In Ohio, lawmakers have taken a tentative step toward addressing this gap with House Bill 542, which would require all jails and prisons to report pregnancy outcomes—a proposal prompted by Linda Acoff’s preventable miscarriage while in the custody of Cuyahoga County Jail in 2024. However, the bill, sponsored by state Representatives Terrence Upchurch (D-District 20) and Josh Williams (R-District 44), does not define what constitutes a “pregnancy outcome,” leaving it unclear whether facilities must report live births, miscarriages, stillbirths, other medical conclusions, or all of the above.

There is a significant gap in the oversight of pregnancy in prisons. The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ most recent report found that more than 700 pregnancies were recorded in U.S. prisons in 2023, with 91 percent resulting in live births, 6 percent in miscarriages, and about 2 percent in abortions. The report did not include data like preterm deliveries, cesarean rates, and maternal complications, making it impossible to understand whether those births were healthy or whether complications were preventable. The report also did not determine how often incarcerated women actually received the prenatal care, nutritional support, or postpartum follow-up that state facilities claim to provide.

Data from the Prison Policy Initiative show that almost half of pregnant women who are incarcerated never receive prenatal testing or basic dietary adjustments during pregnancy, and some are forced to give birth without medical assistance. Without a comprehensive way to track this information, policymakers and health officials are left with an incomplete picture of what care looks like in practice in correctional settings, making it impossible to measure progress or hold individuals accountable.

In February 2024, 30-year-old Linda Acoff was 17 weeks pregnant and detained at the Cuyahoga County Jail in Cleveland. According to an investigation by The Marshall Project and News 5 Cleveland, she screamed in pain for hours, pleading for help as her condition worsened. A nurse, later fired, gave her Tylenol and sanitary napkins but did not call for medical care. When her cellmate eventually alerted a guard, Acoff was taken by stretcher to a hospital, where doctors confirmed she had already miscarried. An autopsy of the fetus later revealed that she lost her pregnancy due to a common infection that went untreated. The baby’s death became the catalyst for the introduction of House Bill 542. Acoff’s death exposed what happens when there is no system for tracking what goes wrong or why. And the “why” really matters—each pregnancy carries unique risks that require timely, evidence-based responses.

Poor outcomes like Acoff’s are not isolated. Across the country, reports of women giving birth alone in jail cells reveal a pattern of preventable harm. A ten-year review of jail births found that among the women who gave birth inside cells, nearly two-thirds delivered only after repeated pleas for medical help went unanswered, and one in four infants was stillborn or died within two weeks. Many of these tragedies stem from untreated infections, premature labor, and delayed medical response.

Beyond maternal healthcare, the risks for infectious diseases are magnified in correctional environments where pathogens spread far more easily than in the community. Studies show that people in custody experience infectious diseases at rates four to nine times higher than the general population. Crowded living spaces, inadequate ventilation, limited screening, and delays in care all heighten the risk. For pregnant women, these conditions can turn manageable illnesses into life-threatening emergencies, as in Acoff’s case. Yet infection control is rarely prioritized, and access to preventive care remains inconsistent across facilities.

On top of these failures, incarcerated people are still charged medical copays to access care, with rates up to $13.50, including for prenatal visits. For someone earning an average of just 55 cents an hour in wages, according to a 2024 analysis of state prison labor data, medical copays of up to $13.50 represent several full days of work. Although some skilled production jobs pay modestly higher rates, these positions account for fewer than 5% of all prison jobs. A 2021 study in the Journal of Correctional Health Care, a peer-reviewed healthcare journal, found that women in prison were 50% more likely than men to forgo medical treatment because of these fees, even when they had greater health needs. When medical care requires copays that exceed what people can realistically pay, it discourages responsible health decisions and undermines the stated goal of reducing long-term healthcare costs. For pregnant women whose health needs are urgent and often unpredictable, this creates another layer of disincentive that worsens an already fragile system.

Further policy recommendations

Data collection alone will not prevent harm if it does not inform intervention. House Bill 542 establishes the foundation by requiring correctional facilities to begin reporting pregnancy data. To make that reporting more meaningful, the state should ensure the data collected is consistent and detailed enough to identify where care is breaking down.

Define and Standardize Data Collection: Pregnancy outcomes and milestones must be clearly defined and standardized across all facilities to ensure accuracy and comparability. These measures should include live births, stillbirths, miscarriages, preterm deliveries, cesarean sections, untreated infections, and maternal complications. Recording these outcomes in a consistent and structured way will allow state health agencies to identify weak points in care—whether that involves inadequate prenatal screening, delays in treatment, or gaps in postpartum follow-up.

Create a Data Review and Oversight Process: To maintain trust and ensure objectivity, lawmakers could allow the data collected under HB 542 to be reviewed by an independent third-party organization—such as a public health research institute, auditing firm, or university partner. These external reviewers could assess the completeness and consistency of the reporting and publish statewide summaries that identify trends without compromising privacy. Independent evaluation promotes transparency while avoiding conflicts of interest that arise when agencies assess their own performance.

Mandate an Annual Public Report: HB 542 should require the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to publish an annual public summary of statewide pregnancy data. The report should include total pregnancies, outcomes, and any identified patterns in medical care or response times, while maintaining de-identified and aggregated data to protect privacy. A publicly available brief would allow lawmakers, journalists, researchers, and community organizations to assess progress and hold institutions accountable. 

When implemented together, these policies can turn data into a mechanism for accountability and reform that not only tracks harm but actively prevents it.

Ohio’s House Bill 542 is an important first step toward transparency and accountability in a system where too many pregnancy outcomes still go unrecorded. By simply requiring correctional facilities to document and report this information, the bill fills a long-standing gap in maternal healthcare oversight behind bars. With consistent reporting, independent review, and public access to findings, Ohio can begin to build a framework that not only tracks outcomes but helps reduce the harm already occurring in its correctional facilities.

The post Tracking pregnancy behind bars: Why Ohio’s House Bill 542 could save lives appeared first on Reason Foundation.

House Bill 728, sponsored by state Rep. Emily Kinkead (D-Allegheny County), would have helped ensure all eligible inmates receive basic identification documents before release. On Sept. 22, the House Judiciary Committee advanced the bill by a 14-12 party-line vote. The next day, the same committee laid it on the table, which effectively shelved the measure. The House passed similar legislation in March 2024 (House Bill 1601) by an also-split vote (102-99), only for it to stall in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

According to the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC), 64.7% of people released from the state’s prisons are rearrested within three years. Research consistently identifies employment as among the strongest predictors of reoffending, with unemployed individuals 1.5 times more likely to return to prison than those who are employed. Yet formerly incarcerated people face unemployment rates exceeding 27%—higher than the total U.S. unemployment rate has ever reached, including during the Great Depression.

Before a person can apply for a job, rent an apartment, or even open a bank account, the person needs access to basic identification documents such as a photo ID, birth certificate, or Social Security card. Pennsylvania charges approximately $40 for a photo ID or driver’s license and $20-30 for a birth certificate. The process of acquiring a state-issued photo ID is often complicated by red tape, requiring documents such as a birth certificate or Social Security card, which can be difficult to obtain without an ID in the first place.

HB 728 would establish an “Identification Upon Reentry Program” requiring the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections to coordinate with the Department of Health, Department of Transportation, Social Security Administration, and other agencies to ensure all returning citizens obtain photo IDs, driver’s licenses, birth certificates, Social Security cards, and proof of naturalization.

DOC already has a program to assist inmates with obtaining identification documents, funded through the Inmate General Welfare Fund, which generates revenue from commissary sales, hobby craft functions, and private donations. DOC policy allows these funds to cover birth certificate costs for indigent inmates preparing for release within 12 months. HB 728 would strengthen the existing program by providing clear legislative direction and statutory authority for DOC and other agencies to coordinate on implementation and would expand coverage for document fees beyond indigent individuals to all returning citizens.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert Kauffman (R-Adams) raised the primary objection to HB 728 during the bill’s hearing, citing fairness to Pennsylvania taxpayers:

I have constituents who walk in my office on a daily basis of extraordinarily modest means. … They’re having trouble getting their birth certificate, paying for their driver’s license, their vehicle registration. You just go down the list of the services that we offer that they can barely afford. And now we are going to place into law the requirement that those same people who cannot afford it for themselves are now going to pay for it for someone who is getting out of incarceration.

This concern resonates with many voters facing real economic pressures. They’re right to expect government to spend tax dollars wisely, and assisting people being released from prison with reintegration more than pays off when people can get jobs and housing with these documents, and be less likely to commit new crimes.

Meanwhile, the cost of the program would likely be minimal. Pennsylvania released approximately 11,396 people from state prisons in 2023. There is no official fiscal analysis of HB 728 available, but even assuming every person needed a $40 photo ID and $30 birth certificate, the total cost would be under $800,000 annually—less than 0.03% of the $3.3 billion Pennsylvania DOC requested for fiscal year 2024-25. Much of this cost could continue to be covered by the existing Inmate General Welfare Fund, which currently covers document fees for indigent individuals, though the extent of the coverage under the expanded program would depend on how many returning citizens qualify as indigent versus non-indigent under DOC policy.

Second, people in state custody face unique constraints that the government itself has imposed. Pennsylvania prison work programs pay between 19 cents and 51 cents per hour, meaning a $20-$30 birth certificate represents 40 to 160 hours of prison labor. As state Rep. Chris Rabb (D-Philadelphia) explained during the hearing:

If they’re making 19 cents an hour on the inside and they’re paying restitution, and they’re doing all those things… That’s a very different context than folks who may have struggles paying various fees, but do not have the same structural barriers that we as the state legislature have created.

Successful reentry also ultimately saves Pennsylvania taxpayers money. According to the Pennsylvania DOC’s 2022 Recidivism Report, recidivism costs the state approximately $3.11 billion annually in total societal costs. With nearly two-thirds of released individuals rearrested within three years, even modest improvements in reentry success could generate meaningful savings. The federal Department of Justice specifically identifies that “access to government-issued identification documents is critical to successful reentry.” When people cannot access legal employment because they lack basic identification, the risk of reoffending increases, which makes the cost of obtaining the IDs a solid investment.

The partisan divide in Pennsylvania stands in stark contrast to the bipartisan consensus emerging nationally. At least 27 states have adopted laws directing corrections agencies to provide or assist individuals with obtaining state-issued photo identification cards prior to release from prison, including red or red-leaning states like Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Tennessee.

