatemala's problems: its weak institutions, drug smuggling, violence, gangs, poverty, inequality, impunity, corruption, and malnutrition. We may now add to this list the recent swell of Guatemalan youth who abandoned their homeland and were caught crossing illegally and unaccompanied onto American soil. But is CARSI a catalyst for adequate solutions? In some ways, yes. In others, no. And in some areas, it is hard to say for lack of performance evaluations. CARSI funds have bolstered the criminal courts and the police's anti-gang unit, for example, but have failed to produce an exemplary police precinct or eradicate poppy farms. Furthermore, some crime prevention efforts bankrolled by CARSI have never been audited, so their effectiveness is not clear. This chapter will shed some light on CARSI's successes, challenges, and unknowns in Guatemala. Details: Washington, DC: Wilson Center, Latin American Program, 2014. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 22, 2016 at: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/CARSI%20in%20Guatemala_1.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Guatemala URL: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/CARSI%20in%20Guatemala_1.pdf Shelf Number: 144860 Keywords: Criminal CourtsDrug TraffickingGangsOrganized CrimeViolenceViolent Crime |
Author: Newark, Scott Title: Justice on Trial: Inefficiencies and ineffectiveness in the Canadian criminal justice system Summary: Canada's criminal justice system is a vast and complex machine with numerous players whose actions or inactions impact each other: the courts, the police, corrections, and legal professionals. For those Canadians who are exposed to it, whether as victims or accused, delay and inefficiency can cause real hardship. For taxpayers and those who care about effective public policy and public safety, inefficient and ineffective courts create excessive costs and stand in the way of the proper administration of justice. Good justice policy can only be informed by gathering and analysing the right data, but this has rarely been undertaken in Canada. This paper examines the data on crime rates, length of trials, administration of justice offences, and other measures to get a clear picture of a system that is too often beset with delay and inefficiency. The issues could not be timelier, with the Supreme Court of Canada's July 2016 ruling in the case of R. v. Jordan establishing time frames for reasonable lengths of trial. The accused in the case waited more than 49 months from the time of his arrest to his conviction on a drug offence, which the court found was reflective of a "culture of complacency towards delay". The data show that the police-reported adult crime rate is down 25 percent and youth crime is down 47 percent between 2004 and 2014 (although there was a marked increase in violent crime in 2015). Even so, in 2013/14, the median amount of time from an individual's first court appearance to the completion of their case was 123 days (around 4 months), a slight increase from the years prior. So the system overall has been facing fewer cases but taking longer to complete them. Also of note, offences against the "administration of justice" (violating court orders or bail conditions for example) decreased by 7 percent between 2004 and 2014, much less than the 34 percent decline in the overall crime rate, suggesting that the system is dealing with a smaller core of repeat offenders. Additionally, rates of those in jail awaiting trial (or on "remand") have been exacerbated by the practice of the Courts using judicial discretion to award extra credit due to the perceived less pleasant conditions for offenders. Ironically, a result of this approach is to actually reward repeat offenders at sentencing who are properly and lawfully denied bail, and it also creates an incentive for the accused to stay in jail, adding costs to the system. This paper recommends a Criminal Code amendment that permits pre-trial credit at sentencing but expressly precludes it where bail has been denied because of the past criminal conduct of the person charged. In 1990 the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in the R. v. Askov case, ruling that unjustified delay could constitute a breach of Charter rights. Since then, some defence counsel insist on strict procedural compliance to delay proceedings in an effort to get charges dismissed. What was intended as a shield against abuse has now become a sword to avoid responsibility, and systemic delay is but one of the results. Exacerbating matters, the 1991 Stinchcombe case now mandates disclosure before a preliminary inquiry, which has led to significant delays and calls for its abolition, although this is not feasible because a preliminary inquiry is required by the Charter if the potential punishment is five years or more. But this applies to a wide range of less serious offenses, which have long maximum sentences that are never imposed, including residential break and entry, which has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. This paper recommends that the Criminal Code should be amended to create select hybrid offences with an option for a sentence of five years less one day, to reduce significantly the number of cases requiring preliminary inquiry. In addition, part XVIII.1 of the Criminal Code regarding mandatory case resolution procedures should be reviewed by the provinces to ensure it is practically achieving the intended result of expediting case processing and resolution. Other promising measures for increasing justice system efficiency include: increasing the jurisdiction of Provincial Courts, simplifying judicial authorizations for evidence gathering and admissibility, changing Legal Aid service delivery models to increase full time salaried counsel and reduce private counsel who bill based on time spent, and more. There is no shortage of reforms to consider. Finally, this paper makes a series of recommendations intended to deal with repeat offenders and administration of justice offences: - Creation of the Criminal Code offence (s. 145) of breach of a condition of conditional release under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA); - authorize the Parole Board of Canada to order electronic monitoring of offenders on conditional release; - amend the CCRA to restrict statutory release eligibility to first time federal offenders and require earned parole for repeat federal custody offenders; and - amend the CCRA to expressly restrict parole for convicted non-citizens serving a federal sentence for the purpose of immediate removal from Canada. While the data collected for this report reveal a great deal, there is a wide range of potentially extremely useful data points that should be collected by Statcan or the relevant institutions. Because of the multiple players and processes in the Canadian criminal justice system it is extremely important to identify and track information. The Jordan ruling has articulated the importance of improving justice system efficiency and this paper offers some specific suggestions to achieve that goal. While there will no doubt be institutional resistance to this kind of analysis, the best way to design and implement effective public safety reforms is to gather the relevant information, ask the right questions, and make the appropriate choices. Canadians deserve nothing less. Details: Ottawa, ONT: Macdonald-Laurier Institute, 2016. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 15, 2016 at: http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/MLI_NewarkJusticegood.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Canada URL: http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/MLI_NewarkJusticegood.pdf Shelf Number: 144879 Keywords: Crime RatesCriminal CourtsCriminal Justice AdministrationCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsCriminal Trials |
