Criminological Highlights Vol. 22, No. 1 - January 2025

This issue of  Criminological Highlights addresses the following questions:

Item 1

Risk assessments are used in Canadian prisons to help determine a prisoner’s security level for housing purposes, as well as whether they should be released on parole. However, these assessments “leave Black and Indigenous Canadian [prisoners] worse off than their white counterparts…” (p. 1).

Federal prisoners in Canada (those serving sentences of two years or more) are required to complete a number of actuarial risk assessments at intake into prison. These statistical techniques are used to predict how likely a prisoner is to engage in “risky” behaviour that, in turn, affects a prisoner’s assigned security level in prison (minimum, medium or maximum) and whether they should be released on parole. Many criticisms of risk assessments have been made in the past (e.g., whether the individual items predict equally for all groups of prisoners). One critique is that the factors they measure – such as past employment, drug use, and victimization – are not solely the result of individual decisions but rather reflect social and political policies. If, for example, a Black or Indigenous prisoner has a less favourable work history than a white prisoner, or has friends who have been imprisoned, etc., the actuarial measure implicitly assumes that these differences are due to differences in the individuals rather than systemic inequalities present in the communities in which they once lived. Similarly, “Black and Indigenous people in Canada… are disproportionately targeted by the police and are more likely to be arrested for out-of-sight offences” (p. 5). Hence at least a portion of a prisoner’s past criminal-legal involvement is due to the treatment they’ve received from society rather than their own individual behaviour.

This paper analyzes data on all Canadian federal prisoners between 2011 and 2018 in order to examine racial and gender differences in risk assessment scores as well as outcomes in assigned security-level and parole. “Overall, the results show that Indigenous men and women score higher on both static risk and dynamic needs compared to Black and white men and women” (p. 10). Not surprisingly, “Indigenous and Black people are more likely to receive higher offender security level scores than their white counterparts” (p. 10). On a number of other measures, the patterns for women differed from those for men. The paper describes these findings in detail and demonstrates the importance of these differences to the lives of the prisoners.

Recommendations by correctional officers for parole and actual parole decisions are obviously not completely determined by actuarial measures (such as reintegration potential) or the prisoner’s security level. The researchers examined whether prisoners, once they were eligible for parole, were indeed released on parole and whether the variation that exists on this decision is related to race. In these analyses, they typically controlled for Corrections’ “reintegration potential score” and age. Among prisoners scored as medium or good candidates for reintegration, Black and Indigenous men were significantly less likely to be on parole once they were eligible compared to their white counterparts.

Conclusion: This paper finds “important racial and gender disparities in risk assessment scores assigned to federally incarcerated individuals in Canada and evidence of racial bias in how those scores affect the decisions made by carceral personnel” (p. 17). Risk assessments that are used to determine a prisoner’s institutional security level reflect, in part, differences in the social situations in which people lived prior to being convicted. In other words, these measures reflect Canadian society’s differential treatment of Black and Indigenous peoples in addition to differences over which the individual prisoner had control. Furthermore, “reintegration potential scores capture most of the information that should inform parole decisions and, once taken into account, there should be little [systematic] variation by race. However, the data show that among men who receive the least restrictive reintegration scores, Black and Indigenous men are 11 percentage points less likely to be on parole, once eligible, compared to white men” (p. 21). Overall, the findings suggest that the effects of differential treatment by race and gender in our communities are replicated and extended in Canada’s penitentiary system such that critical decisions, like release on parole, are affected by race and gender even when reintegration potential and age are held constant.

Reference: O’Connell, Siobhan and Ayobami Laniyonu (2025). Race, Gender, and Risk Assessments in Canadian Federal Prison. Race and Justice (in press).

Item 2

Prisoners who were released into US counties that had experienced a rapid improvement in their economic circumstances were less likely to reoffend than those whose post-release destination, after imprisonment, was economically stable.

Previous research has shown that prisoners released into communities with large numbers of new construction and/or manufacturing jobs were less likely to reoffend (Criminological Highlights 17(3)#7).  This study examines a similar phenomenon: the impact of being released into a community that has experienced a substantial and rapid increase in its economic health.

