Measures for Justice

Last updated
Measures for Justice
TypeCriminal justice data transparency nonprofit organization, 501(c)(3)
Founded2011 (2011), Rochester
Headquarters421 University Avenue, Rochester, New York, 14607, United States
Area served
United States of America
Key people
RevenueIncrease2.svg $4,305,451 (2016) [1]
Increase2.svg $1,744,454 (2016) [1]
Website measuresforjustice.org

Measures for Justice is a United States, 501(c)(3), nonprofit organization designed to gather data from every county in the USA on the criminal justice system and to run that data through a series of standardized performance metrics. Their aim is to foster more data-driven decision-making based on the performance and differences among counties. By the end of 2020, Measures for Justice had gathered data for 20 states. The data are publicly accessible on a user-friendly web portal.

Contents

Purpose

Measures for Justice (MFJ)'s primary goal is to provide a US-wide open database on all counties' (c.3100) justice systems and processes. By standardizing the same core metrics across all counties it seeks to enable a like-for-like comparison for data that are frequently difficult to access and compare. [2] By determining both negative, positive, and anomalous trends in system performance, MFJ aims to allow various groups in the justice system (district attorneys, public defenders, judges, legislators, etc.) to make more informed solutions. [3]

History

In 2010, Amy Bach published her book Ordinary Injustice: How America Holds Court, highlighting both systemic problems in the pursuit of justice and the dearth of information about how the system operates, with a lack of awareness both outside and within the systems. [2] [4]

In 2011 MFJ was founded as a non-profit by Bach with a seed-stage grant from Echoing Green and MFJ researched and drafted the initial standardized metrics to be used. [5]

In 2013, the Department of Justice funded a pilot study in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. After initial verification that the process worked the pilot remit was expanded to cover all 72 counties in Wisconsin. [5]

2015 was the primary growth year, with a $3 million grant from the Pershing Square Foundation allowing immediate expansion into 5 other states: Washington, Utah, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Florida, with roughly 370 counties' data gathered. [2] [5] The initial alpha prototype of the visualization software was created and door to door verification of key otherwise-unobtainable data was begun. The "20 states by 2020" campaign was commenced in 2016, primarily funded by Google ($1.5 million) and Chan Zuckerberg Initiative ($6.5 million), [2] and the goal of 20 states was reached in December 2020.

In 2021, MFJ launched Commons, [6] a data dashboard to provide ongoing, open access to specific counties' criminal justice data.

Methodology

Status of Measures for Justice data gathering operation MfJ Data Status 2.png
Status of Measures for Justice data gathering operation

Data acquisition and impact


The organization's data acquisition process begins with collecting data from U.S. statewide court datasets; often, these populate the majority of the measures. MFJ may also approach local agencies (prosecutors' offices, sheriffs' offices, public defenders' offices, etc.) to acquire supplemental data; this is done in writing or in person, via pairs of MFJ researchers who travel the states county by county.

After meeting with Measures for Justice to talk about criminal justice data, [7] in 2018 Florida lawmakers passed laws requiring "its jails, prosecutors, public defenders, courts and prisons to coordinate their data collection, enabling lawmakers and the public to track how someone moves through the entire criminal justice system, from arrest to release." [8] In 2019 Connecticut passed a law requiring standardized recording of prosecutorial data. [9] [10]


Data analysis

In order to help align data using different titles for the same concepts, or different definitions for the same words, automated character tracking is used on the various data sets to enable harmonizing. [2]

This, coupled with more conventional deep dives, allows equivalent data to be extracted. This is then mapped against census data to provide contextual analysis.