In March, Georgia’s legislature unanimously passed legislation requiring the Georgia Department of Corrections (GDC) to coordinate with the Department of Driver Services to help individuals obtain a state-issued photo ID prior to release. The law also requires GDC to provide individuals with other documents to support post-release employment, including a vocational training record, institutional work record, certified copy of their birth certificate, and a Social Security card, if obtainable. Virginia adopted similar reforms in April with nearly unanimous support in both chambers of the General Assembly. While states vary as to whether they cover document fees, there is broad national consensus that corrections agencies should actively help people obtain identification before release.

Nearly everyone in Pennsylvania’s prisons will eventually return to their communities. The question is whether they return with or without the basic tools necessary to succeed. A plurality of states led by both Republican and Democratic legislatures have already answered this question, recognizing that helping people reenter society successfully is both more humane and more cost-efficient than maintaining barriers to employment and stability. Pennsylvania should join them by codifying its identification assistance program and expanding it beyond indigent inmates to serve all returning citizens.

The post Pennsylvania stalls on prison ID reform where other states found bipartisan consensus appeared first on Reason Foundation.

There is a poorly understood criminal justice metric that might just be a key component of fixing a faltering system that has gotten more expensive and, arguably, less effective at protecting public safety over decades. Clearance rates are the closest metric we have to evaluating how well the criminal justice system does at catching people who commit crimes. Clearance rates measure the percentage of reported crimes that result in a suspect being arrested, in an attempt to approximate the effectiveness of police agencies at that critical job. This brief is particularly interested in how effective the police are at solving violent crimes, a top concern of the public.

The effectiveness of the U.S. criminal enforcement system in solving violent crimes—as reflected by clearance rates—has been flat with a slightly downward trend over time. When focusing just on homicides, those rates have suffered a decades-long slide since the mid-1960s, with an even more pronounced decline in the years since 2019. Even as crime rates have trended down fairly consistently since 1993, and even though police spending has dramatically increased, not declined, since 1982, the percentage of violent crimes reported that get “cleared” (solved) has been stagnant at best since about the mid-1960s.

To put a finer point on the increased spending on police, the Urban Institute concluded from analyzing census data that “[f]rom 1977 to 2021, in 2021 inflation-adjusted dollars, state and local government spending on police increased from $47 billion to $135 billion, an increase of 189%.” In addition, a study by ABC-owned television stations examining budgets of more than 100 cities and counties determined that 83% spent at least 2% more on police in 2022 than they spent in 2019.

Early indications suggest that some of the steeper declines in clearance rates that were experienced after 2019 bounced back somewhat in 2023 and 2024, but there is no conclusive data yet, and the long-term trend since the 1980s remains in place. The chaos of the pandemic years likely plays an outsize role in the data for those years so, looking back in hindsight, the accelerated decline in rates may prove those years to be outliers. Even so, the long-term trends demonstrate that vast improvement can be had in clearance rates across the criminal system.

In the mid-1960s, more than 90% of murders were solved nationally (Figure 1). By 1990, that percentage had dropped into the 60s. In 2022, only 37% of violent crimes were cleared, and just over half of murders, according to FBI data. These are historic lows for a statistic that has been collected using the same methodology since at least 1960. Meanwhile, peer nations in Western Europe and Asia reportedly performed as well as the U.S. did in the 1960s, and their numbers have remained much higher than the figures for the U.S. Note that though clearance rates for property crimes and lower-level offenses are typically much worse than those for violent crimes, they have also remained more stable over time (Figure 2). As an example, in 2022, 36.7% of violent crimes reported to police were cleared, compared with 12.1% of property crimes.

When violent crimes are not prosecuted, or perpetrators don’t face punishment, it harms public safety and causes fear in the community; if left unchecked, this can lead to rampant disrespect for the law and eventually produce chaos. The perpetrator remains unidentified and loose in the community, able to commit further crimes.

Allowing cases to languish unsolved has additional implications for deterrence. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, “Research shows clearly that the chance of being caught is a vastly more effective deterrent than even draconian punishment.” So even as our prisons and jails are bursting with people being confined for ever-longer time periods, there is evidence that our policy choices are not yielding effective deterrence, let alone crafted to achieve optimal results. Indeed, the evidence is well-established that long sentences are not the only or even best way to address crime. When roughly half of murderers can expect to get away with it, the deterrent effect of amping penalties without increasing the likelihood of being caught will be limited. With property crime, those incentives are even worse since those are less likely to be cleared.

Failing to solve cases is also a severe disservice to victims, who are rarely healed or compensated by our present system. In fact, surveys show that victims of violent crime prefer prevention strategies to long prison sentences.

So why aren’t clearance rates the most important criminal justice metric we have? Why have many members of the public not even heard of them? This brief will discuss clearance rates, their merits, and their decades-long downward trajectory. Why do clearance rates matter? How can the abysmal rates seen today be improved? Can public awareness of this crisis lead to action? What are the solutions?

Download the full policy brief below:

The post Could clearance rates be key to addressing criminal justice failures? appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Earlier this month, Trump declared a “crime emergency” in Washington, D.C., deploying National Guard troops and placing the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) under federal oversight. One of his executive orders attempts to build on that federal takeover by directing law enforcement to “work to ensure that arrestees in the District of Columbia are held in Federal custody to the fullest extent permissible under applicable law, and…pursue Federal charges and pretrial detention for such arrestees whenever possible…”

Prior to this order, suspects arrested by federal agencies were placed in federal custody, while those arrested by MPD were held locally. Trump’s order also threatens D.C.’s access to federal funding, services, and approvals unless the city changes its policies on pretrial detention.

A second executive order similarly threatens to withhold federal funding from states and local jurisdictions that Attorney General Pam Bondi determines to have “in the Attorney General’s opinion, substantially eliminated cash bail as a potential condition of pretrial release from custody for crimes that pose a clear threat to public safety and order, including offenses involving violent, sexual, or indecent acts, or burglary, looting, or vandalism.”

These measures strike at the heart of a fundamental principle of the U.S. justice system: individuals accused of crimes are presumed innocent until proven guilty. While defendants charged with serious violent offenses or posing genuine threats may be detained pending trial, most are legally entitled to pretrial release. Courts can and do impose conditions on a defendant’s release, such as electronic monitoring or supervision through a pretrial services agency.

Monetary release conditions, commonly referred to as “cash bail,” are among the most common types of pretrial release conditions in the United States. Cash bail allows defendants to post an amount of money with the court as collateral. If they return for all hearings, the money is refunded. If they fail to appear, the funds are forfeited, and additional penalties may follow.

Historically, the purpose of cash bail was to ensure court appearances. But reforms in the 1970s and 1980s expanded judicial discretion to consider public safety, enabling judges to set high bail amounts to detain certain defendants.

While bail can be appropriate in some cases, its application often punishes poverty rather than crime. Many defendants are unable to afford the cost of bail and are consequently detained for no reason other than their inability to pay.

Research suggests that bail decisions can reduce employment, coerce defendants into accepting plea bargains, and increase the probability that defendants are convicted. Recognizing these harms, criminal justice reformers have advocated limiting or replacing cash bail with non-monetary conditions.

Washington, D.C., was the first jurisdiction to substantially replace cash bail with a risk-based system in the 1990s. Since then, many other jurisdictions have experimented with reforms. Most continue to allow cash bail in some cases, but in 2022, Illinois became the first state to fully abolish it.

The evidence on bail reform contradicts Trump’s rationale for his executive orders. Last year, Reason Foundation published a report reviewing recent studies on cash bail. The report concluded that the bulk of available evidence suggests that curtailing the use of monetary release conditions among low-risk defendants does not cause increases in failures to appear or new pretrial crimes. There is even some evidence that pretrial reforms that reduce detention among low-risk, bond-eligible defendants may improve public safety. At the same time, the report noted that rigorous evaluations of completely cashless systems, such as those in D.C. and Illinois, were still limited.

Since then, new evidence from Illinois has strengthened the case for bail reform. A recent evaluation by Loyola University’s Center for Criminal Justice found that Illinois’ abolition of cash bail has largely achieved its goals of reducing unnecessary pretrial detention without undermining public safety. Crime rates in Chicago have actually declined since the reform, undermining claims that cashless systems fuel lawlessness.

Taken together, these findings reveal that the Trump administration’s actions are not grounded in evidence. By attempting to punish cities and states that have embraced reform, the executive orders disregard the presumption of innocence and risk reviving a system that detains people for the simple offense of being poor. Targeted and carefully designed bail reform can both protect public safety and uphold constitutional values. The administration’s crackdown is neither.

The post President Trump’s executive orders threaten cities and states that allow cashless bail appeared first on Reason Foundation.

It’s an idea that, if implemented carefully, could improve inmate health, reduce contraband tobacco markets in prisons, and lower prisons’ healthcare expenses without increasing risk to the public. For those of us who have spent years advocating for pragmatic, science-based policies to reduce the harms associated with tobacco use, this proposal checks nearly every box. Importantly, it also centers discussion on a population too often ignored by both the tobacco harm reduction and tobacco control movements. For that reason alone, it deserves careful consideration by all experts in the field, regardless of their ideological camp.  

Smoking among incarcerated people is staggeringly high, with estimates ranging from 70 to 80 percent. That’s roughly seven times the national average, even though tobacco has been banned in federal prisons since 2014 and removed from commissaries since 2006. Most state-run prisons prohibit smoking inside prison facilities, many extending that ban to include possession or use of any tobacco product anywhere on prison grounds.  

But like every form of prohibition, these prison tobacco bans haven’t eliminated tobacco use. Instead, illicit tobacco markets thrive in prisons, with inmates obtaining contraband cigarettes through smuggling or bribery. Some turn to improvised tobacco products—made by inmates who collect used tobacco chew spit out by guards—with some reportedly turning to more hazardous alternatives, like “spice” (synthetic cannabinoids), to mimic the experience of smoking.  

The public health rationale underlying “smoke-free prison” policies is the idea that non-smoking prisoners and guards should be protected from second-hand smoke, as well as a belief that forcing smoking inmates to break their nicotine dependence while in prison will improve their health and lead to long-term smoking cessation after release. Even if those goals justified such coercive and cruel tactics—like using solitary confinement to punish inmates caught with contraband cigarettes—the fact is that prison tobacco bans do not work. The vast majority of inmates who quit smoking while incarcerated typically relapse upon release—around 98% by some estimates. Many incarcerated people, in fact, only begin smoking while they are incarcerated.  

In his Filter article, Kirkpatrick—who is currently incarcerated in Washington Corrections Center in Shelton, Washington—argues that allowing the sale of nicotine vapes in prison commissaries could accomplish what tobacco bans have not: reduce smoking among inmates and keep them smoke-free after release. A significant amount of evidence suggests he is right.  

