research papers about criminal justice system

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Perspective
• Open access
• Published: 30 April 2024

Shrinking the footprint of the criminal legal system through policies informed by psychology and neuroscience

• Arielle Baskin-Sommers   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6773-0508 1 , 2 ,
• Alex Williams 1 ,
• Callie Benson-Williams 1 ,
• Sonia Ruiz 1 ,
• Jordyn R. Ricard   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5039-0455 1 &
• Jorge Camacho 2  

Communications Psychology volume  2 , Article number:  38 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

296 Accesses

7 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Neuroscience

The footprint of the legal system in the United States is expansive. Applying psychological and neuroscience research to understand or predict individual criminal behavior is problematic. Nonetheless, psychology and neuroscience can contribute substantially to the betterment of the criminal legal system and the outcomes it produces. We argue that scientific findings should be applied to the legal system through systemwide policy changes. Specifically, we discuss how science can shape policies around pollution in prisons, the use of solitary confinement, and the law’s conceptualization of insanity. Policies informed by psychology and neuroscience have the potential to affect meaningful—and much-needed—legal change.

Similar content being viewed by others

From neural circuits to communities: an integrative multidisciplinary roadmap for global mental health

The origins of criminal law

Social isolation and the brain in the pandemic era

Introduction.

On any given day there are more than 1.9 million people behind bars in jails or prisons in the United States 1 . Nearly half of all adults living in the United States experience incarceration in their family 2 . Most who encounter the criminal legal system are dealing with problems related to poverty and mental illness, which worsen with arrest and incarceration 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 .

With the hope of trying to shrink the footprint of the criminal legal system on American families, over the past two decades, much discussion has focused on the applicability of psychology and neuroscience to the legal system. These discussions are rife with conjecture around the notion that psychology and neuroscience can detect liars, objectively determine criminal responsibility, and predict who will engage in violent behavior. Unfortunately, the framing of psychology and neuroscience as being able to transform the law by focusing on the individual reflects a misrepresentation of the science and the standards of law.

Psychology and neuroscience provide probabilistic, not deterministic, estimates of phenomena in the aggregate. While psychological and neuroscientific findings may be valid for a given group in general, they may not apply to a particular individual within that group (often referred to as the group-to-individual problem). Thus, psychological and neuroscientific techniques cannot show beyond a reasonable doubt that distinct brain structures or abnormalities affect the mental state of a particular individual at the time of the crime, that they will undoubtedly engage in criminal conduct in the future, or evidence of mitigation at the sentencing phase above and beyond other less expensive and more reliable tools (e.g., assessing family history or exposure to violence).

While there is much skepticism about the use of psychology and neuroscience in the legal system, these disciplines do have the potential to affect meaningful change in how the legal system operates and in the outcomes it produces. In this perspective piece, we will argue that psychological and neuroscientific findings can be applied to and improve aspects of the legal system through policy changes. We will focus on how science can shape policies that affect those who are incarcerated in jails and prisons, and by extension society at large. There is a substantial body of research delineating the negative impact of incarceration on individuals (e.g., negative effects on health, mental health, job prospects, educational attainment, etc.) 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 and their families 2 , 10 . Here, we select three aspects of where and who is incarcerated and detail how policies surrounding these aspects can or should be influenced by emerging findings in psychology and neuroscience. Specifically, we highlight how the issues of pollution in prisons, the use of solitary confinement, and the restrictions of the legal concept of insanity could be reshaped by integrating scientific findings.

Criminal legal system aspects of interest

Pollution: toxins and noise.

The United States continues to incarcerate more people than any other country. Over 6000 facilities hold almost 2 million people. The long reach of incarceration substantially reduces the chances of a formerly incarcerated person obtaining an education, stable employment, owning a home, or living above the poverty line 5 . Further, exposure to toxins and noise pollution within jails and prisons in the United States will likely have substantial negative effects on the individual’s psychological and brain health.

There are documented violations, ranging from inadequate sewage and waste disposal to poor water quality and the presence of toxins such as asbestos, manganese, and lead, in jails and prisons throughout the United States 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 . For example, since 2000, over a quarter of California’s state prisons have been cited for major water pollution problems 13 . Rikers Island, a jail in New York City, was built atop a toxic landfill in 1932 17 , 18 that in 2011 the New York City Department of Correction reported was still emitting poisonous gases 19 . Since 2020, at least 23 jails have been either proposed or constructed on toxic and contaminated lands 16 . Further, regulations that would protect the general population against toxin exposure often are not in place for jails and prisons (e.g., the Environmental Protection Agency designated that most parts of prisons and juvenile detention centers are zero-bedroom dwellings [i.e., residential dwellings where living areas are combined with sleeping areas] and therefore are not subject to the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule) 20 . Exposure to such toxins causes health problems, including cancer, hypertension, and neurodegeneration, as well as mental health problems, including impulsivity and aggression 21 , 22 .

Similarly, noise pollution is an issue in jails and prisons 23 . Sources of noise in prisons are unpredictable and come from multiple streams. These facilities often are built using hard, reflective materials that heighten noise pollution. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defines acceptable levels of noise in residential areas, hospitals, and schools as 45 dB(A) 24 . However, the American Correctional Association set noise standards for correctional housing to not exceed 70 dB(A) 25 . Long-term exposure to sound above 50 dB(A) has been shown to cause serious health issues, such as increases in stress hormones, cardiac problems, and hypertension 26 , 27 .

Research in psychology and neuroscience provides key findings that support the claim that exposure to toxins and noise in prisons can negatively impact physical and mental health. With regard to toxins, research in non-human animals and humans shows that exposure to chemicals such as lead, arsenic, and manganese cause serious harm. Specifically, documented harms include damage to dopaminergic neurons (which regulate motivation, reward, and habit learning 28 ) and increase beta-amyloid protein plaques and intracellular neurofibrillary tangles (which characterize Alzheimer’s Disease) 29 . Additionally, exposure to such toxins result in deficits in the structure and function of the hippocampus (a region of the brain important for memory and learning 30 ), increase neuroinflammation, and produce general poorer brain health 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 . Furthermore, high concentrations of neurotoxic chemicals and persistent pollutants have an undisputed impact on cognition and are associated with deficits in general cognitive functioning, IQ, executive functioning, language, and memory 21 , 22 , 36 , 37 . Of utmost relevance for the legal system, toxin exposure in the short-to-mid-term is linked to heightened levels of impulsivity, hyperactivity, and aggressive behaviors 11 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 .

Noise pollution and chronic noise exposure also have long been considered an ecological stressors that impact psychological and neural functioning. Prolonged noise exposure causes clinically impairing distress and stress hormone dysregulation 27 . Studies with non-human animals and humans link chronic noise exposure, particularly unpredictable noise, to damage to the central nervous system, the generation of pathological neurofibrillary tangles (which is related to Alzheimer’s disease), and poorer tissue health in the hippocampus, prefrontal cortex (a region related to self-control), and amygdala (a region important for emotion processing and regulation) 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 . These neural alterations appear to persist even after noise exposure stops, suggesting both short- and long-term neurological impacts due to chronic noise exposure.

There are clear connections between pollution, toxin and noise, and physical and mental health problems. These pollutants have the potential to negatively impact neural regions responsible for basic emotion, cognition, and behavioral control. Using findings from psychology and neuroscience to understand the effects of toxin and noise pollution across species necessitates improvements in the ecology of jails and prisons.

A significant problem with current jail/prison environmental policies lies in the oversight of facilities and the enforcement, or lack thereof, of policies intended to ensure environmental safety. Frequently, jail and prison facilities are constructed in areas where significant ecological risk factors exist and require substantial remediation efforts to ensure safe occupancy, but these efforts either fail to materialize or are abandoned before completion 15 , 47 . The result has been exposure and vulnerability to serious health and safety risk factors like toxins or ecological disaster 48 . The failure to complete mandated remediation can be compounded by reduced access to legal remedies by incarcerated populations 49 .

To shrink the footprint of this aspect of incarceration, policymakers should prioritize two strategies. First, they should redouble their efforts to enforce existing laws and regulations that govern applicable environmental standards and ensure that remediation efforts are completed. Second, they should adopt a principle that no policy that limits movement, fraternization, occupational activities or contact with outside environments/persons should be issued without an evidence-based accounting of the harms associated with that policy, including strategies for addressing those harms 50 . With sufficient will and attention to these problems, there is reason to believe that conditions and outcomes within jails and prisons can be substantially improved.

Solitary confinement

Solitary confinement refers to the physical and social isolation of an individual in a cell for twenty-two to twenty-four hours a day. The cells typically are sparse, consisting of a steel door, a bed, a toilet, and a sink. Loud, unpredictable noise permeates the space that is no bigger than 6 feet x 9 feet 51 , and many cells lack natural light. People are in solitary confinement for periods that range from days to weeks, months, years, or even decades 51 . In 2021, approximately 48,000 individuals were held in solitary confinement 51 . Ten percent of people in solitary had been held for three years 51 . One may reasonably presume that the severity of solitary confinement would tend toward its sparing use, reserved only for the most egregious and dangerous offenders. However, the reality is that people can be placed in solitary confinement for various reasons, including for minor disciplinary infractions or for their safety 52 . The latter holds true for those deemed to be particularly vulnerable to victimization within incarcerated populations, including LGBTQIA persons, pregnant persons, and those with mental illness 51 . Although isolation for one’s protection can be voluntarily requested by an incarcerated person, jails and prisons can exercise their discretion to involuntarily isolate someone when officials determine that they cannot otherwise ensure that person’s safety, resulting in involuntary confinement that is largely indistinguishable from more punitively-motivated solitary confinement.

Research on solitary confinement includes qualitative accounts of incarcerated persons’ experiences and empirical studies examining the relationship between this aspect of incarceration and safety, mental health, and criminogenic risk. While the qualitative accounts, as well as popular media sources and theory-based writings from scholars, document the harrowing effects of solitary on individuals 53 , 54 , the empirical evidence supporting the negative effects of solitary on safety, mental health and criminogenic risk is more mixed. Some studies fail to detect effects of solitary confinement on individual behavior and mental health 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 . Other studies document significant negative effects of solitary on incarcerated people’s physical and mental health 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , particularly in terms of anxiety, psychotic symptoms, sensory arousal, and behaviors that effect mortality by any or unnatural causes (e.g., suicide) 57 , 64 . Additionally, there is evidence that being housed in solitary confinement, even for a week, can change alpha frequencies measured by EEG 57 , 69 . The U.S. Department of Justice acknowledges that solitary confinement can worsen existing mental illnesses and trigger new ones 70 .

The study of solitary confinement is understandably very difficult. Some studies cited above lack appropriate methodological controls (e.g., randomization, comparison groups), were conducted in small samples, and/or were the result of litigation possibly introducing bias into the method 71 , 72 . Unequivocal empirical evidence for concluding that the practice of solitary confinement in jails and prisons is uniformly negative is lacking, leading some scholars 55 , 57 to suggest caution in developing policy based on an incomplete science. However, there is a more substantial evidence base on the negative effects of solitary conditions in research with non-human animals and humans outside of the jail/prison context. While research in laboratories or in other institutional setting is not identical to incarceration-based solitary, there is a strong basis for comparing the effects of physical isolation and the deprivation of basic experiences.

Numerous studies with non-human animals explore what happens to the brain and behavior when subjects are physically isolated, deprived of resources, and are deprived of sensory information. These studies document trends including the expression of hyperactivity, altered responses to stressors, cognitive impairments, increased aggression, and alterations in mesolimbic dopamine functioning (which is important for learning and goal-directed behaviors) 73 , 74 , 75 . Rats in isolation also experienced lasting changes in psychological (e.g., aggression or fear of new situations), cognitive (e.g., declines in mental flexibility), and neural (e.g., reduced prefrontal cortex volume, decreased cortical and hippocampal synaptic plasticity, or alteration in the mesolimbic dopaminergic system) functioning as compared to rats in stimulating or complex environments 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 .

Similar patterns are found in some human studies, particularly those involving youth exposed to institutional settings characterized by deprivation of interpersonal contact. In one longitudinal and randomized study of children monitored through the Bucharest Early Intervention Project ( https://www.bucharestearlyinterventionproject.org/about-beip ), youth with histories of institutional residence had indicators of significantly worse brain health and atypicalities in neural structure, function, and communication compared to non-institutionalized youth 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 . Further, youth experiencing psychosocial deprivation display deficits in memory and executive functions compared to non-institutionalized youth 87 , 88 . The randomized design of the Bucharest Early Intervention Project provides some of the strongest causal evidence of the impact of isolation on development, with lasting effects.

Together, extant non-human and human research serve as evidence that psychological and neural differences are either generated or exacerbated by conditions of isolation. Solitary is not only painful in itself but also “undermines people’s sense of belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningfulness … reduces pro-social behavior, and impairs self-regulation” 89 . Research across disciplines, then, provides a clear foundation that, on average, solitary confinement or similar conditions is physically and psychologically harmful.

In 2016, President Obama adopted a recommendation to end solitary confinement for juveniles in federal prisons. However, in 2023, 11 states still have no limits on the use of solitary confinement for juveniles, and just under half the states have passed laws that narrow the use of solitary confinement in juvenile facilities 90 . In 2023, the U.S. House of Representatives introduced a bill to ban solitary confinement in federal prisons 91 . To date, however, similar bills have not passed.

The footprint of solitary confinement, including deleterious psychological and neural effects (above and beyond just incarceration), has been argued in the courts to represent an Eighth Amendment violation that constitutes cruel and unusual punishment (see arguments from Ashker v. Brown ) 92 , 93 . Solitary confinement should be used only for brief periods and as a very last resort. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners 94 — known as the Mandela Rules—condemn the use of solitary for people with mental and physical disabilities; such rules should be mandated in the United States across federal and state levels. They would serve to protect not only the incarcerated individual, but also the facility staff and society at large.

Redefining the legal concept of insanity

The U.S. legal system is continuously confronted with the need to adjudicate, assess, and treat people with mental illness 95 , 96 , 97 . How the law defines mental illness can have a substantial impact on how individuals who enter the system are judged and handled. For instance, in the United States, prevailing legal doctrines, including under the Model Penal Code, which has been adopted by 20 states, dictate that individuals may be considered less responsible if they can show that “at the time [their criminal conduct was] a result of mental disease or defect” indicating that the person “lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of [their] conduct or to conform [their] conduct to the requirements of law” 98 , 99 , 100 , and therefore they can be found not guilty by reason of insanity. A successful determination of not guilty by reason of insanity can then trigger a therapeutic intervention via placement in a forensic mental health center (i.e., justice-involved treatment setting) over a punitive intervention via incarceration in a traditional prison.

However, the insanity defense is rarely used in practice because it is very difficult to demonstrate legal insanity 101 . Additionally, some legal policies greatly limit who even qualifies to present this defense. For example, the Model Penal Code’s insanity defense excludes disorders characterized by repeated criminal or antisocial conduct. Here, we argue that the disconnect between legal conceptualizations of insanity on one end and psychological and neuroscientific understandings on the other can lead to the inadequate acknowledgment of many mental health problems in the criminal process.

One of the difficulties in referring to insanity in legal proceedings is the disconnect between terms used in the law and how they would be considered in psychology/neuroscience. For example, legal policies related to insanity refer to “mental defect” or “defect of reason” as a premise for questioning criminal responsibility 98 . In the law, there is no clear definition of what is meant by these specific phrases. In psychology and neuroscience, we might operationalize these phrases as an aberration in cognition and emotion that undermine accurate perception, interpretation, and/or reaction to information. This operationalization provides a biopsychology basis for understanding an individual’s conduct 102 . As another example, “disease of the mind” is noted in some insanity doctrines 98 , again without a clear definition. In psychology and neuroscience, we might operationalize this phrase as brain-based pathology resulting from various causes (e.g., injury, genetics, environmental stress) and that is characterized by identifiable signs or symptoms. In this case, a biopsychological definition would specify the type of evidence needed to initiate a defense based on insanity. As a result of bridging the gap between the language of the law and science, individuals with disorders where psychological and neuroscientific evidence provides a clear basis for disruptions that undermine cognition, affect, and behavior should 103 , 104 , without question, be eligible to put an insanity defense. However, the lack of a clear, objective, evidence-informed legal standard for identifying insanity precludes this outcome.

