Protective orders (POs) are a primary legal mechanism to safeguard victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) and reduce the risk of subsequent violence. Although POs have demonstrated effectiveness, scholarly attention to the legal consequences of PO violations remains limited. We systematically analyzed statutes governing first-time PO violations across all 50 states and Washington, D.C., using a comprehensive Westlaw search and supplementary legal resources. All jurisdictions address PO violations, and most classify a first-time violation as a misdemeanor. Penalties vary widely, ranging from 48 hours to 2.5 years of imprisonment and fines from $200 to $25,000; some states also require offenders to pay victim restitution and court fees. Policy reforms that promote greater equity, standardized statutory language, and improved coordination among courts, law enforcement, and victim services are critical to ensuring that POs function as reliable safeguards for IPV survivors nationwide.

This pilot study evaluates three machine learning models—Claude, ChatGPT, and Gemini—in parole decision-making by comparing their recommendations against human judicial decisions. Analyzing 150 cases across sexual, drug-related, and violent offenses, the study demonstrates alignment rates of 56%–68% between artificial intelligence (AI)-generated and human decisions. Findings reveal a consistent rehabilitative bias in AI recommendations, with statistical analyses indicating robust patterns across offense categories. This research establishes an empirical foundation for understanding AI’s potential as a decision-support tool in parole processes while preserving essential human judgment. While focusing on Israel, the findings offer a preliminary basis for considering similar AI integrations across different jurisdictions. These results underscore the importance of developing clear criminal justice policies and ethical frameworks to guide the responsible use of AI in parole decisions, ensuring that technological tools support rather than replace human judgment and enhance public trust in the system.

There has been a drastic increase in the use of video teleconferencing (VTC) in judicial proceedings since the COVID-19 pandemic, which has sparked debate about the appropriateness of incorporating this new technology into courts’ routine operations. A systematic review of state laws on using video teleconferencing technology in criminal court proceedings shows courts across the United States are cautiously embracing the convenience of remote proceedings. However, legislators are more conservative about using video teleconferencing in higher-stakes proceedings such as evidentiary hearings and sentencing hearings, by either prohibiting the use or requiring the parties’ consent. Other aspects of state statutes include special rules for child witnesses, expert witnesses, and incarcerated individuals.

Incentives and sanctions, and more recently therapeutic adjustments, are used in problem-solving courts (PSCs) to promote behavioral change for participants. However, little is known about how PSC team members perceive the use of these strategies. Drawing upon 20 semi-structured interviews with drug court, mental health court, and veterans’ court personnel within a midwestern jurisdiction, we explored perceptions of incentives, sanctions, and therapeutic adjustments. Nearly all personnel reported a need to increase frequency and types of incentives offered. In addition, some PSC personnel described nonjudicial team members imposing informal consequences without the judge present. Furthermore, confusion was noted between the terms “sanction” and “therapeutic adjustment.” Understanding the distinction between sanctions and therapeutic adjustments is critical for PSC program evaluation, yet greater dissemination of existing guidelines is needed. Oversight by statewide administrative entities could help ensure consistent understanding and application of PSC best practices.

Community supervision is the most frequently used correctional sentence, requiring individuals to adhere to court-ordered conditions. Using a sample of 304 adults under probation supervision, this study investigated the influence of the type and number of special conditions on probation outcomes. Our findings revealed that the type of special conditions significantly predicted probation outcomes. Specifically, individuals ordered to a higher number of treatment conditions were more likely to experience negative outcomes, including technical violations, rearrest, and revocation. Individuals ordered to more control conditions had a higher number of technical violations and were over five times more likely to be revoked. Requiring a higher total number of court-ordered conditions increased the likelihood of technical violations, and greater odds of rearrest and revocation. Findings illustrate the importance of evaluating the imposition of court-ordered conditions, highlighting the potential for the excessive use of conditions to inadvertently undermine the effectiveness of the probation system.