Author: Smith, Alisa Title: Rush to Judgment: How South Carolina's Summary Courts Fail to Protect Constitutional Rights Summary: In response to disturbing stories of constitutional violations uncovered by NACDL and ACLU attorneys documented in 2016's Summary Injustice report (below), NACDL undertook additional investigation of South Carolina's summary courts. Law students and legal professionals gathered information about court proceedings in five South Carolina counties over three months in the winter and spring of 2016, the results of which are published in this follow-up report. Each day, the team observed court hearings in various venues, observing individuals charged with everything from shoplifting to driving offenses to unlawful possession of tobacco and alcohol. In every court studied for this report, the team found egregious, repeated constitutional violations happening daily and in hundreds of cases. In the months of court watching and data collection, researchers documented numerous findings, all of which are set forth in the Rush to Judgment report. Findings from this study and Summary Injustice lead NACDL to suggest the following five recommendations for reform to ensure that South Carolina's courts operate in accordance with constitutional mandates and guarantee procedural justice for those whose lives will forever be altered as a result of a criminal adjudication: Staff South Carolina’s summary courts with prosecutors and public defenders and ensure that courts are presided over by judges who are licensed attorneys. Reduce the caseload of magistrate and municipal courts by decriminalizing traffic offenses. Reduce fines and fees, and consider alternative sanctions for those who cannot afford to pay. Increase uniform reporting of criminal and traffic cases in summary courts to include data regarding whether defendants had counsel and whether and how defendants were informed of their rights. Enact uniform procedures for magistrate and municipal courts regarding advisement of rights and plea colloquies. Ensure that all defendants understand their rights and the direct and collateral consequences of a guilty plea or verdict. Details: Washington, DC: National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, 2017. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2017 at: https://www.nacdl.org/summaryinjustice/ Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.nacdl.org/summaryinjustice/ Shelf Number: 145011 Keywords: Constitutional RightsCourt ReformCriminal CourtsCriminal DefenseDue ProcessMagistrate CourtsMunicipal CourtsSummary Courts |
Author: Gibbs, Penelope Title: Justice Denied? The experience of unrepresented defendants in the criminal courts Summary: What price justice? There have always been defendants in the magistrates' courts who have appeared without a lawyer, particularly in traffic cases. But our report suggests that there has been a significant increase in the number of people representing themselves who are not choosing to do so. The main reasons are: - ineligibility for legal aid due to income or type of offence, - lack of awareness of rights to legal aid, - lack of organisation. The judges and lawyers we interviewed are concerned that unrepresented defendants are at a disadvantage, and only differed in their views of how significant that disadvantage was. As one magistrate pointed out, luck plays its part. If an unrepresented defendant appears in front of a very empathetic bench, an experienced legal adviser and a prosecutor who is also used to defending, they are likely to be patiently coached through the process. But they may instead face a busy court, with no legal adviser, where inexperienced and/ or impatient advocates and judges are under pressure to deal with cases speedily. It takes time, skill and confidence to deal with unrepresented defendants well, and involves treading a fine line between providing support and maintaining the neutrality of the court process. Unfortunately, many lawyers felt that some colleagues and court staff do not go the extra mile and, even when they do, cannot make up for the lack of a defence advocate. Executive summary There are no official figures for the number of unrepresented defendants in the magistrates' courts, though all interviewees felt numbers had recently increased. Official statistics from the Crown courts indicate numbers have remained steady at around 6% over the last five years. The lack of data means unrepresented defendants in the magistrates' courts are invisible in policy terms. But we have found that the impact on court staff, judges and advocates of dealing with unrepresented defendants is immense - cases are taking longer, and explanation skills and patience are being tested. Many advocates doubt there are genuine savings to the State in denying legal representation to reluctant defendants, but the absence of a cost benefit analysis means we don't know for certain. What is clear is the cost to justice - interviewees had witnessed unrepresented defendants not understanding what they were charged with, pleading guilty when they would have been advised not to, and vice versa, messing up cross examination of witnesses, and getting tougher sentences because they didn't know how to mitigate. Most advocates felt more and better access to legally aided lawyers was the only answer. Certainly, that is one potential remedy, but we should also look at the whole system. Lawyers and judges themselves find it hard to keep up with criminal law and procedure, and are under constant pressure to speed up cases. If we are to deliver justice, we essentially have two options - to fund lawyers for all defendants who want or need them, or to change the whole system so that the needs of unrepresented defendants are integral. Details: London: Transform Justice, 2015. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 18, 2017 at: http://www.transformjustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/TJ-APRIL_Singles.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.transformjustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/TJ-APRIL_Singles.pdf Shelf Number: 146676 Keywords: Assistance to the PoorCriminal CourtsIndigent DefenseLegal Aid |
Author: Queensland. Audit Office Title: Criminal Justice System -- Prison Sentences. Report 4: 2016-2017 Summary: Achieving intended sentence outcomes depends on how efficiently and effectively the court's prison sentence is administered. Some sentence calculations are simple. Others are more complex, involving considerations such as multiple convictions, specific sentence requirements under various State and/or Commonwealth legislation, and consideration of time the prisoner has served on remand awaiting trial (known as presentence custody). If those who calculate the sentence get it wrong, they can expose the community to risk by releasing prisoners early into the community (called a discharge in error) or infringe on prisoners' rights by holding them longer than they are legally entitled to (called an unlawful detention). Sentencing errors also expose the state to unnecessary costs associated with managing prisoners beyond their sentence, locating and returning prisoners released in error, and managing complaints, compensation, and legal costs. This audit examined how well the Queensland criminal justice system exchanges and records data to calculate and administer custodial (prison) sentences accurately. We focused on the public sector entities carrying out sentences. We did not consider the decisions and sentences of magistrates and judges as part of the audit. This is the first of two reports from the criminal justice audit. The second report is due to be tabled in parliament in early 2017 and focuses on the integration and reliability of criminal justice data. Recommendations We recommend the Department of Justice and Attorney‑General in collaboration with the Queensland Police Service: 1. better integrate the sentencing administration processes and quality assurance to reduce the risk of error, including: improving the sharing of sentencing information and documents across criminal justice entities making greater use of technology such as remote (electronic) appearance of prisoners in court to reduce process, communication, and data entry errors associated with the transfer of prisoners; and providing means for direct entry of sentence orders into QWIC strengthening quality assurance practices. 