A shift in the legal policy around insanity would provide a scientific-based basis for determining the groups of people who are eligible for such a defense. It is then up to courts to determine if there is clear evidence that the specific factors played a role in an individual’s behavior. At this time, though, the courts cannot properly make these determinations without the ability to conduct a frank assessment of any intersectionality between mental illness and criminality. Unfortunately, the prevailing legal standards around insanity preclude these very assessments based on ill-defined terminology and exclusion of certain disorders. By widening the potential eligibility for an insanity defense based on scientific evidence, many people currently ensnared in the legal system may qualify for special protections under the law and might need to be mandated to treatment. Further, psychological treatments that specifically target the neural basis of these cognitive and affective psychological differences already exist, such as cognitive training programs that target attentional/other cognitive biases, emotion regulation strategies, or behavioral treatments that target reward hypersensitivity 103 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , providing an opportunity for rehabilitation. Broadening the scope of individuals who may be eligible for consideration under insanity doctrines could drastically reshape how mental illnesses are handled in the legal system, perhaps reducing the current footprint of a punitive system and shifting the focus to a system that more properly considers the role of mental health problems in some people’s behavior. If done correctly, this shift should feasibly improve safety outcomes, both individually and systemically, through deliberate intervention against underlying psychological motivators of behavior.

Psychological and neuroscientific findings are compelling as they apply to the impact of pollution and solitary confinement on behavior and the brain. Psychological and neuroscientific findings that challenge our understanding of ‘insanity’ raise questions about the handling of mental health problems in the current legal structures. Using research grounded in psychology and neuroscience in each of these aspects of the legal system overcomes some of the limitations outlined above with regard to the ecological fallacies and deterministic assumptions often made when applying evidence to the criminal legal system--instead of focusing on the individual, we can apply science to inform policy changes that affect groups of individuals (see Fig.  1 for summary).

Summary of criminal legal system aspects of interest and policy recommendations based on psychology and neuroscience research.

In a landscape that often looks plagued by injustice, lacks an empirical evidence base, and imposes a tremendous cost on individuals and society both in terms of crime and punishment, it is imperative to look for alternative ways of integrating psychology and neuroscience findings and improving policies. If implemented appropriately, these robust psychological and neuroscientific findings have the tremendous potential to affect meaningful—and much-needed—legal change in the United States today.

Sawyer, W. & Wagner, P. Prison Policy Initiative https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2023.html (2023).

FWD.us. Every Second: The impact of the incarceration crisis on America’s families https://everysecond.fwd.us/ (2019).

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. About criminal and juvenile justice. https://www.samhsa.gov/criminal-juvenile-justice/about (2022).

Western, B. Incarceration, Inequality, and Imagining Alternatives. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 651 , 302–306 (2014).

Article   Google Scholar  

Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/ (2023).

Massoglia, M. & Pridemore, W. A. Incarceration and health. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 41 , 291–310 (2015).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Western, B., Braga, A. A., Davis, J. & Sirois, C. Stress and hardship after prison. Am. J. Sociol. 120 , 1512–1547 (2015).

Harper, A. et al. Debt, incarceration, and re-entry: a scoping review. Am. J. Crim. Justice 46 , 250–278 (2021).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Haney, C. Prison effects in the era of mass incarceration. Prison J. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885512448604 (2012).

Sundaresh, R. et al. Exposure to family member incarceration and adult well-being in the United States. JAMA Netw. Open 4 , e2111821–e2111821 (2021).

Gottschalk, L. A., Rebello, T., Buchsbaum, M. S., Tucker, H. G. & Hodges, E. L. Abnormalities in hair trace elements as indicators of aberrant behavior. Compr. Psychiatry 32 , 229–237 (1991).

Toman, E. L. Something in the air: Toxic pollution in and around U.S. prisons. Punishm. Soc. 14624745221114826, https://doi.org/10.1177/14624745221114826 .

Prison Ecology Project. Facts https://nationinside.org/campaign/prison-ecology-project/facts/ (2023).

Nigra, A. E. & Navas-Acien, A. Arsenic in US correctional facility drinking water, 2006-2011. Environ. Res. 188 , 109768, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109768 (2020). People who were incarcerated in the Southwestern United States from 2006-2011 were at disproportionate risk of exposure to elevated drinking water arsenic (a potent carcinogen) and related disease.

Bernd, C., Mitra, M. N., Loftus-Farren, Z. & Truthout. America’s toxic prisons: the environmental injustices of mass incarceration, https://truthout.org/articles/america-s-toxic-prisons-the-environmental-injustices-of-mass-incarceration/ (2017).

Mahoney, A. & Truthout. Across the midwest, counties are building new jails on toxic land, https://truthout.org/articles/across-the-midwest-counties-are-building-new-jails-on-toxic-land/ (2022).

City of New York. History of DOC, https://www.nyc.gov/site/doc/about/history-doc.page .

Porter, E. S. Camera, Inc. T. A. Edison, Paper Print Collection, and Niver. Panorama of Riker’s Island, N.Y., https://www.loc.gov/item/00694387/ (1903).

New York City Department of Correction. Rikers Island Cogeneration Plant. (2011).

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Are prison facilities and juvenile detention centers built before 1978 considered target housing? https://www.epa.gov/lead/are-prison-facilities-and-juvenile-detention-centers-built-1978-considered-target-housing (2023).

Lanphear, B. P. The impact of toxins on the developing brain. Annu. Rev. Public Health 36 , 211–230 (2015).

Liu, J. et al. Assessment of relationship on excess arsenic intake from drinking water and cognitive impairment in adults and elders in arsenicosis areas. International J. Hyg. Environ. Health 220 , 424–430 (2017).

Wener, R. E. The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology (ed S. D. Clayton) 316–331 (Oxford University Press 2012).

Abatement, É.-U. O. o. N. & Control. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety . (Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement and Control., 1974).

Fairweather, L. & McConville, S. Prison Architecture. (Routledge, 2013).

Maschke, C., Harder, J., Ising, H., Hecht, K. & Thierfelder, W. Stress hormone changes in persons exposed to simulated night noise. Noise Health 5 , 35 (2002).

Google Scholar  

Ising, H. & Kruppa, B. Health effects caused by noise: evidence in the literature from the past 25 years. Noise Health 6 , 5 (2004).

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Wise, R. A. Dopamine, learning and motivation. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 5 , 483 (2004).

Sharma, S. et al. Effect of environmental toxicants on neuronal functions. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27 , 44906–44921 (2020).

Voss, J. L., Bridge, D. J., Cohen, N. J. & Walker, J. A. A closer look at the hippocampus and memory. Trends Cogn. Sci. 21 , 577–588 (2017).

Landrigan, P. J. et al. Early environmental origins of neurodegenerative disease in later life. Environm. Health Perspect. 113 , 1230–1233 (2005).

Jing, J. et al. Changes in the synaptic structure of hippocampal neurons and impairment of spatial memory in a rat model caused by chronic arsenite exposure. NeuroToxicology 33 , 1230–1238 (2012).

Pandey, R. et al. From the cover: arsenic induces hippocampal neuronal apoptosis and cognitive impairments via an up-regulated BMP2/Smad-dependent reduced BDNF/TrkB signaling in rats. Toxicol. Sci. 159 , 137–158 (2017).

Engstrom, A. K. & Xia, Z. Lead exposure in late adolescence through adulthood impairs short-term spatial memory and the neuronal differentiation of adult-born cells in C57BL/6 male mice. Neurosci. Lett. 661 , 108–113 (2017).

Stewart, W. F. et al. Past adult lead exposure is linked to neurodegeneration measured by brain MRI. Neurology 66 , 1476–1484 (2006).

O’Bryant, S. E., Edwards, M., Menon, C. V., Gong, G. & Barber, R. Long-term low-level arsenic exposure is associated with poorer neuropsychological functioning: a Project Frontier study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 8 , 861–874 (2011).

Seo, J. et al. Lead-induced impairments in the neural processes related to working memory function. PloS One 9 , e105308 (2014).

Cervantes, M. C., David, J. T., Loyd, D. R., Salinas, J. A. & Delville, Y. Lead exposure alters the development of agonistic behavior in golden hamsters. Dev. Psychobiol. 47 , 158–165 (2005).

Soeiro, A. C., Gouvêa, T. S. & Moreira, E. G. Behavioral effects induced by subchronic exposure to Pb and their reversion are concentration and gender dependent. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 26 , 733–739 (2007).

Eubig, P. A., Aguiar, A. & Schantz, S. L. Lead and PCBs as risk factors for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Environ. Health Perspect. 118 , 1654–1667 (2010).

Rocha, A. & Trujillo, K. A. Neurotoxicity of low-level lead exposure: history, mechanisms of action, and behavioral effects in humans and preclinical models. Neurotoxicology 73 , 58–80 (2019).

Cui, B. et al. Chronic noise exposure acts cumulatively to exacerbate Alzheimer’s disease-like amyloid-β pathology and neuroinflammation in the rat hippocampus. Sci. Rep. 5 , 12943 (2015).

Jafari, Z., Kolb, B. E. & Mohajerani, M. H. Chronic traffic noise stress accelerates brain impairment and cognitive decline in mice. Exp. Neurol. 308 , 1–12 (2018).

Cheng, H., Sun, G., Li, M., Yin, M. & Chen, H. Neuron loss and dysfunctionality in hippocampus explain aircraft noise-induced working memory impairment: a resting-state fMRI study on military pilots. BioSci. Trends 13 , 430–440 (2019).

Nußbaum, R. et al. Associations of air pollution and noise with local brain structure in a cohort of older adults. Environ. Health Perspect. 128 , 67012 (2020).

Herry, C. et al. Processing of temporal unpredictability in human and animal amygdala. J. Neurosci. 27 , 5958–5966 (2007).

Glade, S. et al. Disaster resilience and sustainability of incarceration infrastructures: a review of the literature. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 80 , 103190 (2022).

Pellow, D. et al. Impact of law and policy on prison environmental justice: the 2022 annual report of the prison environmental justice project. https://static.prisonpolicy.org/reports/PPI_Annual_2022-2023.pdf (2022).

Bradshaw, E. A. Tombstone towns and toxic prisons: prison ecology and the necessity of an anti-prison environmental movement. Crit. Criminol. 26 , 407–422 (2018).

Crime and Justice Institute, J.Guevara, M. & Solomon, E. Implementing Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in Community Corrections. National Institute of Corrections (Citeseer, 2009).

Liman Center. Seeing solitary https://seeingsolitary.limancenter.yale.edu/ (2023).

Lovell, D., Cloyes, K., Allen, D. & Rhodes, L. Who lives in super-maximum custody-a Washington state study. Fed. Probat. 64 , 33 (2000).

Haney, C. Restricting the use of solitary confinement. Annu. Rev. Criminol. 1 , 285–310 (2018).

Cloud, D. H., Drucker, E., Browne, A. & Parsons, J. Public health and solitary confinement in the United States. Am. J. Public Health 105 , 18–26 (2014).

Labrecque, R. M. & Smith, P. Advancing the study of solitary confinement. In: J. Fuhrmann, S. Baier (eds.) Prisons and Prison Systems: Practices, Types, and Challenges, 57–70 (Nova Science Publisher’s, Incorporated, 2013).

Labrecque, R. M. & Smith, P. Assessing the impact of time spent in restrictive housing confinement on subsequent measures of institutional adjustment among men in prison. Crim. Justice Behav. 46 , 1445–1455 (2019).

Morgan, R. D. et al. Quantitative syntheses of the effects of administrative segregation on inmates’ well-being. Psychol. Public Policy Law 22 , 439 (2016).

O’Keefe, M. L., Klebe, K. J., Stucker, A., Sturm, K. & Leggett, W. One year longitudinal study of the psychological effects of administrative segregation (Colorado: Department of Corrections, Office of Planning and Analysis Colorado, 2010).

Kaba, F. et al. Solitary confinement and risk of self-harm among jail inmates. Am. J. Public Health 104 , 442–447 (2014).

Strong, J. D. et al. The body in isolation: the physical health impacts of incarceration in solitary confinement. PLoS One 15 , e0238510 (2020).

Williams, B. A. et al. The cardiovascular health burdens of solitary confinement. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 34 , 1977–1980 (2019).

Reiter, K. et al. Psychological distress in solitary confinement: symptoms, severity, and prevalence in the United States, 2017–2018. Am. J. Public Health 110 , S56–s62 (2020).

Haney, C. Mental health issues in long-term solitary and “supermax” confinement. Crime Delinq. 49 , 124–156 (2003).

Luigi, M., Dellazizzo, L., Giguère, C., Goulet, M. H. & Dumais, A. Shedding light on “the hole”: a systematic review and meta-analysis on adverse psychological effects and mortality following solitary confinement in correctional settings. Front. Psychiatry 11 , 840 (2020). *This meta-analysis found that solitary confinement was associated increased adverse psychological effects, beyond that of general incarceration or presence of prior mental illness.

Brown, E. A systematic review of the effects of prison segregation. Aggress. Violent Behav. 52 , 101389 (2020).

Hagan, B. O. et al. History of solitary confinement is associated with post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms among individuals recently released from prison. J. Urban Health 95 , 141–148 (2018).

Favril, L., Yu, R., Hawton, K. & Fazel, S. Risk factors for self-harm in prison: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Psychiatry 7 , 682–691 (2020).

Brinkley-Rubinstein, L. et al. Association of restrictive housing during incarceration with mortality after release. JAMA Netw. Open 2 , e1912516, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.12516 (2019). *Exposure to solitary confienment during incarceration was associated with increased risk of mortality during community reentry, especially from suicide, homicide, and opioid overdose.

Gendreau, P., Freedman, N., Wilde, G. & Scott, G. Changes in EEG alpha frequency and evoked response latency during solitary confinement. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 79 , 54 (1972).

U.S. Department of Justice. U.S. Department of Justice Report and Recommendations Concerning the Use of Restrictive Housing. (2016).

Lynch, L., Mason, K. & Rodriguez, N. Restrictive housing in the US: Issues, challenges, and future directions. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs (2016).

Kapoor, R. & Trestman, R. Mental Health Effects of Restrictive Housing Report No. NCJ 250315 (2016).

Fone, K. C. & Porkess, M. V. Behavioural and neurochemical effects of post-weaning social isolation in rodents—relevance to developmental neuropsychiatric disorders. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 32 , 1087–1102 (2008).

Makinodan, M., Rosen, K. M., Ito, S. & Corfas, G. A critical period for social experience–dependent oligodendrocyte maturation and myelination. Science 337 , 1357–1360 (2012).

Robbins, T., Jones, G. & Wilkinson, L. S. Behavioural and neurochemical effects of early social deprivation in the rat. J. Psychopharmacol. 10 , 39–47 (1996).

Rosenzweig, M. R., Krech, D., Bennett, E. L. & Diamond, M. C. Effects of environmental complexity and training on brain chemistry and anatomy: a replication and extension. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 55 , 429 (1962).

Begni, V., Zampar, S., Longo, L. & Riva, M. A. Sex differences in the enduring effects of social deprivation during adolescence in rats: implications for psychiatric disorders. Neuroscience 437 , 11–22 (2020).

Lavenda-Grosberg, D. et al. Acute social isolation and regrouping cause short- and long-term molecular changes in the rat medial amygdala. Mol. Psychiatry 27 , 886–895 (2022).

