Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:39 am
Time: 12:39 am
Results for criminal justice policies
10 results foundAuthor: Davies, Elizabeth Title: Impact & Influence: The Role of Local Jurisdictions in Managing Prison Population Size Summary: Budgetary pressures, court mandates on crowding, and social justice concerns have prompted many states throughout the country to develop laws and administrative policies intended to control the size of the prison population. While long-term strategies often look to offender rehabilitation and reductions in new criminal activity to achieve this goal, the most common short-term strategies focus on requiring, encouraging, and permitting decision makers to use local options in lieu of prison at the time of sentencing, inmate release and transfer, and supervision violation response. By modifying decision making at the system points that influence prison population size, legislatures and other state-level policy makers hope to avert projected growth in prison populations, control corrections spending, and potentially reinvest in strategies that have been shown to improve public safety. Although many strategies to control the size of the prison population are developed in consultation with local stakeholders, a number of states create policy that relies on local jurisdictions to assume responsibility for the offender population without fully considering how this shift might impact the resources and capacity of jails, supervision offices, and community service and treatment providers. Further, they often do not account for how the policies and practices of those local agencies, which are largely responsible for the day-to-day operation of the criminal justice system, can influence the success of state prison population control efforts. Incarceration is not a problem limited to state government, nor can its solutions be conceived and executed solely by state governments. In designing strategies to manage the size of the prison population, states must consider the effect that these changes will have on local jurisdictions and the important role of local policy and support in the success of their efforts. The purpose of this white paper is to explore the role of local jurisdictions in state prison population management strategies by examining the three policy levers in the criminal justice system that can most directly and immediately influence the number of people in prison. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2011. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: White Paper: Accessed January 26, 2012 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412437-Role-of-Local-Jurisdictions.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412437-Role-of-Local-Jurisdictions.pdf Shelf Number: 123760 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice PoliciesPrison AdministrationPrisons |
Author: Ram, Christopher D. Title: Meeting the Challenge of Crime in the Global Village: An Assessment of the Role and Future of the United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Summary: This book examines recent developments in the evolution of crime at the domestic and transnational level, the pressures that these have exerted on domestic law and policy and national sovereignty, and the effectiveness of the United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice as a collective response to those pressures. At the time of writing (April - December of 2011) the Commission, which was established in 1992, is in its 20th year, and a re-assessment is in order. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the Commission, it is necessary to first assess the various functions it performs, whether by design or not, and the value of these functions to the Member States individually and the international community as a whole. This is more complex than it may seem, because effectiveness is largely in the eye of the beholder and must inevitably be assessed as against the expectations of the many different constituencies it serves, which are defined not only by national or regional economic, political or other substantive interests but also in terms of the diplomatic, criminological, security, development and intergovernmental, governmental or non-governmental lenses through which various participants perceive the Commission and its work. In this context, the book then considers developments of the past two decades and the perspectives of various constituencies on what has worked and what has not. It concludes that the benefits of the Commission and the work it mandates are, while often abstract, long-term and difficult to quantify, substantial when compared with the relatively small investment it demands from the Member States. At the 20th session, held in April 2011, the frustrations of many delegations appeared to crystallise in a new will to adopt procedural reforms, which bodes well for the future, but the Commission was also advised of major resource limits that will reduce the documentation by the Commission of its work, which bodes ill. These and other recent developments will be considered with a view to developing ideas and proposals for the future. Details: Helsinki: European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, affiliated with the United Nations (HEUNI), 2012. 