2. assess the need to review relevant sentencing legislation to reduce the complexity of sentence calculations 3. ensure the appropriate capacity, capability, and training of staff responsible for the calculation and administration of sentences across the criminal justice system is in place 4. improve the accuracy and level of detail recorded about discharge and detention errors. Consolidate the recording and reporting of the errors within and across the three entities 5. formalise, implement, or update where necessary, policies and procedures for responding to, managing, reporting, and investigating discharge and detention errors. Policies and procedures should address as a minimum: communication protocols for prisoners affected by, and individuals potentially at risk from, discharge and detention assessment of risk to the community and individuals and where needed mitigation strategies reporting requirements within individual entities and across the criminal justice system investigation of discharge and detention errors (collaboratively where appropriate) quality checks to ensure that processes are followed. Details: Brisbane: Audit Office, 2017. 77p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 5, 2017 at: https://www.qao.qld.gov.au/sites/all/libraries/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.qao.qld.gov.au%2Fsites%2Fqao%2Ffiles%2Freports%2Fcriminal_justice_system-prison_sentences_0.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: https://www.qao.qld.gov.au/sites/all/libraries/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.qao.qld.gov.au%2Fsites%2Fqao%2Ffiles%2Freports%2Fcriminal_justice_system-prison_sentences_0.pdf Shelf Number: 144709 Keywords: Criminal CourtsCriminal Justice Systems Prisoners Punishment Sentencing |
Author: Sixth Amendment Center Title: The Right to Counsel in Indiana: Evaluation of Trial Level Indigent Defense Services Summary: Under U.S. Supreme Court case law, the provision of Sixth Amendment indigent defense services is a state obligation through the Fourteenth Amendment. In Indiana, however, counties are responsible in the first instance to fund and administer services. Although it has not been held unconstitutional for a state to delegate its constitutional responsibilities to its counties, in doing so the state must guarantee that local governments are not only capable of providing adequate representation, but that they are in fact doing so. Part I of this report assesses whether Indiana meets this constitutional demand and determines that the State of Indiana's ability to monitor county indigent defense systems is either entirely absent or severely limited, depending on the type of case. FINDING #1: The State of Indiana has no mechanism to ensure that its constitutional obligation to provide effective counsel to the indigent accused is met in misdemeanor cases in any of its courts, including city and town courts. Misdemeanors matter. For most people, our nation's misdemeanor courts are the place of initial contact with our criminal justice systems. Much of a citizenry's confidence in the courts as a whole - their faith in the state's ability to dispense justice fairly and effectively - is framed through these initial encounters. Although a misdemeanor conviction carries less incarceration time than a felony, the collateral consequences can be just as severe. Going to jail for even a few days may result in a person losing professional licenses, being excluded from public housing and student loan eligibility, or even being deported. A misdemeanor conviction and jail term may contribute to the break-up of the family, the loss of a job, or other consequences that may increase the need for both government-sponsored social services and future court hearings (e.g., matters involving parental rights) at taxpayers' expense. Despite this, the State of Indiana and the Indiana Public Defender Commission (IPDC) do not exercise any authority over the representation of indigent people charged with misdemeanors and facing the possibility of time in jail. Indiana counties may, if they so choose, receive a partial state reimbursement of their indigent defense costs for non-misdemeanor cases in exchange for meeting standards set by the IPDC. However, counties are free to - and do - forgo state money in order to avoid state oversight. The "Indiana Model" for right to counsel services both institutionalizes and legitimizes the counties' choice to not fulfill the minimum parameters of effective representation. What many Indiana counties have realized is that they can contract with private counsel on a flat fee basis for an unlimited number of cases for less money than it would cost them to comply with state standards (even factoring in the state reimbursement). FINDING #2: The State of Indiana has no mechanism to ensure that its constitutional obligation to provide effective counsel to the indigent accused is met in felony and juvenile delinquency cases, at both the trial level and on direct appeal, in counties and courts that do not participate in the IPDC reimbursement program. Thirty-seven of Indiana's 92 counties (40%) choose not to participate in the state's non-capital case reimbursement program as of June 30, 2015. The Commission has no authority whatsoever over the representation of indigent people in the courts located in these counties, and the courts and public defense attorneys do not have to abide by the Commission's standards. Additionally, by statutory exception, Lake County is allowed to limit its request for reimbursement to certain courts and case types. Most of Lake County's courts in which indigent representation is provided do not participate in the reimbursement program. Together, the non-participating counties and courts have trial level jurisdiction over nearly one-third of the population of Indiana. Although the Indiana Model for indigent defense could potentially work to ensure that counties uphold the state's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment obligations to provide effective representation in counties that do participate in the IPDC reimbursement program(s), two things have hindered those efforts. First, state funding for the reimbursement plan has not always kept pace with its intended purpose of reimbursing 40% of non-misdemeanor costs. For example, reimbursements to counties for noncapital representation dropped to a low of only 18.3% in 2006. The inconsistency in reimbursements, in part, resulted in a number of counties leaving the program. Second, although the state is obligated to ensure effective representation to the indigent accused facing a potential loss of liberty in its five appellate districts, 91 circuit courts, 177 superior courts, and 67 city and town courts, for most of its history, IPDC operated with only a single staff member. In 2014, another staff position was added. No two people, no matter how talented, could ever possibly ensure compliance with standards in so many jurisdictions. Details: Boston: Sixth Amendment Center, 2016. 228p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 13, 2017 at: https://www.nacdl.org/IndianaPublicDefense/ Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.nacdl.org/IndianaPublicDefense/ Shelf Number: 145460 Keywords: Criminal CourtsIndigent DefenseLegal AidMisdemeanorsRight to Counsel |
