Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 10:02 pm
Time: 10:02 pm
Results for misdemeanors
20 results foundAuthor: Barbour, Bruce: NSW Ombudsman Title: Review of the Impact of Criminal Infringement Notices on Aboriginal Communities Summary: Criminal Infringement Notices (CINs) provide police with an easy, additional option for dealing with adults who are suspected of certain minor offences that are usually characterised as criminal in nature. After a five-year trial in which 9,452 CINs were issued, the scheme was extended beyond the 12 trial locations to the rest of NSW in late 2007. In the first full year of state-wide use, 8,681 CINs were issued – most for just three offences: offensive conduct, offensive language and shoplifting. By contrast, an estimated 17,000 offences can be dealt with by penalty notice in NSW. In 2008, police records show that more than 500,000 penalty notices were issued to suspects aged 18 years and over. This was in addition to 170,000 criminal charges. The State Debt Recovery Office (SDRO) is the agency responsible for collecting penalty notice payments and taking enforcement action against those who do not pay. The SDRO estimates that the 18,133 CINs issued between 1 September 2002 and 31 October 2008 represent just 0.1% of the 15 million penalty notices that it processed in that period. While CINs make up just a small portion of police and SDRO business, the consequences for individual CIN recipients can be significant. Delays in paying a $150 CIN penalty for swearing or $300 penalty for shoplifting will usually result in enforcement action, adding an extra $50 in costs to each penalty notice, plus another $40 for each time that enforcement action involves an RTA sanction. Penalties and costs can quickly accumulate. Recipients who elect to have their CIN heard at court risk incurring a criminal record, a harsher penalty, additional costs and the stresses associated with the prosecution process. To the extent that CINs can divert petty offenders who would otherwise have been arrested, charged and brought before the courts, there are clear diversionary benefits. Paying the fixed penalty in the time allowed finalises the matter, providing a sanction to punish one-off misdemeanours without the recipient incurring a criminal record. There are also savings for police, courts and others involved in the judicial process. At the same time, the scheme preserves the right for recipients to elect to have their CIN determined by a court. Yet there are also risks associated with the use of CINs. These include risks of net increases in sanctions, in that some offenders may be issued with CINs in circumstances where previously they would have been warned or cautioned, risks that recipients might not court-elect or request an internal review despite having strong grounds to do so, and risks that recipients may simply ignore the penalty notice and become entrenched in the fines enforcement system - thereby incurring further debts, RTA sanctions and an increased likelihood of becoming involved in secondary offending. Our review has found that these pitfalls are particularly acute for Aboriginal people, who are already over-represented in the criminal justice system. The number of CINs issued to Aboriginal people has grown significantly since the scheme was extended state-wide, with Aboriginal suspects now accounting for 7.4% of all CINs issued, much higher than would be expected for a group that makes up just over 2% of the total NSW population. We also found that Aboriginal people are less likely to request a review or elect to have the matter heard at court, and that nine out of every 10 Aboriginal people issued with a CIN failed to pay within the time allowed, resulting in much higher numbers of these recipients becoming entrenched in the fines enforcement system. The impact of CINs and CIN-related debts on Aboriginal communities must be considered in the context of broader fines processes. During this review, Parliament approved important changes to the Fines Act 1996 that aim to reduce the negative impacts of the fines system on marginalised sections of the community, including Aboriginal people. Details: Sydney: New South Wales Ombudsman, 2009. 159p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 25, 2010 at: http://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/publication/PDF/other%20reports/FR_CINs_ATSI_review_Aug09.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Australia URL: http://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/publication/PDF/other%20reports/FR_CINs_ATSI_review_Aug09.pdf Shelf Number: 120074 Keywords: FinesIndigenous OffendersMisdemeanorsNuisance Behaviors and DisordersPublic Order OffensesShoplifting |
Author: Fellner, Jamie Title: The Price of Freedom: Bail and Pretrial Detention of Low Income Nonfelony Defendants in New York City Summary: Thousands of defendants in New York City accused of minor crimes are held in pretrial detention each year solelybecause they cannot afford to pay even small amounts of bail. The Price of Freedom—based on scores of interviews with defendants, family members, judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, and a trove of new data—analyzes why this is happening and what can be done to ensure greater equity in the bail process. Previously unpublished data made available to Human Rights Watch by the NYC Criminal Justice Agency (CJA) shows that in 87 percent of cases of nonfelony defendants arrested in 2008 in which bail was set at $1,000 or less (the most recent year for which such data is available), the defendants were not able to post bail at arraignment. On average, such individuals spent some 16 days in pretrial detention. Almost three out of four such individuals were accused of nonviolent, non-weapons related crimes such as shoplifting, turnstile jumping, smoking marijuana in public, or trespassing. The Price of Freedom recommends that New York City develop a pretrial supervised release program to allow more nonfelony defendants to remain free while awaiting trial. This approach would honor the presumption of innocence but cost far less than housing, feeding, guarding, and providing medical care to inmates confined round the clock in jail. The report also calls for reforms requiring judges to more carefully tailor their bail decisions to defendants’ financial resources, including wider use of unsecured appearance bonds for those accused of misdemeanors. Details: New York: Human Rights Watch, 2010. 70p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 3, 2010 at: http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2010/12/02/price-freedom-0 Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2010/12/02/price-freedom-0 Shelf Number: 120365 Keywords: BailMisdemeanorsPretrial Detention (New York City) |
Author: O'Reilly, Justine Title: New Zealand Police Pre-Charge Warnings Alternative Resolutions: Evaluation Report Summary: The evaluation of the Alternative Resolutions - Pre-Charge Warning initiative trial contributed to the decision by Police to implement the initiative nationally in September. Three Auckland Districts trialled pre-charge warnings from November 2009 to May 2010. The aim of pre-charge warnings is to develop better alternatives to hold offenders to account for less serious offending without having to use the courts. Under this process, Police can arrest a person, take them to a station for processing and then issue a warning as an alternative to charging and prosecution. Pre-charge warnings can be used for people 17 years of age and over, low level or minor offences and those offences with a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment. Those involved in family violence offences or methamphetamine offences are ineligible for pre-charge warnings. Among other things, the evaluation aimed to assess the extent to which pre-charge warnings achieved the intended outcomes for Police, and look at take up across the Auckland region. The key findings from the evaluation were: •an overall reduction of 9% in charges proceeding to court in the Auckland region •a positive response from operational police •a generally positive response from victims • reduced file preparation resulting in a time-saving for Police. The majority of offences (31,647) were still prosecuted while 3,137 charges were resolved by way of a pre-charge warning. The most common offences resolved by a pre-charge warning were Disorder (26%), Breach of Liquor Ban (21%) and Shoplifting (9%) Some areas for improvement have been identified and will assist the ongoing development of the Alternative Resolutions initiative. Details: Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Police, 2010. 85p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 15, 2011 at: https://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2010-12-09_alternative_resolutions_report_final__elec_isbn_.pdf Year: 2010 Country: New Zealand URL: https://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2010-12-09_alternative_resolutions_report_final__elec_isbn_.pdf Shelf Number: 121368 Keywords: Alternatives to ProsecutionDiversionMisdemeanorsPolice DiscretionPre-Charge Warnings (New Zealand)Prosecution |
