Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 2:18 am
Time: 2:18 am
Results for prosecutions
4 results foundAuthor: Siska, Tracy Title: Felony Sex Crime Case Processing: Report, Analysis & Recommendations - Chicago/Cook County, Illinois Summary: Criminal justice agencies play a very important role in assisting communities in securing their neighborhoods from crime and violence. The basis for how successful these agencies will be in this role depends greatly on the level of trust built up between each individual agency and community members, and this trust can only be established by empowering community members to become fully engaged partners with the agencies. This partnership relies heavily on the ability of community members to validate the actions of the agencies in order to establish that each agency is operating in the best interests of the public. This is impossible to do when community members are denied access to the data created by the agencies or are ill informed about how the data is collected and what is missing from the data released by the agencies. There is a gap between the system’s stakeholders’ (community members, crime victims, policy makers, advocates for victims, and academics) understanding of what data is collected in the responding to and processing of felony sex crime allegations, and each agency’s data related practices. This gap inhibits the ability of those stakeholders to hold the agencies accountable for poor practices related to felony sex crime allegations. In lieu of data access, the stakeholders are dependent on sporadic and superficial media coverage and press releases from the agencies. The Chicago Justic Project (CJP) seeks to close that gap with this report that specifically examines the data related practices of three agencies in the Chicago/Cook County criminal justice system: the Office of Emergency Management and Communications (OEMC), the Chicago Police Department (CPD), and the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office (SAO) in order to verify their data capturing, maintaining, and releasing practices related to allegations of felony sex crimes. It is of the utmost importance that communities validate these practices because these agencies help frame the public discussion regarding the prevalence and seriousness of felony sex crimes in our communities. The numbers captured by the agencies become the official record and challenging those figures is nearly impossible because of the restrictions on data. With the current level of restrictions on data it is impossible to judge the impact the practices of one agency is having on other agencies within the local criminal justice system. It is very likely that if, like the advocates assume, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office is rejecting acquaintance rapes at a high level that the Chicago Police Department would bring less of those cases in the future to felony review. To what degree this impact plays in the real world can only be known by examining data from all the agencies involved. Details: Chicago, IL: The Chicago Justice Project, 2011. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2012 at http://www.chicagojustice.org/research/long-form-reports/felony-sex-crime-case-processing-report-analysis-recommendations/CJP_Felony_Sex_Crime_Case_Processing_Report_Analys.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.chicagojustice.org/research/long-form-reports/felony-sex-crime-case-processing-report-analysis-recommendations/CJP_Felony_Sex_Crime_Case_Processing_Report_Analys.pdf Shelf Number: 126526 Keywords: Crime StatisticsCriminal InvestigationsProsecutionsSex Crimes |
Author: Human Rights Watch Title: Illusion of Justice: Human Rights Abuses in US Terrorism Prosecutions Summary: Since September 11, 2001, the US government has prosecuted more than 500 people for alleged terrorism-related offenses in the United States. Many prosecutions have properly targeted individuals engaged in planning or financing terrorist acts under US law. However, in other cases, the individuals seem to have been targeted by US law enforcement because of their religious or ethnic background, and many appear to have engaged in unlawful activity only after the government started investigating them. In Illusion of Justice, Human Rights Watch and Columbia Law School's Human Rights Institute examine 27 federal terrorism-related prosecutions against American Muslims since 2001 that raise serious human rights concerns. While the government maintains its actions are intended to prevent future attacks, in practice US law enforcement has effectively participated in developing and furthering terrorism plots. As a judge said in one case, the government "came up with the crime, provided the means, and removed all relevant obstacles," and in the process, made a terrorist out of a man "whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in scope." Other concerns include the use of overly broad material support charges, prosecutorial tactics that may violate fair trial rights, and disproportionately harsh conditions of confinement. US counterterrorism policies call for building strong relationships with American Muslim communities. Yet many of the practices employed are alienating those communities and diverting resources from other, more effective, ways of responding to the threat of terrorism. The US government should focus its resources on a rights-respecting approach to terrorism prosecutions, one that that protects security while strengthening the government's relationship with communities most affected by abusive counterterrorism policies. Details: New York: HRW, 2014. 212p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 23, 2014 at: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/usterrorism0714_ForUpload_0_0_0.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/usterrorism0714_ForUpload_0_0_0.pdf Shelf Number: 132735 Keywords: Counter-TerrorismHuman Rights Abuses (U.S.)MuslimsProsecutionsTerrorismTerrorists |