Yamamuro, K. et al. A prefrontal–paraventricular thalamus circuit requires juvenile social experience to regulate adult sociability in mice. Nat. Neurosci. 23 , 1240–1252 (2020).

Park, G. et al. Social isolation impairs the prefrontal-nucleus accumbens circuit subserving social recognition in mice. Cell Rep. 35 , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109104 (2021).

Liu, C. et al. Altered structural connectome in adolescent socially isolated mice. NeuroImage 139 , 259–270 (2016).

Sheridan, M. A., Fox, N. A., Zeanah, C. H., McLaughlin, K. A. & Nelson, C. A. III Variation in neural development as a result of exposure to institutionalization early in childhood. Proc. Nat Acad. Sci. 109 , 12927–12932 (2012).

Mehta, M. A. et al. Hyporesponsive reward anticipation in the Basal Ganglia following severe institutional deprivation early in life. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 22 , 2316–2325 (2010).

Mackes, N. K. et al. Early childhood deprivation is associated with alterations in adult brain structure despite subsequent environmental enrichment. Proc, Natl Acad. Sci. 117 , 641–649 (2020). * Children exposed to instutional deprivation in Romanian ophanages showed alterations in adult brain structure 20 years post- instutitionalization.

Sheridan, M. A. et al. Early deprivation alters structural brain development from middle childhood to adolescence. Sci. Adv. 8 , eabn4316 (2022).

Bick, J. et al. Effect of early institutionalization and foster care on long-term white matter development: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr. 169 , 211–219 (2015).

Wade, M., Fox, N. A., Zeanah, C. H. & Nelson, C. A. Long-term effects of institutional rearing, foster care, and brain activity on memory and executive functioning. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 116 , 1808–1813 (2019).

Bos, K. J., Fox, N., Zeanah, C. H. & Nelson Iii, C. A. Effects of early psychosocial deprivation on the development of memory and executive function. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 3 , 16 (2009).

Bastian, B. & Haslam, N. Excluded from humanity: the dehumanizing effects of social ostracism. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 46 , 107–113 (2010).

Teigen, A. States that limit or prohibit juvenile shackling and solitary confinement https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/states-that-limit-or-prohibit-juvenile-shackling-and-solitary-confinement (2022).

Library of Congress. H.R.4972—118th Congress (2023–2024) https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4972?s=1&r=68 (2023).

Lobel, J. & Akil, H. Law & neuroscience: the case of solitary confinement. Daedalus 147 , 61–75 (2018).

Liberman, M. D. United States District Court Northern District of California Oakland Division https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Lieberman%20Expert%20Report.pdf (2015).

McCall-Smith, K. United Nations standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules). Int. Legal Mater. 55 , 1180–1205 (2016).

U.S. Department of Justice. Indicators of Mental Health Problems Reported by Prisoners and Jail Inmates, 2011-12. Report No. NCJ250612 (2017).

U.S. Department of Justice. Drug Use, Dependence, and Abuse Among State Prisoners and Jail Inmates, 2007-2009. Report No. NCJ250546 (2020).

Harcourt, B. E. Reducing mass incarceration: lessons from the deinstitutionalization of mental hospitals in the 1960s. Ohio State J. Crim. Law 9 , 53 (2011).

DeFreitas, K. D. & Hucker, S. J. in Encyclopedia of Forensic and Legal Medicine ( Second Edition ) (eds Jason P.-J. & R. W. Byard) 574–578 (Elsevier, 2015).

American Law Institute. in American Law Institute (Washington D.C., 1962).

Cornell Law School. M’naghten Rule https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/m%27naghten_rule (2023).

Donohue, A., Arya, V., Fitch, L. & Hammen, D. Legal insanity: assessment of the inability to refrain. Psychiatry 5 , 58–66 (2008).

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Jurjako, M., Malatesti, L. & Brazil, I. A. How to advance the debate on the criminal responsibility of antisocial offenders. Neuroethics 17 , 1 (2024).

Craske, M. G., Herzallah, M. M., Nusslock, R. & Patel, V. From neural circuits to communities: an integrative multidisciplinary roadmap for global mental health. Nat. Ment. Health 1 , 12–24 (2023).

Raine, A. Antisocial personality as a neurodevelopmental disorder. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 14 , 259–289 (2018).

Sauve, G., Lavigne, K. M., Pochiet, G., Brodeur, M. B. & Lepage, M. Efficacy of psychological interventions targeting cognitive biases in schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 78 , 101854 (2020).

Baskin-Sommers, A., Chang, S.-A., Estrada, S. & Chan, L. Toward targeted interventions: examining the science behind interventions for youth who offend. Annu. Rev. Criminol. 5 , 345–369 (2022). *A comprehensive review that details effective alternatives to incarceration that address public safety concerns as well as serve the needs of youth.

Baskin-Sommers, A., Ruiz, S., Sarcos, B. & Simmons, C. Cognitive–affective factors underlying disinhibitory disorders and legal implications. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 1 , 145–160 (2022).

Baskin-Sommers, A., Curtin, J. J. & Newman, J. P. Altering the cognitive-affective dysfunctions of psychopathic and externalizing offender subtypes with cognitive remediation. Clin. Psychol. Sci. 3 , 45–57 (2015).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the Justice Collaboratory at Yale Law School for providing an interdisciplinary scholarly environment where these ideas can grow.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Yale University, 100 College St, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA

Arielle Baskin-Sommers, Alex Williams, Callie Benson-Williams, Sonia Ruiz & Jordyn R. Ricard

Yale Law School, 127 Wall St, New Haven, CT, 06511, USA

Arielle Baskin-Sommers & Jorge Camacho

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

A.B.S. and J.C. conceptualized the manuscript. A.B.S., A.W., C.B.W. and J.C. conducted literature searches. A.B.S. and J.C. wrote the initial draft. A.B.S., A.W., C.B.W., S.R. and J.R.R., J.C. edited and approved the final text.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arielle Baskin-Sommers .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Communications Psychology thanks Robert Morgan and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor: Marike Schiffer. A peer review file is available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Peer review file, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Baskin-Sommers, A., Williams, A., Benson-Williams, C. et al. Shrinking the footprint of the criminal legal system through policies informed by psychology and neuroscience. Commun Psychol 2 , 38 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-024-00090-9

Download citation

Received : 17 August 2023

Accepted : 17 April 2024

Published : 30 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-024-00090-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

CrimeSolutions - The Evidence-Based Guide for Justice Agencies in Search of Practices and Programs that Really Work

Science supports corrections agencies and the larger criminal justice system by delivering precise, reliable processes capable of generating consistent, repeatable outcomes.

The National Institute of Justice is tasked by Congress with producing real-world benefits, through scientific innovation, for justice agencies, their stakeholders and the public.

One important way NIJ accomplishes this goal is through program evaluation. Program evaluation methods, themselves the product of rigorous science, have established not all science-based program and practice innovations are equally reliable. With the pace of scientific discovery around the world accelerating as never before, justice agencies seek assurance the particular science underlying an existing or contemplated program or practice is sound, and the program or practice, if properly implemented, can work as intended. [1]

NIJ has an established, evidence-based online resource to help justice agencies find and refine reliable solutions.

CrimeSolutions: A road map to justice system practices and programs

To help agencies know what works, what doesn’t, and what’s promising, NIJ’s CrimeSolutions has established a process for identifying and rating programs and practices that aim to:

• Prevent or reduce crime, delinquency or related problem behaviors.
• Prevent, intervene, or respond to victimization.
• Assist persons convicted of a crime or at-risk populations of individuals with potential to become involved in the justice system.

Rated programs and practices are included in an online clearinghouse.

The terms “program” and “practice” have particular meanings in CrimeSolutions. A “program” is a specific set of activities, carried out according to guidelines, to achieve a defined purpose. Program profiles on CrimeSolutions tell us whether a specific program was successful in achieving justice-related outcomes when it was carefully evaluated.

A “practice” is a general category of programs, strategies or procedures that share similar characteristics, in terms of the issues they address and how they address them. Practice profiles tell us about the aggregate results from multiple evaluations of similar programs, strategies or procedures.

CrimeSolutions employs a standardized process to evaluate programs and practices in order to determine both (1) the reliability of the science methods used to evaluate effectiveness, and (2) the level of effectiveness, if any, of the program or practice under evaluation.

This article discusses key aspects of the purpose, design, benefits and limitations of the CrimeSolutions resource, providing links to key program web resources.

Of perhaps greatest utility, it explains to the reader where to find and how to take advantage of CrimeSolutions when searching for or studying a program or practice, or deciding whether to implement it.

Overview of CrimeSolutions

The CrimeSolutions clearinghouse identifies justice system programs and practices that have been submitted to rigorous scientific evaluations. The CrimeSolutions evaluation process closely examines programs and practices for scientific evidence of effectiveness. If the evidence is strong and clear enough, a program will be rated “Effective,” “Promising,” or “No Effects.” If the evidence is insufficiently strong and clear, however, CrimeSolutions reviewers will withhold an effectiveness rating. Those unrated programs or practices are deemed to be emerging, inconclusive or unclear.

Table 1 shows, as of May 2021, totals of rated programs and practices and subtotals for those focused-on corrections.

Programs and practices selected for CrimeSolutions review are first identified, screened, reviewed and rated, through a standardized process. See How We Review and Rate Programs form Start to Finish and How We Review and Rate Practices from Start to Finish . 

Two certified program reviewers assess each screened program and practice with objective scoring instruments. Reviewers examine scientific evaluations of programs. Broader practices are reviewed by reference to meta-analyses that synthesize existing rigorous evaluations of those practices.

The importance of evidence-based practices and rigorous science

At the core of CrimeSolutions’ effectiveness ratings is the reliance on available, rigorous evidence. Programs and practices are considered evidence-based when their effectiveness has been demonstrated by causal evidence demonstrated in high quality outcome evaluations. The use of scientific methods yields causal evidence by ruling out alternative explanations for observed change.

The more rigorous the scientific method used to evaluate a program or practice, the more certain an effectiveness rating will be. The science must be sufficiently strong and certain before CrimeSolutions will assign an effectiveness rating for a given practice or program.

The so-called gold standard of evaluation methods is the randomized controlled trial, or RCT. In RCTs, participants are randomly divided into treatment and control groups. Carefully controlled and measured division of participants ensures that, to the extent possible, the only difference between the groups is one receives the experimental treatment and the other does not. As an evaluable method, the randomized controlled trial is uniquely capable of isolating and measuring the effect of experimental treatment. Beyond randomization, RCTs must be well-coordinated, with provisions to ensure, for instance, there is no contamination between the treatment and control groups.

In some studies, a rigorous comparison is either not feasible, or not needed to establish the answer to the scientific inquiry. A randomized trial would not be feasible when, for example, denial of the treatment to a control group would be unethical, or the subject of a study is retrospective. And generally, RCTs rely on relatively large sample sizes to demonstrate measurable effect.

The distinct value of CrimeSolutions for different professional audiences

Having objective scientific evaluations of available corrections programs and practices can offer immediate benefits for a variety of stakeholders, including academic researchers engaged in program evaluations, practitioners, policymakers and trainers.

Some of those CrimeSolutions benefits, by audience group, are:

Corrections professionals may be able to improve program or practice effectiveness by one or more of the following actions:

• Familiarizing themselves with rated and evaluated programs in their field.
• Replicating a program or practice found in CrimeSolutions.
• Adapting a program or practice from CrimeSolutions.

Policymakers can shape funding decisions by:

• Creating incentives to use evaluated and rated programs and practices.
• Creating incentives for ongoing innovations and creation of evidence-based programs and practices.

Program trainers can improve training by:

• Developing training materials for evaluated and rated programs.

Researchers can improve justice programming and become more informed on criminal justice research by:

• Consulting CrimeSolutions evidence standards to strengthen evaluation designs.
• For programs rated “Promising” by CrimeSolutions, focusing on using rigorous evaluation designs to build the body of evidence and potentially increase confidence in program effectiveness.
• For programs or practices rated “Inconclusive” by CrimeSolutions, researchers may have an opportunity to build the program evidence base sufficiently for a subsequent CrimeSolutions evaluation to establish, with the requisite degree of scientific certainty, a program or practice is promising or effective or has no effects.
• Improve the available body of knowledge: Where an existing program or practice has been rated “Promising” by CrimeSolutions, there is incentive for independent researchers to conduct additional evaluation work, using a more rigorous scientific design where applicable, such as an RCT, to test or re-test program strength and effectiveness.

Limitations of CrimeSolutions

Anyone interested in tapping the benefits of CrimeSolutions’ ratings of program and practice effectiveness should bear in mind certain practical or possible limitations of the resource. They include:

• The fact a program or practice works in one setting, with a particular population, does not mean it will be equally effective in every setting, or for different populations. Adopters of programs or practices rated Effective or Promising on CrimeSolutions should be prepared to evaluate scientifically the program or practice once applied in their own environment.
• Programs often have mixed results for various outcomes – some positive, some negative. CrimeSolutions assigns ratings to programs based on the preponderance of evidence from up to three studies that have assessed outcomes related to crime, delinquency, or victimization prevention, intervention or response.
• Although CrimeSolutions is a rich resource, with more than 700 posted programs or practices, not all criminal justice, juvenile justice and victim services programs and practices have qualified for CrimeSolutions rating. Agencies should take care to select programming well matched to their needs.

CrimeSolutions’ eight-step process for reviewing and rating programs and practices

CrimeSolutions follows the eight-step evaluation process to determine whether a given program or practice will receive a rating:

• Preliminary Program Identification — programs and practices identified through literature searches and nominations from the field.
• Initial Program Screening — programs and practices reviewed to confirm they fall within the substantive scope of CrimeSolutions.
• Expanded Literature Search — expanded search to all evaluations and research and program materials that may be of interest to reviewers.
• Initial Evidence Screening — identified studies reviewed to determine whether the criteria for “evidence” of effectiveness has been met.
• Selection of Evidence Base — senior researcher selects evaluations or meta-analyses that follow rigorous study designs and methods.
• Expert Review — two certified reviewers perform an evidence review, using a scoring instrument, that assesses the quality and strength of the evidence, as well as the extent to which the evidence indicates the program or practice achieves its goals.
• Study Classification — each study is assigned one of five classifications on the quality of the study.
• Effectiveness Rating — CrimeSolutions assigns evidence ratings addressing program or practice effectiveness. For practices, ratings are assigned by outcome; one practice could receive multiple, differing ratings, based on how effective it is in addressing various outcomes.

Evidence ratings falling into three classes:

• Effective — Strong evidence to indicate the program achieves justice-related outcome(s) when implemented with fidelity to the design.
• Promising — Some evidence to indicate that the program achieves justice-related outcome(s) when implemented with fidelity to the design.
• No Effects — Strong evidence to indicate the program had no effects or had harmful effects.

Not all programs and practices that make it past the initial review receive a rating. Many evaluations are determined by reviewers to be inconclusive, and for those programs or practices no rating is assigned.

Examples of corrections practices rated by CrimeSolutions

The following are two examples of correctional practices rated by CrimeSolutions:

Rehabilitation programs for adult offenders

This practice includes programs that are designed to reduce recidivism among adults convicted of a crime by improving their behaviors, skills, mental health, social functioning and access to education and employment. Adults may become participants in rehabilitation programs during multiple points in their involvement with the criminal justice system.

Evidence Rating for Outcomes — A single outcome was rated “Promising” for this practice. Looking at 634 independent effect sizes, researchers found a statistically significant mean effect size of 0.203 for recidivism. This finding indicated those who participated in rehabilitation programs demonstrated reductions in criminal offending, compared with a control group who did not participate.