Author: Gogia, Giorgi Title: Administrative Error: Georgia’s Flawed System for Administrative Detention Summary: Georgian authorities have used the Code of Administrative Offenses in recent years to lock up protestors and activists at times of political tension. The code allows for a person to be imprisoned for up to 90 days for certain administrative offenses, or misdemeanors. However, as this report describes, the code lacks due process and fair trial protections required for punishment of this severity. It does not explicitly require that police promptly inform defendants of their rights or give reasons for their detention. Detainees are often not allowed to contact their families, and if retained, lawyers often have difficulties in finding detainees in custody. Nor do detainees enjoy fair trial rights in court. Trials are often perfunctory, rarely last more than 15 minutes, and judicial decisions often rely exclusively on police testimonies. If lawyers are present, they lack time to prepare an effective defense. Lawyers and their clients also face obstacles exercising the right to appeal. Those handed terms of administrative imprisonment serve sentences in temporary detention isolators not intended for long-term occupancy, where conditions often fall short of international standards. As a party to both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, Georgia should ensure full due process protections for administrative defendants, particularly with regard to the right to notify a third party about detention, the right to lawyer of one’s choosing, and the right to a fair trial. Details: New York: Human Rights Watch, 2012. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 10, 2012 at: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/georgia0112ForUpload.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Georgia URL: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/georgia0112ForUpload.pdf Shelf Number: 123550 Keywords: Administrative Detention (Georgia)CourtsDetentionHuman RightsMisdemeanorsPunishmentTrials |
Author: Skinnider, Eileen Title: Canada’s Approach to Minor Offences, Behavioural Problems and Administrative Detention Summary: In the past few years, the Government of China has been reviewing and revising various forms of administrative detention that continue to be used in parallel to the criminal justice system. The “Re-education Through Labor” (laodong jiaoyang) permits the detention for up to four years of people who are not formally regarded as “criminals”. This form of administrative detention applies to people who are accused of minor offences which are not considered to amount to “crime” in China. For example, this can include people who are deemed to disturb public order, such as prostitutes and people who engage in fights and petty theft. Detention for these groups of people is usually decided by the public security alone, without much judicial supervision or review, without charge or trial, with no right to counsel and no opportunity to defend themselves. The re-education through labour process does not proceed under the Chinese criminal justice system, however people receiving such a term can be detained for one to three years, which can be further extended by one year. With the signing of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, China is preparing to change the Re-education Through Labour system to ensure the compatibility of the Chinese legal system with the provisions in the Covenant. This paper is meant to assist our Chinese partners in such a review by providing some information on the Canadian approach to minor crime and problem behaviour as well as the use of detention outside the criminal justice system. In Canada, a crime involves socially proscribed wrongdoing that have been “agreed” by society as conduct that goes against not only the victim but also the community. Even “minor offences” are dealt with in the criminal justice system, whether this is through the traditional or community based approach. The traditional criminal model puts the State in charge; the case is investigated by the police, the charge is brought by the prosecution and it is up to the State as to how far it will proceed. With the recent concern of the overburden in and cost of the justice system5, as well as the shifting emphasis on restorative justice principles, many countries including Canada, are introducing various measures or alternatives to deal with minor offences. Such alternatives may be based on the restorative justice model which creates greater opportunities for involvement by the victims and more substantial connection between victim and offender. Our criminal justice system focuses on specific acts defined as crimes in the Canadian Criminal Code. Of course these specific acts may be manifestations of underlying behavioural issues. Our system does not criminalise “behavior” per se, nor do we generally detain people who are seen as exhibiting problem behaviour that does not amount to a specific criminal act. There are other State mechanisms that address social ills, such as drug addiction, poverty, child neglect, but these do not generally include detention. However, administrative detention, or the use of forcible confinement for non-criminal matters, is used in a number of situations such as immigration and refugee claims, mental health issues and youth protection. Part II of this paper serves as a review of the Canadian criminal justice system and the international norms pertaining to restorative justice and administrative detention. The importance of ensuring adequate safeguards, fairness and due process in administrative detention proceedings provided by international law is reflected in the Canadian laws on administrative detention. In addressing detention within the criminal justice system, Canada has played a significant role in promoting the importance of restorative justice around the world. The recent United Nations recommendations reflect the growing tendency by countries to seek alternatives to the traditional punishment discourse. Part III examines the history and evolution of the various forms of punishment and incarceration in Canada particularly dealing with minor offences and problem behaviour. Part IV provides an overview of non-custodial measures currently in place in Canada to deal with minor offences. Underlying many of these measures are the principles of restorative justice, providing the victims and the community the opportunity to have a voice while holding the offender accountable for his or her actions. Part V looks specifically at how the Canadian system deals with vagrancy, prostitution, drug addiction, and child abuse or neglect. Part VI examines the procedural fairness that applies to administrative detention situations in Canada. Lastly, Part VII introduces some interesting alternatives to incarceration being undertaken by other countries. While each of these topics could easily be the subject of lengthy discussion, the modest purpose of this paper is to provide an introductory exploration of the legal framework relating to each. Details: Vancouver, BC, Canada: International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy, 2005. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 5, 2012 at: http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/publications/reports/china_re-education_through_labor.pdf Year: 2005 Country: Canada URL: http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/publications/reports/china_re-education_through_labor.pdf Shelf Number: 126875 Keywords: Administrative DetentionAlternatives to IncarcerationCriminal Justice Systems (Canada)Minor OffensesMisdemeanors |
