Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 25, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:15 pm
Time: 8:15 pm
Results for judges
34 results foundAuthor: Warren, Roger K. Title: Evidence-Based Practice to Reduce Recidivism: Implications for State Judiciaries Summary: This white paper discusses the implications of principles of evidence-based practice to reduce recidivism for state judiciaries. The paper discusses how diligent application of those principles to state sentencing practices, processes, and policing can restore much-needed balance to our current sentencing systems -- sentencing systems that have swung from one extreme to the other over the last 30 years, in neither case proving very effective in addressing the problem of crime. The paper also suggests that the courts have a key leadership role to play in implementing evidence-based practices, and that evidence-based practice promises to revitalize judges' interest in sentencing just as it has rejuvenated the corrections profession. Details: Boston, MA: Crime and Justice Institute; Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, Community Corrections Division, 2007. 55p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118572 Keywords: CourtsJudgesRecidivismSentencing (U.S.) |
Author: Weller, Steven Title: A Bench Guide for State Trial Court Judges on the Immigration Consequences of State Court Criminal Actions Summary: This bench guide is intended to help state trial court judges identify circumstances before them in which a state criminal conviction or sentence might have possible collateral immigration consequences, to assure that alien litigants have been properly advised by their attorneys of the possible immigration implications of entering a guilty plea or going to trial. In particular, judges need to be aware of these issues when taking a guilty plea or determining an appropriate sentence. Details: Denver, CO: Center for Public Policy Studies, 2010. 58p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119172 Keywords: Illegal AliensImmigrantsImmigrationJudges |
Author: Pennsylvania. Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice Title: Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice Report Summary: The Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice was established in the summer of 2009 in response to a highly publicized judicial corruption scandal in Luzerne County (Pennsylvania) involving millions of dollars in alleged payoffs to two judges and rights violations of thousands of juvenile defendants in the county's juvenile court. This report includes the following sections: 1) What Went Wrong, a narrative that describes the many elements of the judicial scandal and the breakdown of the juvenile justice system in Luzerne County; 2) The Proceedings of the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice, which provides a summary of the commission's investigation followed by segments, organized in categories that contain detailed findings and testimony; 3) a section containing all the commission's recommendations; and the report's conclusion. Details: Philadelphia: The Commission, 2010. 63p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119174 Keywords: JudgesJudicial Corruption (Pennsylvania)Judicial MisconductJuvenile Detention |
Author: Australia. Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee Title: Australia's Judicial System and the Role of Judges Summary: This report looks at Australia's judicial system and the role of judges. It includes the terms of reference related to the federal courts and covers procedures for the appointment and termination of judges, terms of employment, jurisdictional issues, and the judicial complaints handling system. Details: Canberra: The Senate, 2009. 136p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 14, 2010 at: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/judicial_system/report/report.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/judicial_system/report/report.pdf Shelf Number: 120495 Keywords: CourtsJudgesJudicial System (Australia) |
Author: Title: Reforming Afghanistan's Broken Judiciary Summary: Afghanistan’s justice system is in a catastrophic state of disrepair. Despite repeated pledges over the last nine years, the majority of Afghans still have little or no access to judicial institutions. Lack of justice has destabilised the country and judicial institutions have withered to near non-existence. Many courts are inoperable and those that do function are understaffed. Insecurity, lack of proper training and low salaries have driven many judges and prosecutors from their jobs. Those who remain are highly susceptible to corruption. Indeed, there is very little that is systematic about the legal system, and there is little evidence that the Afghan government has the resources or political will to tackle the challenge. The public, consequently, has no confidence in the formal justice sector amid an atmosphere of impunity. A growing majority of Afghans have been forced to accept the rough justice of Taliban and criminal powerbrokers in areas of the country that lie beyond government control. To reverse these trends, the Afghan government and international community must prioritise the rule of law as the primary pillar of a vigorous counter-insurgency strategy that privileges the protection of rights equally alongside the protection of life. Restoration of judicial institutions must be at the front and centre of the strategy aimed at stabilising the country. The Afghan government must do more to ensure that judges, prosecutors and defence attorneys understand enough about the law to ensure its fair application. Reinvigoration of the legal review process and the adoption of a more dynamic, coordinated approach to justice sector reform are critical to changing the system. Justice is at the core of peace in Afghanistan and international engagement must hew to the fundamental goal of restoring the balance of powers in government and confronting governmental abuses, past and present. Urgent action is also needed to realign international assistance to strengthen support for legal education, case management, data collection and legal aid. Legal institutions and legal elites have been deeply affected by the political paroxysms of more than three decades of conflict. The judiciary has been scarred by a legacy of political interference by both Afghan powerbrokers and external actors. Judicial independence has, as a result, been one of the main casualties of Afghanistan’s protracted war. The courts, for years, have suffered manipulation from an executive branch that has abused the law to fortify its position in the ongoing tussles between the secular and religious, the centre and periphery, the rich and poor. The Afghan government’s historic inability and persistent unwillingness to resolve conflicts between state codes, Islamic law and customary justice embedded in the legal culture have further destabilised the country. The critical leverage provided to fundamentalists in the constitution has concurrently had a deep impact on the evolution of legal institutions. The strong presidential system adopted under the 2004 constitution has only exacerbated the weakness of judicial institutions. The lack of a clearly defined arbiter of the constitution has undercut the authority of the Supreme Court and transformed the court into a puppet of President Hamid Karzai. Given the wide range of powers granted the president and lack of checks and balances in the system, it is unrealistic to expect change will come from his quarter. The international community, meanwhile, has done little to create incentives for political restraint and accountability within the executive. The National Assembly must, therefore, consider its options for triggering constitutional review either through convening a constitutional Loya Jirga, or grand assembly, or through the adoption of a constitutional amendment requiring the initiation of a full-scale review of the founding document by 2014. Friction between various stakeholders over the priority and content of rule of law reforms is blocking progress. There is a strong need to improve the legal review process by building capacity at the ministry of justice, with combined input from Afghan officials and expert international advisers. At the local level, the government and international community must deliver on the promise made at the 2007 rule of law conference in Rome to support better coordination between primary courts in the provinces and districts and high courts in Kabul. Dysfunction at the provincial level has long been a hallmark of a system unable to resolve tensions between its highly centralised organisation and the diffusion of the population across difficult and often inaccessible terrain. Over the years, the Afghan government and the international community have endeavoured to resolve this problem, most notably through the introduction of regional trainings for Afghan judges and prosecutors. This is not enough. After nearly a decade of financial pledges and promises, neither the government nor the international community have a full picture of the demand for legal services at the provincial and district level. Province-by-province assessments of the courts, attorney general’s office and ministry of justice, including a focused look at caseloads, settlement and conviction rates, shortages in personnel, materiel and infrastructure should be regularly conducted and made available to the public. Developing a concrete, dynamic understanding of deficits in the system is the first step toward crafting an effective strategy for reform. In its desperation to find quick fix solutions, the international community, and the U.S. in particular, has begun to look to the informal justice sector as a means to an undefined end. This is problematic for a number of reasons. While it is true that the use of traditional Afghan jirgas and shuras to resolve disputes, particularly in rural areas, is so widespread that it cannot be ignored, the current government is a long way from having the capacity to integrate the decisions of such councils into the formal system. Their multiplicity, the plurality of customs and the erosion of the social order during years of violent conflict have degraded the positive influence and real authority of such jirgas. Moreover, the exclusion of women from these informal judicial councils poses serious problems for the state’s constitutional obligation to defend the principle of equality under the law. International involvement in this sphere will do little to enhance rule of law in the near term and it may, indeed, sow more confusion over the state’s legal authority and the real objectives of coalition partners. The task of monitoring and evaluating such councils has meanwhile fallen to a private U.S. contractor with an uneven track record in implementing rule of law programs in this and other countries. Outsourcing a task as delicate as monitoring the complex politics of tribal justice to a contractor with limited knowledge of the region is to nobody’s benefit. The U.S. and its NATO allies must also acknowledge that stabilisation will depend as much on the legitimacy of state authority and re-establishment of the rule of law as it will on rebuilding Afghanistan’s police and military. To restore its legitimacy, the Afghan government will have to work much harder to eliminate corruption, ensure fair trial standards and curtail arbitrary detentions. Extrajudicial actions by the U.S. and its coalition partners against Afghan citizens have also distorted the justice system and are fuelling the insurgency. U.S. and NATO actions must conform to national and international laws, including an end to arbitrary detentions. There should be no expectation that Afghan officials and institutions will realign the justice system to conform to international norms until U.S. and NATO allies adjust their own policies and practices. The report ends with a number of recommendations. Details: Brussels: International Crisis Group, 2010. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Asia Report No. 195: Accessed December 16, 2010 at: http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/asia/south-asia/afghanistan/195%20Reforming%20Afghanistans%20Broken%20Judiciary.ashx Year: 2010 Country: Afghanistan URL: http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/asia/south-asia/afghanistan/195%20Reforming%20Afghanistans%20Broken%20Judiciary.ashx Shelf Number: 120534 Keywords: CourtsCriminal Justice Systems (Afghanistan)JudgesJudiciary |