Author: Wan, Wai Yin Title: The determinants of trial duration: a preliminary study Summary: Aim: To conduct an exploratory analysis of the factors influencing trial duration in the NSW District Criminal Court Method: Bi-variate relationships between trial duration and various offence types were examined using one way analyses of variance, fixed effects modelling was employed to examine the joint effects of offence type, number of concurrent offences, year of case finalisation and registry on trial duration. Results: The average trial in the current study lasted 8.2 days, with a standard deviation of 8.6 days and a range of 138 days. Trials were found to be 20.2% shorter where the charges involve break and enter, 35.2% shorter where the charges involve illegal drugs, 44.8% shorter where the charges involve a traffic offence and 44.3% longer where the charges involve abduction The relationship between trial duration and offence type varied from registry to registry. The average sexual assault trial in Dubbo was 2.38 times longer than the average sexual assault trial in Sydney. Similarly, sexual assault trials in Gosford were found to be approximately 1.3 times longer than in Sydney. By contrast, cases involving sexual assault in Newcastle were, on average, only about 76 per cent of the length of such trials in Sydney. Fraud trials in Newcastle were 41 per cent shorter than the non-fraud trials in Newcastle and are only about 35 per cent of the length of the average fraud trial in Sydney. Conclusion: Given the substantial variability in trial duration and the adverse consequences associated with insufficient capacity, courts should operate with spare capacity. Effective management of capacity will require improvements in our ability to predict trial duration. Further research should be conducted into the effects on trial duration of number of witnesses and the use of forensic and audio-visual evidence. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2017. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue paper no. 127: Accessed June 20, 2017 at: http://apo.org.au/system/files/95031/apo-nid95031-315261.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: http://apo.org.au/system/files/95031/apo-nid95031-315261.pdf Shelf Number: 146304 Keywords: Court Delay Criminal CourtsTrials |
Author: Rahim, Nilufer Title: Process evaluation of the flexible criminal justice system pilots Summary: he Flexible Criminal Justice System (CJS) pilots were trialled for six months from October 2012 in 42 magistrates' courts across England and Wales. The pilots tested the effectiveness of different operating models in improving the timeliness and efficiency of the CJS. Six different models were piloted which extended traditional operating hours on weekdays and weekends and extended the use and operating hours of Prison to Court Video Links (PCVL) as well as video courts. A qualitative process evaluation was commissioned by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to understand experiences of the pilots from the perspectives of stakeholders who experienced a flexible model and to identify good practice. This publication reports the findings of the process evaluation. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2013. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Analytical Series; Accessed August 22, 2017 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/260703/process-evaluation-cjs-pilots.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/260703/process-evaluation-cjs-pilots.pdf Shelf Number: 131722 Keywords: Courts Criminal CourtsCriminal Justice Systems |
Author: McConnell, Polly Title: Mental Health and Learning Disabilities in the Criminal Courts: Information for magistrates, district judges and court staff Summary: In his review into people with mental health conditions or learning disabilities in the criminal justice system, Lord Bradley highlighted the importance of mental health and learning disability awareness training for criminal justice staff including members of the judiciary. The Magistrates' Association supports this need for information and training. This resource has been produced primarily for magistrates. It is also useful for district judges, legal advisers and ushers. It provides information about some of the common characteristics of mental health conditions and learning disabilities, and highlights how members of the judiciary and court staff might deal with adult defendants with these conditions. Members of the judiciary and court staff are not expected to diagnose mental health conditions or learning disabilities, neither is it their role to provide welfare services to defendants. They do, however, have a responsibility to raise concerns about defendants who they think might be vulnerable. This resource provides an overview of the signs to be aware of that may indicate that someone has a mental health condition or a learning disability. Having a feeling that 'something isn't quite right', or thinking that a defendant is behaving oddly, is enough justification to ask for more information about that defendant. Asking for more information about a defendant can happen at any point during court proceedings. All defendants have the right to a fair trial. There are some defendants who are vulnerable and might need additional support. This could be due to their age or developmental immaturity, for example, child defendants, or due to particular conditions such as learning disabilities and mental health conditions. The Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction (CCPD) (2011) Treatment of vulnerable defendants notes that: 'children and young persons under 18 or adults who suffer from a mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983 or who have any other significant impairment of intelligence and social function .. are referred to collectively as 'vulnerable defendants'. People with mental health conditions or learning disabilities are not homogenous groups with identical experiences and needs. They are individuals with a wide range of different life experiences, strengths, weaknesses and support needs. Many, however, will share some common characteristics, which might make them especially vulnerable in court. People can experience mild to severe conditions and this will affect the level of support they might need. This resource draws on prevalence data from different research studies, all of which produced statistically significant results. Nonetheless, they show some differences, largely due to different research methodologies. Despite these variations, it is clear that high numbers of people with mental health conditions and learning disabilities routinely appear in the criminal courts. The primary focus of this resource is vulnerable adult defendants. However, much of what is covered will apply also to child defendants and vulnerable witnesses in the criminal court. Details: London: Prison Reform Trust, 2013. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed August 22, 2017 at: http://www.mhldcc.org.uk/media/493/rmi_prt_mhldcc_sept2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.mhldcc.org.uk/media/493/rmi_prt_mhldcc_sept2013.pdf Shelf Number: 131716 Keywords: Criminal CourtsLearning DisabilitiesMentally Disabled PersonsMentally Ill OffendersMentally Ill Persons |