Author: Phillips, Mary T. Title: The Past, Present, and Possible Future of Desk Appearance Tickets in New York City Summary: Desk Appearance Tickets (DATs) are used in New York City to reduce unnecessary incarceration in misdemeanor cases. In a DAT arrest, the suspect is released with a ticket instructing him or her to appear in court on a specified date for arraignment. This report examines historical trends in the use of DATs and analyzes factors driving their recent expansion. Details: New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency, 2014. 96p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 9, 2014 at: http://www.pretrial.org/download/research/The%20Past,%20Present,%20and%20Possible%20Future%20of%20Desk%20Appearance%20Tickets%20in%20New%20York%20City%20-%20NYCJA%202014%20.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.pretrial.org/download/research/The%20Past,%20Present,%20and%20Possible%20Future%20of%20Desk%20Appearance%20Tickets%20in%20New%20York%20City%20-%20NYCJA%202014%20.pdf Shelf Number: 132055 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Desk Appearance Tickets MisdemeanorsPretrial Detention |
Author: Gilhuly, Kim Title: Rehabilitating Corrections in California: The Health Impacts of Proposition 47 Summary: California's sentences for low-level crimes would alleviate prison and jail overcrowding, make communities safer, and strengthen families, and shift resources from imprisoning people to treating them for the addictions and mental health problems at the root of many crimes. A Health Impact Assessment of reforms proposed by a state ballot initiative predicts the changes would reduce crime, recidivism, racial inequities in sentencing, and save the state and its counties $600 million to $900 million a year - but only if treatment and rehabilitation programs are fully funded and implemented properly. Human Impact Partners conducted an in-depth assessment of the public health and equity impacts of reclassifying six non-serious offenses - crimes of drug possession and petty theft - to misdemeanors. The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, Proposition 47 on the November 2014 state ballot, would also allow people currently in prison for those crimes to apply for lower sentences, release, and to have their records cleared of the crime, and redirect savings from the reduction in the prison population to mental health and substance abuse programs, truancy and dropout prevention, and services for victims of violent crime. Fundamentally, prison is not a healthy environment. Every day, conditions in California's dangerously overcrowded prisons and jails causes physical and mental harm - disease, depression, violence, rape, suicide, and more - on thousands of incarcerated men and women. Many of these people were convicted of crimes that pose no serious threat to others, but can be traced to their own substance abuse and mental health problems. They need treatment, not punishment. And treatment is much less costly than punishment, returning $3.77 in benefits for every dollar spent. A shift in how we charge and sentence people who have committed non-serious, non-violent, and non-sexual crimes has far-reaching implications for the health and well-being not only of those who commit these offenses, but of their families, their communities, and the public. This Health Impact Assessment predicts that full implementation of the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act would: - Decrease state corrections spending by $200 million to $300 million a year, and county corrections spending by $400 million to $600 million a year, according to estimates by the state Legislative Analyst's Office. - Increase state funding for mental health and substance abuse programs, school truancy prevention and victim services by $200 million to $300 million a year. - Reduce the number of people convicted of felonies by more than 40,000 a year, and the number sentenced to prison by more than 3,000 a year. - Allow more than 9,000 people now in prison for felonies for low-level crimes to apply for reduced sentence and release. This includes about 1,500 people who are serving extended sentences for a second strike for one of these low-level offenses. - Reduce violent and property crime by reducing the number of people who re-offend by at least 10% a year among people who participate in treatment programs. - Reduce the rates of incarceration of African- Americans and Hispanics, who are more likely to be sentenced to prison, county jail, or probation as whites for the same low-level crimes. African- Americans are only 7% of California's population but they represent almost one-fourth of prison admissions. Hispanics are arrested and imprisoned at a slightly higher rate than their share of the population, and are 60% more likely to be jailed. Details: Oakland, CA: Human Impact Partners, 2014. 82p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 2, 2014 at: http://www.prop47impacts.org/docs/HIA_Full_Report_92314.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.prop47impacts.org/docs/HIA_Full_Report_92314.pdf Shelf Number: 133539 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformDrug OffendersMental Health ServivcesMisdemeanorsOffender RehabilitationPetty TheftSentencing Reform (California) |
Author: Chauhan, Preeti Title: Trends in Misdemeanor Arrests in New York Summary: This report presents trends in the types of misdemeanors for which New Yorkers have been arrested; analyzes these data by the age, gender, and race/ethnicity of those receiving this enforcement attention; examines shifts in misdemeanor arrest activity by police precincts; displays changes in the issuance of Desk Appearance Tickets over time; and traces these misdemeanor arrests to the initial court disposition at arraignment. New York City experienced profound changes during the time frame covered by this report, from 1980 to 2013. Most notably, the city experienced an unprecedented crime decline1 (see Figure 1). Rates in four types of violent crimes murder, rape, robbery and felony assault declined significantly, dropping from 1,886 (violent crimes per 100,000 population) to 503 (violent crimes per 100,000 population). In other words, the violent crime rate went from 1.9 percent in 1980 to 0.5 percent in 2013. A steep decline occurred for robbery rates from 1,422 robberies (per 100,000) in 1980 to 234 robberies (per 100,000) in 2013, an 83.5 percent decline. In absolute numbers, this is a decline from 100,550 to 19,128 robberies. Murders also decreased, from 26 (per 100,000) in 1980 to 4 (per 100,000) in 2013, an 84.5 percent decline. In absolute numbers, this represents a decline from 1,821 to 335 murders. Nonviolent crimes including burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft also dropped sharply, from 6,452 (per 100,000) in 1980 to 858 (per 100,000) in 2013. From 1980 to 2013, the burglary rate fell from 3,008 (per 100,000) to 213 (per 100,000), grand larceny fell from 2,079 (per 100,000) to 555 (per 100,000), and motor vehicle theft declined from 1,364 (per 100,000) to 91 (per 100,000). This represents declines of 92.7 percent, 73.3 percent, and 93.3 percent, respectively. In absolute numbers, burglary dropped from 212,748 in 1980 to 17,429 in 2013. Motor vehicle thefts declined from 96,471 to 7,400 over this same time frame. Details: New York: John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2014. 115p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 9, 2015 at: http://johnjay.jjay.cuny.edu/files/web_images/10_28_14_TOCFINAL.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://johnjay.jjay.cuny.edu/files/web_images/10_28_14_TOCFINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 135980 Keywords: Arrests Crime Statistics Misdemeanors |
Author: Biddulph, Sarah Title: Punishments in the Post Re-Education Through Labour World: Questions About Minor Crime in China Summary: As controversial as it was during its lifetime, the administrative detention power of Re-education through Labour (RETL) after its abolition has continued to create waves in the Chinese system of punishments. RETL was abolished without putting a clear alternative power or powers in its place. In the post-RETL world a number of basic questions about the scope and structure of China's system of punishments remain unresolved. What gaps, if any, has abolition of RETL left in the system of punishments? If these gaps exist, what measures, if any, will fill them? This paper first examines the question of whether there is a gap in the system of punishments left by abolition of RETL, and if so what it looks like. It goes on to discuss reforms in criminal and administrative law and debates circulating around the two concepts of minor crime and security punishments. Details: Melbourne: Melbourne Law School, 2015. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: U of Melbourne Legal Studies Research Paper No. 719 : Accessed October 8, 2015 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2664864 Year: 2015 Country: China URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2664864 Shelf Number: 136965 Keywords: Hard LaborMisdemeanorsPunishment |