Author: New South Wales. Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing Committee on Law and Justice Title: Inquiry Into Judge Alone Trials Under s.132 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Summary: This inquiry into judge alone trials under section 132 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 was commenced after the Attorney General requested that the Committee consider a proposal to amend the Act so as to allow either party in criminal proceedings to apply to the court for trial by judge alone, without a requirement that the prosecution consents to the application, with the decision to be made by the court based on the interests of justice. The terms of reference for the Inquiry outlines the proposed model which the Committee, with the assistance of stakeholders, has considered. The proposed model for judge alone trials shifts the application and decision making process from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution (ODPP) to the courts. This shift is most significant in instances where the accused applies for a judge alone trial and the prosecution does not consent. In this situation it is the court that would determine the application on the basis of an 'interests of justice' test. This shift in decision making power from the ODPP to the court evoked much discussion amongst Inquiry participants, with a clear dichotomy of views emerging during the Inquiry. On balance, and after much deliberation, the Committee has concluded that the proposed model for judge alone trials provides a fair and transparent system for both the accused and the prosecution to apply for a judge alone trial. Our careful consideration of the model has, however, led us to identify three areas where the model can be improved. These areas relate to the need for the accused to provide informed consent to applications for judge alone trials, raising the threshold in the jury tampering exception, and ensuring that the 'interests of justice' test includes an inclusive, not exhaustive, list of factors for the courts to consider in determining applications for a judge alone trial. The Committee considers that, subject to our recommended changes, the proposed model will provide a transparent and equitable method of applying for, and determining, applications for judge alone trials. While the Committee has supported the proposed model for judge alone trials, this should not be taken as support for judge alone trials as a replacement for jury trials. The Committee believes that both modes of trial have an essential role to play in our criminal justice system. Details: Sydney: The Committee, 2010. 113p. Source: Internet Resource: Report no. 44: Accessed December 23, 2010 at: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/8532dcbfa13afcc7ca2577d400826cd1/$FILE/101108%20Final%20Report.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/8532dcbfa13afcc7ca2577d400826cd1/$FILE/101108%20Final%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 120627 Keywords: CourtsCriminal Procedure (Australia)Criminal TrialsJudges |
Author: Warner, Kate Title: Public Judgement on Sentencing: Final Results from the Tasmanian Jury Sentencing Study Summary: This seminal study, which was funded by the Criminology Research Council, is the first reported study to use jurors in real trials to gauge public opinion about sentences and sentencing. Using jurors is a way of investigating the views of members of the public who are as fully informed of the facts of the case and the background of the offender as the judge. Based upon jurors’ responses from 138 trials, the study found that more than half of the jurors surveyed suggested a more lenient sentence than the trial judge imposed. Moreover, when informed of the sentence, 90 percent of jurors said that the judge’s sentence was (very or fairly) appropriate. In contrast, responses to abstract questions about sentencing levels mirrored the results of representative surveys. The results of the study also suggest that providing information to jurors about crime and sentencing may be helpful in addressing misconceptions in these areas. Replication of this study may be of assistance to policymakers and judges who wish to know what informed members of the public think about sentencing. Portrayals of a punitive public are misleading and calls for harsher punishment largely uninformed. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2011. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 407: Accessed February 22, 2011 at: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/A/B/7/%7BAB703D46-E913-4384-B3DB-646DC27EF2D3%7Dtandi407.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/A/B/7/%7BAB703D46-E913-4384-B3DB-646DC27EF2D3%7Dtandi407.pdf Shelf Number: 120848 Keywords: JudgesJuries (Tasmania)JurorsSentencing |
Author: Ingram, Matthew C. Title: Justiciabarómetro: Survey of Judges, Prosecutors, and Public Defenders in Nine Mexican States Summary: The Justiciabarómetro: Judicial Survey is a timely study of the judges, prosecutors, and public defenders that operate Mexico’s criminal justice system. The study’s results shed new light on both the current state of the administration of justice in Mexico and the sources of support for and resistance to the sweeping judicial reforms initiated by the administration of Mexican President Felipe Calderón in 2008. Among the key findings are the following: • General satisfaction with compensation, but frustration with workload varies: Judges, prosecutors, and public defenders appear to be generally satisfied with the levels of compensation they receive, though frustration with salary and workload vary by state. • Experience and merit drives professional advancement, but some see politics: Most respondents agreed that experience and training are a primary basis for employment and promotion, a significant portion of respondents feel that political contacts also play a role. • Despite respect for legality, some tolerance of unlawful behavior for justice: Regarding lawful behavior, there was widespread agreement that “illegal conduct” is unacceptable, even if no one gets hurt. However, one in four respondents —28.2%— were willing to tolerate occasional illegalities in the pursuit of justice. • Judges and defenders tend to see prosecutors as lacking in competency and integrity: While all respondents tended to have a high opinion of the professional competency and integrity of judges and public defenders, prosecutors were viewed as less competent and trustworthy by their colleagues in other professions. • Public defenders are more critical of procedure efficiency and perceive more violations of due process than judges and prosecutors: There were significant differences judges and prosecutors, on the one hand, and public defenders, on the other regarding the efficiency of the criminal justice system. Also, judges and prosecutors tend to believe that violations of due process —such as forced confessions— are very rare or never used, while public defenders are much more likely to disagree. • New judicial reforms seen by some ineffective, a result of foreign influence, and unlikely to reduce crime. Respondents were split on the effectiveness and efficiency of Mexico’s traditional criminal justice system, on whether that system was deliberately discredited to make way for the 2008 judicial reform, on whether foreign interests were behind the new judicial system, and whether judicial reform will reduce criminality. • Even so, new criminal procedures are generally well regarded, especially in states still awaiting reform. Still, the provisions included in the 2008 reforms —introducing oral, adversarial criminal procedures— were well regarded, particularly in states where they had not yet taken effect; the most significant reservations tended to register among respondents from states that had already adopted the reforms for some time. Many respondents are optimistic that it will improve efficiency and reduce corruption in the judicial system. Details: San Diego: Justice in Mexico Project, University of San Diego Trans-Border Institute, 2011. 136p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 27, 2011 at: http://justiceinmexico.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/justiciabarometro-judicial-survey.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Mexico URL: http://justiceinmexico.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/justiciabarometro-judicial-survey.pdf Shelf Number: 121865 Keywords: Administration of JusticeCorruptionCourtsCriminal Justice Systems (Mexico)JudgesProsecutorsPublic Defenders |
Author: Ingram, Matthew C. Title: Assessing Mexico's Judicial Reform: Views of Judges, Prosecutors, and Public Defenders Summary: Assessing Judicial Reform in Mexico highlights the findings of a recent Justiciabarómetro survey of 276 judges, prosecutors, and public defenders working in Mexico’s criminal justice system from October to December 2010. The full report is available at www. justiceinmexico.org. This special report summarizes respondants’ attitudes regarding the workings of the Mexican criminal justice system, as well as the sweeping judicial reforms approved by Mexico’s Congress in 2008. Among the key findings highlighted in this report are the following: • Frustration with workload varies by state and profession: Judges, prosecutors, and public defenders appear to be generally satisfied with the levels of compensation they receive, though frustration with salary and workload vary by state. • General support for the traditional Mexican legal system remains strong: More than half of the respondents —especially judges— indicated that Mexico’s traditional inquisitorial system was both efficient and effective, and at least a third feel that the traditional system was disparaged by a deliberate, negative campaign designed to promote a shift to the new adversarial system. • Public defenders are more critical of the traditional system than others: There were significant differences between judges and prosecutors, on the one hand, and public defenders, on the other, regarding the efficiency of the criminal justice system. Also, judges and prosecutors tend to believe that violations of due process —such as forced confessions— are very rare or never used, while public defenders are more likely to strongly disagree. • There is significant skepticism about recent judicial reforms. Our findings suggest that there lingering concerns about reform efforts, above all among those who are currently attempting to work within the new oral, adversarial system. Respondents were split on whether judicial reform will reduce criminality, and a significant proportion feel that the reforms were the result of pressure by foreign governments and organizations. • Even so, there is hope that recent reforms will improve the justice system. Despite the concerns we find, the provisions included in the 2008 reforms —introducing oral, adversarial criminal procedures— were generally well regarded, particularly in states where they had not yet taken effect. While there are significant reservations in states that have already adopted the reforms for some time, many respondents are optimistic that they will ultimately help to improve efficiency and reduce corruption in the judicial system. Details: San Diego: Justice in Mexico Project, University of San Diego Trans-Border Institute, 2011. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 27, 2011 at: http://justiceinmexico.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/tbi-assessing-judicial-reform1.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Mexico URL: http://justiceinmexico.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/tbi-assessing-judicial-reform1.pdf Shelf Number: 121866 Keywords: Administration of JusticeCorruptionCourtsCriminal Justice Systems (Mexico)JudgesJudicial ReformProsecutorsPublic Defenders |