Many people work in community corrections, and their job satisfaction is important. The current preliminary study examined how the four major types of work social support (i.e., family/friends support, coworker support, supervisor support, and management support) were directly related to the job satisfaction of community corrections officers. A cross-sectional design analyzed survey data from 227 community corrections employees in a Western U.S. state. Ordinary least squares regression results indicated that family and friends support, coworker support, and management support had significant positive associations with job satisfaction, with management support having almost three times the association as compared with the other types of support. Supervisor support, however, had a nonsignificant association. The results from this study are particularly relevant for policy makers and supervisors in the field of community corrections as they seek ways to increase retention and job satisfaction among community corrections employees.

While attempts to alter the legal status of sex work have become increasingly common in recent years, there is limited knowledge of public support for decriminalization, and it is unknown which arguments levied in the policy debate resonate most with the public. Using an online survey of 519 U.S. adults, this research investigates whether support for decriminalization varies depending on whether the policy targets sellers, buyers, or third parties, and utilizes a vignette experiment to test six anti-criminalization arguments. Results indicated that arguments focusing on crime victimization and public health are the most convincing, while the social justice argument is the least persuasive. While all arguments were seen as more convincing for decriminalizing sex workers than buyers, there was no difference in support for decriminalization between these groups at baseline. These findings offer insight into public attitudes toward sex work decriminalization and highlight effective strategies for advocacy groups seeking policy reform.

Individuals with a criminal record often face significant barriers to opportunities, including those related to employment, housing, and education. Although options for criminal record clearing exist, few eligible individuals take advantage of these pathways to relief, as relevant information can be difficult to access, and the processes can be considerably costly. Aiming to expand the pursuit of record relief in Philadelphia, a local nonprofit, in partnership with City Council, has been sponsoring neighborhood events where individuals can meet with legal organizations, for free, in their own communities to learn about their records and the forms of relief for which they may be eligible. Then, eligible individuals can choose to partner with the participating legal organization to pursue record clearing in the forms of sealing, expungement, and/or pardon. Researchers attended the initial three clinic events to evaluate operations—through interviews with attendees, feedback from community-based organizations and legal staff, and structured observations—and provided rapid qualitative feedback. Lessons learned from these clinics, including those related to event advertising and access, event experience, and legal clinic experience were shared and leveraged to maximize ongoing clinic programming.

This study examines how the Public Safety Assessment (PSA), a type of risk assessment tool employed to assist with pretrial decision-making, is utilized during virtual detention hearings in New Jersey. Drawing on observational data from a single courtroom ( N = 330), we (a) describe judicial departures from PSA recommendations, (b) employ logistic regression models to assess the factors predicting departures, and (c) explore the reasons provided by judges for departures. The findings show that departures from PSAs are common and that most defendants are either detained or released under the most restrictive monitoring conditions, even in cases involving defendants considered to be lower risk. Moreover, and consistent with focal concerns, factors signaling a defendant’s dangerousness (e.g., current monitoring status and number of alleged offenses) predict departures. Overall, our findings suggest that judicial discretionary power continues to play a role in the courtroom.

In the continuing wake of a historic reform movement that began in 2020, Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) programs are enjoying a moment in the national spotlight. Much of this attention is negatively focused on police officers and the departments in which they serve. However, police represent just one of a trio of stakeholders commonly associated with CIT, including community advocacy groups and mental health providers. The negative attention can be frustrating for police and other criminal justice professionals because they have no direct control over health care and how it is provided. Indeed, even the local governments that oversee most of the criminal justice activity associated with CIT have little direct control over health care infrastructure. However, local governments do directly control much of the infrastructure that influences underlying conditions of health such as access to clean water, sanitation, education, housing, and employment. Health equity and social justice frameworks make clear that multiple sectors need to collaborate and strategically plan a multi-pronged approach to addressing health equity, including mental health. The Memphis Model of CIT implementation, when properly understood, can provide an effective roadmap grounded in health equity and social justice to enable local communities to address systemic challenges.