Comparative analysis is undertaken both intra-state, to provide information on how a county is doing compared to its counterparts; and inter-state, to allow a more countrywide analysis. Each data sample is designed for filtering, to allow a finer-grain analysis to provide the "in which circumstances does county X do well or poorly". [2] [11]

Presentation of data

Data is presented in a user-navigable data portal, allowing selections of both criteria, geographical spread and appearance to allow customizable consideration. The metrics can either be considered in bar graph format or in map form (state-wide or nation-wide) to allow better geographical comparison. The data can also be filtered by various demographics and the base figures downloaded, with explanations provided for why each metric is important. [11]

Key discoveries and changes

Bail-granting - individuals unable to make a low bail were being kept in jail on weekends/holidays in Winnebago county as a prosecutor was needed for a probable cause session with a judge, and prosecutors were only present on weekdays. Once at that session, the bail was usually being totally waived by the judge. County officials used the data to realize that scrapping the need for the prosecutor at a session would lead to savings with no actual change in the ultimate bail result - enabling shorter stays in jail, and thus lower costs for the county and negatives for the accused. [12]

MFJ found that the absence of clearcut data was leading to the scarce data being interpreted in different ways, such as during California's consideration of whether to scrap cash bail. Reform and opposition groups clashed as to the apparent cost for its abolition and significant numbers of reformers dropped their support for the scheme due to fears it would actually increase the numbers in prison. [13]

A prosecutor in Wisconsin identified that white defendants were being moved into drug rehabilitation diversion programs 1.8 times as frequently as non-white defendants. This had been identified before, however by use of the gathered data, he was able to identify that all defendants were equally likely to be offered the program. The difference was being caused in a lower take-up rate. This allows effort to be targeting at pushing the benefits of the schemes to defendants, rather than at the judges and lawyers for racial discrimination. [2]

On a more positive note, it was able to confirm to certain counties that efforts to reduce racial disparity in charge/no-charge decisions were succeeding, particularly in comparison to statewide performance. [3]

Controversies

While the MFJ's goals have generally been agreed with, there have been a couple of primary issues, either with MFJ's implementation or with how the data can come into being.

In Florida there were initially issues with compliance costs for handling the new reporting requirements. A significant initial outlay of costs and time is required for compliance, distracting resources from other goals. [8] In the 2019 legislative session, Florida lawmakers passed an amendment that appropriated an additional $5.7 million for the criminal justice transparency initiative. [7]

Some, including MFJ advocates, have argued that MFJ's data dives can't provide a full picture because they don't seek out any data on either police behavior or on what happens before the initial arrest of an individual. [2]

Related Research Articles

Arraignment Formal reading of the offence toward a criminal defendant

Arraignment is a formal reading of a criminal charging document in the presence of the defendant, to inform them of the charges against them. In response to arraignment, the accused is expected to enter a plea. Acceptable pleas vary among jurisdictions, but they generally include "guilty", "not guilty", and the peremptory pleas setting out reasons why a trial cannot proceed. Pleas of "nolo contendere" and the "Alfordplea" are allowed in some circumstances.

Within some criminal justice systems, a preliminary hearing, preliminary examination, preliminary inquiry, evidentiary hearing or probable cause hearing is a proceeding, after a criminal complaint has been filed by the prosecutor, to determine whether there is enough evidence to require a trial. At such a hearing, the defendant may be assisted by a lawyer.

A plea bargain is an agreement in criminal law proceedings, whereby the prosecutor provides a concession to the defendant in exchange for a plea of guilt or nolo contendere. This may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to a less serious charge, or to one of the several charges, in return for the dismissal of other charges; or it may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to the original criminal charge in return for a more lenient sentence.

Bail is a set of pre-trial restrictions that are imposed on a suspect to ensure that they will not hamper the judicial process. Bail is the conditional release of a defendant with the promise to appear in court when required. In some countries, especially the United States, bail usually implies a bail bond, a deposit of money or some form of property to the court by the suspect in return for the release from pre-trial detention. If the suspect does not return to court, the bail is forfeited and the suspect may possibly be brought up on charges of the crime of failure to appear. If the suspect returns to make all their required appearances, bail is returned after the trial is concluded.

Bounty hunter Person who catches fugitives for a monetary reward

A bounty hunter is a private agent working for bail bonds who captures fugitives or criminals for a commission or bounty. The occupation, officially known as bail enforcement agent, or fugitive recovery agent, has traditionally operated outside the legal constraints that govern police officers and other agents of the state. This is because a bail agreement between a defendant and a bail bondsman is essentially a civil contract that is incumbent upon the bondsman to enforce. As a result, bounty hunters hired by a bail bondsman enjoy significant legal privileges, such as forcibly entering a defendant's home without probable cause or a search warrant; however, since they are not police officers, bounty hunters are legally exposed to liabilities that normally exempt agents of the state—as these immunities enable police to perform their designated functions effectively without fear—and everyday citizens approached by a bounty hunter are neither required to answer their questions nor allowed to be detained. Bounty hunters are typically independent contractors paid a commission of the total bail amount that is owed by the fugitive; they provide their own PLI and only get paid if they are able to find the "skip" and bring them in.