Author: Northern Ireland Assembly. Research and Information Service Title: Comparative Research into Sentencing Guidelines Mechanisms Summary: The Hillsborough Agreement in 2010 contained a commitment to establish a sentencing guidelines council. Recently the Department of Justice (DOJ) published a consultation document “Consultation on a Sentencing Guidelines Mechanism”, which sets out three options for a sentencing guidelines body: an independent sentencing guidelines council with a statutory remit for producing guidelines; an independent sentencing advisory panel with a statutory remit to draft guidelines for approval of the Court of Appeal; and a judicial oversight committee known as a Sentencing Group to be established by the Lord Chief Justice. This paper provides information on comparative sentencing guidelines mechanisms in a number of jurisdictions including England and Wales, Scotland, Republic of Ireland, Australia, Canada, Minnesota, US (federal level), New Zealand (legislated for but not established), South Africa (proposed but not legislated for), Germany, France and the Netherlands. The paper examines a number of issues to be considered in establishing a guidelines body: the objectives of sentencing guidelines bodies, their functions, format of guidelines, membership and structure and relationships with other institutions and alternatives to sentencing guidelines bodies. Sentencing guidelines bodies in England and Wales and as legislated for in Scotland have similar objectives to those proposed for Northern Ireland. In some jurisdictions concerns have been raised about increases in prison population, including in England and Wales, New Zealand, South Africa and Minnesota. Therefore some bodies have objectives in relation to the management of prison resources. In England and Wales, the Sentencing Council must conduct must publish a resource assessment in respect of the guidelines to include information on the likely impact of the guidelines on prison places and contain information in its annual report on sentencing factors including an assessment by the Council on changes in sentencing practice likely to have an effect on prison resources. Sentencing bodies carry out a range of functions including: drafting guidelines, public education, information dissemination and resources functions. In England and Wales other functions include publishing resources assessment in respect of guidelines and monitoring the operation and effect of guidelines. Some bodies have functions beyond sentencing matters; for example bodies in Australia and New Zealand have functions relating to parole matters. Other bodies have functions in relation to the development of legislation and crime policy such as bodies in the United States. This paper outlines how the format of guidelines may differ. Guidelines in England and Wales are described as narrative in nature; legislation sets out how guidelines should be structured including: different categories of offence illustrating degrees of seriousness, factors including the offenders culpability and harm caused, the range of offences and starting points in the offence range. In contrast, the mechanism used in some of the United States models has been described as numerical. Minnesota operates a grid system includes two axes; one axis takes into account the seriousness of the offence and the other takes into account the offender‟s criminal record. The point where the seriousness of the offence and criminal history intersect determines the range of the offender‟s sentence. The numerical models have been criticised for impacting on judicial discretion. Sentencing guidelines bodies examined in this paper vary in membership, for example in size and in the composition of judicial and non judicial members. Some models such as the Sentencing Council in England and Wales have a greater number of judicial members. Scotland has legislated for a balance of judicial/non-judicial membership. Some sentencing bodies in Australia have no judicial representation. Furthermore some sentencing bodies in Australia and as proposed in New Zealand sentencing body have representatives with experience of working with particular groups, for example indigenous or ethnic minority groups. The DOJ proposes that members will be appointed for a fixed non renewable term. This is the same as the position in Scotland, however some models allow for a renewal of membership for example in the New Zealand and South Africa models. In its consultation document, the DOJ has proposed a secretariat to support a Northern Ireland body carry out its functions. Most of the bodies examined in this paper are supported by a secretariat with various support functions including legal expertise, research and analysis, community engagement and administration functions. The Scottish Government in its policy consultation paper outlined a relationship between the Scottish Sentencing Council and the Scottish Court Service in the provision of IT support. Consideration may need to be given to staff such as IT support services in a Northern Ireland model. The paper considers relationships between a sentencing guidelines mechanism and other institutions such as courts. The consultation document does not make reference to a relationship with the Northern Ireland Assembly but does set out a proposed relationship between the council and the Justice Minister. Some of models examined have relationships with their respective legislatures in approving or vetoing guidelines, for example in New Zealand and in Minnesota. Interestingly, the House of Commons Justice Select Committee has a role in the scrutiny of guidelines. An example of the scrutiny role is the holding of inquiries into draft sentencing guidelines. Some of the bodies have direct relationships with the courts. For example guidelines may have to be approved by courts or the courts may propose the drafting of guidelines. In Victoria the Court has to notify the sentencing advisory body when issuing a guidelines judgment. In the consultation document, the DOJ has highlighted that courts will be under a duty „to have regard to‟ sentencing guidelines and state reasons if a sentence differs from a guideline this was the previous position in England and Wales and is the current position in Scotland. Some models appear to have more robust “departure tests” such as in England and Wales where the courts must follow guidelines unless satisfied it is contrary to the interests of justice to do so. There are some jurisdictions that do not have sentencing guidelines. For example in some jurisdictions such as Germany, France, Netherlands and Canada, sentencing matters are set out in Penal or Criminal Codes or in Ireland where some offences in criminal law set out minimum sentences. It should be noted that in the Netherlands, the Penal Code does not impose limits on the type or severity of sanctions that can be imposed enabling judges to exercise discretion in sentencing matters. In Canada, the Criminal Code makes provision for principles and purposes of sentencing and establishes mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment in a range of offences. It has been suggested that the Youth Criminal Justice Act (2002) in Canada goes some way to introducing sentencing guidelines into legislation as it contains a range of sentences that can be imposed on juveniles. In the Republic of Ireland, judges largely have discretion in sentencing matters, except for some offences which carry maximum and in some cases minimum penalties. Another approach is the use of sentencing information systems. The judiciary in the Republic of Ireland have developed a pilot project, the Irish Sentencing Information System (ISIS) is a website which provides information to judges on sentencing practices in criminal proceedings. The value of such systems has been noted with benefits including judicial sentencing authority, discretion and transparency. However in response to a recent discussion paper in the Republic of Ireland on the White Paper on crime, some concerns have been raised regarding the re-enforcement of questionable practices if used long term. The future of this mechanism is uncertain as the development of the website has resource implications and it has been acknowledged this will need to be considered in the current financial climate. The issue of sentencing guidelines has been the subject to consultation in recent white paper in which submissions favoured sentencing guidelines as a means to addressing perceived inconsistencies in sentencing practices. It remains to be seen whether a formal system of sentencing guidelines will be introduced. Details: Belfast: Northern Ireland Assembly, 2011. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 12, 2011 at: http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/researchandlibrary/2011/6611.pdf Year: 2011 Country: International URL: http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/researchandlibrary/2011/6611.pdf Shelf Number: 122031 Keywords: JudgesJudicial DiscretionSentencing Guidelines |