144p. Source: Internet Resource: Publication Series No. 73: Accessed July 5, 2012 at: http://www.heuni.fi/Satellite?blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobcol=urldata&SSURIapptype=BlobServer&SSURIcontainer=Default&SSURIsession=false&blobkey=id&blobheadervalue1=inline;%20filename=HEUNI%20report%2073%20final%2028022012.pdf&SSURIsscontext=Satellite%20Server&blobwhere=1331736235201&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&ssbinary=true&blobheader=application/pdf Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://www.heuni.fi/Satellite?blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobcol=urldata&SSURIapptype=BlobServer&SSURIcontainer=Default&SSURIsession=false&blobkey=id&blobheadervalue1=inline;%20filename=HEUNI%20report%2073%20final%2028022012.pdf&SS Shelf Number: 125477 Keywords: Crime PreventionCriminal Justice PoliciesCriminal Justice ReformUnited Nations |
Author: Sentencing Project Title: The State of Sentencing 2013: Developments in Policy and Practice Summary: The United States has the highest rate of incarceration in the world and keeps 7.2 million men and women under correctional supervision. More than 2.2 million are in prison or jail while nearly five million are monitored in the community on probation or parole. The scale of the nation's correctional population results from a mix of crime rates and legislative and administrative policies that vary by state. Today, there is general agreement that the high rate of incarceration resulted from deliberate policy choices that impose punitive sentences which have increased both the numbers of people entering the system and how long they remain under correctional control. These policies include an expansion of life without parole as a sentencing option and lengthy terms under community supervision. Despite the nation's four-decade era of mass incarceration, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that the prison population dropped in 2012 for the third consecutive year. About half of the 2012 decline - 15,035 prisoners - occurred in California, which decreased its prison population in response to a 2011 Supreme Court order to relieve prison overcrowding. But eight other states - Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia - showed substantial decreases of more than 1,000 inmates, and more than half the states reported some drop in the number of prisoners. Previous changes in policy and practice may have contributed to the modest decline. Lawmakers have cited the growth in state corrections spending at the expense of other priorities as a reason to change sentencing policies and practices. During 2013, legislators in at least 31 states adopted 47 criminal justice policies that may help to reduce the prison population, improve juvenile justice outcomes, and eliminate the barriers that marginalize persons with prior convictions. The policy reforms outlined in this report document changes in sentencing, probation and parole, collateral consequences and juvenile justice. Highlights include: Six states - Colorado, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Oregon, South Dakota, and Vermont - expanded alternatives to incarceration for certain drug offenses. Three states - Kansas, Oregon, and South Dakota - authorized earned discharge from community supervision. Maryland abolished the death penalty as a sentencing option. Today, 18 states and the District of Columbia no longer authorize the death penalty. Oregon became the third state to authorize racial impact statements for any change to criminal laws or sentencing codes. Five states - California, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, and Rhode Island - adopted or expanded policies to address employment barriers for persons with a prior criminal history. Georgia and Nebraska enacted comprehensive juvenile justice measures that included provisions to expand alternatives to incarceration for certain youth. At least eight states - Arkansas, Delaware, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Dakota, Texas, Wyoming, and Utah - modified juvenile list without parole policies. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2014. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 22, 2014 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/sen_State%20of%20Sentencing%202013.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Arab Emirates URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/sen_State%20of%20Sentencing%202013.pdf Shelf Number: 132114 Keywords: Criminal Justice PoliciesCriminal Justice ReformPrison SentencesPrisonersPunishmentSentencing |