Numerous studies indicate that smokers who switch from cigarettes to vapes see rapid health improvements. For prisoners, that could translate into fewer smoking-related illnesses, doctors’ visits, and health emergencies. Smokers who switch to harm reduction products are also less likely to relapse—with high-quality evidence for e-cigarettes, in particular—indicating that they are even more effective for smoking cessation than traditional nicotine replacement therapies, such as the nicotine patch or gum. This could lower the rate of smoking among inmates after release, reducing healthcare costs both during and after incarceration.  

E-cigarettes, unlike other tobacco harm reduction products, might raise concerns within the context of prisons as they can pose a fire hazard or potentially be used in improvised weapons. However, prisons can opt to purchase specially designed vapes, with soft plastic casings and low-voltage, non-rechargeable batteries—like those already offered in Kentucky and Pennsylvania prison commissaries.   

And, unlike most policy proposals involving e-cigarettes, this one sidesteps the two biggest political landmines: youth use and taxpayer cost. Youth access to e-cigarettes or other tobacco harm reduction products is a non-issue in adult prisons. And there’d be no cost to taxpayers so long as prisons marked up commissary prices just enough to cover costs. But to truly succeed, this policy proposal requires careful implementation.  

Prices that commissaries charge for tobacco harm reduction products are a pivotal factor in whether this policy would succeed or fail. Kirkpatrick, in presenting his idea, reasonably points out that commissary sales of tobacco harm reduction products might generate modest revenue for prisons, which he suggests they direct toward prison maintenance and programming. However, while this potential for cost-offsetting might enhance the policy’s political appeal, any discussion about “revenue generation” from imprisoned people should justifiably raise alarm bells.  

Too many prison systems already engage in financial exploitation of inmates—charging exorbitant fees to make phone calls and send emails, inflating commissary prices, and taking hefty cuts out of low- or non-existent prison wages. Reports suggest that prisons that already sell vapes in commissaries impose markups exceeding 700% over cost. In addition to being exploitative, these sky-high prices undermine the goal of giving inmates safer alternatives to smoking.  If smoking inmates cannot afford commissary prices for tobacco harm reduction products, they will continue to smoke or turn to the contraband market, reinforcing harmful behaviors rather than replacing them. Worse, the policy could become just another revenue stream wrung out of a captive population.  

To work as intended, the safer products at prison commissaries must be attractive, affordable, and accessible, and they must be competitive with combustible cigarettes in both cost and appeal. That means avoiding price gouging, ensuring product quality, and offering inmates real choices. Offering choices to inmates might be among the harder parts of implementing this policy, particularly if prisons are limited to purchasing only those products that have received authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Thus far, the FDA has approved only a handful of e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products, nicotine pouches, and smokeless tobacco products. Yet, affordable access to even some of these products would give inmates a chance to switch from smoking to safer alternatives and represent an improvement on the status quo.   

At its core, allowing prison commissaries to sell safer alternatives to smoking isn’t just about reducing tobacco-related disease or helping prisons save money on healthcare. It is about giving incarcerated adults some sliver of control over their own lives and health—it acknowledges their agency in a system built to deny it. That alone is reason to take the proposal seriously.  

For those working in tobacco policy, it is also a chance to put marginalized nicotine users at the center of our advocacy—an imperative too often neglected. Putting safer alternatives to smoking in prison commissaries won’t fix everything, but it is a humane place to begin that might move our criminal justice system ever-so-slightly toward human dignity.  

The post Prisons selling vapes? Smart public health policy and a step toward autonomy behind bars appeared first on Reason Foundation.

In a free and safe society, law enforcement is essential for maintaining the rule of law and protecting people and property from harm by others. At the same time, law enforcement officers have a tremendous responsibility to uphold the constitutional rights of the citizens with whom they interact. Even a few “bad apples” can undermine public trust in law enforcement––especially when governments fail to hold these officers accountable for misconduct. Michigan must embrace transparency and accountability in law enforcement to demonstrate a commitment to upholding the rule of law and maintaining the public’s confidence in the justice system. 

The legislation presented in the bipartisan Police Practices Standardization, Transparency, and Trust (S.T.A.T.) package would limit the use of no-knock warrants, require de-escalation and crisis response training, and provide other safeguards to protect the public and law enforcement officers. 

Use of force standards, de-escalation and crisis response training, and duty to intervene requirements will ensure that armed officers of the state respect the constitutional rights of Michiganders and provide law enforcement with critical tools to maintain their own safety. Law enforcement officers must be trained to de-escalate tense interactions, but, when necessary, employ “objectively reasonable” physical force. When excessive force is employed, the rule of law requires fellow officers to intervene.  

Restricting the use of no-knock warrants will likewise improve the safety of law enforcement and the public. Search warrants are an essential and uncontroversial law enforcement tool. However, no-knock warrants allow law enforcement to forcibly enter a residence without first announcing their presence or identifying themselves. This practice creates a dangerous situation for everyone involved. A recent report from the American Legislative Exchange Council noted that: 

Between 2010 and 2016, 81 civilians and 13 law enforcement officers were killed in forced-entry searches. Officers represented 10% of fatalities while executing standard “knock-and-announce” search warrants and 20% of fatalities associated with no-knock warrants. 

Increasing transparency also confers mutual benefits to law enforcement and the public. Body-worn cameras shed necessary light on rare instances of police abuse, but they also frequently exonerate officers who are falsely accused of misconduct. The S.T.A.T. package includes reasonable requirements and penalties to protect against tampering with body-worn cameras or resulting video evidence. Additionally, the package includes improvements to the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards (MCOLES) Act and establishes new standards for separation records. These provisions will empower police chiefs and sheriffs to avoid hiring officers with poor records.  

Finally, the package’s provisions related to false testimony and anonymity of complaints will help ensure truth in accountability and protect the privacy of individuals who file complaints alleging misconduct by law enforcement. A key principle that undergirds the rule of law is that nobody is above the law, including those who are tasked with enforcing the law.  

Taken together, this bipartisan package provides necessary improvements to policing that will promote the transparency, accountability, and trust necessary to foster an environment of safety and order in Michigan communities.  

The post Michigan’s bipartisan legislative package provides necessary improvements to policing appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Starting July 1, Georgia Senate Bill 110, also known as the “Reasonable Childhood Independence” bill, will go into effect. Florida’s legislature unanimously passed a similar bill, which is expected to be signed by Gov. DeSantis and go into effect this July. Missouri legislators included the same type of provisions in a consolidated child welfare-focused bill, which will go into effect in August.   

These bills establish clear exceptions to the statutory definitions of neglect and abuse in state laws, ensuring that parents cannot be penalized for allowing their children to engage in regular activities such as walking to the store, playing outdoors, or staying home alone under reasonable circumstances. State laws will still prohibit clearly harmful neglect or endangerment. However, these “reasonable childhood independence” bills reassure parents that they will not face a significant run-in with law enforcement for permitting their child to pursue healthy, independent activities.  

With the passage of these bills, Georgia, Florida, and Missouri join eight other states that have adopted “Reasonable Childhood Independence” laws. 

The aggressive policing of parents saw national attention last October when Reason first reported on a Georgia mother, Brittany Patterson, who was handcuffed in front of her children and taken to jail for reckless conduct—all because her 10-year-old son walked into town by himself while she was away taking another child to the doctor’s office. Patterson told the police (who had been called by a concerned neighbor) that she did not believe he was in an unsafe situation, as it was normal for him to be outside and engage in activities on his own in their small town of Mineral Bluff (pop. 370). Despite her assurances, the family was thrust into a legal battle in which the Department of Family and Children’s Services pressured Patterson to commit to a “safety plan” for her children that involved tracking their location using a phone app, an idea that the Georgia mom vehemently declined. 

Patterson’s story adds to an alarmingly growing list of similar encounters between parents and local authorities about what children can and cannot do without direct adult supervision. In 2020, another mother from Georgia was arrested for allowing her 14-year-old daughter to babysit her younger siblings. In 2018, yet another Georgia mother was visited by police and child protective services because her 7-year-old rode his bike home alone from swimming practice. 

Lenore Skenazy, founder of the “Free-Range Kids” movement (which advocates against helicopter parenting, arguing that it hinders children’s development), and Reason have reported on many more cases like these around the country. A 2023 study in The Journal of Pediatrics finds a steep decline in children’s independence over the last few decades and attributes increases in anxiety and depression to this trend. 

These stories and the overall ambiguous enforcement of negligence and endangerment laws have a significant chilling effect on the parents who want their children to develop independence, but never know when a call to the police from a concerned neighbor could upend their lives. The Georgia, Florida, and Missouri bills address this ambiguity directly by clearly defining what will and will not be considered negligent. 

Reason Foundation partnered with Let Grow (an organization at the forefront of the childhood independence movement), interest groups in the states, and the bills’ sponsors to communicate to lawmakers the clear benefits of this type of legislation, which passed in all three states with bipartisan support. Visit the Let Grow website to learn about the progress made and the laws still needed to promote childhood independence in each state.  

The post New Georgia, Florida, and Missouri laws protect parents who teach their children independence  appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Senate Bill 147 prepares incarcerated individuals for reentry by ensuring they leave prison with key identification and employment-related documents, such as birth certificates, Social Security cards, vocational training records, work histories, and resumes. 

Successfully reintegrating formerly incarcerated individuals is a critical public safety priority.  Equipping returning citizens with the basic tools for reentry can reduce the likelihood of reoffending, improve public safety, and ease long-term burdens on the state’s courts and correctional system. 

One of the most basic—and often overlooked—barriers to reentry is the lack of valid identification. Before a person can apply for a job, rent housing, or open a bank account, they typically need at least one form of government-issued ID. Yet many people are released from incarceration without one. SB 147 builds upon a 2023 reform that authorized the Georgia Department of Corrections (GDC) to work with the Department of Driver Services (DDS) to provide state ID cards to incarcerated individuals who lack valid identification.  

The new law provides stronger direction to GDC. Now, at the request of an eligible inmate, the GDC must coordinate with the DDS to provide a state-issued identification card. Upon request, GDC will also provide released inmates with: 

• Vocational training and work records, if applicable; 

• A certified birth certificate and Social Security card, if obtainable; 

• A resume detailing any trades learned while incarcerated and the inmate’s proficiency; 

• Documentation of a completed practice job interview; and 

• Notification of any eligibility for state occupational licenses or certifications. 

GDC is not required to provide resumes or practice job interviews to specific categories of inmates who are unlikely to return to the workforce due to age, health, or other circumstances. 