Author: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Permanency Planning for Children Department Title: Right From the Start: The CCC Preliminary Protective Hearing Benchcard Study Report: Testing a Tool for Judicial Decision-Making Summary: This report presents findings from the Courts Catalyzing Change: Achieving Equity and Fairness in Foster Care (CCC) Preliminary Protective Hearing (PPH) Benchcard Study. The CCC initiative, supported by Casey Family Programs and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, was created and launched through the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) Model Courts project. In the fall of 2009, the Permanency Planning for Children Department (PPCD) of NCJFCJ began a study to examine the effects associated with judges’ use of the PPH Benchcard, which had been developed as part of the CCC agenda. Three sites agreed to participate in a pilot and assessment of the Benchcard. For the assessment study, data were collected on more than 500 children in Los Angeles, California; Omaha, Nebraska; and Portland, Oregon. Data were gathered from case file information (both court and agency files) and from courtroom observations. Researchers collected data at several junctures, from placement to establishment of jurisdiction and disposition. To explore Benchcard implementation effects, the study was designed to allow for several different comparisons. Researchers collected information on numerous data points, including demographic details, information about the families involved, hearing participants, dates of case events, and details on allegations, services, and placement. Data from a baseline sample were collected at each of the three sites, and judicial officers at each site were randomly assigned to either a Benchcard implementation group or a control group. Judicial officers in the Benchcard group were trained on its use, including receipt of a draft Technical Assistance Bulletin explaining the development of the Benchcard (Right from the Start: A Judicial Tool for Critical Analysis & Decision-Making at the PPH Hearing). They began implementation of the Benchcard in their preliminary protective hearings. Each randomly assigned judicial officer heard 10 preliminary protective hearings using the Benchcard, while the control group of judicial officers in each of the sites heard 10 preliminary protective hearings without Benchcard implementation. The Benchcard was not shared with stakeholders during the research project in order to isolate the judicial intervention. Based upon systematic courtroom observation and a standardized count methodology, the data indicate that those judicial officers who used the Benchcard discussed more key topics during the preliminary protective hearings than did the control group. Benchcard implementation appears to be associated with substantially higher quantities and quality of discussion of key dependency topics identified in both the RESOURCE GUIDELINES and the CCC initiative when compared to the control group. Benchcard implementation also corresponds to an increased thoroughness of discussion and judicial inquiry, as demonstrated by the number of topics and how thoroughly they were discussed. Tests indicate that these differences are statistically significant. These process findings indicate that Benchcard implementation is associated with substantial increases in the quantity and quality of discussion in PPH hearings. Benchcard use also was associated with more family placements—placement with a charged parent, with a non-charged parent, or with a relative—at the initial hearing and even more again at adjudication when comparing the same judges before and after Benchcard implementation. (Reciprocally, Benchcard use was also associated with fewer children placed in non-relative foster care at the initial hearing and even fewer again at adjudication.) Statistical tests show these findings to be significant. Similarly, the percentage of children who were reunified with the charged parent at the initial hearing and at the adjudication hearing increased after Benchcard implementation. Differences did exist across the three sites, but the findings remained significant when the three sites were accounted for in the statistical analysis. The study found race differences in filing trends. White mothers (in comparison to African American and Hispanic mothers) tended to enter court with a higher number of allegations. White mothers also had more allegations of substance abuse, homelessness, and mental health issues (each of these represent statistically significant differences). ReportOverall, African American mothers came into court with fewer allegations and were more likely to have their case dismissed by the time of the adjudication hearing. Allegations of substance abuse show a different pattern. White families in the sample were much more likely than other families to face allegations of failure to supervise or parent adequately due to substance abuse (drugs or alcohol) than were families of other racial groups (statistical tests show these differences to be statistically significant). Differences among racial groups are also apparent in allegations involving poor parenting due, in major part, to poor mental health functioning. As with substance abuse allegations, White families were much more likely to be brought to court with allegations relating to mental health. White families were almost three times as likely to face a mental health allegation as families from other racial groups (again statistically significant). Looking at placement differences by race in the baseline sample, children with White mothers were the most likely to be placed in foster care at the initial hearing, and children with African American mothers were the least likely to be placed in foster care. However, when allegations are taken into account, race does not appear to be related to placements at all. Statistical tests show that there may be differences in placement by racial group, but children with similar case allegations tend to be equally likely to be placed in foster care regardless of race. While allegation differences could explain apparent differences by race in placement trends, by the permanency hearing these differences were more substantial. At the permanency hearing, African American children were more likely to be currently placed in foster care than children from White or Hispanic families. Also, African American children were less likely to be currently placed with a parent or with relatives at the permanency hearing than children from Hispanic or White families. Details: Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Permanency Planning for Children Department, 2011. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 24, 2012 at: http://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/CCC%20Benchcard%20Study%20Report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/CCC%20Benchcard%20Study%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 126785 Keywords: Child ProtectionDiscriminationFoster CareJudgesJudicial Decision-Making (U.S.)Racial Disparities |
Author: Johnson, Sheri Lynn Title: The Death Penalty in Delaware: An Empirical Study Summary: This article is part of a symposium that honors David Baldus, a great scholar and great man, a quiet man with a strong passion for justice. We study the operation of Delaware’s death penalty in the modern era of capital punishment. Our conclusions consist of three main observations. First, Delaware’s reversal rate in capital cases, 44%, while substantial, is also substantially less than that of other jurisdictions. This may not be surprising, given Delaware’s emphasis for much of the time period on judge sentencing and that jury verdicts offer more opportunities for reversal. Indeed, reversal rates during the jury sentencing period approximate the national average. Second, judge sentencing in Delaware results in more death sentences, a result consistent with greater harshness being the motivation behind the statutory change to judge sentencing. This effect, is more pronounced in Delaware than in other states. Third, we find a dramatic disparity of death sentencing rates by race, one substantially more pronounced than in other jurisdictions. Race matters in capital sentencing, as David Baldus told us more than a quarter of century ago, and we need to continue to pursue knowledge about where, when, and how it matters. Details: Ithaca, NY: Cornell University School of Law, 2012. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 12-24: Accessed November 28, 2012 at: Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 127020 Keywords: Capital PunishmentDeath Penalty (Delaware)JudgesJuriesRace |
Author: Aizer, Anna Title: Juvenile Incarceration, Human Capital and Future Crime: Evidence from Randomly-Assigned Judges Summary: Over 130,000 juveniles are detained in the US each year with 70,000 in detention on any given day, yet little is known whether such a penalty deters future crime or interrupts social and human capital formation in a way that increases the likelihood of later criminal behavior. This paper uses the incarceration tendency of randomly-assigned judges as an instrumental variable to estimate causal effects of juvenile incarceration on high school completion and adult recidivism. Estimates based on over 35,000 juvenile offenders over a ten-year period from a large urban county in the US suggest that juvenile incarceration results in large decreases in the likelihood of high school completion and large increases in the likelihood of adult incarceration. These results are in stark contrast to the small effects typically found for adult incarceration, but consistent with larger impacts of policies aimed at adolescents. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2013. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper 19102: Accessed June 18, 2013 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w19102 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w19102 Shelf Number: 129024 Keywords: JudgesJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (U.S.)Juvenile to Adult Criminal Careers |
Author: Atkins, Helen Title: ‘What Judges Think About Prostitution’: Assessing the considerations and measures employed by members of the judiciary for sentencing women who sell sex Summary: Criminal justice responses to prostitution have existed in Britain for centuries. In recent decades, the landscape has transformed dramatically and continues to do so at a rapid pace. The advancement of mobile communications and transnational travel, the feminisation of globalisation – women migrants outnumbering their male counterparts, shifting attitudes towards sexuality and paid sex, and the evolution of a contemporary counter‐trafficking movement have all contributed to the composition of the early 21st century sex industry. Despite the confluence of these unequivocally modern elements, an ancient debate concerned with the legitimacy and morality of prostitution persists unabated. Interpretations of choice and coercion, how these factors impact upon entry into and departure from the sex industry, and how they should be measured, analysed and incorporated into policy and practice dominate the philosophical and practical terrain. It is not the purpose of this report to examine legal, social or political issues within the parameters of a wider ethics debate, but rather to focus upon one critical aspect of justice in relation to prostitution. Through their analysis and application of the law, judges are uniquely positioned to affect outcomes for women who pass through the criminal justice system as a result of prostitution. The role of the judiciary is therefore central in securing appropriate responses for women who sell sex. Details: London: The Griffins Society, 2010. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Paper 2010/02: Accessed August 22, 2013 at: http://www.thegriffinssociety.org/Griffins_Report_2010_02_FULL%20-%20updated_Apr13.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.thegriffinssociety.org/Griffins_Report_2010_02_FULL%20-%20updated_Apr13.pdf Shelf Number: 129668 Keywords: JudgesProstitutesProstitution (U.K.)SentencingSex IndustrySex Workers |