Author: Warner, Todd C. Title: Mapping Mobility of Individuals Arrested for Misdemeanors in New York City, 2006-2014 Summary: This study, Mapping Mobility of Individuals Arrested for Misdemeanors in New York City, 2006-2014, aims to inform the NYPD, other criminal justice agencies, social service providers, and community organizations on the geographical allocation of resources for better law enforcement, crime prevention, and community supervision. Key findings from the report are as follows. -In 2014, almost half (48.5 percent) of all individuals arrested for a misdemeanor were arrested outside of their home precinct. Furthermore, if an individual was arrested outside of their home precinct, the arrest most often occurred in an adjacent precinct. -In 2014, almost half (44.6 percent) of all individuals arrested for a misdemeanor in Manhattan did not live in that borough. For other boroughs, individuals arrested there were much more likely to live in that borough: the Bronx (80.8 percent), Brooklyn (83.0 percent), Queens (73.3 percent), and Staten Island (87.0 percent). -In 2014, among home precinct arrests, the most frequent charges were crimes against a person (24.5 percent) and offenses related to marijuana (16.8 percent). -In 2014, of arrests that occurred outside the home precinct, the most frequent charges were property and theft-related (17.7 percent) and vehicle and driving-related (17.2 percent). Details: New York: John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2016. 116p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 8, 2016 at: http://johnjay.jjay.cuny.edu/report/MobilitymobilityReport.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://johnjay.jjay.cuny.edu/report/MobilitymobilityReport.pdf Shelf Number: 139317 Keywords: Arrest RatesArrestsCrime AnalysisCrime MappingCrime RatesMisdemeanors |
Author: Latessa, Edward J. Title: The Ohio Risk Assessment System Misdemeanor Assessment Tool (ORAS-MAT) and Misdemeanor Screening Tool (ORAS-MST) Summary: In 2006, the University of Cincinnati (UC) Center for Criminal Justice Research (CCJR), in partnership with the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC), developed the Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS), a system designed to assess risk, need, and responsivity factors of offenders at each stage in the criminal justice system (see Latessa, Smith, Lemke, Makarios, & Lowenkamp, 2009). The ORAS is comprised of five validated risk assessment instruments: 1) Pretrial Tool (PAT), 2) Community Supervision Tool (CST), 3) Prison Intake Tool (PIT), 4) Reentry Tool (RT), and 5) Supplemental Reentry Tool (SRT)1, as well as two screening tools: 1) Community Supervision Screening Tool (CSST) and 2) Prison Intake Screening Tool (PST). Since its' inception, the ORAS has been implemented across the state and is used in municipal and common pleas courts, community based correctional facilities (CBCFs), and ODRC institutions. Details: Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati, Center for Criminal Justice Research, 2014. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 11, 2016 at: https://ext.dps.state.oh.us/OCCS/Pages/Public/Reports/ORAS%20MAT%20report%20%20occs%20version.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://ext.dps.state.oh.us/OCCS/Pages/Public/Reports/ORAS%20MAT%20report%20%20occs%20version.pdf Shelf Number: 139392 Keywords: Community SupervisionMisdemeanorsOffender Risk AssessmentPretrial DetentionPretrial SupervisionPrisoner ReentryRisk Assessment |
Author: New York City Department of Investigation Title: An Analysis of Quality-of-Life Summonses, Quality-of-Life Misdemeanors Arrests, and Felony Crime in New York City, 2010-2015 Summary: Between 2010 and 2015, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) issued 1,839,414 "quality - of- life" summonses for offenses such as public urination, disorderly conduct, drinking alcohol in public, and possession of small amounts of marijuana. There are a number of legitimate reasons to issue such summonses, most notably to address community concerns and police the offenses in question. Further, maintaining order is a goal in and of itself. Addressing disorder is a basic government function, and writing summonses may be a necessary tool toward that end. However, NYPD has claimed for two decades that quality-of-life enforcement is also a key tool in the reduction of felony crime, most recently in the 2015 report, Broken Windows and Quality- of-Life Policing in New York City. Whether there is systemic data to support the effectiveness of quality-of-life summonses and misdemeanor arrests for this particular purpose is a question of considerable importance. New York City is a safer city today than it was in years past. In the period reviewed, 2010 through 2015, felony rates continued to decline and remain at historic lows. What factors contributed to this safer city is a worthy inquiry because identifying what works will help the Department become more strategic and more efficient. It is equally important to identify which factors are not supported by evidence. Issuing summonses and making misdemeanor arrests are not cost free. The cost is paid in police time, in an increase in the number of people brought into the criminal justice system and, at times, in a fraying of the relationship between the police and the communities they serve. So that future discussion of this issue can take place in the clear light of objective data, the Department of Investigation's Office of the Inspector General for the NYPD (OIG-NYPD) undertook to examine what, if any, data-driven evidence links quality- of-life enforcement - defined narrowly for purposes of this Report as quality- of-life criminal summonses and quality- of-life misdemeanor arrests - to a reduction in felony crime. Details: New York: New York City Department of Investigation, Office of the Inspector General for the NYPD, 2016. 85p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 13, 2016 at: http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/oignypd/downloads/pdf/Quality-of-Life-Report-2010-2015.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/oignypd/downloads/pdf/Quality-of-Life-Report-2010-2015.pdf Shelf Number: 139632 Keywords: ArrestsBroken Windows TheoryCrime StatisticsCrime TrendsFeloniesMisdemeanorsSummonses |
Author: Kane-Willis, Kathleen Title: Patchwork Policy: an evaluation of arrests and tickets for marijuana misdemeanors in Illinois Summary: Nationally, the conversation around marijuana has changed significantly. More than 75% of Americans support measures that would end criminal sanctions for those in possession of small amounts of marijuana. According to polling data released in 2014, 63% of Illinois voters support a marijuana decriminalization bill. Despite these changing attitudes, Illinois's dubious distinctions in terms of marijuana possession arrests is evident in nearly every metric when compared with other states and the national average: - Illinois ranked 5th nationally in the number of arrests for marijuana possession in 2010; - Of the 5 states with the largest number of marijuana possession arrests from 2001 to 2010, Illinois' rate of arrest increased the fastest, by nearly one-third ; - Illinois tied with Texas for 1st place for the proportion of marijuana possession arrests (97.8%) compared to all marijuana arrests and including sales, manufacturing, and delivery arrests; - Illinois ranked fourth in the nation for the rate of arrests for marijuana possession per 100K; - Illinois's marijuana possession arrest rate is more than 150% higher than the national average; - Illinois ranked third in the nation for the black to white racial disparity of marijuana possession offenders, despite the fact that marijuana use is the same between these two groups; - In Illinois, African Americans were about 7.6 times more likely to be arrested than whites; - Cook County made the most marijuana possession arrests of any county in the nation with 33,068 arrests in 2010 and also had one of the worst racial disparity rates in the nation; - Illinois' estimated spending for marijuana possession ranged from $78 million to $364 million per year on marijuana possession arrests and adjudications. In