Practice Goals/Target Population — Rehabilitation programs are designed to reduce recidivism among adults convicted of a crime by improving their behaviors, skills, mental health, social functioning and access to education and employment. Adults convicted of a crime may become participants in rehabilitation programs at multiple points in their involvement with the criminal justice system, and programs are typically provided in conjunction with some form of sanction (e.g., incarceration or probation). Therefore, most programs are delivered to persons within correctional settings, or in community settings following their release (i.e., probation or parole-based programs). Community-based settings may be delivered in inpatient facilities, such as psychiatric hospitals and outpatient treatment centers, or in supportive residential housing such as halfway houses. In addition, some rehabilitation programs (such as drug courts) serve as alternatives to incarceration, diverting individuals into services in the community rather than into correctional facilities.

Practice Components — Rehabilitation programs do not generally follow a common, well-defined treatment protocol. [2] Instead, interventions and services may vary significantly by program. All programs address at least one of the risk factors commonly associated with offending (such as mental health status, substance use, education level or employment status). For example, a drug court program may provide for treatment only to address substance abuse issues. More commonly, however, rehabilitation programs combine multiple services: for example, a drug court program that provides not only substance abuse treatment, but also individual counseling and vocational training.

The general types of treatment services provided by rehabilitation programs include group work (structured via protocol or psychoeducational content); cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or CBT-like components (thinking skills, relapse prevention or anger management); counseling (group, individual, mentoring); academic work (GED or college classes); employment-related (work-release, job placement, vocational training); supportive residential (therapeutic community, halfway house); drug court or other specialized court; multimodal, mixed treatments (individual case management); intensive supervision (reduced probation or parole); or restorative interventions (mediation, reparations, community service).

Practice Theory — Effective rehabilitation programs typically use treatment methods that are based on behavioral and social learning theories of change. Behavioral theory suggests individuals are conditioned to behave in a certain way based on experiences with reinforcement and punishment (Skinner 1965). In contrast, social learning theory posits people learn behaviors from one another, through observation, imitation and modeling. [3] Therefore, rehabilitation programs are designed to reduce criminal behaviors through the positive reinforcement of conventional behaviors learned through observation or modeling. [4] For example, a program may help a participant learn how to manage his or her anger by modeling appropriate responses instead.

Treatment in secure corrections for serious juvenile offenders (2015)

This practice includes interventions targeting serious (violent and chronic) juveniles sentenced to serve time in secure corrections. The overall goal is to decrease recidivism rates when juveniles are released and return to the community. The practice is rated Effective for reducing general recidivism and serious recidivism of violent and chronic justice-involved youth.

Evidence Rating for Outcomes — An Effective rating was assigned to two outcomes for this practice:

• Crime & Delinquency — Multiple crime/offense types. To determine the impact of treatment on general recidivism rates, researchers examined 30 comparisons, between treatment groups and control groups, which used intent-to-treat data. The authors found a significant odds ratio of 1.307 in favor of the treatment group, meaning chronic and violent justice-involved youth who received treatment in secure corrections had lower recidivism rates than comparison group juveniles who did not receive treatment.
• Crime & Delinquency — Serious recidivism. Researchers examined 15 comparisons, looking at serious recidivism (which included reincarceration or reinstitutionalization) of justice-involved youth. The authors calculated a significant odds ratio of 1.354, meaning the treatment provided in secure confinement significantly reduced the serious recidivism of chronic and violent justice-involved youth.

Practice Goals/Target Population — Interventions targeting serious (violent and chronic) justice-involved youth sentenced to serve time in secure corrections aim to decrease recidivism rates when juveniles are released and return to the community. These interventions can include psychological approaches, social and educational methods and environmental conditions, all of which support the learning of prosocial attitudes and behaviors.

A juvenile is generally defined as a young person aged 12 to 21 years old. This practice targets juveniles who commit violent offenses or chronically offend. Violent justice-involved youth are juveniles who have committed offenses in which someone has been hurt or seriously injured and requires medical attention. Violent offenses include murder, voluntary manslaughter, kidnapping, assault, robbery, endangerment and arson. Youth chronically involved in the juvenile justice system are those who have three or more previous legal adjudications.

Practice Components — There are a number of different types of treatment that may be available to justice-involved youth in secure corrections. The treatment types include behavioral, cognitive–behavioral, cognitive, education and nonbehavioral.

We created CrimeSolutions to help criminal justice, juvenile justice and crime victim service professionals better understand crime and identify program and practice solutions that address the unique needs of their communities.

CrimeSolutions helps justice professionals who are not social scientists improve the effectiveness of programs. The systematic, independent review process and evidence ratings are intended to give practitioners access to social science evidence that is otherwise difficult to obtain, and serve as a basis for gauging the quality of evidence. In short, CrimeSolutions strives to help practitioners answer the questions: has it worked, and in what context?

[note 1] In 2016, nearly 2.3 million research articles were published, according to the National Science Foundation, Science & Engineering Indicators 2018, National Science Foundation. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181 (December 2018).

[note 2] Mark Lipsey and Francis Cullen, “The Effectiveness of Correctional Rehabilitation: A Review of Systematic Reviews,” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 3 no. 1 (2007):297–320.

[note 3] Alfred Bandura, “Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change,” Psychological Review 84 no. 2 (1977):191–215.

[note 4] Mark Lipsey and Francis Cullen, “The Effectiveness of Correctional Rehabilitation: A Review of Systematic Reviews,” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 3 no. 1 (2007):297–320.

Cite this Article

Read more about:.

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Suggested Results

Antes de cambiar....

Esta página no está disponible en español

¿Le gustaría continuar en la página de inicio de Brennan Center en español?

al Brennan Center en inglés

al Brennan Center en español

Informed citizens are our democracy’s best defense.

We respect your privacy .

• Analysis & Opinion

Why Inclusive Criminal Justice Research Matters

Why Inclusive Criminal Justice Research Matters

Engaging with impacted community leaders can help contextualize data and drive solutions.

• Accurate Crime Data
• Social & Economic Harm

A new Brennan Center study of recent trends and persistent racial disparities in New York City’s misdemeanor enforcement system showcases the benefits of taking an  inclusive approach  to criminal justice research and policymaking. In addition to examining court data between 2016 and 2022, researchers conducted in-depth qualitative engagements with 166 stakeholders, including law enforcement and impacted Black and Latino community leaders, to understand the context behind the numbers. Working with people impacted by the criminal justice system as collaborators and integrating their expertise throughout the research process strengthened our data analysis and allowed us to craft actionable recommendations for improving approaches to minor offenses.

Although these practices have long been used in fields like  public health ,  education , and  democracy , inclusive research approaches have now expanded to criminal justice, specifically to address the  structural factors  that drive  racial disparities  in the criminal justice system. These are also known as  community-engaged research  or  participatory action research . For example, recent studies about  youth gun culture ,  prosecutorial reforms , and  prisons  engage community members with lived experience as fellow experts to collaboratively conduct research and develop recommendations. In contrast, traditional research methods have historically treated  marginalized groups , including justice-involved people, as subjects in need of intervention. This has also led to the exploitation of community knowledge — where members are too often  pathologized  — without accountability and transparency from research institutions.

In studying minor offenses, Brennan Center researchers adopted three core inclusive research strategies. First, we worked to forge connections with a wide range of key stakeholders, especially community leaders most impacted by the justice system who are typically excluded from research. Strong relationships cannot be formed overnight. Rather, community partnerships require long-term and sustained efforts in active listening, transparency, and mutual exchange. To develop our skills, we facilitated ongoing trainings and debriefs on qualitative interviewing and analysis,  cultural humility ,  community engagement , and  research accountability  practices. These tools allowed us to grapple with the responsibility and privilege of being outside researchers invited into programs and communities. They also ensured that we were able to accurately capture stakeholders’ experiences and recommendations.

Second, participants were compensated for their time and expertise — a core principle of this research approach. This builds on a standard research practice that enjoins researchers to reimburse people for any significant study contributions, including feedback from subject matter experts. Impacted community leaders are no exception. We also accommodated individuals’ needs and preferences in study participation, such as arranging virtual or in-person discussions and scheduling to accommodate work, childcare, and other commitments. Additionally, host organizations received compensation for recruitment and meeting spaces used for qualitative engagement. Showing stakeholders that they are valued facilitates participation and stronger partnerships with community experts.

Finally, as a critical part of the methodology, some community stakeholders reviewed the quantitative data to help researchers understand the experiences behind the numbers. Resulting themes identified by stakeholders support growing research that highlights how structural factors like housing instability, poorer health, and lack of economic opportunity — referred to as the  social determinants of justice  — are likely what drive interactions with New York City’s minor offense system.

Participants also recommended solutions to tackle some of these factors. As highlighted in an  accompanying Brennan Center resource , these included better addressing structural needs related to health and housing, such as specialized court  diversion programs  (e.g., for mental health and substance use),  alternative responses  for behavioral health crises, more  supportive housing  for justice-involved people, and community-led  prevention models . Of note, researchers found common ground across community, nonprofit, and government stakeholders in expanding solutions that more substantively address community safety. A common frustration among community leaders is how government officials and nonprofits do not consult people most impacted by the justice system when developing and implementing programs and policy reforms, despite their proximity to and knowledge of the issues in their communities.

Adopting an inclusive research approach with a wide range of stakeholders, especially with members of impacted communities, led to more robust findings. However, challenges remain in applying the approach more broadly. Inclusive research requires significant time and resources to build trusting relationships with community-based partners. Furthermore, the location of research, whether courts, jails, or prisons, may be challenging for this approach. That is because security mandates, restrictive conditions, and intense surveillance are obstacles to ensuring confidentiality.

While not all studies may be able to implement a full participatory methodology, it is important, nonetheless, to grow organizational capacity for inclusive research approaches. Maintaining long-term relationships with community partners and incorporating community-informed analyses, for example, can be a boon in better ensuring that communities are connected, represented, and invested in the research. We recommend that such approaches be more widely adopted in criminal justice policymaking and research in the future.

Related Issues:

• Social & Economic Harm

Related Resources

Misdemeanor Enforcement Trends in New York City, 2016–2022

Cases have declined, yet low-income Black and Latino New Yorkers continue to disproportionately face charges.

Josephine Wonsun Hahn

Ram Subramanian

Tiffany Sanabia

Violent Crime Is Falling Nationwide — Here’s How We Know

Preliminary FBI data, however imperfect, confirms a sharp downward trend in crime, undercutting attempts to blame criminal justice reform for pandemic-era spikes in violence.

The Hidden Toll of New York City’s Misdemeanor System

Caseloads are shrinking but remain a burden on communities and government resources.

Myth vs. Reality: Trends in Retail Theft

Fact-checking trump’s speech on crime and immigrants, trump misleads about crime and public safety, again, criminal justice reforms aren’t driving rising crime, analyzing the fbi’s national crime data on 2022 — with an eye toward 2023 trends, informed citizens are democracy’s best defense.

United Nations

Office on drugs and crime, unlocking justice: the crucial role of data in the criminal justice system.

In 2021, 3.5 million prisoners were being held in pre-trial detention. Almost half of all reporting countries are operating prisons at over 100 per cent capacity. Meanwhile, concerns continue to mount over police accountability and behavior in many countries.  

It is clear that, as noted by Ghada Waly, Executive Director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), action “to strengthen the rule of law, make justice accessible to all, and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions around the world” is needed.   

But without strong data collection and management systems, achieving effective and humane criminal justice systems – one of the promises of Sustainable Development Goal 16 (SDG 16) – will remain out of reach.   

To assist states to create such systems, UNODC has developed four sets of Guidelines for the Production of Statistical Data (on police , prosecution/courts , prisons , and governance of data ).   

UNODC sat down with Martijn Kind, lead statistician for the guidelines, on the importance of data in delivering and accessing justice.

Please describe the data guidelines for us.  

The guidelines series provides guidance to Member States on the collection, production, dissemination and use of high-quality crime and criminal justice data for statistical purposes ( ICCS ).  

Administrative data are collected in the day-to-day operations of all criminal justice institutions. These data offer a potential wealth of information that provide unique in-depth insights into the operations of the criminal justice system and can be used to improve resource use, enhance operational effectiveness, promote a culture of accountability and, ultimately, improve access to justice for all.  

For example, accurately registering data on prison incidents can help authorities pinpoint the types of incidents that are occurring and aid the development of policies to prevent future incidents, ensuring the safety of both prisoners and staff members. 

The guidelines offer a standardized framework that enables countries to collect, produce and disseminate high quality crime and criminal justice statistics that are relevant, accurate and more comparable. The guidelines go beyond just classifying offences – which is the purpose of the International Classification of Crime for Statistical Purposes (ICCS) – and encourage countries to produce statistics on a range of other topics, including human and financial resources, the criminal justice process and the professional conduct of staff.

Why is promoting and standardizing data important? What is at stake if this data isn’t collected or used? 

The use of data is key in order to address issues in an informed manner. Evidence-informed policy can only be formulated if data are available. Without data and evidence, we cannot adequately identify problems, let alone begin to address them.  

Decisionmakers are essentially flying blind if data are not available and could be forced to take decisions based on more limited, partial evidence or have to rely on their instinct. 

Worse still, without data, there is no way of knowing whether the issue at hand is improving or gradually getting worse. For example, it is not possible to determine why there is a backlog of cases in the courts if no information on the number of pending cases is available.  

Additionally, standardizing data is vital for the production of accurate and reliable statistics. If data are not standardized, they are also not directly comparable. This implies we would not be able to produce reliable statistics that can inform us on the phenomenon under investigation and we could end up comparing apples to oranges. Standardized data promote consistency and accuracy, reducing errors and inconsistencies that can arise by combining different sources of data. 

In short, if we don’t have standardized data to produce statistics, we may misinterpret signals and draw faulty conclusions. This could ultimately lead to un- or misinformed policy decisions that may not address the issue at hand or, in the worst case, exacerbate the problem. 

Standardizing data is also important to ensure data interoperability. This is particularly relevant in the criminal justice system where typically a wide range of actors are involved in the collection, production and dissemination of data. It is vital to ensure interoperability in such an environment to facilitate collaboration between stakeholders and the integration of data from various sources, leading to more comprehensive insights and more informed decision-making. 

How can the guidelines help us achieve SDG 16? 

SDG 16 focuses on promoting peaceful societies, providing access to justice for all and building effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels. The framework proposed in the guidelines offer key data for knowing whether these objectives are being achieved. In fact, one of the key objectives of the guidelines is to promote accountability and show the public how the criminal justice system is operating. 

The guidelines also directly promote the collection of data that can be used for calculating several SDG indicators. For example, standardized data on intentional homicides that be disaggregated by a range of variables such as sex, age and the relationship between the victim and the offender are vital for the calculation of indicator 16.1.1 on the number of intentional homicide victims per 100,000. The guidelines for the prison system also encourage Member States to collect detailed data on the prison population that can be used to calculate indicator 16.3.2 on unsentenced detainees as a proportion to the overall prison population. 

Can you give any examples of countries where improved data governance or use has made a difference in the criminal justice system?  

Cameroon is currently in the process of improving the governance of data related to intentional homicide. SDG indicator 16.1.1 poses numerous problems for the country due to the concepts used, the management of the different data sources and calculation method difficulties that stem from the lack of a common database for all homicide data.  

The solution being pursued is to create a single national database on intentional homicide that integrates data from the two main sources: the national gendarmerie and the police. The new database should make it possible to expand data coverage, address double counting issues and, above all, clearly distinguish intentional from non-intentional homicides.  

Once this project is successfully completed, authorities in Cameroon will have access to a single, harmonized dataset on intentional homicide that will give both law enforcement agencies and policymakers a better understanding of the reality of intentional homicide and the dynamics that are driving the trend. 

Another example would be from the United Kingdom. Since 2017, the Home Office has required all police departments in the United Kingdom to record data on use of force by the police.  

Officers must complete a “use of force report” each time they use force on an individual. A report should include the use of force tactics applied, reasons for using force, impact factors and the location and outcome of the event. The purpose of this is to improve information provided to the public on the different types of force used by the police and the context in which the use of force occurs.  

