Recidiviz’s Post

Our new report, “Criminal Justice Reform in Massachusetts: A Five-Year Progress Assessment,” https://buff.ly/3Shr3XM is the first systematic look at the impact of two landmark criminal justice reform laws passed in 2018. The report shares strong suggestive evidence that these laws led to significant reductions in incarceration without undermining public safety. One example: Looking at changes in arrest levels by specific offense can give us a sense of police-led diversion efforts, as diversion from the criminal justice system is more appropriate for some offenses than for others. In the five-year period between 2012 and 2017, arrests for drug crimes fell by just 16 percent. Between 2017 and 2022, they dropped by 47 percent. Similarly, arrests fell twice as fast for more minor (Level B) crimes in the post-reform years. Check out the report to learn more.

A notable shift towards a tough-on-crime approach is underway across various regions of the United States. Recent legislative actions in cities like San Francisco and Washington D.C. have underscored this shift, with the passage of measures aimed at bolstering police powers and reintroducing certain public safety initiatives, such as "drug-free zones." This signifies a notable reversal of some of the criminal justice reforms previously championed in states like Louisiana and Oregon. The criminal justice system in the U.S. has historically witnessed a pendulum-like motion between periods of restriction and reform. Spikes in crime often trigger the implementation of stricter policies, including mandatory sentencing and intensified drug enforcement tactics. However, efforts to reduce prison populations have also been evident, with bipartisan support seen in laws like the 2018 First Step Act, which sought to enhance criminal justice outcomes while simultaneously keeping crime rates low. In Louisiana, Governor Jeff Landry has attributed the surge in crime to past reforms, leading to the signing of bills aimed at expanding methods of execution, limiting opportunities for parole, and prosecuting 17-year-olds as adults. Similarly, in Oregon, concerns over rising crime prompted the passing of a bill in the House aimed at recriminalizing drug possession—a move that critics argue could disproportionately impact Black and Latino communities. The recent actions taken in San Francisco and Washington D.C., alongside measures in Louisiana and Oregon, reflect a broader trend where political leaders are reassessing criminal justice reforms in light of increasing crime rates. This reevaluation underscores the complexities inherent in balancing public safety concerns with the pursuit of equitable and effective criminal justice policies.

Are there any programs or alternatives to prison that I may be eligible for? Yes, there are likely programs or alternatives to prison in New Jersey that you may be eligible for, such as: Drug court, which includes fines and rigorous probation requirements. Sometimes available to first-time offenders with non-violent drug charges. Conditional discharge, which combines supervised treatment, a stipulation of not getting arrested again, and other obligations. Typically reserved for marijuana possession charges in NJ. Conditional dismissal, which allows you to pay fees/fines and court costs in lieu of going to jail. The dismissal is reversed if you’re arrested or get into trouble again. Normally available if you’ve been charged with a non-drug related petty disorderly persons offense or disorderly persons offense. Pre-trial intervention (PTI), which requires you to do things like mental health and/or drug counseling, supervised probation, etc. Your records will be expunged upon successful completion. Only available to first-time offenders if the charges are non-violent. The specific details of your case and your history will impact which, if any, of these programs you’re eligible for. https://lnkd.in/gWYDDt_B

For The People is building a data automation tool with UC Berkeley's Possibility Lab that will make it easier for prosecutors to look back at past sentences, and safely bring people home from prison. As prosecutors conduct the initial phase of case review, the data automation tool will find key information from prison files with the click of a button. The tool is estimated to reduce the initial case review time from eight hours per case to just one hour. Prosecutors can instead use this time to engage with victims, victims’ advocates, reentry service providers, and public defenders. Read the full Urban Institute article: https://bit.ly/46XoQqN

Who is a Criminologist? A criminologist is a dedicated professional who delves into the complex world of crime and justice. They work tirelessly to understand the causes, consequences, and prevention of criminal behavior. Here’s a deeper look into the role: Research and Analysis: Criminologists conduct in-depth research to analyze crime patterns, societal impacts, and the effectiveness of various criminal justice policies. They gather and interpret data to uncover trends and develop strategies to combat crime. Understanding Behavior: By studying the psychological, social, and economic factors that influence criminal behavior, criminologists aim to understand why crimes occur and what can be done to prevent them. This involves examining individual cases as well as broader societal issues. Collaboration with Law Enforcement: Criminologists often work closely with police, probation officers, and other law enforcement agencies. Their insights and research help shape policies, improve community policing strategies, and enhance crime prevention efforts. Advocacy and Community Impact: Beyond research, criminologists advocate for fair and effective justice systems. They work towards reforms that can lead to safer communities, supporting initiatives that promote rehabilitation over punishment and addressing systemic issues within the criminal justice system. Education and Training: Many criminologists are also educators, teaching the next generation of professionals in the field. They contribute to academic knowledge and help shape future policies through their scholarly work. In essence, criminologists are at the forefront of creating safer, more just societies through their unwavering commitment to understanding and preventing crime. #Criminology #CrimePrevention #CriminalJustice #Research #CommunitySafety #PublicPolicy

Curious about Consent Decrees? Find out more by reading this article. They can be a great remedy against misconduct or wrongdoing in places where civilian oversight is minimal to non-existent. "If appointed by the court, a monitor will track the police department or jail system’s progress on meeting the benchmarks all parties agreed to before entering the consent decree. When police departments are involved, that process can involve the use of measuring tools such as community surveys, interviews, data on officer activities like stops or searches, and the number of complaints lodged against the department. In jail contexts, it can involve collecting data on correction officers’ absentee rates, interviewing incarcerated people, evaluating the quality of medical and mental health care, and tracking in-custody deaths. The community that interacts with the department also has a chance to proactively share information with the monitor." https://lnkd.in/e53kqanm