Author: Chemonics International Inc. Title: Changes for Justice Project: Final Report Summary: The Changes for Justice (C4J) Project was funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) under Contract No. DFD-I-00-08-00070-00, a Task Order under the Encouraging Global Anticorruption and Good Governance Efforts (ENGAGE) Indefinite Quantity Contract (IQC) awarded to Chemonics International with a start date of May 12, 2010. The C4J contract effective end date was May 11, 2014, but the project received a cost extension until May 11, 2015. The C4J Project was based on several recent USAID efforts to support the bureaucratic reform processes of the Indonesian Supreme Court and the Attorney General's Office (AGO), including the Justice Sector Reform Program (JSRP) focused on the AGO, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC)/USAID Indonesia Control of Corruption Project (ICCP), focused on the Supreme Court, and the Indonesia Anticorruption and Commercial Court Enhancement (In-ACCE) Project, focused on five first-instance general (district) courts with jurisdiction for commercial and anticorruption cases. C4J was designed to sustain those earlier projects' reforms, compare the knowledge and experiences of each, and deepen the reforms by improving management and increasing transparency and accountability within Indonesia's judicial and prosecutorial systems. The goals of the C4J Project were divided into three parts: Sustaining and Broadening Reforms in the Supreme Court (Component 1); Sustaining and Broadening Reforms in the Attorney General's Office (Component 2); and Special Initiatives (Component 3). Key activities included institutional reforms in human resources, budget and financial management, case management, information technology, education and training programs, and public services. Technical activities included development and launching of prosecution guidelines, a new prosecutorial code of conduct, a new certification program for judges on juvenile cases, and an integrated justice sector training program on combatting threats to biodiversity. Special Initiatives of the project under Component 3 included installation of public information desks, creation of Version 1 of a new case tracking system (CTS) in three pilot district courts during the first year of the project, and a new program to combat threats to biodiversity in three pilot districts, including district courts, district prosecutors' offices, and rural communities. These pilot programs proved to be an excellent model for testing, evaluating, and rolling out reforms. Details: Washington, DC: United States Agency for International Development, 2015. 130p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 9, 2017 at: http://www.chemonics.com/OurWork/OurProjects/Documents/C4J%20Final%20Report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Indonesia URL: http://www.chemonics.com/OurWork/OurProjects/Documents/C4J%20Final%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 147179 Keywords: CourtsCriminal CourtsCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsPolitical Corruption |
Author: Leibovitch, Adi Title: Punishing on a Curve Summary: Does the punishment of one defendant change because of how she fares in comparison to the other defendants on the judge's docket? This article demonstrates that the troubling answer is yes. Judges sentence the same case more harshly when their caseloads contain relatively milder offenses, and more leniently when their caseloads contain more serious crimes. I call this problem "punishing on a curve." Consequently, the article shows how such relative sentencing patterns put into question the prevailing practice of establishing specialized courts or courts of limited jurisdiction. Because judges are punishing on a curve, the court's jurisdiction systematically shapes sentencing outcomes. Courts of limited jurisdiction usually specialize in relatively less serious crimes (such as misdemeanors, drug offenses, or juvenile cases). They treat the mild offenses on their docket more harshly than generalist courts, that also see severe crimes, would have treated them. This leads to the disturbing effect of increasing punitive outcomes vis-aa-vis these offenses, wholly contradictory to the missions of these courts. Such sentencing patterns undermine notions of justice and equitable treatment. They also undermine retributive principles and marginal deterrence across crimes of increasing severity. In light of the profound normative and practical implications, the article offers a remedy to standardize sentences through "statistical curving." In addition to consulting the sentencing range recommended by the sentencing guidelines for a particular offense, a judge should see the distribution of sentences for the same offense across different courts. The article illustrates the feasibility of the proposal empirically using sentencing data from neighboring judicial districts in Pennsylvania. It also explains how this proposal fits within the Supreme Court's jurisprudence following United States v. Booker, which rendered the sentencing guidelines advisory, and its potential advantage in improving appellate review. Details: Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 111, 2017, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2820197 Source: Internet Resource: Accessed Oct. 6, 2017 at: Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2820197 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2820197 Shelf Number: 147593 Keywords: Criminal CourtsJudicial Decision-MakingPunishmentSentencingSentencing Bias |
Author: Rahman, Insha Title: Against the Odds: Experimenting with Alternative Forms of Bail in New York City's Criminal Courts Summary: Statistics show that money bail is unaffordable and out of reach for many New Yorkers. Even though the median bail amount on felony cases in New York City is $5,000 0 and even lower - at $1,000, on misdemeanor cases - over 7,000 people are detained pretrial at Rikers Island and other New York City jails on any given day because they cannot make bail. Under New York law, the use of bail doesn't have to be this burdensome. In setting bail, judges have nine forms to choose from, including "alternative" forms such as partially secured or unsecured bonds, that require little to no upfront payment to secure a person's pretrial release. The traditional practice in the courts, however, is to ignore these options and impose only the two most onerous forms of bail to make: cash bail and insurance company bail bond. The Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) launched a three-month experiment in New York City arraignment courts to examine what would happen if alternative forms of bail were used more often. In what kinds of cases might judges be willing to set these forms of bail? In what amounts? What impact would these alternatives have on a person's ability to make bail? What other pretrial outcomes might be expected? Drawing from a cohort of 99 cases in which an unsecured or partially secured bond was set, these cases were tracked over a nine- to 12-month period to document bail-making, court appearance, pretrial re-arrest, and final case disposition. Interviews were conducted with judges, defenders, and court staff to better understand the results and develop recommendations for improving the use of bail in New York City. The results were promising. Sixty-eight percent of the cohort made bail, and an additional 5 percent were released on recognizance. The use of alternative forms of bail in the cohort was not limited to low-level offenses or certain types of offenses. Approximately 54 percent of cases had a top charge of a felony, and the cohort - felonies and misdemeanors - spanned the gamut from drug possession, larceny, and robbery, to assault, criminal contempt, and weapons possession. Those released had a combined court appearance rate of 88 percent and a rate of pretrial re-arrest for new felony offenses of 8 percent. When released pretrial, the majority of cases resolved in a disposition less serious than the initial top charge at arraignment, with fully one-third ending in dismissal and another 19 percent ending in a noncriminal conviction. Ninety-nine cases out of the thousands where bail is set is a miniscule number in the larger scheme of New York City's bail system, yet this experiment illustrates the possibility of meaningful culture change. The recommendations in this report offer strategies to increase and ease the use of alternative forms of bail: - stakeholders should be educated about them; - the associated paperwork and procedures to set these forms of bail should be simplified; - they should be set routinely as an option in addition to traditional forms of bail; and - when bail is set, it should be done with an individualized inquiry into a person's ability to pay. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2017. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 10, 2017 at: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/against-the-odds-bail-reform-new-york-city-criminal-courts/legacy_downloads/Against_the_Odds_Bail_report_FINAL3.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/against-the-odds-bail-reform-new-york-city-criminal-courts/legacy_downloads/Against_the_Odds_Bail_report_FINAL3.pdf Shelf Number: 147639 Keywords: BailBail ReformCriminal CourtsPretrial DetentionPretrial Justice |
Author: Luna, Erik, ed. Title: Reforming Criminal Justice. Volume 3: Pretrial and Trial Processes Summary: The present volume of Reforming Criminal Justice examines some crucial issues in pretrial and trial processes, key aspects of which may occur outside of the courtroom and beyond trial proceedings. For the most part, the chapters are as advertised (so to speak) - their titles accurately and succinctly convey the topic at hand. The goal of each chapter is to increase both professional and public understanding of the subject matter, to facilitate an appreciation of the relevant scholarly literature and the need for reform, and to offer potential solutions to the problems raised by the underlying topic. This approach is taken in the report's other volumes, which address additional areas of criminal justice that are worthy of attention and even reconsideration. Volume 3 Table of Contents - Grand Jury - Roger A. Fairfax, Jr., Jeffrey & Martha Kohn Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Research Professor of Law, George Washington University - Pretrial Detention and Bail - Megan Stevenson, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason University and Sandra G. Mayson, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Georgia - Prosecutor Institutions and Incentives- Ronald F. Wright, Needham Y. Gulley Professor of Criminal Law, Wake Forest University - Plea Bargaining - Jenia I. Turner, Amy Abboud Ware Centennial Professor in Criminal Law, Southern Methodist University - Prosecutorial Guidelines - John F. Pfaff, Professor of Law, Fordham University - Defense Counsel and Public Defense - Eve Brensike Primus, Professor of Law, University of Michigan - Discovery - Darryl K. Brown, O.M. Vicars Professor of Law, University of Virginia - Forensic Evidence - Erin Murphy, Professor of Law, New York University - Actual Innocence and Wrongful Convictions - Brandon L. Garrett, Justice Thurgood Marshall Distinguished Professor of Law and White Burkett Miller Professor of Law and Public Affairs, University of Virginia - Race and Adjudication - Paul Butler, Albert Brick Professor in Law, Georgetown University - Crime Victims' Rights - Paul G. Cassell, Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law and University Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Utah - Appeals - Nancy J. King, Lee S. & Charles A. Speir Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University - Problem-Solving Courts - Richard C. Boldt, T. Carroll Brown Professor of Law, University of Maryland Details: Phoenix: Arizona State University, 2017. 324p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 18, 2017 at: http://academyforjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Reforming-Criminal-Justice_Vol_3.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://academyforjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Reforming-Criminal-Justice_Vol_3.pdf Shelf Number: 148252 Keywords: Criminal CourtsCriminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice Reform Criminal Justice Systems Criminal Trial Pretrial Justice |
Author: Gibbs, Penelope Title: Defendants on video - conveyor belt justice or a revolution in access? Summary: Embracing technology is the progressive thing to do. We all know that - it has enriched our lives immeasurably. Sometimes, however, it is really important to pause for thought, and ask whether a seemingly obvious opportunity for a technological solution is actually one that is worth grasping. That is the message from this timely report. It offers a totally convincing argument that the use of video and similar technologies for virtual court hearings may carry risks and costs that outweigh the likely benefits. Court hearings are complex events. It requires a great deal of coordination and cost to assemble all the participants. Surely there are benefits to be had by allowing some - or all - of them to take part in hearings virtually? Certainly there are potential savings, but there are also some obvious, and some less than obvious, costs. The obvious ones are financial. Whilst it is easy and cheap to take part in a short Skype meeting, the virtual reality that is afforded to participants is far from real. It is very much more expensive to provide equipment that meets realistic criteria for court business. There are issues of visual and acoustic clarity. Virtual participants need to see and hear what is going on, and need to be seen and heard just as clearly. Systems need to be 100% reliable and available - which can prove expensive. These practical considerations may be surmountable, of course. 'Teething problems' can be solved, and costs of technology will fall over time - but these arguments do not remove the need for careful and thorough calculation of cost-effectiveness. The non-financial costs of virtual hearings are potentially more troubling. In the first place, many defendants are vulnerable participants, and appearances in court are arguably very stressful 'vulnerable moments' for the majority, sometimes having life-changing consequences. It is overoptimistic to expect them to participate as fully in a virtual hearing as they can in open court, and to ensure that they are properly given voice. More generally, virtual technology inevitably degrades the quality of human interaction. Nuances may be undetected, misunderstandings may go unnoticed more easily. Empathy may be lost. Defence counsel may find it harder to support their clients effectively, and there are some indications that the technology may actually affect court outcomes. In other words, there is no guarantee at present that virtual hearings will not damage the quality of justice. Finally there are more diffuse - but equally important - concerns about the impact of this technology on the legitimacy of the criminal courts. We know that courts draw their legitimacy from many sources. Treating people fairly, giving them respect, listening to their side of the story, explaining the processes carefully, are all important preconditions. But there is also an element of theatre to court business. One might question whether the full pomp and ritual of wigs and gowns are essential to the authority of the court, but it would be naive to ignore the fact that a hearing is an occasion, not simply a transaction. And it seems very likely that the quality of the occasion is thinned by the technologies of virtual reality. Some will be tempted to dismiss this report as sentimental Neo-Luddism. That would be wrong, as its arguments are balanced and thoughtful, and deserve close consideration. For most citizens, court appearances constitute rare and important moments of interaction with the power of the state. It could prove a costly mistake to penny-pinch when orchestrating these moments. Details: London: Transform Justice, 2017. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 8, 2017 at: https://www.barrowcadbury.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/TJ_Disconnected.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.barrowcadbury.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/TJ_Disconnected.pdf Shelf Number: 148768 Keywords: Criminal CourtsCriminal DefendantsDefendantsVideo HearingsVideo Technology |