Reason Foundation played an active role in Georgia’s 2023 reforms through educational outreach and technical assistance to lawmakers. Our team of criminal justice policy experts remained closely engaged throughout this year’s legislative process, continuing to provide technical support and facilitate dialogue among key stakeholders. We provide similar outreach and support to policymakers across the country. 

SB 147 passed unanimously in both chambers of the Georgia General Assembly and was supported by a bipartisan coalition of over 30 co-sponsors. State Sen. Michael Rhett (D-33), the primary sponsor of the bill, told Reason Foundation, “Senate Bill 147 is a paradigm shift. It allows returning citizens to equip themselves with the necessary IDs and create a new mosaic for themselves.” 

By addressing practical barriers that often hinder successful reentry—like the lack of identification or documentation of job skills—SB 147 represents a meaningful step toward reducing recidivism and promoting public safety in Georgia. The unanimous support it received in the legislature reflects a growing bipartisan consensus that smart, evidence-based reforms can strengthen communities while also making the criminal justice system more effective and humane. Georgia’s continued reform efforts offer a model for how states can support second chances and ensure that people leaving prison are better positioned to rebuild their lives. 

The post Georgia builds on reforms to provide released inmates with identification documents appeared first on Reason Foundation.

The process of acquiring a state-issued photo ID is often complicated by red tape, requiring documents such as a birth certificate or Social Security card, which can be difficult—if not impossible—to obtain without an ID in the first place. As a practical matter, Departments of Corrections (DOC) are well-positioned to verify the identity of inmates in their custody. Therefore, many states, including Virginia, have laws that direct the DOC to help inmates obtain a photo ID card before their release from prison. 

Before HB 2221’s passage, Virginia law directed the DOC to provide inmates with assistance in applying for and obtaining government-issued identification cards, birth certificates, and Social Security cards prior to their release or discharge from prison. According to a 2022 report, the department has a procedure for obtaining necessary documentation and coordinating with the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to obtain photo identification, but this process was not codified into statute.   

As Virginia Delegate Rae Cousins (D-79), the sponsor of HB 2221, told the Virginia House Public Safety Committee in January: 

One of the first steps to successful reentry from incarceration is having an ID or driver’s license. From housing to employment, healthcare to mental health support—everything someone needs for a healthy, successful life requires an ID. … [Department of Corrections] data shows that over the month of September last year, 410 inmates were released from Virginia’s prisons and only 178 of them—less than half—were released with a state ID. 

If the department did not already possess or could not “readily obtain” all the necessary records and information, inmates would be provided with a DOC offender identification form. An offender identification form provided by the DOC can be used as proof of Virginia residency to obtain a photo ID from the DMV after release, provided the form contains all the necessary information and that information can be verified. However, state law was silent regarding the content of the offender identification form and provided no direction to the DOC or DMV on how to verify the information on the form.   

HB 2221 more directly requires the DOC to work with the DMV, the State Registrar of Vital Records, and any other relevant agency to provide inmates with a certified copy of their birth certificate, Social Security card, or a government-issued identification card before release. If providing a DMV-issued photo ID is not possible, inmates will still be provided with a DOC-issued offender identification form. The new law specifies what information should be included on the offender identification form and requires the DOC and DMV to establish a procedure for verifying the information so that the form can serve as proof of identity as required to obtain a government-issued identification card for 120 days immediately after release from prison. In short, the new language provides much clearer direction to the DOC and provides a statutory basis for the coordination between the DOC and DMV required for the Offender Identification form to function as intended.  

HB 2221 also directs the DOC, the State Board of Local and Regional Jails, the DMV, and the State Registrar of Vital Records to: 

1. Identify the number of prisoners released with and without identification cards; 

2. Review the processes involved in assisting a prisoner in applying for and obtaining a government-issued identification card, birth certificate, or social security card; 

3. Identify any obstacles that may interfere with a prisoner obtaining such identification or documents prior to such prisoner’s release or discharge; and 

4. Issue a report of findings and recommendations to the General Assembly no later than Nov. 1, 2025. 

Reason Foundation weighed in on the legislative discussion of HB 2221 through educational outreach and technical assistance to state lawmakers and legislative staff. Our team of criminal justice experts offers similar outreach and support to policymakers nationwide.  

Access to identification is an important step for anyone returning to the community after incarceration. By codifying clearer responsibilities among state agencies, HB 2221 represents a meaningful step toward reducing administrative barriers to reentry. These reforms support individual rehabilitation while simultaneously promoting public safety and strengthening the workforce by equipping people with the tools they need to rebuild their lives. Other states seeking to improve reentry outcomes can look to Virginia as a model for reform. 

The post Virginia adopts reforms to provide released prisoners with identification documents appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Erosion of due process and property rights

Civil asset forfeiture is classified as a legal proceeding against the property, rather than the individual who owns it. This can include cash, cars, homes, bank accounts, jewelry, cell phones, laptops, firearms, and even everyday items like clothing or gift cards. Because these proceedings are classified as civil, rather than criminal, Americans facing civil asset forfeiture don’t receive the same level of due process. The federal government and most states require a lower standard of proof than “beyond a reasonable doubt” to win civil forfeiture cases, often using standards such as “preponderance of the evidence” or even “probable cause,” which makes it significantly easier for the government to take ownership of property without a criminal conviction. 

Additionally, while there is a process for innocent owners to reclaim their property, the burden of proof often lies with the property owner to demonstrate their innocence and that they were not aware of any criminal activity. Most seizures involve low-value property—often not exceeding $1,300—making it more expensive to pursue a legal challenge than to simply walk away, even when the seizure was unjust. This flips Americans’ constitutional right to the presumption of innocence on its head.

In Culley v. Marshall, an asset forfeiture case that was fought all the way to the Supreme Court, two Alabama residents’ cars were used by others to conduct illegal drug transactions. The owners were unaware these crimes were happening, but Alabama police attempted forfeiture of the vehicles anyway. It took the owners many months to prove their innocence through state courts and reclaim their vehicles. During that time, they were left without transportation—affecting their ability to work, care for their families, and meet daily needs—and received no compensation for the loss of use. Although the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in Culley v. Marshall that no constitutional violation occurred, the case exposed a deeper issue: property owners can be left without critical assets for months, without a prompt hearing or any practical way to challenge the seizure. While the owners eventually reclaimed their vehicles through the courts, the drawn-out process—during which they had no access to essential property—reveals how current civil forfeiture procedures can be burdensome and one-sided. Even in cases where the property owner is innocent, navigating the system requires time, money, and legal knowledge that many people simply don’t have. Culley illustrates how the system can penalize people not just for actual guilt, but for proximity to those who are guilty.

In South Carolina, Mikee Albin’s RV, where he lived, was seized after officers purchased a small amount of marijuana in the restaurant Albin owned. A state appeals court eventually ruled the seizure invalid, though Albin had since died, but Albin’s estate never recovered the money spent fighting the case. In Wyoming, Phil Parhamovich was pulled over for improper seat belt use and a lane violation. After consenting to a vehicle search, police discovered $91,800 of his life savings hidden in a speaker—money he planned to use as a down payment for a recording studio. He wasn’t charged with a drug crime or any other serious offense. Nonetheless, police claimed the money was connected to drug activity and seized the cash, and Parhamovich had to fight through a lengthy legal process to get it back eventually. 

Unfortunately, these cases are surprisingly common. In 2018 alone, local and federal law enforcement seized over $3 billion in cash and property, with $2.5 billion coming through federal programs. Importantly, most of that federal forfeiture—nearly $2.1 billion—was conducted without any criminal charges. Over the past two decades, forfeiture has pulled in more than $68 billion nationwide, turning a system meant to fight crime into one that quietly strips people of their property, often without ever giving them a day in court.

Financial incentives encourage troubling law enforcement behavior

In 43 states, police departments and prosecutors’ offices are allowed to keep anywhere from 50% to 100% of the revenue generated through civil asset forfeiture. This creates a strong incentive to prioritize policing that also makes money, particularly in drug enforcement. Some states have seen public backlash against such practices, as abuses have drawn media attention and have led to reform. Such reforms include increasing the standard of proof, limiting what can be forfeited civilly, or requiring that forfeiture proceeds go to general funds or community programs instead of law enforcement budgets.

However, local agencies can often sidestep these state-level reforms by participating in the federal government’s Equitable Sharing Program, which is run by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury. Under this program, local police can partner with federal agencies, such as the Drug Enforcement Administration, on forfeiture cases. When property is seized, even if it would usually be governed by state law, the case is instead processed under more permissive federal forfeiture rules. Once the property is forfeited, up to 80% of the proceeds are “shared” back with the local agency, regardless of what state law might otherwise require.

This loophole allows departments to bypass stricter state forfeiture laws and continue taking property under federal standards, which often require a lower standard of proof and impose fewer restrictions on how the money can be used. Because the federal government handles the legal action, state restrictions on how forfeited assets are distributed don’t apply; yet the local agency still receives a share of the proceeds.

While these forfeitures may generate revenue for police and prosecutors in the short term, the broader consequence is a distortion of policing priorities, where financial gain outweighs public safety. Rather than focusing on solving violent crimes or engaging in proactive, community-based policing, agencies are encouraged to dedicate time and resources to revenue-generating activities like roadside drug stops and property seizures. 

This misalignment comes at a cost: While officers are pulling over cars on the interstate in search of cash, clearance rates for serious crimes, like homicide, assault, and burglary, remain alarmingly low in many jurisdictions. Nationwide, police solve only about half of all homicides, and the clearance rates for property crimes are even lower. By prioritizing profit-driven drug enforcement, departments risk neglecting the very duties that most directly contribute to public safety. The result is not just a distorted drug policy, but a policing model that serves budgets over communities.

Forfeitures undermine effective drug policy and other public safety priorities

Civil asset forfeiture exacerbates existing inequalities perpetuated by the War on Drugs, reinforcing racial disparities and disproportionately affecting marginalized communities. Because forfeiture creates a financial incentive to pursue low-level drug enforcement, it often leads to overpolicing in poor and minority neighborhoods. This increased emphasis on seizure-based policing doesn’t just misallocate officer time; it also clogs courts with minor drug cases and places unnecessary strain on already limited treatment programs and correctional systems. As a result, individuals with the most urgent needs—such as those experiencing homelessness, mental illness, or substance use disorder—are often overlooked because they don’t present a financial incentive through forfeiture. Meanwhile, limited public health resources are diverted to pursuing low-level seizures, rather than being invested in prevention, treatment, or harm reduction strategies that address the root causes of drug-related harm. Far from reducing substance use or improving community safety, civil forfeiture fuels a cycle of mistrust and inefficiency in systems meant to protect and support the public.