Author: Great Britain. Home Office Title: Transforming the Criminal Justice System. Strategy and Action Plan - Implementation Update Summary: In June 2013 we published Transforming the CJS: A Strategy and Action Plan for the Criminal Justice System. It set out a vision for a modern criminal justice system (CJS) that provides a swift and determined response to crime, treats victims and witnesses with care and consideration, and provides much better value for money to the taxpayer. We have made good progress delivering this vision. Victims have a louder voice with clearer and broader entitlements, digital working by CJS staff is increasing, and the CJS is more transparent than ever, with more information available to the public and television broadcasting available from some courts. This updated version of the plan builds on these achievements and sets out what we will do to complete this transformation. The Criminal Justice Board ("the Board"), chaired by the Criminal Justice Minister, sets priorities and provides leadership for the CJS. The Board comprises the chief executives of the criminal justice agencies and senior leaders from across the system. The Board has three main priorities in 2014/15. To create a criminal justice system that cares for, and considers the needs of victims and witnesses we will: - make the Victims' Code and Witness Charter part of normal business for everyone in the CJS; - provide a more joined-up response for victims and witnesses from criminal justice system partners; - improve the services provided to support victims and witnesses; - support victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system; and - make fair and respectful treatment for victims and witnesses the norm. Details: London: Home Office, 2014. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 14, 2014 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/330690/cjs-strategy-action-plan.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/330690/cjs-strategy-action-plan.pdf Shelf Number: 133070 Keywords: Criminal Justice PoliciesCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice System (U.K.) |
Author: Californians for Safety and Justice Title: Latino Voices: The Impact of Crime and Criminal Justice Policies on Latinos Summary: Despite representing a larger portion of California's population than whites, Latinos are dramatically overrepresented as crime victims - and in our courts, jails and prisons. Research shows that Latinos receive harsher treatment in arrests, pretrial proceedings and sentencing than whites, even when charged with the same offenses. Other findings include: Victims of Crime - Latinos are murdered twice as much as whites in California -- and more by strangers. - Latinos are more likely to be shot and burglarized than whites. - Hate crimes against Latinos rise as immigration increases. - California Latinos experienced more repeat crimes than survivors overall. - Half of Latino survivors are unaware of recovery services. Unequal Treatment in the System - Latinos awaiting trial were more likely to be denied bail, or their bail was set higher than African Americans or whites. - Latinos were 44% more likely to be incarcerated than whites for the same crimes. Latinos Support Change - California Latino voters want officials to focus on less incarceration, not more - They want more supervised probation and rehabilitation by a five-to-one margin over sending more people to jail/prison. - Eight in 10 support shortening long sentences and using the savings for education, health services and prevention. Details: Oakland, CA: Californians for Safety and Justice, 2014. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 14, 2014 at: http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/211/04/1/430/LatinoReport_7.8.14v1.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/211/04/1/430/LatinoReport_7.8.14v1.pdf Shelf Number: 133073 Keywords: Bias Criminal Justice PoliciesDiscriminationDisproportionate Minority ContactHispanicsLatinosRacial Disparities (California) |
Author: Sentencing Project Title: Fewer Prisoners, Less Crime: A Tale of Three States Summary: A new report by The Sentencing Project examines the potential for substantial prison population reductions. Fewer Prisoners, Less Crime: A Tale of Three States profiles the experiences of three states - New York, New Jersey, and California - that have reduced their prison populations by about 25% while seeing their crime rates generally decline at a faster pace than the national average. Key findings of the report include: - New York and New Jersey led the nation by reducing their prison populations by 26% between 1999 and 2012, a period in which the nationwide state prison population rose by 10%. - California experienced a 23% reduction in its prison population between 2006 and 2012, in contrast to just a 1% reduction nationally. Recent reforms have reduced the state's total incarcerated population even while diverting many individuals to county jails. - While downsizing their prisons, violent crime rates fell at a greater rate in these three states than they did nationwide. Property crime rates also decreased in New York and New Jersey more than they did nationwide, while California's reduction was slightly lower than the national average. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2014. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 25, 2014 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_Fewer_Prisoners_Less_Crime.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_Fewer_Prisoners_Less_Crime.pdf Shelf Number: 133142 Keywords: Criminal Justice PoliciesCriminal Justice ReformPrison PopulationsSentencing Reform (U.S.) |