Illinois, 84% of all marijuana arrests are for misdemeanor possession and these arrests represent a sizable portion of arrests within the state. For example: - Three year averages for marijuana misdemeanor arrests from 2010-2013 are over 41,000 per year; - In comparison to FBI index crimes, arrests for marijuana misdemeanors were equivalent to 50% of arrests for all index crimes, that is serious and violent crimes; - Compared to all drug arrests, marijuana misdemeanor arrests make up 39% of drug arrests - including sales and possession of controlled substances - in the state of Illinois; - Of marijuana misdemeanor arrests, 85% of arrests were for possession of cannabis totaling less than 10 grams. As part of these changing attitudes, over 100 Illinois municipalities have passed ordinances that provide ticketing alternatives for small amounts of marijuana. Arrests however, can still be made under state law allowing law enforcement personnel to choose between arresting or ticketing individuals in possession of marijuana. An analysis of pre and post ordinance implementation arresting patterns found: - Of the four municipalities reviewed, Chicago had the smallest decrease in arrests, with arrests declining by only 21% while Evanston had the largest decrease (46%); - Marijuana misdemeanor arrests decreased by 40% in Urbana and by over 32% in Yorkville. In order to understand the level of ticketing to arrests within each municipality, we calculated the ratio of tickets to arrests in six municipalities. Large differences were found between cities: - Countryside had the highest level of implementation, with 88% of marijuana possession violations resulted in tickets; - In Champaign, 75% of marijuana misdemeanor offenders received a ticket instead of arrest; - In Evanston, 69% of misdemeanor marijuana possession violations resulted in a ticket; - Urbana was slightly more likely to arrest than administer a ticket for marijuana possession (59% v. 41%); - In Chicago, 93% of misdemeanor marijuana possession violations resulted in an arrest and in only 7% of cases a ticket was issued; Since ticketing has been identified as a way of possibly reducing the negative impact of disproportionate minority contact (DMC), we assessed municipalities that provided race and ethnicity data: - Study results indicated no real change in DMC after ticketing ordinances were implemented; - Individuals receiving the tickets appeared to be a subset of those arrested; - Yorkville showed little disproportionate minority contact prior to and after ticketing, while Evanston demonstrated high levels of DMC. Arrest and ticket rate per 100,000 individuals was calculated in order to formulate accurate comparisons between municipalities of varying population sizes: - Chicago had the highest arrest rate of any municipality in the study, even after the ordinance was implemented, with nearly 590 arrests per 100,000 individuals; - Chicago was the only municipality studied with a marijuana arrest rate higher than the state rate, specifically 150% higher than the state average; and more than 230% higher than the U.S. rate; - Evanston had the lowest arrest rate with 128 arrests per 100,000 individuals; The sizable difference between Chicago's arrest rate and the rates of other municipalities warranted additional analyses. The number of arrests made in Chicago for marijuana misdemeanors drives state totals: - In 2011, Chicago's misdemeanor arrest comprised almost 50% of the state total; - Despite the decrease from 2011 - 2013, the number of arrests was still disarmingly high in 2013, comprising 38% of Illinois total misdemeanor arrests; - Additionally, the decrease in arrests did not represent a fundamental shift - both in 2001 and 2002, marijuana misdemeanor arrests were lower than in the most recent year (2013). Arguments for the ticketing ordinance were focused on police time and costs. We calculated the amount of time and costs spent on marijuana arrests after the ticket was implemented and found: - In 2013, Chicago police spent from 24,000 hours to 63,000 hours arresting marijuana misdemeanants; - In 2013, the costs associated with misdemeanor marijuana arrests ranged from $25 million to upwards of $115 million dollars after the passage of the ticketing ordinance; - If misdemeanor arrests were reduced by half, potential costs savings range from $12.5 million to $57.9 million; if the number of arrests dropped by three quarters, estimated costs savings range between $18.8 million to $86.9 million per year. The low number of tickets given in Chicago in 2013 (only 1,100) resulted in a significant amount of lost revenue: - The amount of revenue generated for 2013 from marijuana tickets was small, around $416,250; - If half of the number of arrests were charged as tickets, the revenue generated would be closer to $2.9 million and if three-quarters of arrest resulted in tickets, the revenue generated would be more than $4.5 million per year. Marijuana misdemeanor rates within community areas prior to and after the implementation of the Chicago ticketing ordinance were also analyzed: - Geographic disparity by community area was found even after the ticketing ordinance was implemented, with marijuana possession rates that are more than 1100% above the national average; - After the ticketing ordinance was implemented, disparities in neighborhood arrest rates increased, for example Fuller Park, East Garfield Park, and West Garfield Park had arrest rates that were 7 times higher than the city of Chicago's average rate; - Compared to the Edison Park (the neighborhood with the lowest arrest rate), neighborhoods such as Fuller Park, East and West Garfield Park had marijuana arrest rates that were more than 150 times higher after implementing the ticket ordinance; - Neighborhoods with a large African American population were found to be predictive of high arrest rates for marijuana misdemeanor arrests (p < .001). Findings Inconsistencies in the implementation of ticketing legislation are the result of disparities in ticket administration from one community area to the next. Discrepancies in the application of the tickets by geography create a patchwork system of policy resulting in an unequal application of justice. Because a two-tiered system still exists, police retain discretion and can choose who to ticket and who to arrest. Geography, not justice, determines whether marijuana possession results in a fine or an arrest. Details: Chicago: Illinois Consortium on Drug Policy, 2014. 79p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 15, 2016 at: https://www.roosevelt.edu/CAS/CentersAndInstitutes/IMA/ICDP.aspx Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.roosevelt.edu/CAS/CentersAndInstitutes/IMA/ICDP.aspx Shelf Number: 147873 Keywords: ArrestsDrug AddictsDrug OffendersMarijuanaMisdemeanors |
Author: Phillips, Mary T. Title: Misdemeanor Marijuana Arrests New York City 2012-2014 Summary: Changes in the handling of arrests for possession of small amounts of marijuana have taken place at a rapid pace in New York City during the past several years. This report examines some of those changes and their impact on volume and outcomes in misdemeanor marijuana possession arrests. The research also addresses the impact of these changes on ethnic disparities in marijuana arrests and outcomes. The study focuses on arrests for criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree, which is a class B misdemeanor under Penal Law §221.10. Persons found in possession of any amount of marijuana, either "open to public view" or "burning" (i.e., being smoked), can be charged under subsection 1 of this law. Possession of more than 25 grams of marijuana is a crime under subsection 2 of the law, which does not require the marijuana to be in public view or burning. In 2014, over 98% of misdemeanor arrests for marijuana possession in New York City were made under PL 221.10. For years this has been the single most frequent criminal offense in the City, with steadily rising arrest volume during much of the past decade. In 2010 and 2011, well over 40,000 cases with a top arrest charge of PL 221.10 were prosecuted each year (Phillips 2014, Table 1). A series of policy shifts beginning in late 2011 reversed this trend, reducing the volume of arrests for misdemeanor marijuana possession and according more lenient treatment to the arrests that were made. In September 2011, in the wake of public criticism of the NYPD's "stop" and "frisk" practices, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly issued a directive instructing officers