Author: Plecas, Darryl Title: Do Judges take Prior Record into Consideration? An Analysis of the Sentencing of Repeat Offenders in British Columbia Summary: A fundamental principle in nearly every common-law jurisdiction, such as the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States, is that an offender's prior record should play a central role in sentencing. In fact, the importance of previous criminal history should only be surpassed by the seriousness of offence committed (Roberts, 1997; Ulmer, 1997; Vigorita, 2001). In Canada, the public has held the views that repeat offenders should be held more accountable for their offenses and should receive a harsher penalty (Roberts, 2008). This perspective is based on the notion that deliberate and persistent criminal activity indicates that the offender is a chronic and significant risk to society who consistently demonstrates a disregard for the rules and laws of society and its citizens. As Ruby et al. (2004: 311) stated, a "criminal record may show that the offender is committed to a criminal way of life and therefore a danger to society". Indeed, many legislators and courts have stated that an offender's second offence must be considered more serious than their first, and leniency should not be given to offenders with lengthy criminal histories (Ulmer and Kramer, 1996; Roberts, 2008). Although criminologists have questioned the general deterrent effect of custodial sentences for decades, several authors have pointed out its strong specific deterrent effect, especially with dangerous and repeat offenders (Gendreau, Goggin, & Cullen, 1999; Weinrath and Gartrell, 2001). Indeed, while looking at the overall effect of prison sentences on recidivism, Gendreau et al. (1999) maintained that the most important objective of prisons should be the targeted incapacitation of chronic and high-risk offenders. In British Columbia, even a cursory review of sentencing practices suggests that prior criminal record has played little or no role in the sentencing decision of judges. To illustrate this point, data collected from police records in PRIME-BC was analyzed to examine the likelihood of being sentenced to a term in prison and the sentence length for offenders found guilty of either assault or break and enter. While it is apparent that judges in British Columbia treat first time offenders somewhat more leniently than repeat offenders, the data presented in this article clearly indicates that judges have not been taking prior record into consideration when sentencing repeat offenders. Details: Abbotsford, BC: University of the Fraser Valley, Centre for Public Safety & Criminal Justice Research, 2012. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 13, 2013 at: http://www.ufv.ca/media/assets/criminology/Do+Judges+Consider+Prior+Record.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Canada URL: http://www.ufv.ca/media/assets/criminology/Do+Judges+Consider+Prior+Record.pdf Shelf Number: 131649 Keywords: JudgesRepeat Offenders Sentencing (Canada) |
Author: Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending Title: Parolable Lifers in Michigan: paying the Price of Unchecked Discretion Summary: Hundreds of Michigan prisoners sentenced to "parolable life" terms have been eligible for release for one, two or even three decades. As a group, they are aging, low-risk and guilty of offenses comparable to those for which thousands of other people have served a term of years and been paroled. Each parole board decision to incarcerate a lifer for another five years - often based on nothing more than a single board member's review of a file - costs taxpayers roughly $200,000. Americans have certain expectations of government. In times of tight budgets and soaring costs, the one most discussed is cost-effectiveness. We want to spend as few taxpayer dollars as possible to fulfill governmental functions. We also want transparency, so we know how decisions are being made; accountability, so that decisions are subject to review and, if necessary, correction; consistency, so that outcomes are predictable and similarly situated citizens are similarly treated; and objectivity, so that decisions are based on evidence, not emotions or unsupported assumptions. The parole decision-making process for lifers violates all these norms. It is one of the few areas where a group of unelected officials has virtually unlimited power over people's lives and the public purse. Over the last few decades, a series of policy changes with no proven impact on public safety has undermined the parole process for prisoners generally and for lifers in particular. The solutions are simple and straightforward: return to practices that protected both public safety and taxpayers' pocketbooks. Details: Lansing, MI: CAPPS, 2014. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 13, 2014 at: http://www.capps-mi.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Parolable-Lifers-in-Michigan-Paying-the-price-of-unchecked-discretion.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.capps-mi.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Parolable-Lifers-in-Michigan-Paying-the-price-of-unchecked-discretion.pdf Shelf Number: 131898 Keywords: Costs of ImprisonmentDecision-MakingJudgesLife ImprisonmentLife Sentence ParoleParole Board |
Author: Farley, Erin J. Title: Improving Courtroom Communication: A Procedural Justice Experiment in Milwaukee Summary: Research indicates that litigants are more likely to leave court with a positive impression of their experience and to comply with court orders in the future when they perceive the court process as fair. This research underlines the importance of procedural justice. In court settings, procedural justice concerns the role of fair and respectful procedures and interpersonal treatment in shaping assessments of legal authorities and reactions to specific case outcomes. In 2011, with funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Center for Court Innovation and the National Judicial College launched a pilot demonstration project at the Milwaukee County Criminal Court with the goal of enhancing defendant perceptions of procedural justice by improving the oral, written, and nonverbal communication used by judges in the courtroom. In the initial months of the project, Center staff worked with a group of experts - judges, legal theorists, communications experts, and others - to develop a one-day training for judges and other court staff that aimed to improve courtroom communication practices. Seven Milwaukee judges from misdemeanor and felony courtrooms were recruited to participate in the demonstration (in addition to representatives from partner agencies such as the public defender's office and the district attorney's office), which involved attending the project training, then developing and implementing individualized action plans to improve their communication with defendants. This report presents research findings from a quasi-experimental evaluation of the demonstration project as well as an analysis of the specific types of perceptions, courtroom actors, and defendant characteristics that play a role in shaping dynamics associated with procedural justice. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2014. 88p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 28, 2014 at: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Improving%20Courtroom%20Communication.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Improving%20Courtroom%20Communication.pdf Shelf Number: 132202 Keywords: Communications Court PersonnelCourt ProceduresCourtsCriminal DefendantsJudgesProcedural Justice |
Author: Weisberg, Robert Title: Assessing Judicial Sentencing Preferences After Public Safety Realignment: A Survey of California Judges Summary: Public Safety Realignment ("AB 109") made drastic changes to California's criminal justice system by transferring authority for the supervision of most non-violent, nonserious, and non-sexual offenders from the state to the 58 counties. This study aims to better examine the perceived effect of AB 109 on Superior Court (trial) judges in California who sentence offenders. Through the use of a modified factorial survey, we queried judges on their sentencing choices between felony probation and new California Penal Code 1170(h) county jail sentences. We received responses from 112 judges throughout California, representing 35 counties or 96% of the state population, including the 10 most populous counties in California. The responses revealed judicial preferences that emphasize a desire to deploy sentencing to manage offenders. The preferences generally aim at a combination of a "taste of jail" and rigorous community supervision, whether that is a traditional felony probation sentence or an 1170(h) split sentence. Our study found that more than half of judges surveyed preferred to give an 1170(h) sentence over a felony probation sentence, except when the judge was aware of an offender's substance abuse problem or mental illness, or when the judge was trying to lengthen the period of incarceration or mandatory supervision. In addition, when judges chose an 1170(h) sentence, they selected a split sentence over a straight jail sentence almost half the time. However, among judges who chose split sentences, there was a tremendous variation in the chosen fraction as between jail time and supervision. Drawing from our findings, we strongly recommend that the California Legislature and/or the California judiciary clarify the relationship between traditional felony probation and an 1170(h) split sentence, and develop guidance and consensus on when and how to use split sentences. In addition, counties should enhance and increase the availability of effective community-based treatment resources, because improved treatment programs will likely increase judges' confidence in embracing these sentencing options. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School, Stanford Criminal Justice Center, 2014. 142p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 25, 2014 at: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/443996/doc/slspublic/Judges%20Report%20Feb%2028%202014%20Final.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication/443996/doc/slspublic/Judges%20Report%20Feb%2028%202014%20Final.pdf Shelf Number: 132779 Keywords: CorrectionsCriminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformJudgesPrison OvercrowdingProbationPublic Safety Realignment (California)Sentencing |