Author: Ziedenberg, Jason Title: Case Study: New York City Department of Probation's Federal Partnership Efforts Summary: The New York City Department of Probation (DOP) - the second largest probation department in the country - is advancing a process to infuse evidence-based policies and practices (EBPP) throughout the organization. Building on a solid organizational foundation as well as on advances in the field over the past decade, the staff and leadership are driving initiatives to use better tools to design supervision strategies, utilize communications more effectively, and improve staff development through customized training so that senior leadership through line staff are invested in the new approach. They are also engaging community partners to build capacity so that DOP's clients can thrive in the communities where they live. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2014. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 12, 2014 at: https://www.bja.gov/Publications/FVTC-NYCDOP.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.bja.gov/Publications/FVTC-NYCDOP.pdf Shelf Number: 134022 Keywords: Criminal Justice PoliciesEvidence-Based PracticesPartnershipsProbation (New York City)Probation Officers |
Author: Great Britain. House of Commons. Justice Committee Title: Crime reduction policies: a co-ordinated approach? Summary: During this inquiry we wished to examine the nature and effectiveness of crime reduction policies over the four years since our predecessor Committee reported on the merits of justice reinvestment as a means of cutting crime. Since 2010, crime has been falling, but we found that the extent to which this can, in practice, be attributed to the success of national or local crime reduction policies is unclear. Re-offending rates which had been falling have stabilised over this period but remain relatively high, and it concerns us that last year there has been a fall in the proportion of local areas achieving a decrease in reoffending. We call on the Government to seek to recognise more explicitly where reoffending has fallen and seek to understand why. The prison population has remained high but its once inexorable growth seems to have calmed. All parts of the criminal justice system have had to cope with significant spending cuts, yet it appears to us that the Government has shied away from using the need to make significant cuts to re-evaluate how and where money is spent. This is in contrast to the approach that we saw in Texas (and over half of US states) where they concluded that any real effort to contain spending on corrections must have as its centrepiece a plan to limit the growth of, and ultimately reduce, the prison population. The Government's method of reform remains focused largely on the activity of the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, which can over-emphasise the significance in attempting to reduce crime of measures taken entirely within the criminal justice system. Some cross-Government initiatives have been developed, such as the Troubled Families programme, to deal with sources of crime. We welcome these yet note that the resources attached to very early intervention schemes, like Family Nurse Partnerships, are tiny in relation to the prison budget and the staggeringly high costs of crime to society. For example, we were told that it is estimated that annually violent crime, 44% of which is alcohol related, costs almost $30 billion, crime perpetrated by people who had conduct problems in childhood costs about $60 billion, and drug-related crime costs almost $14 billion. There have been significant changes to the local partnership landscape for crime reduction since 2010, including the introduction of police and crime commissioners and the transfer of public health responsibilities to local authorities, reflecting the ongoing broader shift of power in this field from Whitehall to local communities. While this has resulted in an assortment of local accountability structures, our evidence highlights the clear benefits of collective ownership, pooled funding and joint priorities that have been facilitated by this approach, although there remains a considerable way to go before health can be considered a fully integral part of the crime reduction picture. In particular, we consider that addressing the funding of mental health services, the inadequacy of which costs the police, courts, probation, and prisons and victims of crime greatly, should be an urgent priority. Alcohol treatment similarly remains a Cinderella service. In our view, two major elements are missing from local partnership approaches to crime reduction: courts and prisons. We believe that a prison system which effectively rehabilitates a smaller number of offenders, while other offenders are rehabilitated through robust community sentences, has the potential to bring about a bigger reduction in crime. Additionally, seeing courts as purely instrumental institutions involved solely in processing and resolving cases, misses an opportunity for encouraging greater innovation, for example through the adoption of problem-solving approaches, which we saw in operation in Texas and in Stockport, and we believe has the potential to make broader systemic savings. The radical and controversial changes that have been made to the probation system with the intention of providing for supervision of short-sentenced prisoners will be commissioned centrally and must be carefully managed to ensure that local crime reduction activity continues to build in strength as the resources for all concerned are further diminished. What remains lacking also is still, as our predecessor observed, a rigorous assessment of where taxpayers' money can most effectively be spent in cutting crime, and a government-wide approach which recognises more explicitly that the criminal justice system is only one limited part of the system through which taxpayers' money is spent to keep people safe from crime. We do not have the right structures in place to provide a collective memory of research evidence, its relative weight, and its implications for policy-making, including the capacity to make decisions about the best direction of resources, and we call on the Government to create an independent and authoritative body to facilitate this. In addition, the Treasury should seriously question whether taxpayers' money is used in ways most likely to reduce future crime and victimisation, and develop a longer-term strategy for the use of resources in this manner. Details: London: The Stationery Office Limited, 2014. 