not to make arrests for small amounts of marijuana unless it is in public view - by the suspects' own volition (Harris 2011). This was aimed at allegations that police officers were ordering suspects to empty their pockets during "stop" and "frisk" operations, and then arresting them if any marijuana was displayed as a result. Although it was framed as a reminder of existing policy rather than a new policy, the directive was followed by a steep decline in the volume of marijuana possession arrests in every borough (Phillips 2014, Tables 1 & 2). In May 2013, the final year of the Bloomberg administration, a new policy directed the police to issue a Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) in all arrests with a top charge of PL 221.10, as long as the defendant produced adequate identification and had no outstanding warrants. The marijuana DAT policy initiative was aimed at reducing the proportion of low-level marijuana arrests in which the defendant was taken into custody, rather than reducing arrest volume. Since the 1960s the NYPD has routinely issued DATs for a limited number of misdemeanor offenses, historically including large numbers of suspects charged with PL 221.10. A suspect who qualifies for a DAT on the basis of the charge and other criteria is taken to the precinct house for an eligibility check and, if additional eligibility criteria are met, the person is released with a ticket instructing him or her to appear in court for arraignment on a future date, several weeks to several months later. (See Phillips 2014 for a detailed description of charge and other eligibility criteria for DATs.) The proportion of 221.10 prosecuted arrests in which a DAT was issued had been rising prior to 2013 - from 13% in 2003 to 50% in 2012 (ibid., Figure 7) - and the prospect of further extending DATs to virtually all arrests for this offense led to predictions of skyrocketing DAT volume. Those predictions turned out to be inaccurate, for reasons that will be explored in this report. A year and a half after implementation of the DAT policy, a new administration announced yet another policy change. In November 2014 the new mayor, Bill de Blasio, and his new police commissioner, William J. Bratton, announced that suspects found in possession of 25 grams or less of marijuana "in a public place and open to public view" would no longer be arrested, as long as the person was not charged with additional fingerprintable offenses. Instead, these suspects would be issued a Criminal Court summons (summons, - also known as a "pink slip") and charged with a non-criminal violation, PL 221.05. Burning is still subject to arrest for 221.10 under the new policy, as is the possession of a small amount "in a manner that is inconsistent with personal use" (NYPD 2014). Persons found with more than 25 grams (and less than 2 ounces) of marijuana are also still subject to arrest under subsection 2 of PL 221.10. The marijuana summons policy was hailed by The New York Times as "the most significant criminal justice policy initiative by Mr. de Blasio since he was sworn in as mayor" (Baker 2014). Many people hoped that it would alleviate widely acknowledged ethnic disparities in low-level marijuana arrests, which disproportionately fall on black and Latino men. One columnist called the new policy a "sledgehammer" that the administration is now swinging at entrenched racism in the system (Dwyer 2014). The summons policy was not greeted with universal acclaim, however, even by some advocates of more lenient treatment for marijuana offenders. Brooklyn District Attorney Kenneth P. Thompson, whose office had been refusing to prosecute many marijuana possession arrests for months (Clifford & Goldstein 2014), objected that by issuing a summons instead of making an arrest, the police were undercutting his prosecutorial discretion (Baker 2014; Goldstein 2014; Mora 2014). This argument pointed to an unintended consequence of the initiative: cases that would have been dismissed by prosecutors under the old policy now go directly to summons court with no prosecutorial review. Other concerns included a lack of due process in summons court and the inability to monitor ethnic disparity because ethnicity is not collected on the summons form. These and other reservations about the summons policy were summarized in a press release from the Drug Policy Alliance, an advocacy organization for drug law reform, which nonetheless remained "cautiously optimistic" (Drug Policy Alliance 2015). A New York Times editorial declared that getting a summons is "better than being arrested" but expressed skepticism about the overall merits of the reform because it "does not reach the fundamental problem of discriminatory policing." The editorial also expressed concern about exposing people to arrest for missing court dates, and lack of transparency in the summons court system (New York Times, 2014). How has the court system been affected by these policy changes? Although many aspects of the policies' impact lie beyond the scope of this study, we can provide a preliminary assessment of two major parameters: arrest volume and DAT issuance for 221.10 offenses. In the months following November 2014, we anticipated a downturn in marijuana arrest volume but - because the marijuana summons policy does not extend to burning or to arrests under subsection 2 - it was difficult to guess how low the volume would go. (Neither the subsection nor the factual allegations for an arrest are collected in the CJA database, making it impossible to distinguish open view from burning, or from possession of over 25 grams.) We also anticipated a slump in the DAT issuance rate after November 2014 because summonses would go primarily to those who previously would have received a DAT. Some factors that would disqualify a person from receiving a summons - an active warrant or lack of adequate identification, for example - are also disqualifying factors for a DAT. This suggests that if a summons is not issued in a marijuana possession arrest, a DAT will not be issued, either, unless the summons was denied because burning was involved, the amount was over 25 grams, or the suspect was charged with another finger-printable offense. Any of these three factors would disqualify a person from a summons, but a DAT could be issued. Finally, any analysis of recent marijuana arrest volume needs to take into account an anomalous period of about three weeks from late December 2014 to mid-January 2015. The killing of two police officers on December 20, 2014 - and the Mayor's perceived lack of support for the NYPD in the aftermath of those killings - triggered a work slowdown by the police that decreased the number of all arrests to a fraction of normal volume in the weeks that followed. The slowdown did not target marijuana offenses specifically, but our analysis shows that 221.10 arrests dropped by over 80% during this period). Details: New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency, 2015. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 26, 2016 at: www.nycja.org Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: www.nycja.org Shelf Number: 146015 Keywords: ArrestsDrug OffendersDrug PolicyMarijuanaMisdemeanors |
Author: Chauhan, Preeti Title: Trends in Admissions to the New York City Department of Correction: 1995-2015 Summary: The Misdemeanor Justice Project (MJP) is pleased to publish this report focused on individuals admitted into the custody of the New York City Department of Correction (DOC). This is the fifth report released by the MJP, a research initiative at John Jay College of Criminal Justice dedicated to promoting a better understanding of the enforcement of low-level offenses such as misdemeanors, summonses, and pedestrian stops. Our goal is to inform the current public and policy discourse surrounding interactions between the public and the criminal justice system. To date, our reports have focused on trends in police enforcement practices. We have published reports examining misdemeanor arrests, criminal summonses, pedestrian stops, and the mobility of individuals arrested for misdemeanors. With this report, we now shift our attention to trends in corrections, specifically the New York City DOC which houses individuals charged with crimes and awaiting trial, serving short sentences, being held on warrants, or for other reasons. The City's correctional system serves as another critical point of contact between the public and the criminal justice system, but compared to police activities, is often neglected in policy discussions about crime and justice in New York City. Our focus on corrections will result in two reports. This report will examine the "front door" of the correctional system to provide a better understanding of the longitudinal trends in admissions to the DOC. This report is split into two sections. The first section provides an in-depth portrait of admissions to corrections in 2015, breaking out the data by demographics (i.e. gender, age, and race), legal status, and criminal charges. The second section contextualizes 2015 admissions by examining these characteristics (demographics, legal status, and charges) longitudinally to see how they have changed during the two decades of our study (1995 to 2015). Details: New York: John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2016. 100p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2017 at: http://misdemeanorjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/DOC_Trends_Final.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://misdemeanorjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/DOC_Trends_Final.pdf Shelf Number: 141176 Keywords: MisdemeanorsPrison PopulationPrisonersPrisons |