According to the Institute for Justice, the median value of property seized in Michigan was just $423, and in Pennsylvania, $369. In both states, the vast majority of seizures involved small amounts of cash, hardly the kind of assets typically associated with major criminal enterprises. Instead, it appears that law-abiding individuals are targeted by law enforcement for forfeiture.

When law enforcement is seen as prioritizing property seizures over public safety, it erodes the relationship between officers and the communities they serve. Police depend on everyday people to speak up–to report crimes, share what they’ve seen, or help move an investigation forward. But when community members worry that a simple interaction with law enforcement could lead to losing their car or cash, they’re far less likely to speak up, even in serious situations. In the end, everyone’s safety is compromised.

In addition, forfeiture has not been shown to reduce drug use or improve public safety. A study by Seattle University economist Brian D. Kelly found that increased forfeiture activity didn’t lead to reduced drug use or better crime clearance rates, but it did correlate with rising unemployment. This aligns with findings from the Institute for Justice, which reports that equitable sharing revenues peaked in 2013, shortly after the Great Recession. This suggests that law enforcement agencies turned to civil forfeiture as a financial lifeline amid declining tax revenues and growing demand for public services. While it’s difficult to isolate a single cause, the timing indicates that forfeiture increases are often tied more to economic strain than to actual public safety needs. That this surge frequently occurs without any accompanying criminal charges only deepens concern that civil forfeiture is driven by revenue generation, not justice.

Legislative and judicial challenges to civil asset forfeiture

Several states have enacted significant reforms to limit or eliminate civil asset forfeiture. North Carolina, New Mexico, and Maine have gone the farthest, banning civil forfeiture altogether and allowing property to be forfeited only through criminal forfeiture, following a conviction. Utah prohibits forfeiture when the property owner is acquitted of the charges. Other states have taken steps to increase transparency, raise the standard of proof, or direct forfeiture proceeds away from law enforcement budgets.

However, even the most robust state-level reforms face a major loophole: the federal Equitable Sharing Program. Some states have attempted to limit participation in equitable sharing by requiring a criminal conviction for property to be forfeited, or by restricting how shared proceeds can be used, with variable levels of success. For example, despite New Mexico banning civil asset forfeiture entirely in 2015 and requiring a criminal conviction for any forfeiture to occur, law enforcement agencies in the state have continued to generate significant revenue through the federal Equitable Sharing Program by receiving a portion of the funds from assets seized by federal law enforcement. Between 2000 and 2019, New Mexico law enforcement agencies received over $50 million in forfeiture revenue from this federal program, with a significant portion of the revenue coming after the state’s ban. While annual payouts declined, from over $5 million in 2013 to under $1 million by 2019, they remained substantial. In 2015 alone, the year the reform was passed, agencies still pulled in over $2.1 million. This is a clear sign that, without federal reform, even the most ambitious state efforts can be quietly undermined.

Numerous judicial challenges have been launched against the practice of civil asset forfeiture. Many of these cases do not challenge the constitutionality of civil asset forfeiture itself, but instead how it is administered. Culley v. Marshall explained the due process rights of innocent property owners involved in civil asset forfeiture cases. In Timbs v. Indiana, the state used civil asset forfeiture to seize a Land Rover purchased with life insurance money after Tyson Timbs was arrested for selling drugs. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment applied to state civil asset forfeiture cases. Upon remand, the Indiana Supreme Court subsequently ruled that the attempted forfeiture of the Land Rover was grossly disproportionate to the underlying offense. 

While Timbs was a landmark ruling in affirming constitutional protections against excessive forfeiture, its practical impact has been limited. The decision did not ban civil forfeiture or establish clear standards for what constitutes “excessive,” leaving it to lower courts to interpret on a case-by-case basis. As a result, many of the systemic issues–lower standard of proof, insufficient due process, and financial incentives driving enforcement–remain intact. In practice, Timbs has provided an important legal tool, but not a comprehensive solution. The fundamental structure of civil forfeiture still allows property to be taken without a criminal conviction, and individuals often have to fight lengthy and expensive legal battles to get it back.

What’s next?  

There is growing bipartisan support for civil asset forfeiture reform, but resistance remains from local governments and law enforcement agencies that have come to rely on the revenue it generates. Often, the opposition is framed in terms of public safety, but at its core, this is a budgeting issue. For many cities and counties, civil forfeiture has become a means of funding operations without raising taxes. That might seem like a practical solution, but it’s a risky one. Relying on unpredictable, enforcement-based revenue creates harmful incentives and shifts the focus away from proper public safety. It also erodes trust, especially when property is taken from people who are never even charged with a crime.

To effectively reform civil asset forfeiture, specific measures should be pursued:

Increase Legal Standards: Raise the standard of proof required for asset forfeiture from “preponderance of the evidence” to “clear and convincing evidence” or require a criminal conviction before acquiring ownership of assets. New Mexico, for example, abolished civil forfeiture entirely in 2015, mandating criminal convictions before assets can be forfeited, which has resulted in reduced abuses without compromising public safety.

Remove Financial Incentives: End the practice of allowing law enforcement agencies to retain seized assets for their own use. Maine illustrates this reform by mandating that forfeiture proceeds be deposited into the state’s general fund, thereby removing direct profit motives for law enforcement. Before this change, Maine’s law enforcement retained nearly all forfeiture funds, totaling over $3 million between 2009 and 2019. In 2023, the total amount seized through civil asset forfeiture was just $26,439.50–demonstrating what happens when financial incentives to seize are removed. 

Establish Transparency and Accountability: Require comprehensive, standardized, and publicly accessible reporting on all forfeiture activities. This should include detailed information on what was seized (type, value, and quantity of property), whether the owner was charged or convicted of a crime, the legal basis for the forfeiture, the law enforcement agency involved, how proceeds were spent, and the timeline from seizure to final disposition. Transparent reporting is crucial for tracking patterns, assessing fairness, and preventing abuse. States like Maine and Minnesota have implemented measures to enhance transparency, leading to increased public awareness and scrutiny of forfeiture practices. These transparency initiatives have highlighted specific abuses and demonstrated the need for continued improvements in record-keeping accuracy, public accessibility, and meaningful oversight.

Guarantee Due Process: Provide accessible legal mechanisms for property owners to quickly and effectively challenge seizures and recover assets that have been wrongfully taken. Arizona and New Mexico serve as models by requiring a criminal conviction before property can be forfeited, restoring the presumption of innocence, banning coercion of property owners to relinquish their rights, abolishing non-judicial forfeiture, and ensuring prompt, post-deprivation hearings. These reforms significantly reduced wrongful seizures and enhanced the rights of property owners. Before these changes, Arizona law enforcement seized more than $530 million over two decades, often without criminal charges or convictions. The new protections have effectively decreased abuse and increased fairness in asset forfeiture practices. While it’s still early to fully assess the impact of these reforms, they were designed to increase fairness and reduce potential abuses in asset forfeiture practices.

Unify the Forfeiture Process: One major flaw of the current system is the two-track process used in civil forfeiture, where property is litigated in civil court while the person is tried separately in criminal court. This creates confusion and often leads property owners to default, especially when the legal process is too complex or costly to navigate. Most seizures involve property valued at less than $1,300—an amount too low to justify the cost of hiring legal representation or fighting in court. By shifting to a one-track criminal forfeiture process, where both the person and property are handled within the same criminal proceeding, due process is strengthened, and the system becomes more transparent and efficient. Public defenders could then represent property owners as part of the original arrest case, ensuring they are not left to navigate a civil system alone. 

Close Legal Loopholes: Congress should either end the practice of equitable sharing or prevent it from violating conflicting state laws. The federal equitable sharing program provides local law enforcement opportunities to still benefit from civil asset forfeiture even when their states ban the practices because federal law enforcement can share revenue with them. This situation presents the problem that state-level reforms may be largely ineffective if the federal government does not also reform itself. If Congress is unwilling to abolish the program itself, then it must at least prevent local law enforcement from circumventing their own state laws.

Real reform requires action from policymakers, legal advocates, community leaders, and the general public. Advocating for these concrete changes will protect constitutional rights, rebuild community trust, and support more compassionate, effective, and fair approaches to public safety and drug enforcement.

Editor’s note, May 6, 2025: This piece has been updated to clarify details about seizures, forfeitures, and the examples mentioned.

The post How civil forfeiture targets everyday Americans, not kingpins appeared first on Reason Foundation.

About one in five Virginia workers are required to hold an occupational license to do their job. An occupational license is issued by a state agency that has regulatory authority over a particular profession, allowing an individual to practice that profession legally. Professions ranging from barbers to architects usually require an occupational license. To obtain an occupational license, a resident must submit verification of education, training, testing, and pay associated fees to a state regulatory entity. This licensing requirement may present a significant barrier for prospective workers.

The barriers to entry are even higher for people with criminal records. They face additional uncertainty over whether their criminal records disqualify them from obtaining a license. S.B. 826 mitigates this uncertainty by establishing a process to determine eligibility before applicants commit to the costs of education and training requirements. S.B. 826’s predetermination process allows an individual to request a legally binding determination from the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation regarding whether their prior conviction is disqualifying for an occupational license in a particular profession.

Virginia law already required individualized consideration of each applicant, meaning that no criminal conviction is automatically disqualifying. Instead, licensing boards must determine whether a prior conviction directly relates to the occupation according to criteria ranging from the extent to which the profession may offer an opportunity to engage in further criminal activity to the applicant’s rehabilitative efforts following release from incarceration. For example, someone with a criminal conviction for tax evasion would probably not be able to get a certified public accountant’s license, but that offense would likely be no barrier to getting a barber’s license. S.B. 826 improves this system by instituting the predetermination system.

Sen. Mamie Locke (D-23), the primary sponsor of S.B. 826, sought to improve employment prospects for state residents, as well as address policy priorities such as safety, security, and fairness. The bill also advanced Youngkin’s priorities in deregulating occupational licensing in Virginia. The legislation passed unanimously in both chambers of the Virginia General Assembly.

Reason Foundation contributed to the legislative discussion surrounding S.B. 826 through technical assistance and outreach to lawmakers and other stakeholders regarding barriers to employment faced by individuals with prior conviction records.

The reforms in S.B. 826 demonstrate a bipartisan commitment in Virginia to common-sense criminal justice reform. Virginia joins 25 other states that have already adopted a licensing predetermination process. This legislation ensures that individuals with criminal records can preserve their resources by receiving a predetermination decision before attempting to embark on a career path. Other states should look at Virginia as a model for their own policies.