Justice of the peace Judicial officer elected or appointed to keep the peace and perform minor civic jobs

A justice of the peace (JP) is a judicial officer of a lower or puisne court, elected or appointed by means of a commission to keep the peace. In past centuries the term commissioner of the peace was often used with the same meaning. Depending on the jurisdiction, such justices dispense summary justice or merely deal with local administrative applications in common law jurisdictions. Justices of the peace are appointed or elected from the citizens of the jurisdiction in which they serve, and are usually not required to have any formal legal education in order to qualify for the office. Some jurisdictions have varying forms of training for JPs.

Crown Prosecution Service

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is the principal public agency for conducting criminal prosecutions in England and Wales. It is headed by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Bail bondsman Agent that secures an individuals release in court

A bail bondsman, bail bond agent or bond dealer is any person, agency or corporation that will act as a surety and pledge money or property as bail for the appearance of a defendant in court.

The Criminal Court of the City of New York is a court of the State Unified Court System in New York City that handles misdemeanors and lesser offenses, and also conducts arraignments and preliminary hearings in felony cases.

Magistrates court (England and Wales) Lower court in the criminal legal system of England and Wales

In England and Wales, a magistrates' court is a lower court which hears cases of summary offences and preliminary hearings for more serious ones. Some civil law matters are also decided here, notably family proceedings. In 2015, there were roughly 330 magistrates' courts in England and Wales, though the government was considering closing up to 57 of these. The jurisdiction of magistrates' courts and rules governing them are set out in the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

Criminal Justice Act 2003 United Kingdom legislation

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is a wide-ranging measure introduced to modernise many areas of the criminal justice system in England and Wales and, to a lesser extent, in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

A presentence investigation report (PSIR) is a legal document that presents the findings an investigation into the "legal and social background" of a person convicted of a crime before sentencing to determine if there are extenuating circumstances which should influence the severity or leniency of a criminal sentence. The PSIR is a "critical" document prepared by a probation officer via a system of point allocation, so that it may serve as a charging document and exhibit for proving criminal conduct. The PSIR system is widely implemented today.

Remand (detention) Detention after arrest and charge until a trial

Remand, also known as pre-trial detention, preventive detention, or provisional detention, is the process of detaining a person until their trial after they have been arrested and charged with an offence. A person who is on remand is held in a prison or detention centre or held under house arrest. Varying terminology is used, but "remand" is generally used in common law jurisdictions and "preventive detention" elsewhere. However, in the United States, "remand" is rare except in official documents and "kept in custody until trial" is used in the media and even by judges and lawyers in addressing the public. Detention before charge is referred to as custody and continued detention after conviction is referred to as imprisonment.

Wisconsin circuit courts

The Wisconsin circuit courts are the general trial courts in the state of Wisconsin. There are currently 69 circuits in the state, divided into 10 judicial administrative districts. Circuit court judges hear and decide both civil and criminal cases. Each of the 249 circuit court judges are elected and serve six-year terms.

Marsy's Law, the California Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008, enacted by voters as Proposition 9 through the initiative process in the November 2008 general election, is a controversial amendment to the state's constitution and certain penal code sections. The act protects and expands the legal rights of victims of crime to include 17 rights in the judicial process, including the right to legal standing, protection from the defendant, notification of all court proceedings, and restitution, as well as granting parole boards far greater powers to deny inmates parole. Critics allege that the law unconstitutionally restricts defendant's rights, by allowing prosecutors to withhold exculpatory evidence under certain circumstances, and harms victims by restricting their rights to discovery, depositions, and interviews. Passage of this law in California has led to the passage of similar laws in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Ohio and Wisconsin, and efforts to pass similar laws in Hawaii, Iowa, Montana, Idaho, South Dakota, and Pennsylvania. In November 2017, Marsy's Law was found to be unconstitutional and void in its entirety by the Supreme Court of Montana for violating that state's procedure for amending the Montana Constitution.