Author: Sixth Amendment Center Title: The Right to Counsel in Indiana: Evaluation of Trial Level Indigent Defense Services Summary: Under U.S. Supreme Court case law, the provision of Sixth Amendment indigent defense services is a state obligation through the Fourteenth Amendment. In Indiana, however, counties are responsible in the first instance to fund and administer services. Although it has not been held unconstitutional for a state to delegate its constitutional responsibilities to its counties, in doing so the state must guarantee that local governments are not only capable of providing adequate representation, but that they are in fact doing so. Part I of this report assesses whether Indiana meets this constitutional demand and determines that the State of Indiana's ability to monitor county indigent defense systems is either entirely absent or severely limited, depending on the type of case. FINDING #1: The State of Indiana has no mechanism to ensure that its constitutional obligation to provide effective counsel to the indigent accused is met in misdemeanor cases in any of its courts, including city and town courts. Misdemeanors matter. For most people, our nation's misdemeanor courts are the place of initial contact with our criminal justice systems. Much of a citizenry's confidence in the courts as a whole - their faith in the state's ability to dispense justice fairly and effectively - is framed through these initial encounters. Although a misdemeanor conviction carries less incarceration time than a felony, the collateral consequences can be just as severe. Going to jail for even a few days may result in a person losing professional licenses, being excluded from public housing and student loan eligibility, or even being deported. A misdemeanor conviction and jail term may contribute to the break-up of the family, the loss of a job, or other consequences that may increase the need for both government-sponsored social services and future court hearings (e.g., matters involving parental rights) at taxpayers' expense. Despite this, the State of Indiana and the Indiana Public Defender Commission (IPDC) do not exercise any authority over the representation of indigent people charged with misdemeanors and facing the possibility of time in jail. Indiana counties may, if they so choose, receive a partial state reimbursement of their indigent defense costs for non-misdemeanor cases in exchange for meeting standards set by the IPDC. However, counties are free to - and do - forgo state money in order to avoid state oversight. The "Indiana Model" for right to counsel services both institutionalizes and legitimizes the counties' choice to not fulfill the minimum parameters of effective representation. What many Indiana counties have realized is that they can contract with private counsel on a flat fee basis for an unlimited number of cases for less money than it would cost them to comply with state standards (even factoring in the state reimbursement). FINDING #2: The State of Indiana has no mechanism to ensure that its constitutional obligation to provide effective counsel to the indigent accused is met in felony and juvenile delinquency cases, at both the trial level and on direct appeal, in counties and courts that do not participate in the IPDC reimbursement program. Thirty-seven of Indiana's 92 counties (40%) choose not to participate in the state's non-capital case reimbursement program as of June 30, 2015. The Commission has no authority whatsoever over the representation of indigent people in the courts located in these counties, and the courts and public defense attorneys do not have to abide by the Commission's standards. Additionally, by statutory exception, Lake County is allowed to limit its request for reimbursement to certain courts and case types. Most of Lake County's courts in which indigent representation is provided do not participate in the reimbursement program. Together, the non-participating counties and courts have trial level jurisdiction over nearly one-third of the population of Indiana. Although the Indiana Model for indigent defense could potentially work to ensure that counties uphold the state's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment obligations to provide effective representation in counties that do participate in the IPDC reimbursement program(s), two things have hindered those efforts. First, state funding for the reimbursement plan has not always kept pace with its intended purpose of reimbursing 40% of non-misdemeanor costs. For example, reimbursements to counties for noncapital representation dropped to a low of only 18.3% in 2006. The inconsistency in reimbursements, in part, resulted in a number of counties leaving the program. Second, although the state is obligated to ensure effective representation to the indigent accused facing a potential loss of liberty in its five appellate districts, 91 circuit courts, 177 superior courts, and 67 city and town courts, for most of its history, IPDC operated with only a single staff member. In 2014, another staff position was added. No two people, no matter how talented, could ever possibly ensure compliance with standards in so many jurisdictions. Details: Boston: Sixth Amendment Center, 2016. 228p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 13, 2017 at: https://www.nacdl.org/IndianaPublicDefense/ Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.nacdl.org/IndianaPublicDefense/ Shelf Number: 145460 Keywords: Criminal CourtsIndigent DefenseLegal AidMisdemeanorsRight to Counsel |
Author: Labriola, Melissa Title: Evaluation of the Cook County Misdemeanor Deferred Prosecution Enhancement Program: Findings and Recommendations Summary: Many states, including Illinois, are grappling with overwhelming misdemeanor caseloads, placing significant resource burdens on courts, prosecutors, and defense agencies (see, e.g., Greenberg and Cherney 2017; Schauffler et al. 2016). Responding to these caseload pressures, as well as to growing national interest in reducing the adverse collateral consequences of a conviction for defendants while addressing their underlying treatment needs, prosecutors are increasingly turning to pretrial diversion (e.g., see George et al. 2015; Labriola et al. 2017). Defendants who complete diversion requirements generally have their cases dismissed without further adjudication. The current study evaluates a diversion program for misdemeanor defendants, implemented by the Cook County State's Attorney's Office (SAO), which has jurisdiction over criminal cases in Chicago, Illinois and its surrounding suburbs. The Cook County SAO is the second largest prosecutorial office in the nation and the largest in Illinois, handling about 250,000 cases per year, including more than 150,000 misdemeanors. With funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the SAO sought to expand a preexisting misdemeanor diversion program to geographic areas within the county where the program was not yet available. The current study evaluates both the original diversion model and the enhancement. Misdemeanor Diversion in Cook County The Misdemeanor Deferred Prosecution Program (MDPP) was initiated in 2012 by the Cook County State's Attorney's Office. Given available funding, the program was implemented for defendants who, based on the location of their arrest, had their preliminary hearing within two of six