Author: Hollway, John Title: A Systems Approach to Error Reduction in Criminal Justice Summary: How can the criminal justice system reduce errors and improve the integrity of criminal convictions? This question framed a November, 2013 Dialogue organized by the Quattrone Center for the Fair Administration of Justice at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Prosecutors, defense attorneys, federal and local law enforcement and judges, and researchers and academics assembled for a day-long discussion about enhancing the integrity of the criminal justice system, including the use of a collaborative "systems approach" to quality improvement. The systems approach has reduced errors in a variety of complex, high-risk industries, including health care, aviation, and manufacturing, among others. Such an approach targets the system for improvement rather than specific individuals within the system. The systems approach seeks to provide an environment that maximizes each participant's ability to act effectively and efficiently. It prizes a non-punitive culture of disclosure to identify errors, gathers and applies data to understand the causes of the error, and tests systems changes to prevent future errors. This focus on system improvement, rather than on individual punishment or blame, unites all participants around objective criteria and allows each participant to do his or her job more efficiently, accurately and safely. The Quattrone Center seeks to apply this systems approach to criminal justice through a series of data-driven collaborations among researchers and practitioners. Its November Dialogue sought to explore the enthusiasm for this approach among practitioners and researchers, and to inform the future strategic direction of the Center. This document highlights the main themes and issues raised during the Dialogue, particularly methods that the Quattrone Center can use to help identify sources of error in the investigation, prosecution, and adjudication of crime, and ultimately contribute to the elimination of these errors. Details: Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Law School - Quattrone Center for the Fair Administration of Justice, 2014. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 23, 2016 at: http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1975&context=faculty_scholarship Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1975&context=faculty_scholarship Shelf Number: 139811 Keywords: False Convictions Prosecutions Wrongful Convictions |
Author: Greenberg, Karen J., ed. Title: The American Exception: Terrorism Prosecutions in the United States: The ISIS Cases Summary: The American Exception: Terrorism Prosecutions in the United States - The ISIS Cases is the third in a series of reports issued by the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School on federal prosecutions of individuals accused of ISIS-related crimes. Notably, this report reveals several new trends since the Center's last report was published. 2016 was a year of growing concern about the threat ISIS posed within the United States. In addition to a record number of terrorism arrests carried out since 9/11, there had been several attacks that resulted in deaths, including the attacks in San Bernardino and Orlando - the latter particularly noteworthy because it doubled the casualties resulting from jihadist-inspired terrorist attacks that had occurred cumulatively between 9/11 and 2015. By contrast, 2017 has shown a decline in incidents of ISIS-related terrorist attacks and attempted attacks. At the same time, there has been a significant decrease in the number of federal indictments for ISIS-related crimes. The 2017 edition of Terrorism Prosecutions in the United States examines these and other trends in an effort to glean insight concerning both the individual defendants accused of ISIS-related crimes and the dispositions of the criminal cases against them in federal court. This report has several new features meant to illustrate these developments. First, the charts include illustrations of changes over time. In addition, this edition of our ongoing study on terrorism includes, where possible, comparisons between terrorism prosecutions and U.S. criminal justice prosecutions overall. The findings contained in this year's report are summarized as follows: Finding No. 1: Although the federal courts have shown a capacity to handle these cases, the dispositions of these cases differ markedly from those of U.S. criminal justice prosecutions overall. ISIS cases are more likely to go to trial than federal cases generally. Those terrorism prosecutions that have been resolved have proceeded more quickly through the courts than the average case. ISIS defendants are granted pre-trial release with much less frequency than criminal defendants overall. Every case that has been resolved has resulted in conviction, in contrast to the national average conviction rate of 92.5%. Sentences are comparatively higher in these cases, exceeding the national average by 10 years. In fact, the average ISIS sentence of 14.5 years more than triples the average federal sentence of 3.75 years. Finding No. 2: ISIS-related prosecutions rely increasingly on the use of FBI undercover agents or informants. The use of informants, a controversial strategy challenged by civil liberties groups, has continued to rise in ISIS prosecutions. In 2014, 33% of the ISIS-related cases involved government informants or undercover agents. However, the share of ISIS prosecutions involving FBI undercover agents or informants has since increased to 65%. For the new cases in 2017, it is even higher- 83%. Finding No. 3: The personal details of the individual defendants differ from those of non-terrorism defendants generally. Terrorism defendants are significantly younger than typical criminal defendants. They are more frequently American citizens. They are less likely to have spent prior time in prison than their criminal justice counterparts overall. Finding No. 4: ISIS-related defendants are increasingly more likely to be converts to Islam than Muslim by birth. This year's findings show Muslim defendants in ISIS-related cases are increasingly more likely to be converts to Islam. In addition, there were fewer allegations of interfamilial coconspirators, and fewer incidences of romantic ties among and between co-conspirators. In sum, federal terrorism prosecutions in the 16 years since 9/11 are still not normalized in terms of their disposition. The use of material support statutes that are relied upon in the majority of these cases, as well as the terrorism enhancements available in sentencing guidelines, have provided the legal framework for this trend, while the details of investigation, prosecution, and litigation have, as this report shows, solidified the harsh practices evident for terrorism cases. Nor are terrorism prosecutions trending towards normalization. Instead, it seems, the federal courts have made an exception - one that maximizes the punitive aspect of criminal justice - for these cases, and continue to do so. More than a decade and a half since the Sept. 11 attacks, this report suggests that it's time to acknowledge that terrorism cases have evolved from the prosecutions of complex, sophisticated, trained networks of individuals towards individual actors in search of purpose and attention. As such, normalization of these criminal proceedings might appropriately lie on the horizon. Details: New York: Center on National Security, Fordham University School of Law, 2017. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 14, 2017 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55dc76f7e4b013c872183fea/t/59b9965529f187bdd6bd4fc3/1505334870512/The+American+Exception+9-17.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55dc76f7e4b013c872183fea/t/59b9965529f187bdd6bd4fc3/1505334870512/The+American+Exception+9-17.pdf Shelf Number: 147247 Keywords: ISISIslamic StateProsecutionsTerrorismTerrorists |