After release from prison, most people return to their home communities. These communities vary in the availability of jobs and other economic supports.  This study examined the impact on former prisoners’ reoffending of a recent economic boom in the community they return to. The economic boom, in this study, is the opening of new oil/gas wells using the controversial technique known as fracking. Independent of its environmental effects, the impact of new fracking on employment in the community is measurable: new jobs are created (largely filled by unskilled young men) and the overall economic condition of the community is improved. The result of the in-migration of large numbers of people who, traditionally, are most likely to commit crime is predictable: there is an increase in reported crime.

Quite separate from this increase, however, is the impact of those who are released from prison and who, typically, return to their communities, some of which have experienced economic booms from fracking. This paper uses two sources of data to understand this impact. First of all, the US National Corrections Reporting Program tracks prisoners released from 43 state correctional systems. It tracks all returns to custody (in the same state). If the former prisoner reoffends, it records the county in which the offence took place. Various standard measures on each released prisoner (race, age, offence, time served, etc.) were used as control variables. The total value of natural gas and oil from new (fracking) wells in each county (for each year) was also obtained.

More than 2.5 million prisoners released from state institutions into 2653 counties were tracked between 2006 and 2014 to see if they reoffended within 12 months of release. About 11% of these prisoners returned to prison within one year. Offenders were divided into two groups: those under age 35 – a group who was most likely, normally, to be criminally active – and those age 35 or older. For younger prisoners who returned to a county that had experienced an economic boom equivalent to an increase of 10 million dollars in oil and gas production per 1000 people in the county there was a reduction in reoffending of about 4.1%. For older prisoners, the impact of the economic boom was not significant.

The effect is not likely to be a result of choices made by people being released from prisons because similar effects were found when only those on some form of “conditional release” were examined. This group (in contrast to those released without conditions) typically had requirements to return to a particular county. The findings were similar when analyses were repeated that examined reoffending in the second and third year after release.

Conclusion: The sudden economic boom experienced in some counties reduced recidivism by younger (under age 35) people returning to a booming community from prison. Increased wages and increased job availability are likely responsible for at least part of the decrease in reoffending. More generally, however, the findings might be seen as a reminder that community characteristics – job availability and general economic conditions – are important factors in determining whether a person is likely to be involved in crime.

Reference: Eren, Ozkan and Emily Owens (2024). Economic Booms and Recidivism. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 40, 343-372.

Item 3

Increasing the number of Black police officers in communities with Black residents reduces the amount of aggressive policing carried out by both White and Black police officers.

Increased diversity of police officers in the US has been shown to be associated with fewer officer-involved killings of Black Americans, less overall police misconduct, and fewer complaints against the police by Black civilians. This paper takes these findings one step further and examines the impact of police diversity on police stops of civilians.

Police stops can be seen as a direct measure of police officer discretion in their interactions with civilians. However, diversification of police services does not invariably lead to change in the way in which discretion is exercised, in part because “Police departments mold and change the beliefs over time of the officers they hire” (p. 460). It may well be, therefore, that it is not the overall diversity of police services that is important but rather the “unit level diversity” – the diversity of police officers at the level of local policing shifts.

The focus of this study is on police stops. Under US law, “Officers may stop anyone and briefly detain them as long as an officer could… [explain] why they stopped the individual” (p. 464). Hence, more than arrests or use of force, police stops can be seen as being a direct measure of police discretion while they are on patrol.

Using Chicago, Illinois. records, the study looks at police officers’ assignments to police units for 36 months (2013-2015). The unit of analysis is the individual shift, defined in terms of time (3 shifts per day), date, and place (the patrol area). The number of police stops of Black civilians per month in each unit, then, was the main dependent variable.  The independent variables were the percent of the police unit that was Black and the racial congruence of the police unit with the area being patrolled. Control variables included crime rates in the area, the number of officers, the officers’ average years of policing experience, and the size of the local Black population. Not surprisingly, Black police officers are generally under-represented compared to the proportion of Black residents in Chicago.

Police units whose racial makeup was more in line with the neighbourhood they were policing were less likely to stop Black civilians. Similarly, an increase in the percent of the police unit that was Black was associated with a reduction in the stopping of Black civilians.

Looking at individual decisions, “Black and Hispanic officers tend to make fewer stops [of Black civilians] and more experienced officers make fewer stops of Black civilians” (p. 475). More interesting is the finding that the more Black officers there were on a shift, the greater the reduction in the expected number of stops of Black civilians by all officers. And, when looking at the behaviour of White officers, the larger the number of Black or Hispanic officers on a shift, the lower the number of stops of Black civilians.  Having more White officers on a shift was associated with an increase in the expected number of stops of Black civilians. 