The post Virginia reduces unnecessary licensing barriers for people with criminal records appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Song lyrics are improperly being used as evidence against defendants.

• Literal confessions of criminal guilt should not be treated as free speech protected under the First Amendment. However, song lyrics are often not intended to be taken literally, so their admission as evidence should be scrutinized.
• Currently, the admissibility of song lyrics is determined by an unclear and inconsistently applied patchwork of constitutional principles and rules of evidence within a jurisdiction. The current framework is insufficient to guard against undue prejudice.
• Researchers have identified more than 680 cases nationwide where song lyrics have been introduced as evidence since the 1980s. This practice presents a serious affront to the principles of free expression and artistic freedom.

S.B. 661 and H.B. 1389 establish reasonable standards for the admission of artistic expression as evidence in a criminal trial.

• By default, artistic expression would be inadmissible. However, a court could admit evidence of a defendant’s artistic expression if they can prove by clear and convincing evidence that:
  • If the expression is original, the defendant intended a literal meaning. If the expression is derivative (borrowed from someone else), the defendant intended to adopt the statement as their own thought or statement.
  • The expression refers to specific facts of the crime alleged.
  • The expression is relevant to an issue of fact in dispute.
  • The expression has distinct probative value that is not provided by other admissible evidence.
• If artistic expression is admitted as evidence, only the exact part that meets all the above standards could be shown to a jury. Judges would also be required to give the jury clear instructions on how to interpret the evidence and caution them against misusing it.

Bottom line: The state should be required to meet fair standards before using song lyrics or other forms of artistic expression as evidence to deprive a criminal defendant of their life, liberty, or property.

Full Backgrounder: Missouri’s S.B. 661 and H.B. 1389 Would Protect Free Expression and Artistic Freedom

The post Missouri bills would protect free expression and artistic freedom appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Colorimetric tests are near-ubiquitous in drug enforcement, despite known flaws

• A recent report by the Quattrone Center at the University of Pennsylvania Law School found that approximately 773,000 of the more than 1.5 million drug arrests conducted in the United States each year involve the use of color-based presumptive tests.
• Colorimetric drug tests are notoriously unreliable because they often give false positive results for legal substances. The reliability of tests can be affected by environmental factors, by improper storage and handling, and by improper administration of the tests.
• Research has identified error rates as high as 38% in some contexts.
• Even the manufacturers of presumptive field test kits warn that confirmatory lab testing is necessary.

Colorimetric tests are a leading cause of wrongful arrests and convictions in the United States

• Thousands of Americans are arrested and convicted (overwhelmingly through coercive plea bargaining) for drug possession in cases where presumptive tests were not confirmed by subsequent laboratory testing.
• In a national survey, 89% of prosecutors reported that they accept guilty pleas without laboratory testing to confirm the results of a positive colorimetric field test result.
• An estimated 30,000 people are falsely implicated by colorimetric field drug tests each year. That would make these tests the largest known cause of wrongful arrests and convictions in the United States.

Bottom line: States should examine how useful these tests really are and how to ensure that false positives don’t lead to the arrest or conviction of innocent individuals.

Full Backgrounder: Colorimetric field drug tests are unreliable, lead to wrongful arrests and convictions

The post Colorimetric field drug tests are unreliable, lead to wrongful arrests and convictions appeared first on Reason Foundation.

The First Step Act included a host of reforms, most notably reducing mandatory minimums for certain drug offenses and retroactively applying the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 to past sentencing discrepancies between crack cocaine and powdered cocaine convictions. Additionally, the First Step Act expanded the number of individuals who could receive lower than mandatory minimum sentences, and it ended sentence enhancements for gun possession in concurrent offenses.

After these various criminal justice reforms over the late 2000s and 2010s, a Council on Criminal Justice study found that the recidivism rate of those who received relief under the First Step Act was 55% lower than those released before the act with similar risk profiles.

Additionally, there have not been noticeable federal crime rate increases since the passage of the First Step Act. While there have been fluctuations in the overall crime rate over the past five years because of the COVID-19 pandemic and other factors, the general effect of the First Step Act is positive on recidivism and, at worst, is neutral on overall crime.

Despite these positive reforms, people who had their sentences reduced under the First Step Act continue to suffer collateral consequences, including barriers to employment, housing, and financial services. While the First Step Act made much-needed improvements to sentencing policy, more work remains to ensure that individuals with criminal convictions can successfully reintegrate into society.

Right now, a criminal record, even for minor offenses, remains a barrier to jobs, housing, and other things long after someone has served their time. Every crime should not come with an automatic life sentence where one continues to be punished in various ways.

A powerful next step would be to expunge or seal the records of low-risk, nonviolent offenders. Expungement effectively erases a conviction record or seals it from public disclosure, eliminating many legal and social obstacles associated with a criminal record.

A recent study published in the Harvard Law Review found that expungement recipients in Michigan were between 13% and 23% more likely to be employed within a year of receiving expungement. Wages also increased by approximately 23% among people who received expungement.

Reintroducing two bills from the previous Congress would be a good starting point for federal expungement reform. The Clean Slate Act would automatically seal records for simple drug possession and certain nonviolent marijuana offenses and establish a petition process for sealing additional nonviolent offenses. Research indicates that individuals who obtain petition-based expungements are very unlikely to re-offend.

Additionally, the Fresh Start Act would provide states with grants to update their legal justice data systems to enable automated record sealing and expungement.

There is no federal statute creating an expungement process, and federal courts have no inherent expungement power. Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia, New York, New Jersey, and 40 other states have some form of automatic or petition-based expungement or record sealing program. All these programs have recently been instituted within the last five to 10 years.

An automatic expungement framework would be more efficient than petition-based expungements, which have a notoriously low application rate because of a lack of knowledge of the process and other barriers to entry.

The number of people who would be eligible for expungement under the federal Clean Slate Act is relatively small because most crimes are prosecuted at the state level. However, the Fresh Start Act offers an opportunity for the Trump administration to help improve the state criminal record systems to allow for more efficient state-level expungement processes. Many states continue to have antiquated record-keeping systems where individuals’ criminal records are held at different levels of government, whether it be state, county, or municipality. The system of disparate record-keeping has led to some absurd results.

For example, scattered court records in Florida have created confusion over voter eligibility and complicated election enforcement efforts. In 2018, Florida voters passed Amendment 4 to the Florida Constitution by an overwhelming majority. Amendment 4 restored voting rights for convicted felons (except those convicted of murder or a sexual offense) upon the completion of their sentence, including the payment of fines and fees.

The implementation of Amendment 4 has been complicated by the fact that the records related to fines and fees are held by counties and municipalities, not the state. This reality means that many individuals lack the resources to discover all the fines and fees they owe across different counties and cities in Florida.

In 2020, an inmate named John Boyd Rivers registered to vote but was not informed of the requirement to pay all his fines and fees before doing so, nor was he given an account of what he owed. He was eventually charged with election crimes for failure to pay his fines and fees before voting, along with nine other felons with similar failures to pay. The Fresh Start Act could solve this issue of scattered recordkeeping in the states by issuing grants to states to modernize their recordkeeping system through digitization and centralization.

The First Step Act was a landmark reform that addressed sentencing disparities and excessive mandatory minimums. The second Trump administration should build upon this common-sense criminal justice reform by pursuing expungement reforms to ease individuals’ reintegration into society.

The post The Trump administration should promote criminal record expungement appeared first on Reason Foundation.

But victims in this process are often relegated to a secondary position. They often feel disconnected from proceedings and decisions. As the government pursues conviction or resolution, victims’ needs, concerns, and desires can be overshadowed.

A growing trend, however, known as victim-offender dialogue, is showing evidence of addressing many of these needs while at the same time helping prevent recidivism.

Over the past 40 years, states have pursued reforms that establish and protect victims’ rights. Broadly, victims in Florida have constitutional rights “to be informed, to be present and to be heard when relevant, at all crucial stages of criminal proceedings, to the extent that these rights do not interfere with the constitutional rights of the accused.” 

This means victims are notified regarding court hearings and other developments in their cases. They are entitled to provide testimony during trial and make a statement at the time of sentencing. Victims may also receive financial compensation through restitution payments or a victims’ compensation fund. 

Yet, many victims are left seeking more. 

It is common for victims to want to speak with the person who harmed them—to express how the offender’s conduct impacted their lives and directly hear the offender accept responsibility for his or her actions. 

Victim-offender dialogue — sometimes referred to as restorative justice dialogue or victim-offender mediation — is a tool for addressing the needs, concerns, and desires of victims.

Essentially, this process is non-adversarial, and all parties must be willing participants. 

Extensive vetting occurs prior to contact between victims and offenders to ensure no additional harm occurs. Moreover, victims initiate the process, which means that victim-offender dialogue only occurs if the victim seeks it. 

When these dialogues occur, trained and experienced facilitators mediate them. 

Victim-offender dialogue is not appropriate in all cases and is not a substitute for the traditional criminal justice system. It is just an additional tool to address needs that criminal prosecution does not meet. 

With some caveats, research evidence suggests that victim-offender dialogue can have positive impacts on victims’ healing and may even have positive effects against recidivism. 

A recent review of research found that victim-offender dialogue programming may help reduce symptoms of post-traumatic stress among victims of crime. This matters because many victims report they do not receive help dealing with this trauma through the criminal justice system. What’s more, large majorities of crime victims prefer alternative accountability mechanisms over incarceration, according to a recent survey.

Additional studies have reported high levels of satisfaction among victims and offenders participating in victim-offender dialogue programs compared to those exposed solely to the traditional criminal justice system. 

In addition, offenders participating in victim-offender dialogue are less likely to re-offend, although some of these outcomes may be attributed to self-selection rather than the dialogue itself. In other words, offenders who voluntarily participate and show remorse may already be at low risk for re-offending, so it is difficult to attribute lower rates of re-offending directly to their participation in victim-offender dialogue. 

Nevertheless, the primary objective of victim-offender dialogue is to address the harm experienced by victims rather than solely focusing on reducing recidivism.

In light of these positive research findings, many states have embraced victim-offender dialogue. In 2020, Florida’s Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) released a report examining research evidence on victim-offender dialogue and its use across the country. Thirty-seven states provide some statutory support for victim-offender dialogue or similar restorative justice practices. Many of these states have programs that enable victim-offender dialogues within the adult criminal justice system. Other states, such as Florida, have programs that are limited to the juvenile justice system. 

As the OPPAGA report noted, there is only limited statutory support for restorative justice in Florida, and the Florida Department of Corrections does not have any formal victim-offender dialogue programs for adults. 