Author: Schnacke, Timothy R. Title: Money as a Criminal Justice Stakeholder: The Judge's Decision to Release or Detain a Defendant Pretrial Summary: Our best understanding of how to make meaningful improvements to criminal justice systems points to justice stakeholders cultivating a shared vision, using a collaborative policy process, and enhancing individual decision making with evidence-based practices. Unfortunately, however, using secured money to determine release at bail threatens to erode each of these ingredients. Money cares not for systemwide improvement, and those who buy their stakeholder status from money have little interest in coming together to work on evidence-based solutions to systemwide issues. Like virtually no other area of the law, when judges set secured financial conditions at bail, they are essentially abdicating their decision-making authority to the money itself, which in many ways then becomes a criminal justice stakeholder, with influence and control over such pressing issues as jail populations, court dockets, county budgets, and community safety. Money takes this decision-making authority and sells it to whoever will pay for the transfer, ultimately resulting in "decisions" that run counter to justice system goals as well as the intentions of bail-setting judges. The solution to this dilemma - a dilemma created and blossoming in only the last century in America - is for judges to fully understand the essence of their decision-making duty at bail, and in their adhering to a process in which they reclaim their roles as decision makers fully responsible for the pretrial release or detention of any particular defendant. Judges can achieve this understanding through a thorough knowledge of history, which illustrates that bail has always been a process in which bail-setting officials were expected to make "bail/no bail," or in-or-out decisions, immediately effectuated so that bailable defendants were released and unbailable defendants were detained. The history of bail shows that when bailable defendants (or those whom we feel should be bailable defendants) are detained or unbailable defendants (or those whom we feel should be unbailable defendants) are released, some correction is necessary to right the balance. Moreover, the history shows that America's switch from a personal surety system using primarily unsecured bonds to a commercial surety system using primarily secured bonds (along with other factors) has led to abuses to both the "bail" and "no bail" sides of our current dichotomies, thus leading to three generations of bail reform in America in the last 100 years. Judges can also achieve this understanding through a thorough knowledge of the pretrial legal foundations. These foundations follow the history in equating "bail" with release, and "no bail" with detention, suggesting, if not demanding an in-or-out decision by judicial officials who are tasked with embracing the risk associated with release and then mitigating that risk only to reasonable levels. Indeed, the history of bail, the legal foundations underlying bail, the pretrial research, the national standards on pretrial release, and the model federal and District of Columbia statutes are all premised on a "release/detain" decision-making process that is unobstructed by secured money at bail. Understanding the nuances of each of these bail fundamentals can help judges also to avoid that obstruction. Nevertheless, it is knowledge of the current pretrial research that perhaps provides judges with the necessary tools to avoid the obstruction of money and to make effective pretrial decisions. First, current pretrial research illustrates that not making an immediately effectuated release decision for low and moderate risk defendants can have both short- and long-term harmful effects for both defendants and society. It is important for judges to make effective bail decisions, but it is especially important that those decisions not frustrate the very purposes underlying the bail process, such as to avoid threats to public safety. Therefore, judges should be guided by recent research demonstrating that a decision to release that is immediately effectuated (and not delayed through the use of secured financial conditions) can increase release rates while not increasing the risk of failure to appear or the danger to the community to intolerable levels. Second, the use of pretrial risk assessment instruments can help judges determine which defendants should be kept in or let out of jail. Those instruments, coupled with research illustrating that using unsecured rather than secured bonds can facilitate the release of bailable defendants without increasing either the risk of failure to appear or the danger to the public, can be crucial in giving judges who still insist on using money at bail the comfort of knowing that their in-or-out decisions will cause the least possible harm. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2014. 77p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 10, 2014 at: http://www.clebp.org/images/2014-11-05_final_nic_money_as_a_stakeholder_september_8,_2014_ii.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.clebp.org/images/2014-11-05_final_nic_money_as_a_stakeholder_september_8,_2014_ii.pdf Shelf Number: 134015 Keywords: Bail (U.S.)Decision MakingJudgesPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Hans, Valerie P. Title: The Death Penalty: Should the Judge or the Jury Decide Who Dies? Summary: This article addresses the effect of judge versus jury decision making through analysis of a database of all capital sentencing phase hearing trials in the state of Delaware from 1977-2007. Over the three decades of the study, Delaware shifted responsibility for death penalty sentencing from the jury to the judge. Currently, Delaware is one of the handful of states that gives the judge the final decision making authority in capital trials. Controlling for a number of legally-relevant and other predictor variables, we find that the shift to judge sentencing significantly increased the number of death sentences. Statutory aggravating factors, stranger homicides, and the victim's gender also increased the likelihood of a death sentence, as did the county of the homicide. We reflect on the implications of these results for debates about the constitutionality of judge sentencing in capital cases Details: Ithaca, NY: Cornell Law School, 2014. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper Series: Accessed November 18, 2014 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2513371 Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2513371 Shelf Number: 134121 Keywords: Capital PunishmentDeath Penalty (U.S.)JudgesJuriesSentencing |
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: Kantorowicz, Elena Title: Cognitive Biases and Procedural Rules: Enhancing the Use of Alternative Sanctions Summary: The practice of short-term imprisonment has been long criticised due to its criminogenic effect and costs. To minimise its use, many countries introduced alternative sanctions such as community service or home confinement with electronic monitoring. Unfortunately, in practice those sanctions are often imposed on non-prison bound offenders, a phenomenon termed "the net-widening problem". Consequently, instead of reducing the prison population, the alternative sanctions substitute lighter punishments such as fine or conditional imprisonment. The discretion power whether to impose a prison sentence or its alternatives lies in the hands of the courts. Therefore, the way to enhance the use of alternative sanctions as a substitute to short-term imprisonment is to change the behaviour of judges. This paper adopts the unique approach of behavioural law and economics in order to discuss procedural rules that have the potential to achieve the above-mentioned goal. Each of the analysed procedural rules explains the cognitive biases, which judges are subject to when choosing between a prison sentence and an alternative punishment. Following that, this paper analyses how the suggested procedural rules overcome or use those biases in order to promote the use of alternative sanctions. Details: Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam , 2014. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Rotterdam Institute of Law and Economics (RILE) Working Paper Series No. 2014/10 : Accessed April 6, 2015 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2531418 Year: 2014 Country: International URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2531418 Shelf Number: 135162 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCriminal LawJudgesJudicial DiscretionNet-WideningPunishment |
Author: Juvenile Law Center (Pennsylvania) Title: Lessons from Luzerne County: Promoting Fairness, Transparency and Accountability. Summary: In October 2009, in an unprecedented opinion, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated former Luzerne County juvenile court judge Mark Ciavarella's adjudications of delinquency made between 2003 and May 2008. Just three months later, Special Master Arthur Grim ordered that all cases heard by former Judge Ciavarella were to be dismissed. In providing relief, the Supreme Court restored integrity to Pennsylvania's juvenile justice system and gave hope to youth who suffered enormous harm at the hands of corrupt judges. However, it was not just the judges who failed these youth; the system failed at numerous levels. District attorneys, public defenders, juvenile probation officers, the state Judicial Conduct Board, private attorneys and other court personnel--everyone connected to the juvenile justice system in Luzerne County failed these children. What safeguards, policies and methods of accountability permitted this toxic environment to flourish? How can we prevent another Luzerne tragedy? How can we make sure that Pennsylvania's juvenile justice system dispenses justice equally and with the same high standards in every county? This report aims to answer these questions, with the hope that legislators will recognize the systemic failures brought to light by the Luzerne County "kids-for-cash" scandal and enact measures to guarantee the rights of all children in Pennsylvania's juvenile justice system. The recommendations we propose are organized under six topic areas, each representing a chapter: -Ensuring Access to Counsel -Instituting Meaningful Appellate Review -Increasing Transparency and Accountability in the Juvenile Justice System -Reducing Referrals to the Juvenile Justice System -Ensuring Respectful and Appropriate Treatment of Youth in Detention or Placement and in Court -Reducing the Consequences of Juvenile Records Details: Philadelphia: JLC, 2013. 104p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 27, 2015 at: http://www.jlc.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdfs/Lessons%20From%20Luzerne%20County%20Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.jlc.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdfs/Lessons%20From%20Luzerne%20County%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 129821 Keywords: JudgesJudicial CorruptionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
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: Depew, Briggs Title: Judges, Juveniles and In-Group Bias Summary: We investigate the existence of in-group bias (preferential treatment of one's own group) in court decisions. Using the universe of juvenile court cases in a U.S. state between 1996 and 2012 and exploiting random assignment of juvenile defendants to judges, we find evidence for negative racial in-group bias in judicial decisions. All else the same, black (white) juveniles who are randomly assigned to black (white) judges are more likely to get incarcerated (as opposed to being placed on probation), and they receive longer sentences. Although observed in experimental settings, this is the first empirical evidence of negative in-group bias, based on a randomization design outside of the lab. Explanations for this finding are provided. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2016. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper 22003: Accessed February 24, 2016 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w22003.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w22003.pdf Shelf Number: 137952 Keywords: JudgesJudicial Decision-MakingJuvenile CourtJuvenile DefendantsJuvenile OffendersRacial BiasRacial Discrimination |