Conclusion: The findings show that “the number of stops of Black civilians declines as a police unit becomes more diverse or representative of the community it serves” (p. 480).  The findings show that the decisions to stop Black civilians by both Black and White police officers are affected by the racial makeup of the police unit. “A more diverse and representative police force could better deliver on its potential to lower aggressive policing of minority communities….” (p. 483)

Reference: Risi, Joseph and Corina Graif (2024). Community Representation and Policing: Effects on Black Civilians. Criminology, 62, 454-502.

Item 4

Police training can ensure that community residents are treated more fairly and respectfully. It also can increase the likelihood that arrests of citizens are more selective.  To accomplish these changes, however, the training must be intensive.

It is not controversial to suggest that police officers should provide fair and respectful treatment of citizens in the area they are patrolling. This paper examines the impact of a training program for police that explicitly focused on these goals.  

In three US cities, high crime areas were identified. These neighbourhoods were then assigned at random to one of two conditions: areas which were policed primarily by officers who had received special procedural justice training and areas that received standard policing. The procedural justice training emphasized the importance of providing fair and respectful treatment to citizens. A number of police officers in each city were chosen as participants in the study. Then pairs of officers were identified with the same race, gender, and experience as police officers. One of these officers was then randomly assigned to the procedural justice (PJ) training condition. The other officer (the “standard condition” or SC officer) got no special training. The PJ training was 40 hours long and took place over a 5-day period. About half of the routine policing in the chosen high crime areas came from the officers in this experiment.

A variety of different outcomes were examined. Systematic observation of routine police patrols by research personnel who accompanied the PJ and SC officers on a total of 129 shifts was carried out. In addition, reported crime and arrests were examined. Door-to-door surveys (or telephone surveys after COVID-19 hit) were carried out before and after the implementation of the experiment. A total of 667 residents (roughly half of whom had been policed by PJ and half by SC police officers) were surveyed.

In the interactions witnessed by the researchers, the willingness of the officer to listen to the citizen, the degree of neutrality shown by the officer, the showing of dignity and respect/disrespect to the citizen, and a judgment about the officer’s motives were assessed by the researchers. Overall (and on four of the five individual measures), the PJ officers showed significantly more procedurally just behaviour toward the citizens. This observational finding is consistent with the community survey data showing that people living in the standard treatment neighbourhoods were significantly more likely than people living in the areas policed by PJ-trained officers “to see police officers as harassing people on their block and using more force than they thought to be necessary” (p. 4).

Compared to the change in crime rate for the areas policed by SC officers, areas receiving police services from PJ officers had slightly lower crime rates after the period of implementation. PJ officers were less likely to use arrest than SC officers.

Conclusion: The findings suggest that police interactions with citizens in high-crime areas of a city can be improved through intensive police training in procedural justice. However, in this study, only a portion of the officers in each of the three cities received the special training on procedural justice. Furthermore, the 5-day (40-hour) training program was clearly intensive, including role-playing exercises in which police officers got to practice applying procedural justice in interactions with others. A follow-up “refresher” session was also provided.  Furthermore, officers were given explicit training on working with diverse populations and those with behavioural health problems. Hence this was not just a “training” module placed in an initial training package. The intensity of the training may have communicated the values that were expected to govern interactions with citizens. Clearly, however, the findings demonstrate that change is possible if that change receives serious organizational support.

Reference: Weisburd, David, Cody W. Telep, Heather Vovak, Taryn Zastrow, Anthony A. Braga, & Brandon Tuchan (2022). Reforming the Police Through Procedural Justice Training: A Multicity Randomized Trial at Crime Hot Spots. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(14), 1-6.



Item 5

Prosecutorial charging decisions are based not only on the facts of the case. Prosecutors appear to start their examination of a case by deciding what outcome they desire. They do this by “weaving together legal and extralegal factors, often relying heavily on criminal history, to evaluate defendants’ moral character” (p. 452).

This paper looks at how prosecutors in three mid-sized jurisdictions in the US apply the written law. Courts have made it clear that as long as there is reasonable cause to believe that the accused has committed an offence, the prosecutor has the power to decide what charges to pursue or whether to decline to prosecute.