In case of PRAMILA VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, Apex Court acquitted a woman in murder case after 23 years when it was found that she was juvenile at the time of offence..... Details of case.......in summarise manner Pramila was convicted of murder on June 15, 2000, and sentenced to life imprisonment. Both the Trial Court and High Court upheld the sentence. Supreme Court Intervention: Pramila appealed to the Supreme Court, asserting juvenility at the time of the offense. Supreme Court Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan examined the case. Juvenility Determination: The Supreme Court found that Pramila was a juvenile at the time of the offense. She was 17 years, 9 months, and 14 days old on the date of the crime. Applicable Law: The case fell under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, as the 2000 Act was not in force during the offense. The 1986 Act defined a juvenile girl as someone below 18 years. Maximum Punishment for Juvenile: The court highlighted that life imprisonment was not justified for a juvenile. Under the 1986 Act, the maximum punishment was sending a juvenile girl to a special home for up to three years. Legal Prohibitions: Section 22(1) of the 1986 Act prohibited sentencing a juvenile to imprisonment. Similar provisions existed in the 2000 Act. Court Decision: Considering Pramila's already served eight years in incarceration, the court set aside the life imprisonment sentence. The court did not refer the case to the Juvenile Justice Board. The judgments of both the High Court and Trial Court were quashed for Pramila. Conclusion: The Supreme Court acquitted Pramila, emphasizing her juvenility at the time of the offense and the inappropriate sentencing under the Juvenile Justice Act. Message ChatGPT… ChatGPT can make mistakes. Consider checking important

The message was so strong that it overshadowed my nervousness at stopping a random stranger from going about his daily commute to wherever to ask his permission to take a snap of his jumper. #Networking is a skill I coach and encourage students to do, so I'll mark it off as a practice-what-you-teach moment lol. As I look all around the UK, I am more aware than I've ever been of the statutory systems around us crumbling. Services are either watered down or nonexistent in parts of society. The postcode lottery of support is more stark. And professionals in the prison system are more stretched and stressed than ever. As someone who is committing my working life to improving outcomes for people caught up in the criminal justice system, I want to change the message on that man's back to 'The system has saved/supported us' but sadly, when I analyse the political landscape and financial state of the country and now accept that the system may continue to fail people even after I'm long gone. I am grateful to my dear friend (who I regard as a brother) James Aidoo for his words in a recent post he put up. To paraphrase, people often have big ambitions to change the world - or in my case, pioneer system change in the prison system - but even if that isn't achieved, doing great work and delivering great outcomes in a small section of the world is a great achievement too and one to hold onto especially when the larger picture paints a depressing story. #AlexThinkingOutLoud #HMPPS #prison #MOJ #rehabilitation #probation #criminaljustice #jail #criminology #youthwork 

LEGAL NEWS: Problem-solving courts help offenders tackle root causes of their criminal behaviour. So called 'intensive supervision courts' are being piloted in Liverpool, Teesside and Birmingham. The Liverpool and Teesside courts will be focusing on offenders whose addictions have driven their criminal behaviour, whilst the Birmingham court will focus on female offenders. Over 55 pilot participants have so far been ordered to meet regularly with the same judge, engage with specialist treatment and be subject to enhanced supervision; a failure to comply with the order could result in prison time. The Ministry said its decision to begin implementing the pilot came from a US study on the long-term effect of a similar court which saw 25% fewer drug charges over a 15-year period. Alex Chalk KC MP, Lord Chancellor, visited the Liverpool court last week and said 'These courts are addressing the drug and alcohol-related crimes which blight our communities by getting offenders to confront their addicitions. Offenders are being punished for their crime, but these tough community sentences are also working to ensure they don't offend again.' Read the full story from The Law Society gazette at https://lnkd.in/e5qpEcDh #industrynews #legalnews #lawsociety #legaleagle #legalservices #solicitor #barrister #expertwitness

In a society governed by laws and regulations, the concept of jail time as a punishment for wrongdoing is widely accepted. However, is it truly necessary to incarcerate someone before they cooperate in an investigation? This is a question that has been brought to the forefront with the recent case of Kejriwal, a prominent public figure who has refused to participate in an investigation despite being summoned multiple times. Jail is seen as an exceptional measure, reserved for those who pose a significant threat to society or are deemed a flight risk. It is not a punishment that should be handed out lightly, especially in cases where cooperation in an investigation is the only goal. In such situations, bail with strict conditions and conduct may be a more appropriate course of action. The case of Kejriwal raises concerns about the effectiveness of our legal system in compelling individuals to cooperate in investigations. Why did Kejriwal choose not to participate in the investigation from the moment the first summon was issued? If he had done so, the need for his arrest would have been significantly reduced, if not eliminated entirely. This is not a blame game, but rather a reflection on the flaws in our current system. The purpose of an investigation is to uncover the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable, not to punish them unnecessarily. By refusing to cooperate, Kejriwal has undermined the integrity of the investigation and cast doubts on his own innocence. It is concerning that someone in a position of power and influence would choose to ignore the legal process in this manner. It sets a dangerous precedent and sends a message that cooperation with the law is optional rather than mandatory. In a just society, everyone is equal under the law, and no one is above it. It is essential that individuals, regardless of their status, adhere to the rules and regulations that govern us all. Failure to do so erodes the very foundation of our legal system and undermines the trust that we place in it. As we grapple with the implications of Kejriwal's actions, it is crucial that we reflect on the importance of cooperation in investigations and the role that we all play in upholding the principles of justice and fairness. Only by working together can we ensure that our legal system remains strong and effective in serving the interests of all members of society.