Author: Eren, Ozkan Title: Emotional Judges and Unlucky Juveniles Summary: Employing the universe of juvenile court decisions in a U.S. state between 1996 and 2012, we analyze the effects of emotional shocks associated with unexpected outcomes of football games played by a prominent college team in the state. We investigate the behavior of judges, the conduct of whom should, by law, be free of personal biases and emotions. We find that unexpected losses increase disposition (sentence) lengths assigned by judges during the week following the game. Unexpected wins, or losses that were expected to be close contests ex-ante, have no impact. The effects of these emotional shocks are asymmetrically borne by black defendants. We present evidence that the results are not influenced by defendant or attorney behavior or by defendants' economic background. Importantly, the results are driven by judges who have received their bachelor's degrees from the university with which the football team is affiliated. Different falsification tests and a number of auxiliary analyses demonstrate the robustness of the findings. These results provide evidence for the impact of emotions in one domain on a behavior in a completely unrelated domain among a uniformly highly-educated group of individuals (judges), with decisions involving high stakes (sentence lengths). They also point to the existence of a subtle and previously-unnoticed capricious application of sentencing. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2016. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper 22611: Accessed September 7, 2016 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w22611.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w22611.pdf Shelf Number: 147856 Keywords: JudgesJudicial SentencingJuvenile CourtJuvenile OffendersJuvenile SentencingSports |
Author: de Casio, Ana Cardenas Gonzalez Title: The Effect of the 'War on Organised Crime' on the Mexican Federal Judiciary: A Comparative Case Study of Judicial Decision-Making Summary: Using a comparative case study design, this thesis explores the impact on the Mexican federal judiciary of steep rises in violent crime, proliferation of armed organised crime groups, greater involvement of the military in crime control activities and the government's 'war on organised crime'. The thesis develops 'enemy penology' as a theoretical framework based on the observation that the Mexican government has increasingly conceptualised offenders as enemies and called for an explicitly militarised criminal justice response. Drawing on this theoretical framework, the thesis analyses qualitative data from two different sites - a 'crime control as warfare' scenario (highly militarised state) and an unchanged context (less militarised state). Findings are examined within the enemy penology framework and also drawing on theories of judicial behaviour and judicial roles in order to explain the overarching finding that judges seem to have insulated themselves from the 'enemy penology' promulgated by the government. Analysis of 40 written judgements in drug cases and 28 semi-structured interviews with judges (drawn from a total of 56 interviews achieved during the fieldwork) indicated that decision making, guilt determination and sentencing were almost identical in the two locations despite stark differences in context. In both locations, the study observed an inclination to privilege police evidence, high conviction rates despite poor prosecutorial performance and insufficient evidence, and a tendency to impose minimum sentences. Interviewees discussed these issues as well as the impact of armed criminality, military involvement in crime control and judicial independence. Overall, the Federal judiciary appeared to be not influenced by the enemy penology paradigm reproduced by public officials and criminal policies. Mexican judicial behaviour was found to be strongly shaped by a formalistic and legalistic understanding of judicial duties where accuracy in law interpretation is expected, disregarding other goals, including politics and policy considerations. This understanding is enhanced by the judiciary through strict observance of precedents, reversals and enhancing law-interpreter and ritualist judicial roles. Nonetheless, the empirical data also showed that judges' views and opinions are informed by strategic goals, attitudes, motives, managerial needs and the pursuit of self-respect and recognition. In sum, examining court judgements and judges' views about deciding cases in the light of the prevalent 'enemy penology' provided a rich understanding of the way decision- making in criminal matters is constructed by judges as well as the complex and often contradictory layers that comprise the image and role of the Mexican federal judge. Details: London: King's College London, Dickson Poon School of Law, 2016. 332p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed October 13, 2016 at: https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/57599059/2016_Gonz_lez_De_Cos_o_Ana_C_rdenas_1140394_ethesis.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Mexico URL: https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/57599059/2016_Gonz_lez_De_Cos_o_Ana_C_rdenas_1140394_ethesis.pdf Shelf Number: 145441 Keywords: Drug OffendersJudgesJudicial Decision-MakingOrganized CrimeProsecutorsViolent Crime |
Author: Kleinberg, Jon Title: Human Decisions and Machine Predictions Summary: We examine how machine learning can be used to improve and understand human decision-making. In particular, we focus on a decision that has important policy consequences. Millions of times each year, judges must decide where defendants will await trial - at home or in jail. By law, this decision hinges on the judge's prediction of what the defendant would do if released. This is a promising machine learning application because it is a concrete prediction task for which there is a large volume of data available. Yet comparing the algorithm to the judge proves complicated. First, the data are themselves generated by prior judge decisions. We only observe crime outcomes for released defendants, not for those judges detained. This makes it hard to evaluate counterfactual decision rules based on algorithmic predictions. Second, judges may have a broader set of preferences than the single variable that the algorithm focuses on; for instance, judges may care about racial inequities or about specific crimes (such as violent crimes) rather than just overall crime risk. We deal with these problems using different econometric strategies, such as quasi-random assignment of cases to judges. Even accounting for these concerns, our results suggest potentially large welfare gains: a policy simulation shows crime can be reduced by up to 24.8% with no change in jailing rates, or jail populations can be reduced by 42.0% with no increase in crime rates. Moreover, we see reductions in all categories of crime, including violent ones. Importantly, such gains can be had while also significantly reducing the percentage of African-Americans and Hispanics in jail. We find similar results in a national dataset as well. In addition, by focusing the algorithm on predicting judges' decisions, rather than defendant behavior, we gain some insight into decision-making: a key problem appears to be that judges to respond to 'noise' as if it were signal. These results suggest that while machine learning can be valuable, realizing this value requires integrating these tools into an economic framework: being clear about the link between predictions and decisions; specifying the scope of payoff functions; and constructing unbiased decision counterfactuals. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2017. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper no. 23180: Accessed February 20, 2017 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w23180.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w23180.pdf Shelf Number: 146686 Keywords: Decision-MakingJudgesJudicial Decision-MakingJudicial DiscretionPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Cortes, Nancy G. Title: Perspectives on Mexico's Criminal Justice System: What Do Its Operators Think? Survey of Judges, Prosecutors, and Public Defenders Summary: Justice in Mexico, a research and public policy program based at the University of San Diego, released the English version of the latest publication in the Justiciabarometro series, Justiciabarometro 2016- Perspectives on Mexico's Criminal Justice System: What do its operators think?, thanks to the generous funding from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. The 2016 Justiciabarometro provides a comparative analysis of the justice system operators' demographics and perspectives, as well as comparisons to similar data collected in 2010. Survey participants included 288 judges, 279 prosecutors, and 127 public defenders in 11 Mexican states, with a response rate of 56%, a 2.4% margin of error, and a 95% confidence interval. Details: San Diego: Justice in Mexico, Department of Political Science & International Relations, University of San Diego, 2017. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 21, 2017 at: https://justiceinmexico.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2016-Justiciabarometro_English-Version_Online.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Mexico URL: https://justiceinmexico.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2016-Justiciabarometro_English-Version_Online.pdf Shelf Number: 145065 Keywords: Court ReformCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsJudgesProsecutorsPublic Defenders |
Author: Bellin, Jeffrey Title: Reassessing Prosecutorial Power Through the Lens of Mass Incarceration Summary: Prosecutors have long been the Darth Vader of academic writing: mysterious, all-powerful and, for the most part, bad. This uber-prosecutor theme flows like the force through John Pfaff's highly-anticipated new book, "Locked In: The True Causes of Mass Incarceration - and How to Achieve Real Reform." The book concludes that police, legislators, and judges are not to blame for Mass Incarceration. Instead, "the most powerful actors in the entire criminal justice system" (prosecutors) have used their "almost unfettered, unreviewable power to determine who gets sent to prison and for how long." Locked In's data-driven thesis aligns neatly with the academic consensus. If prosecutors are the most powerful actor in the criminal justice system, they must be responsible for its most noteworthy product - Mass Incarceration. The only problem is that it probably isn't right. While Pfaff's empirical findings have been embraced by the media, the legal academy, and even former President Obama, they are grounded in questionable data. With these flaws exposed, the familiar villains of the Mass Incarceration story reemerge: judges and, above all, legislators. This reemergence provides a very different focus for reforms designed to unwind Mass Incarceration. It also says something profound about prosecutorial power. Prosecutors possess substantial power to let people escape from an increasingly inflexible system. But decades of academic claims suggesting that prosecutors are equally powerful when acting in the opposite direction - to dictate sanctions - fold under scrutiny. When it comes to imposing incarceration, prosecutorial power is largely contingent on the actions of other, more powerful criminal justice actors. Details: Unpublished paper, 2017. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 10, 2017 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2930116 Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2930116 Shelf Number: 150548 Keywords: JudgesMass IncarcerationProsecutors |