The findings from this investigation suggest that prosecutorial charging decisions usually start with an examination of the facts of the offence. After determining the nature of the offence, prosecutors often consider the “character” (broadly defined) of the accused. They then decide what they think the desired outcome of the case should be. This decision is based not only on the details of the crime, but also the character of the accused. This desired outcome then helps determine the charges that will be pursued and whether to accept a plea arrangement. This process is constrained by the priorities of the (local) chief prosecutor as well as the court community (e.g., the police). There was some variability across offices in the amount of discretion that prosecutors felt that they had.

Defendant blameworthiness – which under this model is a crucial determinant of the outcome of the case – “may draw on racial and ethnic stereotypes in evaluating blameworthiness and dangerousness” (p. 454) as well as the criminal history of the defendant. In other words, the defendant’s character and criminal history may be important not only in terms of sentencing (where these factors typically come into play), but also in how the case is prosecuted.

These conclusions were drawn from interviews with 47 prosecutors and 15 focus groups (each with 3-5 prosecutors) that were carried out in three mid-sized jurisdictions in the US. The findings show that “Even at the earliest stages of charging, prosecutors had a downstream orientation toward the eventual outcome of the case…. Thus, rather than charging based strictly on the governing law, they charge with an end in mind…” (p. 459). They start by creating an understanding of “the type of person the defendant was… often drawing heavily on the defendant’s criminal history” (p. 459). The goal was to understand the defendant’s character. The nature and severity of the crime, then, was interpreted in the context of the prosecutor’s assessment of the accused. There was some evidence that “While newer prosecutors tended to be focused on the elements of the offence, experience generally moved prosecutors away from strict application of the law to a more contextualized decision-making process where they were able to charge with an end in mind” (p. 466). 

“In selecting a charge, prosecutors subjectively categorize defendants into either being inherently ‘bad guys’ or someone with a fixable problem…. This process is vulnerable to bias and may contribute to less favourable outcomes for Black and Hispanic defendants who may be more likely to be seen as violent or dangerous rather than deserving of help and support…. Stereotypes linking young, Black or Hispanic, and male individuals with notions of dangerousness and threat may inadvertently fill in the gaps in prosecutors’ assessments of defendants’ character” (p. 472).

Conclusion: “Prosecutors charged with an end in mind…. [They] determined that ‘end’ through a process of defendant character construction… The purpose of charging was to set the groundwork for getting a final disposition that fits, not just the crime, but the defendant” (p. 471). This interpretation, however, was related to the prosecutors’ own identities and professional experiences. Decisions were also affected by the priorities of their office and the local court community.

Reference: Bowman, Rachel, Belén Lowrey-Kinberg & Jon Gould (2024). An Integrated Model of Prosecutor Decision-Making. Law & Society Review, 58, 452-480.

Item 6

“Substantial potential exists for policies to generate deterrence [of crime] effects” (p. 7), but at present the empirical foundation for deterrence theory and deterrence-based policy effectiveness in the criminal justice system is weak.

This paper explores the “limits and possibilities of effective deterrence-based criminal justice policy” (p. 1). Deterrence, especially in sentencing, is central to the views of many political leaders even though empirical evidence shows that harsher sentences do not deter (see Criminological Highlights “special issue” Issues Related to Harsh Sentences  on our website).

This paper suggests that deterrence should be thought of as being more complicated than simply increasing the certainty or severity of punishment. A very important limitation on the notion that “more” (certainty, severity, and speed of punishment) makes a difference is that these factors may interact in important ways.  Changes in severity, for example, will likely not have any impact if certainty of apprehension is very low. More generally, if changes are made in one of these three factors, the results are likely to be specific to the levels of the other two factors. Similarly, we often fail to distinguish between objective conditions and perceptions of punishment. One cannot assume that objective increases in severity or certainty of punishment will translate into changes in perceptions of these factors by ordinary people or by those contemplating offending. Similarly, changes in severity or certainty are very likely to be affected by the original level of each of these variables: the effect of a change is likely to depend, at least in part, on the level before the change.

“Contemporary deterrence-based policies are not likely to be effective because they ignore almost all of [the subtleties and interactive aspects] of deterrence and target only punishment. They prioritize greater severity of punishment… and ignore the three-way interaction of certainty, severity, and celerity, and assume that levels of each have no relevance for effects of levels of other factors” (p. 5). “The likelihood that policies that ignore all these parts and focus on only one will or can be effective is vanishingly small” (p. 5). This superficial analysis may explain, in part, “why empirical research has found little consistent or strong evidence of the effectiveness of deterrence-based policies” (p. 6).