Author: Hunt, Heather Title: Court Fines and Fees: Criminalizing Poverty in North Carolina Summary: In trial courts across North Carolina, poor criminal defendants are regularly and systematically billed for an array of fines and fees they can't afford. Fees are imposed at almost every step in the criminal justice process, starting before conviction and extending for months or years after sentencing. As we detail in our report, Court Fines and Fees: Criminalizing Poverty in North Carolina, defendants unable to pay these accumulating court costs risk triggering a cascade of draconian penalties: additional fees, revoked driver's licenses and jail time, often for offenses too minor to warrant incarceration in the first place. The result can be surreal and cruel. Defendants unable to pay their fees are sanctioned in ways that make it even harder for them to escape their criminal justice debt. For them, fines and fees constitute an ongoing poverty trap. One Orange County defendant who had previously been jailed for failure to pay court fees explained how she lives in fear of being incarcerated again. If that happens, her husband may have to quit his job to take care of their kids. Then, she frets, they will likely lose their home. "The whole thing leaves my family feeling hopeless," she said, "like we'll never get back on our feet." It feels like a cycle. "We'll never be able to pay and will always be burdened with these costs." It is "almost like a set-up, they know I won't be able to pay." This report is the first in a series of six to be issued by the North Carolina Poverty Research Fund exploring the criminal justice practices that work to criminalize poverty in our state. Through legal analysis, defendants' stories, court observations, and interviews with advocates, public defenders and judges, we show how criminal court fines and fees work in North Carolina to burden poor defendants, and their families and communities. We examine how fees raise troubling questions of constitutionality, cast doubt on the fairness of our courts and infringe on judicial independence. We scrutinize claims about the necessity and cost efficiency of fines and fees and look at the factors that drove their rise in the state. We conclude with simple, straightforward recommendations that can be easily adopted by the courts. Details: Chapel Hill: North Carolina Poverty Research Fund, 2017. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 16, 2018 at: http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Court-Fines-and-Fees-Criminalizing-Poverty-in-NC.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Court-Fines-and-Fees-Criminalizing-Poverty-in-NC.pdf Shelf Number: 149171 Keywords: Criminal CourtsCriminal DefendantsFines and FeesPoverty |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado Title: Justice Derailed: A case study of abusive and unconstitutional practices in Colorado city courts Summary: Colorado's municipal courts operate in the shadow of state law, with little meaningful statewide oversight or accountability. Without such oversight, Colorado municipal court judges function largely unchecked as they determine daily how their city will mete out justice. While some Colorado municipal judges are actively working to improve the quality and fairness of their courts, others run their courtroom like a fiefdom, trampling on the rights of criminal defendants-especially those living in poverty-with impunity. A multi-year investigation by the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado (ACLU) has revealed that many municipal courts across the state persistently ignore constitutional and statutory standards. This paper documents some of these troubling and unlawful practices through a case study of one particular municipal court. The Alamosa Municipal Court, under the sole leadership of Judge Daniel Powell, stands out for the seriousness and frequency of its violations of criminal defendants' rights. Individuals who appear before Judge Powell-most of whom are poor and have been accused of committing minor law violations-often face jail or the threat of jail because of their poverty, are unlawfully denied appointed counsel, are forced to plead guilty without legal advice and without ever appearing in court, and endure disrespectful and patronizing treatment by the judge. As the practices described herein show clearly, justice in the Alamosa Municipal Court has two tiers-one for those who lack financial resources and one for those with means. Under Judge Powell's regime, impoverished defendants face the harshest penalties for conduct that is usually minor, non-violent and poses little or no risk to public safety. When sentencing these defendants, Judge Powell commonly imposes unreasonably high fines and fees; requires defendants to adhere to plainly unmeetable payment plans; charges significant additional monies for missed payments; subjects defendants to months or years of mandatory and highly disruptive court appearances under threat of arrest; and has them arrested and held in jail for days and sometimes weeks when they are unable to make full payments to the court. Defendants with means, on the other hand, often must appear in court only once to resolve their case and are able to pay their fines promptly and move on with their lives. This two-tiered system of injustice serves to criminalize and perpetuate poverty. The residents of Alamosa deserve better. The abuses occurring in Judge Powell's courtroom are shocking and egregious. Yet, it is important to understand that variations of these same abuses are also occurring in other municipal courts across Colorado. The story of the Alamosa Municipal Court is not just a story of one abusive city court-it is also the story of how lack of regulation and oversight of Colorado's municipal courts has cleared the path for violations of defendants' fundamental rights, an injustice that falls heavily on people in poverty. Details: Denver: ACLU of Colorado, 2017. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 27, 2018 at: https://aclu-co.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/JUSTICE-DERAILED-web.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://aclu-co.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/JUSTICE-DERAILED-web.pdf Shelf Number: 149274 Keywords: Civil Rights Criminal CourtsCriminal Defendants Criminal Fines and Fees Indigent Defendants Municipal Courts |