These data also inform the work of the National Police Chiefs’ Council and College of Policing in enhancing tactics, training and equipment in order to improve the safety of officers and people with whom they come into contact.

What challenges exist in effectively collecting, analyzing, and utilizing data within the criminal justice system? 

Talking specifically about administrative data, there are a range of issues that can be at play in any national context. The main issues that are worth highlighting relate to a lack of data standardization and documentation, data access barriers and the use of legacy systems.  

We talked about the importance of standardized data before. Which can be particularly challenging in the criminal justice system where each data provider may have their own system and processes in place for collecting data. Oftentimes, there is also a lack of documentation about how the data were produced and little to no metadata is recorded.  

Data access barriers can add another layer of complexity when trying to manage administrative data sources. For example, performing record linkage and integrating data across multiple sources can be very challenging without having a solid data sharing agreement in place. Different agencies may also have varying policies and procedures regarding data access or there may be trust barriers that prevent institutions from sharing data. All of which can lead to the fragmentation of data across multiple agencies, making it that much more challenging to produce reliable crime and criminal justice statistics. 

The guidelines offer a framework for improving the governance of data in the criminal justice system. The focus is on establishing cooperation between the different agencies, putting in place data sharing agreements, developing a national data strategy and improving the data architecture. All of which has to take place within existing legal and regulatory frameworks given the sensitivity of crime and criminal justice data. Building an interoperable system of criminal justice statistics promotes transparency and accountability within the criminal justice system, fostering public trust and offering a pathway to a fairer, more inclusive, efficient and effective system. 

It is important to note that effectively collecting, analyzing and utilizing data is not only a technological challenge. Improving the governance of data is key and, crucially, investing in human capital. Without adequately trained staff with a high degree of data literacy, it will be difficult to produce and use the data and statistics generated.

How do advancements in technology, such as machine learning and predictive analytics, influence the use of data in combating crime? 

Recent developments in artificial intelligence (AI) have produced a range of new applications in the criminal justice sector, including both simple digital automation and tools that rely on more advanced algorithms such as machine learning or natural language processing. These more advanced systems are used for a variety of tasks, such as biometric identification (e.g., facial recognition), predictive policing to identify hotspots and optimize the use of resources, risk assessments, and process optimization.  

AI systems offer numerous benefits, such as the ability to rapidly process large amounts of information of different origins and formats, and to perform a wide variety of tasks, thus offering the potential to vastly improve both the efficiency and the quality of crime and criminal justice data analysis. AI systems can also aid justice sector staff by assisting in the execution of repetitive tasks and safeguarding their well-being by reducing their exposure to challenging material (e.g., child sexual abuse material). 

However, the application of AI systems can involve a number of challenges and limitations. Chief among these is the risk of algorithmic bias which can replicate existing patterns of discrimination potentially reflected in historic data. Another consideration with the application of AI systems is the lack of transparency, since the processes leading to AI system outputs are typically difficult, if not impossible, to fully understand and explain (the “black box problem”). 

For the guidelines, the key is that the quality of any analysis will always be dependent on the quality of the underlying data. If a machine learning algorithm is fed either poor quality or biased data, the resulting output will not be of much help and may even end up doing harm. The guidelines provide a tool to help countries collect, produce, disseminate and govern high-quality data on a range of themes. Only when this high-quality data is available are we at the starting point for effectively using AI or machine learning solutions.

From your perspective, what are some potential future developments or trends in leveraging data within the criminal justice system? 

The world is awash with more and more data and a key future development will be to make more sense of all of this data. This will require significant investments in technological solutions and – perhaps more importantly – investments in the governance of these data. This is exactly what the guidelines focus on: Improving both the quality and governance of the basic data that are needed to provide comprehensive insights and inform both practitioners and policymakers. 

Further information

Read here the guidelines on police , prosecution/courts , prisons , and governance of data .

• Fraud Alert
• Legal Notice

Criminal Justice System Research Paper Topics

This page provides a comprehensive list of criminal justice system research paper topics , organized into 10 categories. It also offers expert advice on how to choose a topic, as well as tips on how to write a successful research paper. In addition, iResearchNet provides custom writing services tailored to the specific needs of students, offering top-quality papers written by expert degree-holding writers with experience in the criminal justice field. With flexible pricing options, timely delivery, and 24/7 support, iResearchNet is the perfect solution for students looking to excel in their academic pursuits.

Criminal Justice System Research Guide

The criminal justice system is a crucial aspect of society that aims to maintain law and order while providing fair and impartial justice for all. As a result, research on the criminal justice system covers a wide range of topics, from the agencies and processes involved in criminal justice to the legal principles and ethical concerns that underpin the system.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

In this guide, we will explore various categories of criminal justice research paper topics, providing an overview of the key issues and debates in each area. We will also offer expert advice on how to select a topic and write a successful research paper, as well as introduce iResearchNet’s writing services for students who require assistance in their academic pursuits.

The criminal justice system is a complex network of institutions, policies, and practices designed to maintain social order and uphold the law. Studying the criminal justice system can be fascinating and thought-provoking, as it involves the examination of the ways in which society seeks to prevent and respond to criminal behavior. In this section, we will explore ten categories of criminal justice system research paper topics, each with ten topics, that will help students to dive into this fascinating field and develop a deeper understanding of its workings.

Corrections

• The effectiveness of rehabilitation programs in reducing recidivism
• The impact of solitary confinement on mental health and behavior of inmates
• The use of private prisons and their impact on the criminal justice system
• The ethics of for-profit prisons and their impact on prisoners’ rights
• The impact of restorative justice practices on offenders and victims
• The use of alternative sentencing programs as an alternative to incarceration
• The impact of parole and probation on recidivism rates
• The effectiveness of drug treatment programs in reducing substance abuse among inmates
• The relationship between prison overcrowding and inmate violence
• The impact of technology on the future of corrections, such as electronic monitoring and virtual reality rehabilitation programs

Criminal Investigation

• Forensic science techniques in criminal investigations
• The role of eyewitness testimony in criminal investigations
• Interviewing techniques for obtaining information from suspects and witnesses
• The use of surveillance technology in criminal investigations
• The challenges of investigating digital and cybercrime
• The use of informants and undercover operations in criminal investigations
• The role of DNA evidence in criminal investigations
• Cold case investigations and the use of new technology and techniques
• Investigating organized crime and criminal networks
• The impact of community policing on criminal investigations

Criminal Justice Administration

• Leadership and management in criminal justice organizations
• Budgeting and resource allocation in criminal justice agencies
• Ethics and integrity in criminal justice administration
• Personnel and human resource management in criminal justice organizations
• Public relations and community outreach in criminal justice agencies
• Policies and procedures in criminal justice administration
• Organizational change and adaptation in criminal justice agencies
• Accountability and performance measurement in criminal justice
• Information technology and criminal justice administration
• Interagency collaboration and coordination in criminal justice

Criminal Justice Ethics

• Use of force by law enforcement officers
• Racial profiling and discrimination in the criminal justice system
• Police misconduct and accountability
• Capital punishment and the ethics of the death penalty
• The ethics of plea bargaining
• Confidentiality and privacy concerns in criminal investigations
• The ethics of surveillance and monitoring in criminal justice
• Ethics of punishment and rehabilitation
• The use of informants and witness protection programs
• Professional ethics and conflicts of interest in the criminal justice system

Criminal Law and Procedure

• The right to counsel and its implications for criminal defendants
• The role of plea bargaining in the criminal justice system
• The use of eyewitness testimony in criminal trials
• The effectiveness of the insanity defense in criminal cases
• The impact of the Fourth Amendment on search and seizure procedures
• The use of technology in criminal investigations and trials
• The role of juries in criminal trials
• The impact of mandatory minimum sentencing laws on the criminal justice system
• The impact of race and ethnicity on criminal law and procedure
• The implications of wrongful convictions for criminal law and procedure

Forensic Science

• The use of DNA evidence in criminal investigations
• The effectiveness of forensic psychology in criminal investigations
• The application of ballistics in solving crimes
• The role of forensic anthropology in identifying human remains
• The use of toxicology in determining cause of death in homicides
• The reliability of fingerprint evidence in criminal cases
• The use of digital forensics in modern criminal investigations
• The challenges and limitations of arson investigation
• The role of forensic entomology in determining time of death
• The accuracy and admissibility of bite mark evidence in criminal trials

Court System

• The role of judges in the court system
• The impact of jury selection on trial outcomes
• The use of plea bargaining in the court system
• The role of defense attorneys in the court system
• The impact of race and ethnicity on court proceedings
• The use of expert witnesses in court proceedings
• The effectiveness of alternative dispute resolution methods in the court system
• The impact of technology on court procedures
• The role of court administrators in the court system
• The future of the court system in light of changing societal needs and values

Juvenile Justice

• The effectiveness of rehabilitation programs for juvenile offenders
• The impact of the juvenile justice system on minority youth
• The role of the family in preventing juvenile delinquency
• Juvenile waiver and transfer laws
• The impact of the age of criminal responsibility on the juvenile justice system
• The relationship between child abuse and juvenile delinquency
• The use of restorative justice practices in juvenile justice
• The impact of school discipline policies on juvenile justice involvement
• The effectiveness of juvenile diversion programs
• The role of mental health services in addressing juvenile delinquency

Law Enforcement

• Community policing and its effectiveness
• Use of force by law enforcement and its impact on communities
• Racial profiling and its effect on police-community relations
• Police accountability and transparency
• Law enforcement response to domestic violence
• The role of technology in modern policing
• Police training and its impact on officers’ use of force
• Challenges of policing in a diverse society
• The impact of mental health on police work
• Policing and immigration enforcement
• Use of force policies in policing
• Police training and its impact on behavior
• Community-oriented policing strategies
• Racial profiling in law enforcement
• The role of technology in policing
• Challenges in recruiting and retaining diverse police officers
• The impact of police unions on accountability and reform efforts
• The militarization of police and its effects on community relations
• The history and evolution of modern policing

The criminal justice system is a multifaceted and complex field that encompasses a wide range of topics and issues. From law enforcement and corrections to the court system and juvenile justice, there is no shortage of research paper topics for students studying criminal justice. By selecting a topic that aligns with their personal interests and adheres to assignment guidelines, students can successfully craft a well-researched and thought-provoking paper. iResearchNet offers expert writing services to assist students in achieving their academic goals and producing high-quality research papers. With our team of experienced writers, reliable sources, and flexible pricing options, students can rest assured that their paper will be completed with precision and excellence.

Choosing a Criminal Justice System Research Paper Topic

Choosing a topic in the multitude of criminal justice system research paper topics can be a daunting task, given the vast range of issues and concerns in this field. However, with careful consideration of your interests, current events, and the assignment guidelines, you can identify a topic that is both relevant and engaging. Here are some expert tips to help you choose a topic for your criminal justice research paper:

• Understand the assignment requirements and guidelines : The first step in choosing a research paper topic is to read and understand the assignment requirements and guidelines provided by your instructor. This will help you to identify the scope, length, and focus of your paper.
• Consider your personal interests and passions : It is important to choose a topic that you are interested in and passionate about. This will keep you motivated throughout the research and writing process, and help you to produce a more engaging and insightful paper.
• Look for current and relevant topics in the field : Criminal justice is a dynamic field that is constantly evolving. Look for current and relevant topics in the news or academic journals that interest you.
• Focus on a specific aspect or issue within a broader topic : Choose a specific aspect or issue within a broader topic to make your research more manageable and focused. For example, rather than writing a paper on “crime prevention,” you could focus on “the effectiveness of community policing in crime prevention.”
• Conduct preliminary research to ensure there is enough information available : Before finalizing your topic, conduct some preliminary research to ensure that there is enough information available on your chosen topic. This will help you to avoid frustration and ensure that you can write a well-supported research paper.
• Consult with your instructor or a librarian for topic suggestions and resources : Don’t hesitate to consult with your instructor or a librarian for suggestions and resources on criminal justice research paper topics. They can provide valuable guidance and insights to help you choose a topic that is appropriate and engaging.
• Stay organized and keep track of sources and notes : As you conduct your research, make sure to stay organized and keep track of your sources and notes. This will make it easier to write your paper and ensure that you can properly cite your sources.
• Narrow down your topic and develop a thesis statement : Once you have chosen a topic, narrow it down to a specific research question or thesis statement. This will help you to focus your research and ensure that your paper has a clear and concise argument.
• Brainstorm and outline your paper before writing : Before diving into writing, take the time to brainstorm and outline your paper. This will help you to organize your thoughts and ensure that your paper flows logically and coherently.
• Revise and edit your paper multiple times before submitting : Finally, be sure to revise and edit your paper multiple times before submitting it. This will help you to catch any errors or inconsistencies and ensure that your paper is polished and professional.

By following these expert tips, you can choose a criminal justice system research paper topic that is engaging, informative, and well-supported by research.

How to Write a Criminal Justice System Research Paper

Writing a criminal justice system research paper can be a daunting task for many students, but with proper guidance and preparation, it can become a manageable and rewarding experience. In this section, we will provide an in-depth guide on how to write a criminal justice system research paper, including the necessary steps and tips for success.

• Choose a topic : The first step in writing a criminal justice system research paper is to select a topic. Your topic should be focused and relevant to the criminal justice system, and should be interesting and engaging to both you and your audience. It is important to choose a topic that is neither too broad nor too narrow, and that can be adequately researched within the scope of your assignment.
• Conduct research : Once you have chosen your topic, it is time to conduct research. This involves gathering information and data related to your topic from a variety of sources, including books, academic articles, government reports, and other credible sources. It is important to ensure that your sources are reliable, up-to-date, and relevant to your topic.
• Develop a thesis statement : A thesis statement is a one-sentence statement that summarizes the main argument or point of your paper. Your thesis statement should be clear, concise, and specific, and should be based on the research and evidence you have gathered.
• Create an outline : Before you start writing your paper, it is helpful to create an outline. An outline is a structured plan that outlines the main points and sections of your paper, and helps you organize your thoughts and ideas. Your outline should include an introduction, body, and conclusion, as well as specific sections for each of the main points you want to make in your paper.
• Write your paper : With your research, thesis statement, and outline in hand, it is time to start writing your paper. Your paper should be structured, clear, and concise, with a clear introduction, well-supported arguments in the body, and a strong conclusion that summarizes your main points and reinforces your thesis.
• Edit and revise : Once you have written your paper, it is important to edit and revise it carefully. This involves checking for errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation, as well as ensuring that your arguments are clear, concise, and well-supported by your research.
• Cite your sources : Finally, it is important to properly cite your sources using the appropriate citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.). This involves including in-text citations in your paper and a list of references or bibliography at the end of your paper.

By following these steps and tips, you can write a successful criminal justice system research paper that is well-researched, well-organized, and well-supported. Remember to give yourself enough time to complete each step thoroughly, and to seek help from your instructor or a writing center if you need it.

Custom Writing Services by iResearchNet

At iResearchNet, we understand that crafting a high-quality criminal justice research paper can be a daunting task. Our team of expert writers is here to assist you with any aspect of the writing process, from selecting a topic to polishing your final draft. Here are some of the benefits of using our writing services for your criminal justice research paper:

• Custom written works tailored to your specific needs and requirements: Our writers are experienced in the field of criminal justice and can provide customized solutions that meet your academic requirements.
• Expert degree-holding writers with experience in the criminal justice field: Our writers hold advanced degrees in criminal justice, and have years of experience in researching and writing on topics related to the criminal justice system.
• In-depth research using credible sources: Our writers conduct thorough research using reliable sources to ensure that your paper is well-supported and informative.
• Custom formatting (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard): We offer custom formatting to fit any citation style requirements and ensure that your paper meets the highest academic standards.
• Top quality work with customized solutions : Our writers provide high-quality work with customized solutions that meet your specific needs and requirements.
• Flexible pricing options to fit any budget: We offer flexible pricing options to fit any budget, and can provide quotes based on your specific needs.
• Short deadlines of up to 3 hours: We understand that deadlines can be tight, which is why we offer short turnaround times of up to 3 hours for urgent orders.
• Timely delivery of your completed paper: We are committed to delivering your completed paper on time, every time.
• 24/7 customer support for any questions or concerns: Our customer support team is available 24/7 to answer any questions or concerns you may have about our services.
• Absolute privacy and confidentiality of your personal and academic information: We take your privacy and confidentiality seriously, and will never share your personal or academic information with anyone.
• Easy order tracking and updates: Our user-friendly platform allows you to track your order status and receive updates on your paper’s progress.
• Money-back guarantee if you are not satisfied with the final product: We are committed to your satisfaction, and offer a money-back guarantee if you are not completely satisfied with the final product.