Strategies that simultaneously target the costs and rewards of crime while also examining the costs and rewards of non-criminal alternatives may be necessary. Similarly, focusing on certainty when severity is already moderate-to-high may be more effective than policies that focus on severity when certainty (or perceived certainty) is low.

In sum, it would appear there are good reasons that deterrence-based policies are less effective than simplistic accounts would suggest. At the same time, “substantial potential exists for policies to generate deterrent effects, but the policies must take into account the complexity of deterrence. For example…. [p]olicies that change punishment in some way and communicate the change effectively may have a greater likelihood of deterring crime than those that do not” (p. 7). Similarly, policies that target certainty are likely to be more effective in areas with low baseline levels of punishment certainty rather than targeting offences where the certainty is already quite high. Finally, “deterrence-based policy is more likely to be effective when it recognizes that a given strategy will not necessarily have a uniform effect” (p. 8).

Conclusion: “Deterrence-based policies always occur within a context in which alternative approaches to crime prevention already occur or are possible…. Efforts to align these policies in complementary ways may be more effective than ignoring the fact that each exists. An evidence-based approach to crime prevention would be one that considers all the potential policy options that exist…. and implementing each in the degree to which it is feasible to do within a given context” (p. 8). Realizing that deterrence is not a simple unidimensional construct, therefore, may help rehabilitate the relevance of deterrence for controlling crime.

Mears, Daniel P. and Mark C. Stafford (2024). A Theoretical Critique of Deterrence-Based Policy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 95, 1-9.

Item 7



The goal of getting a detained client released on bail can easily lead defence lawyers and their clients to accept unreasonable bail conditions that may set the accused person up to fail.

For the accused person and their lawyer, success at bail hearings is defined as getting the accused released. The conditions that the accused person must obey while in the community are seen as being of secondary importance. Although the Supreme Court of Canada has made it clear that it is the responsibility of the court to ensure that “bail provisions are applied consistently and fairly,” the strong preference of the accused – and their lawyer – is to present the court with an agreement to release the accused. The conditions of that release are seen as of secondary importance. 

Most cases are resolved as a result of discussions between the Crown and the defence prior to a court appearance. The Supreme Court of Canada has emphasized the importance of using the least onerous conditions possible. It has also made it clear that any form of release more intrusive than a release of the accused on their own recognizance must be justified. However, courts seldom are placed in a position where they have to examine the true meaning of the details of release conditions because they are presented as an agreement between the Crown and the accused. There are good reasons why accused people do not challenge conditions of release when these are offered. In the first place, doing so is almost certain to require the case to be adjourned to a later date. The accused can avoid delay by agreeing to release conditions that the Crown proposes. Second, a challenge could result in the accused being detained.

In this study defence lawyers who have recently represented accused people at bail hearings were interviewed about the bail process. Three broad themes emerged from these discussions. Although preparation and negotiations with Crown attorneys were not described by them as being complex, they were often described as being hectic and disorganized. If the case were to be decided in court, the Crown would, in theory in most cases, have to justify any conditions that were requested. Unless an outcome was successfully negotiated between the Crown and the defence, the Crown would typically argue for detention before trial. In light of the fact that “the client’s overwhelming desire [is] to avoid additional pretrial detention,” (p. 54), defence counsel reported that “Clients end up agreeing to [onerous] conditions [that the Crown suggests as part of a] proposed consent release” (p. 54). As one defence counsel put it, “The Crown can pick whatever terms they want… If they say it, and we agree to it, then that’s what it’s going to be. You’re almost never going to opt for a contested bail hearing to challenge a condition or two” (p. 56). “Arguing matters before a justice [comes with] an uncertain outcome compared with securing a [release based on] a joint submission” (p. 56). Another theme that emerged was that justices vary, and if the defence knew that the justice might by sympathetic to the case, they might be willing to suggest a hearing. On the other hand, defence counsel suggested that “certain justices make unreasonable bail decisions” (p. 59) and are to be avoided.