Author: Labriola, Melissa Title: Evaluation of the Cook County Misdemeanor Deferred Prosecution Enhancement Program: Findings and Recommendations Summary: Many states, including Illinois, are grappling with overwhelming misdemeanor caseloads, placing significant resource burdens on courts, prosecutors, and defense agencies (see, e.g., Greenberg and Cherney 2017; Schauffler et al. 2016). Responding to these caseload pressures, as well as to growing national interest in reducing the adverse collateral consequences of a conviction for defendants while addressing their underlying treatment needs, prosecutors are increasingly turning to pretrial diversion (e.g., see George et al. 2015; Labriola et al. 2017). Defendants who complete diversion requirements generally have their cases dismissed without further adjudication. The current study evaluates a diversion program for misdemeanor defendants, implemented by the Cook County State's Attorney's Office (SAO), which has jurisdiction over criminal cases in Chicago, Illinois and its surrounding suburbs. The Cook County SAO is the second largest prosecutorial office in the nation and the largest in Illinois, handling about 250,000 cases per year, including more than 150,000 misdemeanors. With funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the SAO sought to expand a preexisting misdemeanor diversion program to geographic areas within the county where the program was not yet available. The current study evaluates both the original diversion model and the enhancement. Misdemeanor Diversion in Cook County The Misdemeanor Deferred Prosecution Program (MDPP) was initiated in 2012 by the Cook County State's Attorney's Office. Given available funding, the program was implemented for defendants who, based on the location of their arrest, had their preliminary hearing within two of six geographically-defined branch courts within Chicago (Branch 23 and Branch 29) and two of five suburban district courts (respectively in Skokie and Bridgeview). Besides the geographic location of the arrest and preliminary hearing, diversion eligibility also required the defendant to be charged with a nonviolent misdemeanor; not to have any prior violent conviction within the past ten years; and not to have a pending case in any court at the time that the current case was filed. As a practical matter, based upon case-by-case discretion applied by the assistant state's attorney, diversion participants tended to be first ime defendants (no prior convictions of any kind). In addition, the most commonly seen charges were retail theft, marijuana possession, and trespass. Enrolled program participants were required to attend two sessions at a community-based services agency located conveniently to the participant's home or work. In a special "veterans" track, program participants who were military veterans attended one of their two sessions at the John Marshall Law School Veteran's Legal Support Center and Clinic and the second session at the Jesse Brown Veterans Medical Center. Attendance at both required sessions led to dismissal of the current criminal charges. Implemented in 2015 with Bureau of Justice Assistance funding, the Misdemeanor Deferred Prosecution Enhanced Program (MDPEP) expanded misdemeanor diversion to two additional preliminary hearing courts: Sixth Municipal District (Markham) and Chicago's Branch 34 courthouses. In addition, the expanded diversion model integrated the use of a brief validated risk-need assessment tool, the Criminal Court Assessment Tool (C-CAT), to aid with programming. Specifically, based on whether a defendant was classified by the CCAT as low, moderate, or high risk, the defendant would be routed to one of three alternative diversion tracks: (1) two case management appointments (low risk); (2) two appointments plus at least ten hours of community service (moderate risk); or (3) two appointments plus ten hours of cognitive-behavioral treatment for criminal thinking, using the nationally known Thinking for a Change (T4C) model (high risk). The goals of the enhanced program model were to reduce subsequent criminal behavior; reduce costs to the system; and minimize the collateral consequences resulting from convictions for low-level, non-violent offenses. These same goals were also shared by the original diversion model. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2018. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed May 7, 2018 at: https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2018-03/cook_county_deferred_eval.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2018-03/cook_county_deferred_eval.pdf Shelf Number: 150093 Keywords: Court CaseloadsCourt DiversionCriminal CourtsMisdemeanor DiversionMisdemeanorsProsecution |
Author: Hartlen, Chelsea D.M. Title: Managing Criminal Women in Scotland: An Assessment of the Scarcity of Female Offenders in the Records of the High Court of Justiciary, 1524-1542 Summary: The records of Scotland's High Court of Justiciary that run from 1524 to 1542 contain a remarkably low number of women charged with felonies and pleas of the crown, and reveal the justiciar's reluctance to convict or execute female offenders. Criminal procedure and jurisdiction afforded victims and kin opportunities to deal with deviant women before they attracted the attention of the king and his justiciar. Moreover, in the Borders, remote central governance, minority rulers and feuding encouraged a quasilegal system of private justice that operated within the organising principal of kindred to maintain order. In Scotland, this manifested in a sorting process that kept women out of the justice court and under the management of local officials and kindred. This thesis examines these documents in order to understand better the experiences of women before the law and the efficacy of centralised governance and private justice in sixteenth-century Scotland. Details: Halifax, Nova Scotia: Dalhousie University, 2014. 183p. Source: Internet Resource: Thesis: Accessed August 2, 2018 at: https://dalspace.library.dal.ca/bitstream/handle/10222/53870/Hartlen-Chelsea-MA-HIST-August-2014.pdf?sequence=3 Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://dalspace.library.dal.ca/bitstream/handle/10222/53870/Hartlen-Chelsea-MA-HIST-August-2014.pdf?sequence=3 Shelf Number: 151009 Keywords: Criminal CourtsCriminal ProcedureFemale OffendersHistorical StudyWomen Offenders |
Author: Jensen, Elise Title: Consistency During the Court Process: The San Francisco Public Defender's Checklist Project Pilot Study Summary: Research has shown that checklists improve consistency and reduce the likelihood that critical steps are overlooked in technical fields such as aeronautics and medicine. The current study explores whether similar tools might promote the consistency and quality of legal representation among often overburdened and under-resourced public defense attorneys. With funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the San Francisco Public Defender's Office piloted ten checklists, providing attorneys with guidelines and process reminders across critical points as cases make their way through the system (e.g, initial client meetings, pre-trial motions and hearings, bail motions, and eyewitness interviews). The following themes emerged from the evaluation: Overall, participating attorneys liked the idea of checklists and believed they increased their own confidence and consistency of treatment between clients. Attorneys found only a few of the checklists useful to them and generally held the extra work the lists created to be more burdensome than beneficial. Abbreviated and online tools might be more useful to their daily work, many of the attorneys suggested; they further recommended that the lists could prove valuable to less experienced support staff, such as paralegals, investigators, or legal interns. Attorneys stressed the importance of tailoring checklists to the needs of the local jurisdiction. The final checklists created by the San Francisco Public Defender's Office are public domain and can be requested here. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2018. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 11, 2018 at: https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2018-07/consistencyduringthecourtprocess.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2018-07/consistencyduringthecourtprocess.pdf Shelf Number: 152899 Keywords: Criminal CourtsLegal Aid Procedural Justice Public Defenders |