At iResearchNet, we pride ourselves on providing high-quality, customized writing services to students in need of assistance with their criminal justice research papers. Contact us today to learn more about how we can help you achieve your academic goals.

Buy Your Custom Research Paper Today!

The criminal justice system is a vast and complex field that offers a multitude of research paper topics. Choosing a topic requires careful consideration of personal interests and the assignment guidelines, as well as the availability of credible sources. Proper research, organization, and writing skills are essential for crafting a successful criminal justice research paper. At iResearchNet, we offer expert writing services to assist students in achieving their academic goals and producing high-quality research papers. Our team of degree-holding writers has extensive experience in the criminal justice field and can provide custom-written works tailored to your specific needs and requirements. We conduct in-depth research using reliable sources and provide custom formatting options to fit any citation style. We offer flexible pricing options to fit any budget and can accommodate short deadlines of up to 3 hours. Our 24/7 customer support is available for any questions or concerns, and we guarantee absolute privacy and confidentiality of your personal and academic information. With our easy order tracking and updates, you can stay informed throughout the writing process, and our money-back guarantee ensures your satisfaction with the final product.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

News Releases

Justice Outcomes Explorer data dashboard sheds new light on US criminal justice system

May 1, 2024

Contact: Jon Meerdink ( [email protected] )

ANN ARBOR — A new data dashboard developed at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research will give an unprecedented look into the effects and outcomes of the United States’ criminal justice system.

The Justice Outcomes Explorer, or JOE, makes millions of statistics available in an accessible, easy-to-navigate format that should bring about a greater understanding of how the U.S. criminal justice system shapes the lives of millions of people throughout the country. The data dashboard is available today at joe.cjars.org .

Ron Jarmin, Ph.D., the deputy director of the U.S. Census Bureau, praised the dashboard for its transformative look at criminal justice data.

“Administrative data can be used to produce innovative products like the Justice Outcomes Explorer (JOE) that just aren’t feasible using surveys alone. Importantly, the JOE will expand access to information so that the public and policymakers can make evidence-based decisions.”

Developed by ISR’s Criminal Justice Administrative Records System (CJARS), JOE leverages billions of lines of raw data from the justice system and blends it with data sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau to produce an unprecedented look at crime statistics and outcomes.

The project was born out of a desire to solve a specific problem with data from the American criminal justice system: it’s notoriously hard to access. The sheer volume of data is difficult to manage, and privacy restrictions make it a challenge to create a unified picture of what’s happening within the system. But since its inception eight years ago, CJARS has been well-positioned to address this challenge, and after three years of development, JOE is ready to shed new light on the effects of the justice system.

“Our goal was to create a product that meets the needs of a number of different stakeholder audiences,” said Mike Mueller-Smith, Ph.D., CJARS director and assistant professor of economics at U-M. “Whether you are an advocate, a policy-maker, a researcher, working in the criminal legal system, or a directly impacted individual, I think there is something that you can gain and learn from JOE. Ultimately, if we all start to ground our collective practice in sound empirical evidence, we hopefully can start to make meaningful progress on building a more fair, equitable, and just criminal legal system.”

As constructed, the data dashboard will allow users to see aggregate statistics representing interactions between individuals and the justice system, tracking key issues like recidivism and its wide effects, a noteworthy use case for researchers. John H. Laub, Ph.D., the former director of the National Institute of Justice, believes the uses for JOE go both deep and wide.

“One of the long standing challenges in the formulation of evidence based criminal justice policy is the lack of sound comprehensive data. In order to be useful, data are needed across stages of the criminal justice system over time. Moreover, data that can be linked to a variety of important outcomes, especially outcomes beyond recidivism, are particularly desirable. CJARS and JOE fill this important gap and criminal justice research will be forever changed as a result.”

The dashboard strives to present a harmonious representation of numerous different data sources, ranging from local jurisdictions to the federal level. The intersection of data is a key feature, according to Keith Finlay, Ph.D., co-founder of CJARS and a research economist at the U.S. Census Bureau.

“The Justice Outcomes Explorer highlights how an ecosystem of administrative records increases the value of any individual dataset,” he said. “By harmonizing data from across the country, the CJARS team has unlocked previously hard-to-access information and made it possible to compare outcomes across agencies. By leveraging the Census Bureau’s Data Linkage Infrastructure, JOE adds further value to CJARS data — enabling an unprecedented look at how the justice system fits into the lives of many Americans.”

The dashboard’s three-year development process included key stakeholders at both CJARS and the U.S. Census Bureau, initially centered on the goal of creating a new statistical product. As the work grew, CJARS partnered with independent web-development firm Hyperobjekt to create and refine the user interface that’s now available for online use. Work on the dashboard was funded by The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Arnold Ventures, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Science Foundation, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

It all comes together to make a new data dashboard that ISR Director Kate Cagney, Ph.D., calls “groundbreaking.”

“The CJARS Justice Outcomes Explorer is a pioneering platform that sheds light on criminal justice outcomes across the United States. This groundbreaking initiative will enable greater evidence-based research and policymaking, giving stakeholders unprecedented access to socioeconomic and recidivism data.”

The Justice Outcomes Explorer data dashboard from the Criminal Justice Administrative Records System officially went live at joe.cjars.org on May 1, 2024. CJARS will hold a webinar explaining and exploring different aspects of the JOE data dashboard on Wednesday, June 5, 2024. To register, click here .

For more information on the Justice Outcomes Explorer, view the video below.

• Privacy Policy

Home » 500+ Criminal Justice Research Topics

500+ Criminal Justice Research Topics

Criminal justice is a complex and critical field that encompasses various aspects of crime prevention, law enforcement, legal proceedings, and punishment. Research plays a crucial role in understanding and addressing the challenges and opportunities in this field. From studying the causes and consequences of crime to exploring the effectiveness of policies and interventions, there is a wide range of fascinating and important criminal justice research topics to explore. Whether you are a student, a scholar, a practitioner, or a curious citizen, delving into the world of criminal justice research can deepen your knowledge, sharpen your critical thinking skills, and contribute to creating a safer and fairer society. In this post, we will introduce some of the most compelling and relevant criminal justice research topics that you may find intriguing and informative.

Criminal Justice Research Topics

Criminal Justice Research Topics are as follows:

• The effectiveness of community policing in reducing crime rates
• The impact of body-worn cameras on police accountability and public trust
• The causes and consequences of police use of excessive force
• The role of race and ethnicity in police-citizen interactions and perceptions
• The effectiveness of diversion programs in reducing recidivism among juvenile offenders
• The impact of mandatory minimum sentencing on crime rates and prison populations
• The challenges and opportunities of restorative justice as an alternative to punitive justice
• The role of mental health and substance abuse treatment in reducing criminal behavior
• The ethics and implications of using predictive policing algorithms
• The impact of private prisons on the criminal justice system and society
• The effectiveness of victim-offender mediation in reducing the harm of crime
• The prevalence and causes of wrongful convictions and the implications for justice
• The role of media in shaping public perceptions of crime and justice
• The effectiveness and fairness of the death penalty as a form of punishment
• The role of international law in addressing transnational crimes such as terrorism and human trafficking
• The impact of the War on Drugs on drug use, drug-related crime, and public health
• The effectiveness of gun control laws in reducing gun violence and crime rates
• The role of technology in enhancing or challenging the criminal justice system, such as DNA analysis or facial recognition software
• The prevalence and causes of domestic violence and the effectiveness of intervention programs
• The impact of sentencing disparities based on race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status
• The role of plea bargaining in the criminal justice system and the implications for justice
• The effectiveness of sex offender registries and notification laws in reducing sex crimes
• The impact of pretrial detention on defendants’ rights and outcomes
• The role of community-based corrections in reducing recidivism and promoting reentry
• The ethics and implications of using unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) for surveillance and law enforcement
• The effectiveness and implications of using risk assessment tools in pretrial decision-making
• The prevalence and impact of hate crimes and the challenges of prosecuting them
• The role of eyewitness testimony in criminal trials and the reliability of memory
• The effectiveness of drug courts in reducing drug-related crime and improving outcomes for offenders
• The impact of race and ethnicity on the administration of the death penalty
• The role of juries in the criminal justice system and the factors that affect their decisions
• The effectiveness and ethics of using informants in criminal investigations and prosecutions
• The prevalence and impact of cybercrime and the challenges of investigating and prosecuting it
• The effectiveness of juvenile justice reforms in promoting rehabilitation and reducing recidivism
• The impact of community-based policing on police-citizen relations and trust
• The role of social media in shaping perceptions of crime and justice
• The effectiveness of prison education and vocational training programs in promoting rehabilitation and reducing recidivism
• The prevalence and impact of human rights abuses in the criminal justice system, such as torture or discrimination
• The effectiveness of gang prevention and intervention programs in reducing gang-related crime
• The role of implicit bias in the criminal justice system and its impact on outcomes
• The impact of solitary confinement on mental health, behavior, and reentry outcomes
• The impact of police body cameras on public trust and police accountability.
• The effectiveness of diversion programs for juvenile offenders.
• The impact of community policing on crime reduction
• The use of predictive policing in law enforcement
• The impact of decriminalizing marijuana on crime rates
• The role of mental health professionals in the criminal justice system
• The effectiveness of de-escalation training for police officers
• The impact of technology on police surveillance practices
• The relationship between gender and sentencing disparities in the criminal justice system
• The relationship between poverty and crime
• The effectiveness of restorative justice programs in reducing recidivism
• The impact of the War on Drugs on mass incarceration
• The use of cognitive-behavioral therapy in offender rehabilitation
• The effectiveness of diversion programs for people with substance use disorders
• The role of implicit bias in jury selection
• The impact of police officer stress on use of force incidents
• The use of big data in criminal investigations and decision-making
• The effectiveness of restorative justice practices in school disciplinary policies
• The relationship between mental illness and homelessness in the criminal justice system
• The impact of mandatory minimum sentences on juvenile offenders
• The role of drug courts in the criminal justice system
• The effectiveness of offender reentry programs for people with disabilities
• The impact of restorative justice programs on victims of crime
• The use of therapeutic jurisprudence in the criminal justice system
• The relationship between race and ethnicity and the use of force by private security personnel
• The effectiveness of educational programs in correctional facilities
• The impact of eyewitness identification procedures on wrongful convictions
• The role of community-based policing in reducing crime rates
• The use of predictive analytics in bail decisions
• The effectiveness of correctional education programs on recidivism
• The impact of immigration enforcement policies on immigrant communities’ trust in law enforcement
• The relationship between mental health and juvenile detention
• The use of biometrics in criminal investigations and identification
• The effectiveness of mental health courts in reducing recidivism among people with co-occurring disorders
• The impact of gender and sexuality on hate crime victimization and reporting
• The role of cultural competence in police training
• The use of risk assessment tools in pretrial detention decisions
• The effectiveness of community supervision programs for people with substance use disorders
• The impact of social and economic policies on criminal justice outcomes
• The relationship between race and ethnicity and criminal case outcomes
• The use of therapeutic communities in correctional facilities
• The effectiveness of specialized courts for domestic violence cases
• The impact of gun violence on public safety and crime rates
• The role of eyewitness memory and recall in criminal investigations and trials
• The use of DNA evidence in criminal investigations and exoneration
• The effectiveness of probation and parole programs for people with disabilities
• The impact of victim impact statements on sentencing decisions
• The relationship between criminal justice policies and racial and ethnic disparities in incarceration rates
• The use of unmanned aerial vehicles in law enforcement
• The effectiveness of community-based restorative justice programs for juvenile offenders
• The impact of public defender workload on criminal case outcomes
• The role of community activism and advocacy in criminal justice reform
• The use of risk assessment tools in school disciplinary policies
• The effectiveness of family-focused interventions in reducing juvenile recidivism
• The impact of police officer race and ethnicity on use of force incidents
• The relationship between race and ethnicity and prosecutorial decision-making
• The use of virtual reality simulations in police training
• The effectiveness of mental health diversion programs for people with traumatic brain injuries
• The impact of juvenile life without parole sentences on individuals and society.
• The use of drones in criminal investigations
• The effectiveness of community-based alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders
• The impact of wrongful convictions on the criminal justice system
• The role of implicit bias in criminal justice decision-making
• The use of risk assessment tools in child welfare investigations
• The effectiveness of offender reentry programs in reducing recidivism
• The impact of hate crimes on marginalized communities
• The relationship between mental health and the use of force by police officers
• The use of body language analysis in criminal interrogations
• The effectiveness of community policing strategies in building trust between police and communities
• The impact of race on police use of force and police brutality
• The role of prosecutorial discretion in the criminal justice system
• The use of algorithms in pretrial detention decisions
• The effectiveness of victim-centered approaches to sexual assault investigations
• The impact of domestic violence on child custody decisions
• The relationship between social media and cybercrime
• The use of facial recognition technology in law enforcement
• The effectiveness of police officer training programs on cultural sensitivity and bias reduction
• The impact of the school-to-prison pipeline on youth
• The role of mental health courts in diversion programs
• The use of virtual reality technology in criminal justice education and training
• The effectiveness of crisis intervention teams in responding to mental health crises
• The impact of immigration policies on crime reporting and victimization rates in immigrant communities
• The relationship between police department size and use of force incidents
• The use of predictive analytics in parole and probation supervision
• The effectiveness of juvenile justice system diversion programs for LGBTQ+ youth
• The impact of bail reform on pretrial detention rates and recidivism
• The role of trauma-informed care in the criminal justice system
• The use of artificial intelligence in forensic investigations
• The effectiveness of prison entrepreneurship programs in reducing recidivism
• The impact of COVID-19 on the criminal justice system
• The relationship between mental health and incarceration rates
• The use of social network analysis in criminal investigations
• The effectiveness of drug testing and monitoring programs for probationers and parolees
• The impact of mandatory minimum sentences on drug offenses
• The role of the media in shaping public perceptions of crime and the criminal justice system
• The use of body-worn cameras in courtroom proceedings
• The effectiveness of mental health diversion programs for veterans involved in the criminal justice system
• The impact of race and ethnicity on the plea bargaining process
• The relationship between police department diversity and community trust
• The use of crime mapping in law enforcement strategies
• The effectiveness of animal therapy programs in correctional facilities
• The impact of the death penalty on families of victims and offenders
• The role of prosecutorial misconduct in wrongful convictions.
• Racial disparities in the use of capital punishment
• The effectiveness of electronic monitoring as an alternative to incarceration
• The role of restorative justice in reducing recidivism
• The relationship between mental illness and criminal behavior
• The effectiveness of drug courts in reducing drug-related offenses
• The impact of body-worn cameras on police behavior and citizen complaints
• The use of risk assessment tools in sentencing and release decisions
• The effectiveness of boot camp programs for juvenile offenders
• The use of eyewitness testimony in criminal trials
• The impact of victim-offender mediation on the criminal justice system
• The relationship between education level and criminal behavior
• The effectiveness of parole and probation in reducing recidivism
• The use of artificial intelligence in criminal justice decision-making
• The role of public defenders in the criminal justice system
• The impact of mandatory minimum sentences on the prison population
• The effectiveness of therapeutic courts for individuals with substance abuse disorders
• The impact of social media on the reporting of crimes and public perception of crime
• The effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy in reducing recidivism
• The impact of mental health courts on the criminal justice system
• The role of community service in reducing recidivism
• The relationship between domestic violence and gun ownership
• The effectiveness of diversion programs for individuals with mental illnesses
• The impact of sentencing guidelines on judicial discretion
• The use of police body language in detecting deception during interviews
• The relationship between incarceration and employment opportunities post-release
• The effectiveness of community-based supervision programs for released offenders
• The impact of the war on drugs on the criminal justice system
• The role of race and ethnicity in plea bargaining decisions
• The use of risk assessment tools in juvenile justice
• The effectiveness of animal-assisted therapy in correctional facilities
• The impact of restorative justice on the victims of crime
• The relationship between gun laws and gun violence rates
• The effectiveness of pretrial diversion programs for individuals with mental illnesses
• The role of reentry programs in reducing recidivism
• The impact of mandatory arrest policies in domestic violence cases
• The use of polygraph tests in criminal investigations
• The relationship between gang membership and criminal behavior
• The effectiveness of drug treatment courts in reducing recidivism
• The impact of solitary confinement on mental health and behavior
• The role of gun buyback programs in reducing gun violence
• The relationship between substance abuse and child abuse
• The effectiveness of victim impact panels in reducing drunk driving
• The impact of juvenile detention on mental health and behavior
• The use of forensic science in criminal investigations
• The relationship between race and wrongful convictions
• The effectiveness of prison education programs in reducing recidivism
• The impact of police militarization on community trust and safety
• The relationship between race, ethnicity, and police use of force.
• The impact of mandatory minimum sentencing laws on incarceration rates.
• The effectiveness of community policing in reducing crime rates.
• The relationship between mental illness and criminal behavior.
• The role of gender in criminal justice sentencing and outcomes.
• The impact of the war on drugs on incarceration rates and drug use.
• The effectiveness of restorative justice programs in reducing recidivism.
• The impact of solitary confinement on mental health and rehabilitation.
• The relationship between poverty and crime rates.
• The role of technology in modern policing and criminal justice.
• The effectiveness of drug courts in reducing drug-related crime.
• The relationship between immigration and crime rates.
• The impact of mandatory arrest policies in cases of domestic violence.
• The effectiveness of victim-offender mediation in reducing recidivism.
• The role of social media in modern crime and policing.
• The impact of police militarization on community trust and safety.
• The effectiveness of rehabilitation programs for incarcerated individuals.
• The relationship between gun ownership and violent crime.
• The impact of wrongful convictions on individuals and the criminal justice system.
• The role of race and ethnicity in jury selection and decision-making.
• The effectiveness of mental health courts in reducing recidivism.
• The relationship between education and crime rates.
• The impact of body-worn cameras on police officer behavior and decision-making.
• The effectiveness of drug treatment programs in reducing recidivism.
• The relationship between domestic violence and gun ownership.
• The impact of the death penalty on deterrence and sentencing outcomes.
• The role of implicit bias in policing and criminal justice decision-making.
• The effectiveness of community-based reentry programs for formerly incarcerated individuals.
• The relationship between crime rates and social inequality.
• The impact of predictive policing on crime rates and community trust.
• The effectiveness of probation and parole programs in reducing recidivism.
• The relationship between mental health and policing.
• The impact of police unions on police accountability and reform efforts.
• The role of the media in shaping public perceptions of crime and justice.
• The effectiveness of pretrial diversion programs in reducing incarceration rates.
• The relationship between police use of force and police training.
• The impact of mandatory minimum drug sentences on racial disparities in the criminal justice system.
• The effectiveness of juvenile detention alternatives in reducing recidivism.
• The relationship between mass incarceration and economic inequality.
• The impact of police body language on civilian compliance.
• The role of community organizations in crime prevention and intervention.
• The effectiveness of reentry programs for people with disabilities.
• The relationship between mental health and criminal justice reform.
• The impact of immigration policies on community safety and trust.
• The role of prosecutorial discretion in the criminal justice system.
• The effectiveness of job training programs for formerly incarcerated individuals.
• The relationship between race and drug policy.
• The impact of pretrial detention on case outcomes and incarceration rates.
• The effectiveness of diversion programs for offenders with mental health issues
• The prevalence and impact of police corruption and the challenges of rooting it out
• The role of victim impact statements in the criminal justice system and their impact on sentencing
• The impact of social inequality on crime rates and the criminal justice system
• The role of political ideology in shaping criminal justice policy and practice
• The effectiveness of rehabilitation and reentry programs for adult offenders
• The prevalence and impact of sexual harassment and assault within the criminal justice system
• The role of the Fourth Amendment in regulating police searches and seizures
• The effectiveness of restorative justice practices in addressing campus sexual assault
• The impact of mass incarceration on families and communities
• The ethics and implications of using artificial intelligence in criminal justice decision-making
• The role of bail reform in promoting justice and reducing pretrial detention
• The prevalence and impact of police misconduct and accountability mechanisms
• The effectiveness of drug policy reform in reducing drug-related harm and promoting public health
• The impact of globalization on transnational crimes and the challenges of international cooperation
• The role of prosecutorial discretion in shaping criminal justice outcomes
• The prevalence and impact of white-collar crime and the challenges of prosecution
• The role of public defenders in ensuring access to justice for indigent defendants
• The effectiveness of mental health courts in diverting mentally ill offenders from the criminal justice system
• The impact of the criminal justice system on immigrant communities and the challenges of immigrant detention and deportation
• The role of forgiveness in restorative justice and its implications for healing and reconciliation
• The effectiveness of alternative dispute resolution in reducing court congestion and promoting justice
• The prevalence and impact of hate speech and the challenges of regulating it
• The role of public opinion in shaping criminal justice policy and practice
• The effectiveness of community supervision in reducing recidivism and promoting reentry
• The impact of the criminalization of homelessness on vulnerable populations
• The role of community activism and advocacy in promoting criminal justice reform
• The effectiveness of therapeutic jurisprudence in promoting rehabilitation and well-being
• The prevalence and impact of police militarization and its implications for public safety and civil liberties
• The role of eyewitness identification procedures in criminal investigations and the reliability of identification evidence
• The effectiveness of harm reduction strategies in reducing drug-related harm and promoting public health
• The impact of the criminal justice system on Indigenous communities and the challenges of decolonizing justice
• The role of hate crime legislation in promoting justice and reducing hate-motivated violence
• The effectiveness of police training programs in reducing racial and ethnic bias and promoting cultural competence
• The prevalence and impact of gun violence and the challenges of gun control policy
• The role of the Eighth Amendment in regulating cruel and unusual punishment
• The effectiveness of problem-solving courts in addressing complex social issues and promoting justice
• The impact of the criminal justice system on LGBTQ+ communities and the challenges of achieving equality and inclusivity
• The role of victim services in promoting healing and well-being for crime victims
• The effectiveness of drug testing and monitoring programs in promoting rehabilitation and reducing recidivism
• The prevalence and impact of prison gangs and the challenges of managing them
• The role of implicit bias in eyewitness identification and the implications for justice
• The effectiveness of diversion programs for offenders with substance abuse issues
• The impact of social media on crime reporting and law enforcement
• The role of mental health diversion programs in reducing mass incarceration and promoting treatment
• The prevalence and impact of wrongful convictions of innocent people and the challenges of exoneration
• The relationship between immigration and crime rates
• The impact of drug courts on drug-related offenses and recidivism rates
• The use of restorative justice practices in the criminal justice system
• The effectiveness of reentry programs for people released from prison
• The use of polygraph tests in criminal investigations and court proceedings
• The impact of bail amounts on pretrial detention and case outcomes
• The relationship between gun ownership and crime rates
• The effectiveness of mental health screening and assessment for individuals involved in the criminal justice system
• The use of virtual courtrooms in criminal proceedings
• The impact of juvenile detention on mental health and future criminal behavior
• The relationship between poverty and crime rates
• The use of eyewitness identification procedures in criminal investigations and court proceedings
• The effectiveness of community service programs as a sentencing alternative
• The role of racial profiling in law enforcement practices
• The use of risk assessment tools in sentencing and parole decisions
• The impact of mandatory reporting laws on child abuse and neglect cases
• The relationship between parental incarceration and children’s wellbeing
• The effectiveness of diversion programs for drug-related offenses
• The use of cognitive-behavioral therapy in offender rehabilitation programs
• The impact of solitary confinement on mental health and recidivism rates
• The relationship between social capital and crime rates
• The use of DNA evidence in criminal investigations and court proceedings
• The effectiveness of crisis response teams in reducing police use of force incidents
• The role of race and ethnicity in jury selection and decision-making
• The impact of court fines and fees on individuals involved in the criminal justice system
• The relationship between education and crime rates
• The use of risk assessment tools in domestic violence cases
• The effectiveness of reentry programs for individuals with substance use disorders
• The impact of court-appointed attorneys on case outcomes and access to justice
• The role of victim impact statements in sentencing decisions
• The use of mental health courts for individuals with co-occurring disorders
• The effectiveness of court-mandated treatment programs for drug offenders
• The impact of gender on the sentencing and treatment of offenders
• The relationship between drug policy and crime rates
• The use of forensic psychology in criminal investigations and court proceedings
• The effectiveness of cognitive interviewing techniques in witness testimony
• The impact of the media on public perceptions of the criminal justice system
• The relationship between neighborhood characteristics and crime rates
• The use of body-worn cameras in police-community interactions
• The effectiveness of reentry programs for individuals with intellectual disabilities
• The impact of mandatory minimum sentences on sentencing disparities
• The role of mental health providers in prisons and jails
• The use of civil asset forfeiture in law enforcement practices
• The effectiveness of diversion programs for individuals with mental illness involved in the criminal justice system
• The impact of police militarization on community trust and police accountability
• The relationship between unemployment and crime rates
• The use of artificial intelligence in identifying and preventing human trafficking
• The effectiveness of reentry programs for individuals with traumatic brain injuries
• The impact of community-based alternatives to policing on public safety and crime rates.
• The impact of the militarization of police on community relations
• The effectiveness of restorative justice practices in reducing recidivism
• The relationship between socioeconomic status and juvenile delinquency
• The impact of police department culture on officer behavior
• The role of community courts in addressing low-level offenses
• The effectiveness of reentry programs for people who were formerly incarcerated
• The impact of body-worn cameras on police officer behavior and community perceptions
• The relationship between mental illness and police use of force
• The use of neuroscience in criminal sentencing
• The effectiveness of gun control policies in reducing gun violence
• The role of alternative dispute resolution in the criminal justice system
• The use of biometrics in criminal investigations
• The effectiveness of gang prevention and intervention programs
• The impact of domestic violence on employment and economic stability
• The use of artificial intelligence in criminal investigations and sentencing
• The role of implicit bias in eyewitness identification
• The use of drug courts in addressing drug addiction and drug-related crimes
• The effectiveness of reentry programs for juvenile offenders
• The impact of social media on crime and victimization
• The relationship between mental health and incarceration of women
• The use of surveillance technologies in correctional facilities
• The effectiveness of victim-offender mediation programs
• The impact of prosecutorial discretion on plea bargaining outcomes
• The role of mental health assessments in competency to stand trial determinations
• The use of biographical information in criminal investigations
• The effectiveness of diversion programs for people with mental illness
• The impact of police body language on community perceptions
• The relationship between criminal justice policies and racial disparities in healthcare
• The use of geospatial analysis in predicting crime patterns
• The effectiveness of community service programs in reducing recidivism
• The impact of court fines and fees on people with low incomes
• The role of neuroscience in detecting deception
• The use of technology in victim advocacy and support services
• The effectiveness of juvenile justice diversion programs for LGBTQ+ youth
• The impact of parental incarceration on children and families
• The relationship between race and juvenile justice system involvement
• The use of facial recognition technology in correctional facilities
• The effectiveness of community-based mental health services in reducing incarceration rates
• The impact of prison labor on employment opportunities for formerly incarcerated people
• The role of community-based restorative justice in addressing hate crimes
• The use of predictive analytics in child welfare investigations
• The effectiveness of alternative sentencing programs for drug-related offenses
• The impact of immigration enforcement policies on crime reporting in immigrant communities
• The relationship between implicit bias and jury decision-making
• The use of technology in improving language access in the criminal justice system.
• The impact of police body language on citizen perceptions and trust
• The effectiveness of police academy training on officer decision-making in high-pressure situations
• The role of technology in the spread of human trafficking
• The relationship between mental health and probation and parole revocation rates
• The use of community courts in addressing quality of life offenses
• The effectiveness of prisoner reentry programs on family reunification and support systems
• The impact of public defender caseloads on the quality of legal representation
• The role of implicit bias in jury selection and decision-making
• The use of diversion programs for juveniles involved in prostitution
• The effectiveness of community supervision programs for offenders with serious mental illness
• The impact of immigration enforcement policies on the criminal justice system
• The relationship between recidivism rates and prison education and vocational programs
• The use of body-worn cameras in prison settings
• The effectiveness of alternative dispute resolution in reducing court congestion
• The impact of prison labor on reentry and recidivism rates
• The role of risk assessment tools in parole and probation decision-making
• The effectiveness of drug courts in addressing substance abuse and recidivism
• The impact of solitary confinement on mental health and behavior in prison
• The relationship between domestic violence and firearm possession
• The use of mental health diversion programs for veterans involved in the criminal justice system
• The effectiveness of juvenile drug court programs on reducing recidivism
• The impact of private prisons on inmate rehabilitation and public safety
• The role of implicit bias in pretrial detention decisions
• The use of GPS monitoring in pretrial release and probation supervision
• The effectiveness of offender education and job training programs in reducing recidivism
• The impact of collateral consequences on reentry and recidivism rates
• The use of crisis intervention teams in responding to mental health emergencies
• The effectiveness of community-based alternatives to detention for juveniles
• The role of public opinion in shaping criminal justice policy
• The effectiveness of police body-worn cameras in reducing police misconduct and excessive use of force
• The impact of incarceration on family dynamics and relationships
• The relationship between access to legal representation and case outcomes
• The use of community supervision and support programs for individuals with substance use disorders
• The impact of pretrial detention on case outcomes and recidivism rates
• The role of prosecutorial discretion in plea bargaining and sentencing
• The use of facial recognition technology in criminal investigations and surveillance
• The effectiveness of problem-solving courts in addressing specialized criminal cases
• The impact of prison privatization on inmate rights and access to services
• The relationship between race, gender, and criminal justice outcomes
• The use of mental health courts in diversion programs
• The effectiveness of community policing strategies in building trust and reducing crime rates
• The impact of police militarization on community perceptions and police-citizen interactions
• The role of forensic evidence in criminal investigations and court proceedings
• The use of artificial intelligence in predicting criminal behavior and recidivism.
• The use of restorative justice in the criminal justice system
• The impact of police militarization on community policing efforts
• The effectiveness of diversion programs for individuals with substance use disorders
• The relationship between economic inequality and crime rates
• The use of artificial intelligence in pretrial risk assessment
• The impact of mandatory minimum sentences on non-violent drug offenses
• The impact of the War on Drugs on communities of color
• The relationship between mental health and probation violations
• The effectiveness of drug courts in reducing recidivism rates
• The role of eyewitness testimony in wrongful convictions
• The use of facial recognition technology in criminal investigations and prosecutions
• The effectiveness of diversion programs for juvenile offenders
• The impact of probation and parole supervision on recidivism rates
• The relationship between police use of force and mental health disorders
• The use of predictive analytics in criminal sentencing
• The effectiveness of reentry programs for individuals with mental illness
• The impact of bail systems on low-income individuals and communities
• The role of implicit bias in sentencing decisions
• The use of social media in criminal investigations
• The impact of mandatory sentencing on judicial discretion
• The relationship between drug addiction and property crime
• The use of predictive analytics in risk assessment for pretrial release
• The effectiveness of substance abuse treatment programs in correctional facilities
• The impact of police body-worn cameras on police-citizen interactions
• The role of forensic evidence in wrongful convictions
• The use of drones in border patrol and immigration enforcement
• The effectiveness of community supervision programs for individuals with mental illness
• The impact of mandatory sentencing on the prison population and corrections costs
• The relationship between gang activity and violent crime
• The use of artificial intelligence in criminal investigations and evidence collection
• The effectiveness of juvenile diversion programs for first-time offenders
• The impact of prosecutorial misconduct on wrongful convictions
• The role of implicit bias in police use of force incidents
• The use of risk assessment tools in pretrial detention decisions for juvenile defendants
• The effectiveness of prison education programs in reducing recidivism rates
• The impact of racial profiling on policing practices and community trust
• The relationship between homelessness and criminal behavior
• The use of predictive analytics in identifying and preventing cybercrime
• The effectiveness of mental health treatment programs for incarcerated individuals
• The impact of the school-to-prison pipeline on students of color
• The role of community-based programs in reducing crime rates and recidivism
• The use of neuroscience in criminal investigations and sentencing decisions
• The effectiveness of diversion programs for individuals with co-occurring disorders
• The impact of solitary confinement on mental health and recidivism rates.
• The effectiveness of diversion programs for offenders with substance use disorders
• The impact of judicial discretion on sentencing outcomes
• The relationship between access to legal representation and sentencing disparities
• The use of body-worn cameras in reducing police misconduct and brutality
• The impact of bail practices on pretrial detention and racial disparities
• The relationship between police unions and police accountability
• The effectiveness of community supervision in reducing recidivism
• The impact of solitary confinement on mental health outcomes for inmates
• The relationship between criminal justice policies and racial wealth inequality
• The use of risk assessment tools in sentencing decisions
• The effectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences in reducing crime rates
• The impact of victim impact statements on sentencing outcomes
• The relationship between criminal justice policies and environmental justice
• The use of unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) in law enforcement
• The effectiveness of juvenile justice diversion programs for at-risk youth
• The impact of police militarization on community relations
• The relationship between immigration enforcement and public safety
• The use of artificial intelligence in predicting recidivism risk
• The effectiveness of police training on de-escalation tactics
• The relationship between the criminal justice system and income inequality
• The use of geographic profiling in criminal investigations
• The effectiveness of mental health courts in reducing incarceration rates
• The impact of mandatory arrest policies on domestic violence victims
• The relationship between criminal justice policies and public health outcomes
• The use of body-worn cameras in reducing false accusations against police officers
• The effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy in reducing domestic violence recidivism
• The impact of race and ethnicity on police use of force during traffic stops
• The use of predictive analytics in parole and probation revocation decisions
• The effectiveness of offender treatment programs for intimate partner violence offenders
• The impact of prison education programs on post-release employment and recidivism
• The relationship between prison labor and modern-day slavery
• The use of predictive modeling to prevent child abuse and neglect
• The effectiveness of community courts in reducing recidivism rates
• The impact of community-based organizations on crime prevention
• The relationship between mental health and substance use disorders in the criminal justice system
• The use of mobile forensic technology in criminal investigations
• The effectiveness of gender-responsive programming in reducing female recidivism rates
• The impact of anti-immigrant sentiment on policing in immigrant communities
• The relationship between police legitimacy and public trust
• The use of data analytics in law enforcement resource allocation
• The effectiveness of reentry programs for people with disabilities
• The impact of police misconduct on wrongful convictions
• The relationship between restorative justice and school discipline
• The use of location tracking technology in the criminal justice system
• The effectiveness of anti-bias training for law enforcement officers
• The impact of drug decriminalization on public safety and health.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