Conclusion: Defence counsel are risk averse not only in terms of acting in a manner consistent with their client’s desire for release, but they will sometimes accept conditions “they know their client is unlikely to be able to follow” simply to avoid the possibility of detention before trial. “Bail at all costs is the overwhelming priority” (p. 61). Hence “Counting on defence counsel alone to resist onerous bail conditions is unlikely to bring bail practices into conformity with the law on bail…. Defence lawyers are not as incentivized to push against the conditions [of release] as the formal adversarial model would suggest. Instead, they adopt strategies that make onerous conditions more likely” (p. 62).

Reference: Nixon, Jenaya, Carolyn Yule, and Dennis Baker. Reasonable Bail or Bail at All Costs? (2024). Defence Counsel Perspectives on a Coercive Environment. Canadian Journal of Law & Society, 39, 44-64.

Item 8

Pretrial detention is typically justified as a procedure to ensure that the accused person appears in court as required and does not commit offences. Its stated purpose is not to punish the accused, since a finding of guilt has, by definition, not been made. This paper finds that pretrial detention is experienced as being just as punitive as incarceration in a jail or prison.

In the US, 65% of those incarcerated in local jails are in pretrial detention. In Canada, 72% of those in provincial/territorial prisons, and 46% of those in any Canadian prison (federal and provincial/territorial) are in pretrial detention. Previous research (e.g., see Criminological Highlights 17(6)#1) has demonstrated that pretrial detention is quite clearly part of the justice system’s punishment process. This paper takes these findings one step further by comparing the experience of pretrial detention to the experiences of those serving sentences.

“Pretrial detention is linked to long-term harms for people that are similar to the established harms of legal punishment” (p. 792). These punishments include family disruption, loss of employment, financial stress, and worsened health. Furthermore, “the consequences of pretrial detention are racially and ethnically disparate” (p. 792-3). These harmful effects are, of course, similar to those that might be expected from post-conviction imprisonment. Hence the question that should be asked is not whether pretrial detention is punishing, but rather how the degree of punishment might differ between pre- and post-conviction imprisonment. This study provided an answer to this question by comparing prisoners’ experiences with pretrial detention to prisoners’ experiences with post-conviction imprisonment on four dimensions: the experience of security, victimization, perceptions of legitimacy of correctional staff, and social support.

Data were used from the (US) National Inmate Survey (2011-12) which sampled prisons and jails across the country. A sample of prisoners within each chosen institution was interviewed. For this study, prisoners in pretrial detention were matched (on a number of dimensions) with prisoners serving sentences in (state) prisons or local jails. The variables on which they were matched included such factors as time in the institution, offence type, and prior arrests, as well as personal characteristics (e.g., whether they suffered a mental illness, whether they were married, and their race and age). The matching process was designed to ensure that any differences that might be found could not be attributed to background characteristics of the pre- vs. post-conviction samples.

Looking first at the comparison of people who were in jail on pretrial detention and those serving sentences in jails, it was clear “that many aspects of jail life are similar irrespective of conviction status” (p. 803). There were differences in only two out of 19 comparisons that were made: those in pretrial detention were more likely to report the presence of gangs and less likely to report that staff made them feel safe and secure. Said differently, the pre- and post-conviction prisoners in jails experienced very similar degrees of punishment.

When comparing pre-trial detention prisoners (who were in jail) with post-conviction prisoners in state prisons, the findings show that on 5 of 11 measures of institutional social order and victimization, those in pretrial detention reported more disorder and victimization. On some dimensions (e.g., whether staff protected them, contact with outside people), those in pretrial detention gave more favourable reports than did those serving sentences.

Conclusion: In general, “individuals in pretrial detention reported similar perceptions and experiences as individuals serving a sentence in jail…. Individuals in jail who are not convicted of an offence… are generally not simply being held; they are experiencing pains and conditions that look much like punishment” (p. 805). Clearly there were some differences between those in jail vs. those in state prisons. However, no matter how one looks at the data, it is clear that “pretrial detention exposes people to some of the most consequential pains of imprisonment” (p. 807) that are not reliably different from the experiences of those serving sentences in jails or prisons.

Reference: Anderson, Claudia N., Joshua C. Cochran & Andrea N. Montes (2024). How Punitive is Pretrial? Measuring the Relative Pains of Pretrial Detention. Punishment & Society, 26(5), 790-812.

This issue of Criminological Highlights was prepared by Anthony Doob, Rosemary Gartner, Maria Jung, Tyler King, Jihyun Kwon, Jane Sprott, and Danielle Van Wagner