Author: Martnez Cuellar, Mariana Title: Is Justice Blind? An Examination of Disparities in Homicide Sentencing in Colombia, 1980-2000 Summary: Evidence has repeatedly shown that disparities in crime sentences can be attributed to certain variables considered outside the legal dimensions of the case. The majority of research that investigates factors that contribute to such disparities has primarily focused on crimes of varying severities adjudicated in the U.S. court system. We expand research on this topic by focusing on disparities in homicide sentences using data from over 9000 homicide cases tried in Colombia from 1980 - 2000. We specifically explore whether judges use substantive rationality when deciding the length of the offender's sentence and if the sentence should be above the legal minimum set for the severity of the crime according to the criminal code under which it is adjudicated. Results reveal that disparities in homicide sentences can be attributed to extra-legal variables such as: the city in which the homicide trial took place, where the body of the victim was retrieved, and whether the defendant was identified by an ID parade. However, we also find evidence that suggests that legal variables such as the defendant's previous criminal record and the aggravating circumstances of the case engender greater differences in sentence outcomes than non-legal variables previously mentioned. Explanations and policy implications are discussed. Details: Bogota: Universidad de los AndesFacultad de EconomaCede, 2008. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper: Accessed May 15, 2017 at: https://economia.uniandes.edu.co/components/com_booklibrary/ebooks/dcede2008-01.pdf Year: 2008 Country: Colombia URL: https://economia.uniandes.edu.co/components/com_booklibrary/ebooks/dcede2008-01.pdf Shelf Number: 145475 Keywords: Homicides JudgesMurders Sentencing Disparities |
Author: Clark, John Title: Enhancing Pretrial Justice in Cuyahoga County: Results From a Jail Population Analysis and Judicial Feedback Summary: To assist in its ongoing examination of the bail system in Cuyahoga County, the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, in coordination with the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, asked the Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI) to review elements of the Cuyahoga County pretrial justice system. PJI examined case filing trend data, analyzed data from a snapshot of persons released on a particular date from four facilities-the Cuyahoga County Jail plus three municipal jails-and solicited feedback from the Court of Common Pleas and municipal court benches regarding needed enhancements to the bail system. This report presents the findings from that effort. Here is a summary of the major findings and recommendations. Trend Data - Despite significant declines in the number of reported violent and property crimes in Cuyahoga County, and even larger declines in the number of criminal cases filed in both the municipal courts and the Court of Common Pleas, there has not been a commensurate reduction in the number of jail bookings or average daily populations. - The Cuyahoga County Jail has been operating, on average, at over 100% capacity in four out of the past five years. Jail Population Analysis - There were significant differences in the demographic characteristics, particularly regarding race, of those released from the three municipal jails on the date of the snapshot, June 1, 2017, compared to those released from the Cuyahoga County Jail. - Twenty-five percent of the felony pretrial population in the Cuyahoga County Jail sample remained detained throughout the pretrial period, with an average length of stay in pretrial detention of 104 days. Of the 75% who were released, whether by financial or non-financial means, the average length of stay was 17 days. - Thirty-eight percent of the Cuyahoga County jail population that was released on personal bond spent more than one week in pretrial detention before that release. - Twenty-eight percent of those with a bond of $5,000 or less never posted it and remained detained throughout the pretrial period. - There was a correlation between seriousness of charge and bond type and bond amounts in the Cuyahoga County Jail sample. Those charged with Felony 1 and 2 offenses were much more likely to get a secured money bond than those charged with Felony 4 and 5 offenses, and, of those receiving a secured bond, much more likely to receive a higher bond. Judicial Feedback PJI invited all Municipal and Common Pleas judges to participate in a voluntary questionnaire consisting of nine questions to identify areas of potential judicial education, stakeholder engagement, and process improvements. Here is a summary of the results: - Thirty-three judges completed the questionnaire. - Over 75% of the judges felt informed about the strengths and weaknesses of the bail system in their jurisdiction, and about ways that it might be improved. - 82% of the judges felt there is value in the Criminal Justice Committee examining the pretrial process in Cuyahoga County and its municipalities. - 79% felt it is important to provide judicial-specific education to understand possible ways to improve the bail system in the areas of actuarial risk assessment (87%) and research-informed risk management strategies (87%). - 13% felt uncertainty about the use of actuarial risk assessment tools with some concern that they may cause additional issues. - 84% of the respondents were "somewhat familiar with" to "not familiar with at all" the use of supervision matrices, while only 15% of the judges were "very familiar with" the uses of supervision matrices. Recommendations 1. Conduct a training on the fundamentals of pretrial justice for the judges of the Court of Common Pleas and of the municipal courts. 2. Conduct a one-to-two day summit of the judiciary in Cuyahoga County to identify a clear vision statement pertaining to pretrial practices within the county. 3. Pilot test 2-4 projects in both the Municipal and Common Pleas Court introducing research and evidenced-based practices in pretrial improvements. 4. Actively and consistently communicate the plans, progress, and outcomes of the pilot sites to the entire judiciary, as well as other key stakeholders, such as prosecutors, defenders, law enforcement, victim advocates, and the community at large. 5. Based on the results of the pilot sites, plan and implement an expansion of new practices system-wide. Details: Rockville, MD: Pretrial Justice Institute, 2017. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 17, 2018 at: http://www.acluohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cuyahoga-County-Jail-Population-Analysis-Report-PJI-2017_final.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.acluohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cuyahoga-County-Jail-Population-Analysis-Report-PJI-2017_final.pdf Shelf Number: 149840 Keywords: BailJail InmatesJailsJudgesPretrial DetentionPretrial JusticeRisk Assessment |
Author: Cohen, Alma Title: Judicial Politics and Sentencing Decisions Summary: This paper investigates whether judge political affiliation contributes to racial and gender disparities in sentencing using data on over 500,000 federal defendants linked to sentencing judge. Exploiting random case assignment, we find that Republican-appointed judges sentence black defendants to 3.0 more months than similar non-blacks and female defendants to 2.0 fewer months than similar males compared to Democratic-appointed judges, 65 percent of the baseline racial sentence gap and 17 percent of the baseline gender sentence gap, respectively. These differences cannot be explained by other judge characteristics and grow substantially larger when judges are granted more discretion. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2018. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper 24615: Accessed May 21, 2018 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w24615.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w24615.pdf Shelf Number: 150279 Keywords: JudgesJudicial Discretion Racial Discrimination Racial Disparities Sentencing Disparities |
Author: Whitehead, Stephen Title: The Changing Use of Pre-Sentence Reports Summary: Summary As part of our work to understand why the number of community sentences - community orders, suspended sentence orders and other similar disposals - has fallen by 24% over the past ten years in England and Wales, we are examining the relationship between the courts and probationary services, with a particular focus on the National Probation Service's work in courts. In this interim analysis, we present emerging findings from the national data on the use of pre-sentence reports (PSRs) to see whether changes in their use have impacted on the use of community sentences. Sentencers are expected to obtain a PSR before passing any community sentence (other than a stand-alone unpaid work requirement) or any custodial sentence (except one where custody is the only option). We have found that between 2012-13 and 2016-17: - There has been a 22% fall in the number of new PSRs produced. This fall means that there has been an increase in the number of sentences passed (both community sentences and custody) where no new PSR has informed sentencing; - There has been a significant change in how PSRs are delivered to court, with an increasing proportion of PSRs delivered orally rather than in writing; - While the number of PSRs has fallen, where they are used, the likelihood that sentencers follow the recommendations in the report has increased slightly (by 4% since 2012/13); - Because cases with PSRs are more than ten times more likely to receive a community sentence, falling numbers of PSRs is strongly linked to the decline in community sentences; - Our modelling suggests that if the number of PSRs had remained stable that there could have been 33,000 more community sentences a year. These emerging findings open up a range of further questions-- What is driving the fall in new PSRs? How is advice being provided in cases which don't have them? And ultimately, what is making sentencers less likely to use community sentences when they don't have pre-sentence advice? We are exploring these issues with practitioners, in advance of our final report, due in the September 2018, but we invite practitioners and experts to get in touch and help us explore these questions. Details: London, UK: Centre for Justice Innovation, 2018. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 21, 2019 at: http://justiceinnovation.org/portfolio/changing-use-pre-sentence-reports/ Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://justiceinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/CJI-CHANGING-USE-PSR-BRIEFING_WIP-1.pdf Shelf Number: 154330 Keywords: Community OrdersCommunity SentencesJudges Judicial PracticesNational Probation ServicePre-Sentence Reports (PSR)Sentencing |