Italian Code of Criminal Procedure

The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure contains the rules governing criminal procedure in every court in Italy. The Italian legal order adopted four codes since the Italian Unification. After the first two codes, in 1865 and 1913, the Fascist Government established in 1930 a new code adopting an inquisitorial system. In 1988 the Italian Republic adopted a new code, that could be considered to be somewhere in between the inquisitorial system and the adversarial system.

Pretrial services programs are procedures in the United States to prepare cases for trial in court. In most jurisdictions pretrial services programs operate at the county level. Six US states operate and fund pretrial services programs at the state level. The US federal courts system operates pretrial services in all 94 federal districts.

Bail in the United States refers to the practice of releasing suspects from custody before their hearing, on payment of bail, which is money or pledge of property to the court which may be refunded if suspects return to court for their trial. Bail practices in the United States vary from state to state.

Amy Bach is an American a journalist, attorney, and author of Ordinary Injustice: How America Holds Court, for which she won the 2010 Robert F. Kennedy Book Award. She is the Founder and Executive Director of Measures for Justice, a nonprofit that collects and publishes county-level criminal justice performance data. She founded the organization after she published her book.

New York State attempted bail reform, in an act that stood from January to June 2020. As part of the New York State Fiscal Year (SFY) Budget for 2019–2020, passed on April 1, 2019, cash bail was eliminated for most misdemeanor and non-violent felony charges, "including stalking, assault without serious injury, burglary, many drug offenses, and even some kinds of arson and robbery." The law went into effect on January 1, 2020. It was narrowed after growing discontent.

References

  1. 1 2 "IRS Return Year End 2016 by Measures for Justice" (PDF). Retrieved 5 August 2019.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Issie Lapowsky (23 May 2017). "ZUCKERBERG-BACKED DATA TROVE EXPOSES THE INJUSTICES OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE". Wired . Retrieved 3 August 2019.
  3. 1 2 Terence Mickey (6 December 2017). "How data can help reform our criminal justice system". Salon . Retrieved 3 August 2019.
  4. Paul James Pope (June 2012). "Ordinary Injustice: How America Holds Court Review". Law & Society Review. 46 (2): 458–460. JSTOR   23252289.
  5. 1 2 3 Philip Rojc (9 August 2017). "Data Quest: Why This Wonky Criminal Justice Group is Pulling in the Big Bucks". Inside Philanthropy. Retrieved 14 August 2019.
  6. May 16, Katherine Swartz Sun; 2021 | 2:17pm (2021-05-16). "Santa Barbara County Looks to Yolo County for Criminal Justice Reform". The Santa Barbara Independent. Retrieved 2021-09-02.
  7. 1 2 Chris Sprowls (24 July 2019). "The Transparency the Criminal Justice System Needs". Governing . Retrieved 16 August 2019.
  8. 1 2 Nicole Lewis (14 April 2019). "Can Better Data Fix Florida's Prisons?". Marshall Project. Retrieved 3 August 2019.
  9. Jeremy Travis (23 July 2019). "How Mining Criminal History Records Can Shape the Future of Criminal Justice". The Crime Report. Retrieved 3 August 2019.
  10. Christian Carter (8 August 2019). "Connecticut To Gather And Analyze Statewide Prosecutorial Data". WSHU. Retrieved 16 August 2019.
  11. 1 2 Hanna Kozlowska (25 May 2017). "A new database aims to measure the incredibly fragmented US criminal-justice system". Quartz. Retrieved 3 August 2019.
  12. ARVIND DILAWAR (8 January 2019). "Greater Justice through Statistics". The Smart Set. Retrieved 14 August 2019.
  13. Jazimes Ulloa (23 April 2019). "Gaps in California arrest data make it easier for violent felons to get guns, study finds". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 5 August 2019.
Listen to this article (9 minutes)
noicon
Sound-icon.svg
This audio file was created from a revision of this article dated 30 August 2019 (2019-08-30), and does not reflect subsequent edits.