200+ Funny Research Topics

500+ Sports Research Topics

300+ American History Research Paper Topics

500+ Cyber Security Research Topics

500+ Environmental Research Topics

500+ Economics Research Topics

• All Stories
• Journalists
• Expert Advisories
• Media Contacts
• X (Twitter)
• Arts & Culture
• Business & Economy
• Education & Society
• Environment
• Law & Politics
• Science & Technology
• International
• Michigan Minds Podcast
• Michigan Stories
• 2024 Elections
• Artificial Intelligence
• Abortion Access
• Mental Health

New U-M data dashboard sheds new light on US criminal justice system

• Morgan Sherburne

A new data dashboard developed at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research will give an unprecedented look into the effects and outcomes of the U.S. criminal justice system.

The Justice Outcomes Explorer , or JOE, makes millions of statistics available in an accessible, easy-to-navigate format that should bring about a greater understanding of how the U.S. criminal justice system shapes the lives of millions of people throughout the country.

Developed by ISR’s Criminal Justice Administrative Records System, or CJARS, the dashboard leverages billions of lines of raw data from the justice system and blends it with data sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau to produce an unprecedented look at crime statistics and outcomes.

“Our goal was to create a product that meets the needs of a number of different stakeholder audiences,” said CJARS Director Mike Mueller-Smith, U-M assistant professor of economics. “Whether you are an advocate, a policymaker, a researcher, working in the criminal legal system or a directly impacted individual, I think there is something that you can gain and learn from JOE.

The project was born out of a desire to solve a specific problem with data from the American criminal justice system: It’s notoriously hard to access. The sheer volume of data is difficult to manage and privacy restrictions make it a challenge to create a unified picture of what’s happening within the system. But since its inception eight years ago, CJARS has been well-positioned to address this challenge, and after three years of development, JOE is ready to shed new light on the effects of the justice system.

As constructed, the data dashboard will allow users to see aggregate statistics representing interactions between individuals and the justice system, tracking key issues like recidivism and its wide effects, a noteworthy use case for researchers.

The dashboard strives to present a harmonious representation of numerous different data sources, ranging from local jurisdictions to the federal level. The intersection of data is a key feature, according to Keith Finlay, co-founder of CJARS and a research economist at the U.S. Census Bureau.

“The Justice Outcomes Explorer highlights how an ecosystem of administrative records increases the value of any individual dataset,” he said. “By harmonizing data from across the country, the CJARS team has unlocked previously hard-to-access information and made it possible to compare outcomes across agencies. By leveraging the Census Bureau’s Data Linkage Infrastructure, JOE adds further value to CJARS data—enabling an unprecedented look at how the justice system fits into the lives of many Americans.”

The dashboard’s three-year development process included key stakeholders at both CJARS and the U.S. Census Bureau. As the work grew, CJARS partnered with independent web-development firm Hyperobjekt to create and refine the user interface that’s now available for online use. Work on the dashboard was funded by The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Arnold Ventures, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Science Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

It all comes together to make a new data dashboard that ISR Director Kate Cagney calls “groundbreaking.”

“The CJARS Justice Outcomes Explorer is a pioneering platform that sheds light on criminal justice outcomes across the United States,” she said. “This groundbreaking initiative will enable greater evidence-based research and policymaking, giving stakeholders unprecedented access to socioeconomic and recidivism data.”

412 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1399 Email [email protected] Phone 734-764-7260 About Michigan News

• Engaged Michigan
• Global Michigan
• Michigan Medicine
• Public Affairs

Publications

• Michigan Today
• The University Record

Office of the Vice President for Communications © 2024 The Regents of the University of Michigan

To reduce Black-on -Black crime, two criminal justice experts explain why offering monthly stipends to people at risk makes sense

Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Georgia State University

Clinical Instructor of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Georgia State University

Disclosure statement

Thaddeus L. Johnson is a Senior Fellow with the Council on Criminal Justice.

Natasha N. Johnson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

View all partners

After a historic spike in homicides in 2020, murder rates in most U.S. cities appear to be returning to pre-pandemic levels . This drop has sparked some public attention, as demonstrated during a meeting of police chiefs in February 2024 at the White House.

During the meeting, President Joe Biden lauded investments made in law enforcement and community anti-violence initiatives during his administration. In 2023, Biden said, the U.S. “had one of the lowest rates of all violent crime in more than 50 years.”

But the most striking fact about homicide in the U.S. has been largely overlooked during such meetings – Black Americans are murdered at nearly eight times the rate of white Americans.

Young Black men in inner cities are disproportionately affected. They are both the primary victims and perpetrators of gun assaults and homicides.

This grave reality does not mean Black people are inherently violent. Instead, it largely reflects their disproportionate experience of systemic barriers such as poverty and limited access to quality education, good jobs and affordable housing – all factors that research shows contribute to neighborhood violence.

Making matters worse are the high rates of illegal gun possession among young men in urban areas . This behavior is often driven by reasons beyond criminal intent and include distrust of the legal system and the perceived need for self-protection.

More people walking around with weapons raises the risks for minor disputes escalating into deadly encounters. Studies revealing a connection between increased gun carrying and a rise in gun-related fatalities highlight the dangers of ready access to guns.

Limits of tough-on-crime policies

To be clear, keeping Americans safe requires arresting and locking up dangerous offenders. But the problem of street violence transcends punishment strategies that emphasize more police, more enforcement of petty crimes and, ultimately, more incarcerations.

Such traditional, tough-on-crime responses fail to address deeper social issues and unwritten rules like the “ street code ” and the elusive American dream dictating daily life in many inner cities.

This street code discourages police cooperation and glorifies guns and violence as ways to resolve conflicts and gain respect. At the same time, the code encourages intimidation and swift retaliation against perceived threats or insults.

For many people in underserved communities, generational poverty and limited opportunities for upward mobility make crime a viable alternative to a system that seems rigged against them. When people are presented with few legitimate economic prospects, studies show that some turn to crimes such as drug-dealing and theft.

Despite being classified as nonviolent offenses, those involved frequently use violence to establish dominance or settle disagreements.

As scholars of criminal justice – one of us is also a former police officer of 10 years – we have found that one way to reduce crime and its harmful effects on communities is to develop strategies for at-risk individuals that offer a range of mental health and other professional services, including a monthly stipend.

It is no coincidence that young Black males, who are most at risk of gun violence, also have the lowest chance of escaping poverty .

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 54% of Black men born in the poorest households end up in the lowest earnings bracket between the ages of 28 to 35, compared with 22% of white men, 29% of white women and 34% of Black women.

Such grim prospects, along with the relatively small group of offenders driving community violence, highlight the importance of targeted, holistic interventions.

Cash incentives

There is one approach that cities can consider – cash allowances for young Black men at greatest risk of committing gun violence.

Community-based initiatives like Advance Peace , a nonprofit agency focused on anti-gun violence, are addressing the economic pressures behind street violence and demonstrate the potential of providing people with guaranteed payments each month.

Launched in Richmond, California, in 2009, Advance Peace receives its funding from city contracts, federal grants and private donations.

Its programs offer participants as much as US$1,000 monthly for up to nine months. This stipend is conditional on meeting goals intended to steer them away from crime and violence, such as completing educational courses or finding jobs.

To address underlying emotional and behavioral issues, participants are also connected with round-the-clock mentorship by staff counselors for at least 18 months. Other services include cognitive behavioral therapy to help manage aggressive and impulsive tendencies associated with violence.

In addition, gang rivals are paired together during sponsored trips to foster dialogue and humanize one another.

In California cities implementing Advance Peace, such as Richmond, Sacramento and Stockton, shootings decreased from 2018 to 2021, and the overwhelming majority of participants have avoided both gun violence and new arrests.

Research on these California cities shows that neighborhoods with Advance Peace programs saw a 5% to 52% decrease in the number of victims of gun violence in 2021 compared with 2018.

Black men under 35 also were involved in 15% to 42% fewer shootings across the three cities.

Solutions that address root causes

Opponents of the monthly stipend, including former Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones , have criticized the idea of paying people to obey the law as “cash for criminals.” They contend that this approach suggests compliance requires monetary incentives rather than personal accountability. While understandable, we believe these criticisms are misguided.

The objective is not to pay off potential offenders but rather to stabilize tumultuous lives and open avenues for personal and professional growth. It is challenging to develop these initiatives without stigmatizing recipients or creating dependency. But the harsh truth is that we either pay now or pay later.

Besides the loss of life and the trauma caused by gun violence, its massive economic burden extends beyond victims and their families. Recent estimates reveal that the financial toll of gun violence in the U.S. amounts to a staggering $557 billion annually, surpassing the gross domestic products of countries such as South Africa and Denmark.

These costs include immediate and long-term medical bills, legal expenses and lost earnings from victims’ death or disability.

To this point, another analysis found the potential shootings prevented by Advance Peace programs saved cities $67 million to $268 million in associated costs in 2022. But direct payments to participants offer only temporary relief.

To effectively break the cycle of violence, comprehensive efforts are needed to improve access to quality education, jobs, housing, health care and community development in inner cities. Initiatives that address community violence without tackling its underlying causes is akin to treating symptoms while ignoring the root causes of a disease.

Strategically investing in equal opportunities for upward mobility can create a society in which young Black men are less likely to turn to guns for empowerment and self-preservation. We view this investment as a small price to pay for the promise of safer cities.

• Affordable housing
• US education
• Community policing
• US gun violence
• Philanthropy and nonprofits
• Systemic racism
• Urban violence
• Basic income support

Scheduling Analyst

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research ISSN: 2582-8878 | PIF: 6.605 Indexed at Manupatra, Google Scholar, HeinOnline & ROAD

Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research

• 19 hours ago

The Concept Of Fair Trial Procedure In India

Ms. Rita Laha, Amity Law School

Mr. Sandeep Mishra, Faculty, Amity Law School

This research paper conducts a comprehensive examination of the concept of fair trial rights within the context of the Indian criminal justice system. It evaluates the existing legal and constitutional framework, judicial precedents, international obligations, and practical challenges that shape the realization of these fundamental rights.

The paper systematically analyzes the scope and content of fair trial guarantees under the Indian Constitution, criminal statutes, and India's commitments under international human rights treaties. It traces the evolution of fair trial jurisprudence through landmark Supreme Court judgments. However, the paper's primary focus is on identifying and critically assessing the systemic barriers that impede the effective implementation of fair trial rights in practice.

Through an in-depth analysis of empirical evidence, case studies, and academic literature, the paper uncovers the harsh realities confronting India's criminal justice institutions. These include the prevalence of custodial violence, fabrication of evidence, inordinate delays, inadequate legal representation, overburdened courts, arbitrary sentencing practices, and appalling prison conditions. The cumulative impact is a pervasive erosion of fair trial safeguards and public trust in the administration of criminal justice.

Recognizing that ensuring fair trials is a shared responsibility, the paper evaluates the roles of key stakeholders, including the police, prosecution, judiciary, legal profession, and civil society. It highlights the urgent need for systemic reforms aimed at strengthening fair trial guarantees. Key recommendations include enhancing police accountability, securing judicial independence, expanding access to competent legal aid, leveraging technology for greater transparency, and promoting public awareness.

The paper makes an original contribution by adopting a comprehensive approach that integrates legal analysis with empirical insights to provide a nuanced understanding of fair trial challenges in India. It offers a constructive roadmap for legislative reforms, institutional capacity-building, and civic engagement to bridge the gap between the promise of fair trial rights and their actual realization. Ultimately, the paper argues, upholding fair trial standards is essential to vindicate the rule of law, protect human rights, and strengthen India's criminal justice system.

Keywords: Fair Trial Rights, Criminal Justice Reform, Indian Constitution, Human Rights Law, Legal Aid, Judicial Independence, Police Accountability, Prison Reforms, India.

• Volume VI Issue II

Abbreviation : IJLLR

ISSN: 2582-8878

Website: www.ijllr.com

Accessibility: Open Access

License: Creative Commons 4.0

Submit Manuscript: Click here

​All research articles published in The Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research are fully open access. i.e. immediately freely available to read, download and share. Articles are published under the terms of a Creative Commons license which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Disclaimer:

The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors . They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the IJLLR or its members. The designations employed in this publication and the presentation of material therein do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the IJLLR.