211p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 30, 2016 at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmjust/307/307.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmjust/307/307.pdf Shelf Number: 138482 Keywords: Crime PreventionCrime ReductionCriminal Justice PoliciesCriminal Justice ReformRe-Offending |
Author: Elderbroom, Brian Title: Assessing the Impact of South Dakota's Sentencing Reforms: Justice Reinvestment Initiative Summary: South Dakota made significant reforms to its justice system with the 2013 enactment of the Public Safety Improvement Act. This brief summarizes findings on the preliminary impact of two of these reforms: presumptive probation and felony reclassifications of drug possession and ingestion. These policies have produced positive results, but new developments threaten that success. While prison admissions and sentence lengths for affected offenses declined, the number of convictions for eligible offenses increased. These increases challenge the state's progress toward its reform goals. This brief offers policy recommendations South Dakota should consider to build on the success of SB 70. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2016. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 18, 2016 at: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/2000762-Assessing-the-Impact-of-South-Dakota%27s-Sentencing-Reforms-Justice-Reinvestment-Initiative.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/2000762-Assessing-the-Impact-of-South-Dakota%27s-Sentencing-Reforms-Justice-Reinvestment-Initiative.pdf Shelf Number: 139658 Keywords: Criminal Justice PoliciesCriminal Justice ReformJustice ReinvestmentSentencingSentencing Reform |
Author: Lees, Mick Title: When It Comes to Behaviour, Isn't It Time for Young People to be Seen and Heard? Summary: At the start of this research in September 2010, reported crime in general and specifically in the borough of Fairfield in London, continued to fall, and this included youth crime (Metropolitan Police 2010). Fairfield has replaced the name of the actual Borough. Despite this there was a perceived problem by many of those in authority and the community of Fairfield, of greatly increased anti-social behaviour and criminality involving young people. This resulted in anti-social behaviour orders being imposed and the increased use of exclusion zones as a tactic to reduce this behaviour. It would be unwise to go as far as to deny that the behaviour of the young is problematic; but the criminalisation of this behaviour ensures that its causes, and indeed, its objectives, recede into the background (Smith 2003: p188). To deal with this perceived level of crime there was a heavy emphasis in terms of police time and budget on catching and punishing offenders as a way of dealing with crime and anti-social behaviour as opposed to preventing the offending. There was also in the opinion of the author, but with academic support, a lack of understanding of what worked to positively influence the behaviour of young people. From talking to young people through his work this included in the home, school, and within the criminal justice system. This was combined with a belief that young people were neither consulted, nor listened to on the rare occasions they were spoken to. This work will look to answer the following questions: - Why 'society' has the perception it does about young people concerning criminal and poor behaviour. - What governments have sought to do to achieve a level of control of such behaviour through legislation and policy, the theoretical support for this, and whether these are the most effective policies considering all the factors in the young people's lives. - Finally it will look to examine what young people feel are the things that effect their behaviour in a positive or negative way in the home, in school, and in the community. The opinions of the young people were obtained through surveys conducted over three years which were analysed using SPSS, together with one to one interviews and group discussions. Taken together, this provided sufficient information on which to base analysis and conclusions concerning behaviour and the most effective interventions in Fairfield and beyond. Details: London: Middlesex University, 2016. 347p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed July 25, 2016 at: http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/19060/1/MLeesThesis.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/19060/1/MLeesThesis.pdf Shelf Number: 139818 Keywords: Anti-Social BehaviorCriminal Justice PoliciesPublic Opinion, Juvenile |