Despite a lack of statutory support and official programming, victim-offender dialogue is occurring in Florida. In pockets around the state, organizations such as the Florida Restorative Justice Association are working with public officials and facilitating victim-offender dialogues. Unfortunately, the informal nature of this work means that many victims are unaware that victim-offender dialogue is an option in the state.

Florida has made great strides in establishing and protecting victims’ rights, but too often, victims are still relegated to a secondary role.

It is essential for Florida lawmakers to consider reforms that further enable victim-offender dialogues throughout the state. 

Even relatively minor steps, such as defining victim-offender dialogue in statute and ensuring that victims are aware of its availability, would go a long way.

A version of this commentary first appeared in the Sarasota Observer.  

The post Victim-offender dialogues may help victims heal appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Addressing Medicaid’s shortcomings isn’t just about fiscally responsible solutions that make sense for everyone; it’s about empowering individuals to jumpstart their reentry to society in a productive way. When substance-addicted persons leave incarceration, they frequently relapse without care, leading to substantially higher public costs related to overdose or even reincarceration. These outcomes don’t just disempower individuals—they place unnecessary strain on public resources. Medicaid systems can achieve better cost control and generate better health outcomes by providing addiction treatment to these individuals during the period of their transition back into society.

The Reentry Act, first introduced in July 2021 by Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), presents a potential solution by seeking to expand Medicaid coverage to incarcerated individuals beginning 30 days before their release.

A coalition of over 65 different organizations is calling for the passage of the Reentry Act and the Due Process Continuity of Care Act to address critical gaps in healthcare access for incarcerated individuals with substance use disorders (SUD). However, the success of this proposal depends not only on ensuring incarcerated people with SUD have access to health insurance coverage upon their release but also that this coverage coincides with access to actual healthcare. Addressing the latter requires more than extending Medicaid eligibility; it also requires addressing structural challenges within Medicaid that discourage healthcare providers like drug treatment programs from accepting Medicaid patients. These interconnected issues discourage providers from participating in Medicaid, ultimately restricting access to life-saving treatment for those who need it most.

Economics of Medicaid and structural challenges

Making Medicaid coverage available to incarcerated people upon release may boost access to care, but broader reforms are needed to ensure that care is adequate and affordable. To illustrate one problem, cost-shifting occurs when providers compensate for Medicaid’s low reimbursement rates or treat uninsured patients by inflating prices for privately insured individuals. This practice drives up premiums for private insurance holders, increases out-of-pocket expenses, and creates financial strain for employers offering health benefits. Over time, these rising costs can make healthcare less affordable for a broader population, exacerbate inequities, and place additional pressure on the overall healthcare system to control spending.  

The involvement of an increasing number of intermediaries—such as managed care entities and administrative contractors—extracting profits without delivering direct care leads to significant inefficiencies in the healthcare system. These inefficiencies lead to higher administrative costs, diverting resources from patient care and inflating overall expenses for individuals and the healthcare system. The system becomes bloated with redundant processes and slower decision-making as administrative layers multiply. This makes it harder for people to get the care they need and leaves less money for programs that provide direct help. Consequently, the system struggles to operate effectively and deliver timely, cost-efficient care to those who need it most. 

These dynamics are compounded by the lack of transparent pricing, which prevents consumers from making informed decisions and understanding the true cost of services. As a result, providers have less competition, keeping prices high. Instead of relying solely on expanding insurance coverage, focusing on structural reforms that reduce administrative waste and establish clear price signals is essential to addressing these systemic issues. 

Diminished provider participation and access gaps

One major factor influencing the availability of care and services for Medicaid patients is whether providers are willing to accept Medicaid. State Medicaid programs often try to control costs by paying doctors and healthcare providers a lower rate than the cost of their services. But, while limiting provider compensation rates reduces short-term expenditures, it simultaneously diminishes providers’ willingness to accept Medicaid. Medicaid reimbursement rates often fall far below those provided by private insurers or Medicare, which provides federally funded insurance for people over 65. In 2016, primary care providers who accepted Medicaid patients were reimbursed at only 72% of Medicare rates on average, with some states paying as low as 38%. 

These low reimbursement rates make participation in Medicaid financially untenable for many providers, who are forced to absorb the difference between the cost of care they provide and the rate at which they are paid. Consequently, nearly half of all SUD treatment programs in the U.S. do not accept Medicaid, which means that even though Medicaid covers substance use treatment on paper, many people still cannot get the care they need. Simultaneously, expanding Medicaid eligibility increases demand for services, creating a mismatch where coverage and demand for services grow, but access to care covered by Medicaid shrinks. For incarcerated individuals with SUD, this mismatch between coverage and care access exacerbates an already precarious situation, making it even more essential to focus Medicaid reforms on this high-risk group. By prioritizing reimbursement rates that incentivize provider participation, these systemic resource gaps can begin to close. 

Medicaid expansion and financial strains

The financial strain on states from Medicaid expansion has further complicated matters. Under the Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, states could extend Medicaid coverage to those previously ineligible, including able-bodied adults without children or those earning just above the poverty line. Though this was initially supported with increased federal funding, that funding has been gradually phased out, leaving states to cover the mounting obligations resulting from the expanded Medicaid population. 

Many states turned to managed care models to control these costs and required prior authorizations. Managed care organizations act as middlemen between patients and providers to arrange and coordinate Medicaid recipient care. While helpful in capping expenditures, they add administrative complexity that can delay care and dissuade provider participation. Similarly, prior authorization requirements—which require patients to gain approval from their insurance provider before receiving certain treatments or medicines—can exacerbate access barriers by delaying critical interventions and placing additional strain on an already thin provider workforce. This can be especially detrimental to time-sensitive treatments for people with SUD, such as access to medications that prevent relapse. like buprenorphine.

To further control the cost of Medicaid expansion, many states have reduced their direct funding for substance use disorder (SUD) services. Between 2010 and 2019, state-funded SUD budgets in Medicaid expansion states were cut by an average of $9.95 million, even as demand for these services grew. This underfunding often forces individuals to rely on costly emergency departments or fall back into patterns of homelessness and incarceration, all of which place a significant financial burden on state systems and ultimately undermine long-term cost savings. By ensuring that sustained funding prioritizes vulnerable groups like prisoners with SUD, states can alleviate these financial strains while effectively addressing the root causes of high costs.

Prioritizing vulnerable populations: Incarcerated individuals

While extending Medicaid coverage to incarcerated individuals before release would be a first step in addressing gaps in care, Medicaid reform is more effective when targeted directly at those incarcerated individuals with SUD—a population at the highest risk of adverse outcomes and where the return on investment is clearest. The weeks following release from incarceration are particularly hazardous; individuals with SUDs are 12 times more likely than the general population to die from overdose or suicide during this period. Without access to care, many fall back into substance use, homelessness, and criminal behavior, perpetuating cycles that burden taxpayers through repeated interaction with healthcare and criminal justice systems. By prioritizing Medicaid coverage for SUD treatment both before and immediately after release from incarceration, these trajectories can be altered, reducing fatalities, lowering recidivism, and cutting state spending on avoidable high-cost interventions.

Solutions for effective Medicaid reform for those with SUD 

To support this targeted approach, Medicaid must make systemic adjustments that guarantee practical access to care. Increasing reimbursement rates for evidence-based SUD services would allow more providers to participate in the program sustainably. Making the process for getting doctors and treatment centers approved faster and easier would increase providers’ willingness to join the program, giving patients more options for care. Additionally, eliminating prior authorization requirements for critical treatments, particularly medications critical for recovery maintenance, such as buprenorphine, would ensure timely interventions when they are needed most. These reforms align with evidence from states that have removed administrative hurdles, showing increased treatment rates and lower overdose deaths.

In recent history, policymakers’ focus on Medicaid has often centered on expanding enrollment, with less attention given to addressing the systemic barriers that prevent access to care. But, increasing the demand within an already overburdened system does little to enhance the availability or affordability of care and treatment. A more prudent strategy would instead prioritize Medicaid resources for populations at the highest risk, delivering measurable benefits by targeting adverse outcomes like overdoses, hospitalizations, and reincarceration. Empowering these individuals with the tools to start building their autonomy back will ensure that public spending is used in the way it was meant to be used. The Reentry Act provides a good starting point to address critical gaps in care for incarcerated individuals with SUD by allowing for a foundation from which individuals can build.  

Health care costs can’t be fixed in the long term until market forces are re-introduced into the sector. However, focusing Medicaid resources in a cost-effective way, with targeted reforms like the Reentry Act, could achieve better outcomes and empower individuals to rebuild productive, independent lives. Now is the time to pivot from ineffective broad policies toward evidence-based reforms, creating more targeted and impactful solutions.

The post Medicaid is failing people leaving prison, and we’re all paying the price appeared first on Reason Foundation.

An occupational license is essentially a government-issued stamp of approval to work in certain regulated occupations, such as a barber, cosmetologist, real estate agent, or construction contractor. Obtaining an occupational license generally involves fulfilling training and education prerequisites, paying applicable fees, and formally applying to a licensing board for evaluation.

Occupational licensing is intended to protect consumers by setting minimum standards, but research suggests it often has little to no effect on quality. Instead, licensing can create arbitrary barriers to entry, limit the labor supply, and raise costs for consumers. While existing license holders may benefit from reduced competition, consumers and prospective licensees suffer from higher prices and reduced labor market fluidity.

Of course, an applicant’s prior convictions may be relevant to licensure decisions, but applicants shouldn’t be automatically disqualified because of a prior conviction that bears no relation to the duties and responsibilities of the occupation. The good news is Virginia law currently requires individualized consideration for each applicant to determine whether their conviction record is directly related to the occupation. This is broadly a fair approach, and most states have adopted similar frameworks.

But there’s a problem in Virginia: people with convictions don’t know if their record disqualifies them until they’ve completed all the licensing requirements and submitted their application. This uncertainty creates a barrier to entry and can waste applicants’ time and money.

If signed, Senate Bill 826, introduced by state Sen. Mamie Locke (D-23), would establish a process to determine eligibility before applicants complete their education and training. This is a common-sense reform to the license approval process that would improve the customer experience of license applicants. Twenty-five other states have already adopted predetermination processes like the one established in SB 826 to provide clarity to prospective applicants on the front end.

