This is an interesting article that discusses that amount of crime a criminal commits before getting caught. This is an important consideration when discussing recidivism, open cases, and reoffending.
Rand survey respondents were considered to be “high-rate” if they reported committing any one of seven types of crime at rates higher than 70 percent of respondents who also committed that crime. The offenders who are arrested frequently despite their relatively low rate of committing crimes are called “low-rate losers” in this study. The study shows that some arrestees with apparently extensive arrest histories are not high-rate, serious offenders. Rather, they are somewhat inept, unprofessional criminals who may be arrested nearly every time they commit a crime. Based on their arrest record alone, it is practically impossible to distinguish them from offenders who commit crimes at high rates. Based on this finding, the authors caution against trying to use as indicators of high-rate criminal behavior the total number of times individuals have been arrested or convicted as adults.
Who Gets Caught Doing Crime? | Bureau of Justice Statistics
— Read on bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/who-gets-caught-doing-crime-0
The black market for baby products is part of a larger debate about how New York City handles low-level crime.
— Read on www.newyorker.com/news/our-local-correspondents/the-meaning-of-a-stolen-diaper
Introduction The purpose of bail is to ensure that a person who is arrested returns to court for trial. However, in practice, the impact of bail has been to detain tens of thousands of New Yorkers, presumed innocent, before trial and cost low-income families tens of millions of dollars every…
— Read on comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/nyc-bail-trends-since-2019/
Communities across the United States are reconsidering the public safety benefits of prosecuting nonviolent misdemeanor offenses. So far there has been little empirical evidence to inform policy in this area. In this paper we report the first estimates of the causal effects of misdemeanor prosecution on defendants’ subsequent criminal justice involvement. We leverage the as-if random assignment of nonviolent misdemeanor cases to Assistant District Attorneys (ADAs) who decide whether a case should move forward with prosecution in the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office in Massachusetts. These ADAs vary in the average leniency of their prosecution decisions. We find that, for the marginal defendant, nonprosecution of a nonviolent misdemeanor offense leads to large reductions in the likelihood of a new criminal complaint over the next two years. These local average treatment effects are largest for first-time defendants, suggesting that averting initial entry into the criminal justice system has the greatest benefits. We also present evidence that a recent policy change in Suffolk County imposing a presumption of nonprosecution for a set of nonviolent misdemeanor offenses had similar beneficial effects: the likelihood of future criminal justice involvement fell, with no apparent increase in local crime rates.
Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals.
— Read on www.nber.org/papers/w28600
From the VERA Institute
Misdemeanor cases make up over 80 percent of the cases processed by the U.S. criminal justice system, yet we know little about the causal impacts of misdemeanor prosecution. In this talk, we will report the first estimates of the causal effects of misdemeanor prosecution on defendants’ subsequent criminal justice involvement. To do this, we leverage the quasi-random assignment of nonviolent misdemeanor cases to arraigning assistant district attorneys in the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office in Massachusetts between 2004 and 2018. We find that the marginal prosecuted misdemeanor defendant has a substantially higher risk of being charged with a subsequent criminal complaint, of being prosecuted on that complaint, and of acquiring a criminal record of that complaint, within two years of their initial case. These effects appear to work through a longer time to case disposition, an increased likelihood of acquiring a criminal record of a misdemeanor complaint, and an increased likelihood of a misdemeanor conviction in the current case.
See the VIDEO HERE:
Misdemeanors are under attack. Misdemeanors are what drives the criminal justice system at least at the local criminal court level.￼ Misdemeanors are the crimes that directly and most often impact day to day life. This has led to a shift of the criminal justice system from being victim focused to offender focused. This has created drastic changes.
The link below has several reports on its webpage and there are also links to several additional articles.
Findings and policy recommendations from a comprehensive analysis of misdemeanor cases in NYC.
— Read on www.courtinnovation.org/publications/misdemeanor-race-NYC
This website is part of the National Conference of State Legislators.
This section has legislative changes for police reform. Not all legislation becomes law. This website might me the best place to search for legislative changes constituting police reform. There is a search section to search different State Laws.