geographically-defined branch courts within Chicago (Branch 23 and Branch 29) and two of five suburban district courts (respectively in Skokie and Bridgeview). Besides the geographic location of the arrest and preliminary hearing, diversion eligibility also required the defendant to be charged with a nonviolent misdemeanor; not to have any prior violent conviction within the past ten years; and not to have a pending case in any court at the time that the current case was filed. As a practical matter, based upon case-by-case discretion applied by the assistant state's attorney, diversion participants tended to be first ime defendants (no prior convictions of any kind). In addition, the most commonly seen charges were retail theft, marijuana possession, and trespass. Enrolled program participants were required to attend two sessions at a community-based services agency located conveniently to the participant's home or work. In a special "veterans" track, program participants who were military veterans attended one of their two sessions at the John Marshall Law School Veteran's Legal Support Center and Clinic and the second session at the Jesse Brown Veterans Medical Center. Attendance at both required sessions led to dismissal of the current criminal charges. Implemented in 2015 with Bureau of Justice Assistance funding, the Misdemeanor Deferred Prosecution Enhanced Program (MDPEP) expanded misdemeanor diversion to two additional preliminary hearing courts: Sixth Municipal District (Markham) and Chicago's Branch 34 courthouses. In addition, the expanded diversion model integrated the use of a brief validated risk-need assessment tool, the Criminal Court Assessment Tool (C-CAT), to aid with programming. Specifically, based on whether a defendant was classified by the CCAT as low, moderate, or high risk, the defendant would be routed to one of three alternative diversion tracks: (1) two case management appointments (low risk); (2) two appointments plus at least ten hours of community service (moderate risk); or (3) two appointments plus ten hours of cognitive-behavioral treatment for criminal thinking, using the nationally known Thinking for a Change (T4C) model (high risk). The goals of the enhanced program model were to reduce subsequent criminal behavior; reduce costs to the system; and minimize the collateral consequences resulting from convictions for low-level, non-violent offenses. These same goals were also shared by the original diversion model. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2018. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed May 7, 2018 at: https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2018-03/cook_county_deferred_eval.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2018-03/cook_county_deferred_eval.pdf Shelf Number: 150093 Keywords: Court CaseloadsCourt DiversionCriminal CourtsMisdemeanor DiversionMisdemeanorsProsecution |
Author: White, Elise Title: Up and Out: Toward an Evidence-Based Response to Misdemeanors Summary: If not jail, then what? Jurisdictions across the country continue to grapple with this question, particularly in response to low-level criminal offending. In the absence of meaningful, legally-proportionate alternatives, many jurisdictions default to the use of short-term incarceration, which brings with it significant financial cost as well as negative outcomes for individuals and communities. Up & Out offers an alternative. It is a brief, non-custodial intervention designed for defendants with misdemeanor cases - i.e., a defendant population with serious treatment needs that cannot be sentenced to intensive long-term interventions (e.g., drug treatment) for reasons of proportionality. The Up & Out project unfolded in two phases. Phase 1 began with the creation and validation of a risk-needs assessment for defendants with misdemeanor cases in New York City, designed to determine key criminogenic needs of the misdemeanor target population (Picard-Fritsche et al. 2018). Based on preliminary Phase 1 findings, Phase 2 involved developing the Up & Out curriculum; piloting the brief intervention in two New York City sites; and conducting a process and impact evaluation of the pilot. The current report summarizes findings from Phase 2. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2018. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 13, 2018 at: https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/media/document/2018/upout_misdemeanors.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/media/document/2018/upout_misdemeanors.pdf Shelf Number: 152931 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDiversionEvidence-Based PracticesMisdemeanorsProcedural JusticeRisk-Needs Assessment |
Author: Berman, Greg Title: Toward Misdemeanor Justice: Lessons from New York City Summary: How do we reconcile the call in some quarters for more low-level enforcement with a desire to reduce the impact of the criminal justice system, particularly on communities of color? This article from the Boston University Law Review by Center for Court Innovation Director Greg Berman and Director of Policy and Research Julian Adler seeks to articulate a new approach to misdemeanor justice that reconciles the maintenance of public safety with the urgent need to reduce unnecessary incarceration. The authors explore five critical dimensions: (1) moving some low-level charges from the criminal to the civil system; (2) increasing the use of arrest diversion programs; (3) promoting supervised release in lieu of bail and pretrial detention; (4) promoting alternatives to incarceration with an eye toward eliminating short-term jail sentences; and (5) advancing the principles of procedural justice. Taken together, these reforms add up to a significant re-thinking of the standard approach to misdemeanor crime. "If they are broadly implemented in good faith," the authors write, "they will be an important step toward the creation of a more fair and humane justice system." Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2018. 17p. (Boston University Law Review article) Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 13, 2018 at: http://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2018/06/BERMAN-ADLER.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2018/06/BERMAN-ADLER.pdf Shelf Number: 152933 Keywords: Bail Reform Diversion MisdemeanorsProcedural Justice Risk Assessment |
Author: King, Nancy J. Title: Misdemeanor Appeals Summary: Misdemeanor cases affect far more people than felony cases, outnumbering felony cases by more than three to one. Yet very little empirical information exists on many aspects of misdemeanor prosecutions. This Article provides the first quantitative look at appellate review in misdemeanor cases, nationwide. It uses data drawn from a random sample of direct criminal appeals decided by every state appellate court in the nation, unpublished aggregate data on misdemeanor trial court cases provided by the Court Statistics Project, and published state court statistics. We provide the first estimate of the rate of appellate review for misdemeanors, concluding that appellate courts review no more than eight in 10,000 misdemeanor convictions, and disturb only one conviction or sentence out of every 10,000 misdemeanor judgments. This level of oversight is much lower than that for felony cases, for reasons we explain. To develop law and regulate error in misdemeanor cases, particularly in prosecutions for the lowest-level offenses, courts may need to provide mechanisms for judicial scrutiny outside the direct appeal process. Additional findings include new information about the rate of felony trial court review of lower court misdemeanor cases, ratios of appeals to convictions for various misdemeanor-crime categories, detailed descriptive information about misdemeanor cases that reach state appellate courts, the results of a complete statistical analysis examining which features are significantly associated with a greater or lesser likelihood of success, including crime type, claim raised, judicial-selection method, and type of representation, and the first quantitative look at how misdemeanor appeals differ from felony appeals. Details: Ithaca, New York: Cornell Law School, Legal Studies Research Paper Series, 2019. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 2, 2019 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3351217 Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3351217 Shelf Number: 158111 Keywords: Felonies Judiciary Misdemeanor Appeals Misdemeanor Cases Misdemeanors |