Law Enforcement Statutory Database
— Read on www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/law-enforcement-statutory-database.aspx
Is it me or do others notice too that increasing the penalty or lowering the threshold for the crime only works for a crime like Driving While Intoxicated for preventing people from driving drunk? It doesn’t work for drugs, or theft, or shoplifting but it works for DWI. Interesting. Lower the criteria for DWI thereby more people will be violating the law and it makes more people stop breaking the law. Enforce DWI laws and more people stop drinking and driving.
In the news shoplifting is rampant yet lawmakers and prosecutors want to raise the criteria for committing shoplifting and they don’t what to prosecute shoplifting after a person is arrested. Yet the argument is that shoplifting will go down?
Why does it work in just the opposite way for DWI? In most cases DWI is the same level of crime as shoplifting and they carry the same punishment for prison. DWI has powerful lobbying groups – anti-shoplifting doesn’t. DWI carries substantial state penalties in the form of thousands of dollars in fines, shoplifting doesn’t. DWI carries substantial penalties for car insurance – not shoplifting. For DWI you need an attorney, you don’t need an attorney for shoplifting especially if its your first one. Bottom line DWI costs about $9,000.00 in fines, insurance, attorney fees, shoplifting $0.00 and in some states they don’t even want to persecute shoplifting.
The crime of DWI was made more severe in an attempt to lower the number of people committing DWI and fatal crashes. The crime of shoplifting Is being treated less harshly so people stop stealing. Does this make sense?
Why don’t government treat DWI like shoplifting? Then there would probably be NO DWIs at all!!!
Legislative Review. This indicated the motivation for lowering the BAC law from .08 to .05 was a desire to improve traffic safety. The majority of objections were based on hypothesized negative effects on the economy (e.g., alcohol sales, tax revenues, and tourism), the belief arrests for driving under the influence (DUI) would increase drastically for people who had “one or two drinks,” and the assumption there would be no safety benefits.
The report can be accessed HERE
Expand alternatives to criminal justice system responses to social problems …………………………………1 Reduce the number of people entering the “revolving doors” of jails and prisons …………………………2
Improve sentencing structures and release processes to encourage
timely and successful releases from prison ……………………………………………………………………………..3
Reduce the footprint of the probation and parole system and support success on supervision…….5 Protect incarcerated people and families from exploitation by private contractors……………………….7 Promote physical and mental health among incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people………..7 Give all communities equal voice in how our justice system works ………………………………………………..9 Eliminate relics of the harmful and racist “war on drugs” ………………………………………………………………10
WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights released the report, The Civil Rights Implications of Cash Bail which examines current approaches to reforming the pre-trial and bail systems in the U.S. criminal justice system. The report reveals that between 1970 and 2015, there was a 433% increase in the number of individuals who have been detained pre-trial, and pre-trial detainees represent a larger proportion of the total incarcerated population.
Among the report’s observations:
- There were stark racial and gender disparities, with higher pre-trial detention rates and financial conditions of release imposed on Black and Latinx individuals, when compared with other demographic groups) and gender. Men are less likely than women to be granted non-financial release, for example, and face higher bail amounts.
- More than 60% of defendants are detained pre-trial because they can’t afford to post bail.
- The collateral consequences of pre-trial detention result in several negative consequences for detainees, including an increased likelihood of being convicted, an increased likelihood of housing insecurity, detrimental effects on employment, and an increased likelihood to engage in criminal conduct in the future.
“More than half-a-million unconvicted people sit in jails across the nation awaiting trial,” said Norma V. Cantú, Chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. “Presumption of innocence is the bedrock of our criminal justice system, with liberty the rule and pre-trial detention intended to be a ‘carefully limited exception,’”1 she observed. “Under the current bail system, it has become the norm.”
The Commission held a public virtual briefing on this subject in February 2021 to collect information from subject matter experts such as government officials, academics, legal experts, law enforcement officials, criminal justice advocates, and impacted persons. The Maryland, Oregon and Kentucky State Advisory Committees to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights also collected and provided testimony on related civil rights issues in their respective jurisdictions.
See report HERE