SB 826 passed in the Virginia Senate on Feb. 3 and passed in the Virginia House of Representatives on Feb. 18. It is uncertain whether Youngkin will sign the legislation, in part due to a fiscal impact statement indicating that “the bill will create additional expenditures for which the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation (DPOR) is not currently appropriated.” However, the anticipated fiscal impacts are largely based on a questionable assumption that SB 826 would greatly add to the current workload of DOPR and other agencies. According to the fiscal impact statement:

DPOR may need to increase staffing levels to process the requests, support additional board meetings, and hold additional hearings depending on the number of predetermination requests. According to the agency, approximately 250 determination hearings are currently held on average for applicants across all the agency’s board [sic], which represents fewer than ten percent of all applicants with some form of criminal record. DPOR anticipates that as a result of this bill, that number would increase significantly because individuals would no longer have to complete the application process or pay application fees before requesting a determination.

Assuming the number of hearings doubles to 500, which the agency considers a low estimate, DPOR indicates that an additional three legal hearing officers, one administrative coordinator, one court reporter/transcriptionist, and one supervisor/presiding officer would be required at an annual cost of $740,000. Without these additional staff and a doubling of the number of hearings, DPOR estimates that the current backlog of 145 days to complete a hearing would extend to 280 days. Additionally, administrative and overheads costs associated with a hearing average approximately $800, resulting in an additional $200,000 annually.

DOPR’s projection that SB 826 could more than double the number of determination hearings is remarkably high, perhaps overly so. Data from other states suggest more modest expectations are in order. For example, Ohio licensing boards received just 215 predetermination requests in the first two years of implementation, compared to the 293,551 license applications approved by Ohio boards over that period. While 215 predetermination requests might seem like a relatively low number, they provided valuable clarity to the people who submitted requests. Seventy-seven out of those 215 people were determined to have disqualifying records. Without the predetermination process, those 77 people would have otherwise needed to satisfy all the other requirements for a license and submit an application only to find out that their conviction record was disqualifying.

Rather than flooding DPOR with new requests, SB 826 would primarily shift the timing of the roughly 250 determination hearings that already occur each year. Because predeterminations made under SB 826 would be binding, subsequent hearings would not be required unless an applicant was convicted of another crime between their predetermination and applying.

Although a dramatic increase in determination hearings is unlikely, DPOR’s claim that 250 additional hearings would require six new employees and nearly $1 million annually suggests that Virginia’s process for reviewing conviction records is substantially more intensive and inefficient than in other states. DPOR currently holds 250 fact-finding hearings in cases where license applicants have a potentially disqualifying conviction record. DPOR says that 90% percent of applications that require a hearing are ultimately approved, suggesting that many of those hearings are not necessary.

SB 826 leaves DPOR with broad discretion regarding the details of implementation, so the agency has the flexibility to identify ways of streamlining the predetermination process. Nonetheless, the legislation could be amended to allow a small fee for predetermination requests. Among the 25 states with predetermination processes, 16 allow or require licensing boards to charge fees to cover administrative costs. These fees are most commonly capped at $25 but range from $5 to $100.

Reducing uncertainty for license applicants with criminal records would be consistent with Youngkin’s broader efforts to expand the state’s workforce through reforms to occupational licensing and other regulatory approval processes. In 2023, Virginia became the 20th state to adopt universal license recognition, allowing people licensed in other states to receive expedited approval to work in Virginia. The reform has already helped over 500 workers with out-of-state occupational licenses join Virginia’s workforce. In a press release, Governor Glenn Youngkin praised universal license recognition, saying:

My administration has worked tirelessly, and we’ve been successful in bringing thousands of Virginians off the sidelines and back into the workforce. But what I hear from businesses of all sizes, large and small, is they need more, they need more workers. Universal license recognition will assist in resolving worker shortages while at the same time benefiting consumers through reduced costs of goods and services.

Youngkin took further action to reduce the burden of occupational licensing regulations in October 2024 by signing an executive order that directs state agencies to streamline regulatory approval processes “to reduce wait times, reduce costs and improve the permit, license, certification, and registration, application processes for Virginians.”

Virginia’s recent reforms are helping to alleviate labor shortages across the state. As the Virginia Department of Occupations and Professional Regulation director, Kishore Thota told Virginia Mercury last year:

One industry that has been particularly hurt by labor shortages is the waterworks and wastewater works operators…Over 10% of the licenses issued under [universal license recognition] have been waterworks operators and wastewater works operators. [Universal license recognition] will continue to provide an easier pathway for qualified operators to come and work in Virginia

However, there is still ample room to improve Virginia’s occupational licensing laws and regulations. Reforms that reduce licensing barriers for individuals with prior criminal convictions could further expand Virginia’s workforce while offering former offenders a second chance. In just the past decade, 40 states (excluding Virginia) have adopted reforms to empower people with prior convictions to pursue productive work in licensed occupations. SB 826 would bring Virginia’s licensing policies in line with the 25 other states that have adopted predetermination processes.

Successful implementation by 25 other states demonstrates that predetermination is a feasible, common-sense solution to the uncertainty associated with licensing decisions. Consistent with Youngkin’s priority of improving regulatory approval processes, SB 826 would save time and money and would reduce frustration for Virginians seeking government permission to work. 

The post Virginia’s Senate Bill 826 would reduce uncertainty associated with occupational licensing approvals appeared first on Reason Foundation.

However, the results of criminal-justice-related ballot initiatives indicate that crime was still a salient issue, and voters may be reacting against the more radical demands that were floated by advocates after the murder of George Floyd, like defunding or abolishing the police, as well as to the 2020 upticks in certain types of crime.

Some of the ballot measures were in keeping with a criminal justice system that balances the imperative for the protection of persons and property with a parsimonious use of state resources, minimizing the use of force and restrictions on freedoms by the state. Others were not quite as well-measured and pointed to a shift in the climate around criminal justice reform away from its previous optimistic tenor of the period between 2000 and 2020.

The optimistic climate around criminal justice reform was partially attributable to the decreasing significance of crime to the voting population. However, in 2024, even though crime was not the top issue of concern, 75% of voters indicated that it was still either extremely important or very important to their vote, with only 6% saying it was unimportant. Pew’s results, which, unlike Gallup’s, focused on violent crime specifically, found that it ranked fifth among voters’ concerns, with 61% of voters saying it was very important to their vote. Both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris campaigned on, to varying degrees and emphases, a “tough on crime” approach to mirror this attitudinal change among the public, which could be partially attributable to increases in concern about newsworthy increases in certain types of crime during the pandemic and its aftermath.

As reported by the Council on Criminal Justice (CCJ), homicide in 2021 and 2022 was about 30% higher than in the first half of 2019, as was non-residential burglary. Gun assault was 40% higher during those years. In 2023, motor vehicle theft was 102% higher than in the first half of 2019; shoplifting and carjacking were up a whopping 127%.

There was also extensive coverage of those upticks. Videos of smash-and-grab burglaries went viral, and news stories on organized retail crime increased nationally from 436 in 2019 to 925 in 2022. Voters may have linked certain reforms as leading to quality-of-life problems, property crimes, or violence. The results of the 2024 ballot initiatives related to criminal justice in five states speak to the above climate shift among the voting population. Here, we give a post-mortem of those initiatives by topic and look forward to what this portends for the next four years.

Colorado Proposition 130: Funding for law enforcement

Result: Passed 52.8% to 47.2%

Postmortem analysis

A repudiation of the 2020 “defund the police” demands through a popular vote but still signaling concerns with some police practices involving force, this successful proposition directs the legislature to provide an additional, one-time allocation of $350 million to fund recruitment, retention, and training for local police officers.

The funds, to be paid out over an indeterminate amount of time, will be distributed in the form of grants for hiring initiatives, training, and support that can come via pay increases, bonuses, educational programs such as postsecondary degrees in criminal justice, training (including in restraining use of force), and a one-million-dollar death benefit for the families of officers killed in the line of duty on top of death and disability benefits from pensions.

Proposition 130 was placed on the ballot through the signature-collection efforts of Advance Colorado, self-described as “[a]n action-based organization focused on reversing radical policies that are harming the state and restoring common sense values and principles in Colorado,” which garnered 185,000 signatures. The organization stated the purpose of Proposition 130 was in response to “a significant increase in crime, and especially violent crime, in the state of Colorado.” Violent crime did rise in Colorado between 2013 and 2022, after which it has begun to dip. Property crime increased between 2020 and 2022 but has also been declining. Noting that crime began to decrease before a massive increase in state spending will be important for any evaluation of the effectiveness of the influx of funds in the upcoming years in reducing crime.

There are two policy levers that should be exerted with the passage of this bill. One concerns the timing of the allocation of the funds. $350 million represents ten times the amount of recent state funding for law enforcement and is in addition to that funding. Colorado has a billion-dollar budget hole, and the recently passed Proposition KK, which levied taxes on firearms sales, is estimated to raise only $39 million in additional funds per year. Because it is a one-time allocation without a timeline for disbursement, legislators should consider a 10-year or slightly longer distribution period, which would allow for the funds from Proposition KK to cover the new hole. Because no new taxes were implicated in the passage of this measure, this would necessarily mean that the budget will have to shift funds away from other programs or potential intervention strategies that can help reduce crime, like substance abuse treatment.

The second policy lever is stringent attention to what types of activities the grants will be used for and how to measure their effectiveness. It is disappointing that there was no assessment mechanism included in the proposition that would mandate an accounting for the success of the funded programs, such as in increased clearance rates, which is a more direct measure of police efficacy, but this can be made a condition of the grants.

Grants should be given for initiatives with strong empirical backing for crime reduction and increases in officer well-being. For example, there is inconsistent evidence as to whether police levels (officers or spending per capita) in and of themselves reduce crime. However, there is strong support for policing strategies like “hotspot” policing, so focusing on hotspot areas where crime is concentrated would be a beneficial use of funds. If the need is demonstrated, specialized investigative teams targeting specific types of crime can be deployed, which is among the intended purposes that should be supported through this funding. Police de-escalation training and law enforcement obtaining postsecondary education also provide mixed or questionable support from reputable research for its effectiveness in various job-related outcomes.

California Proposition 6 and Nevada Question 4: Forced prison labor

Result: Proposition 6 failed, 53.3% to 46.7%; Question 4 passed 60.6% to 39.4%

Postmortem analysis

These ballot initiatives, for which Reason Foundation published guides prior to the election, dealt with the question of whether to remove the exception to involuntary servitude and/or slavery (which exists as a “loophole” to the abolition of slavery in the U.S. Constitution’s 13th Amendment) in the state constitutions of California and Nevada. In California, the ballot also carried with it a prohibition against disciplining an incarcerated person for refusing a work assignment. These votes followed closely on the heels of other recent and successful ballot initiatives to end involuntary servitude in Colorado (2018), Nebraska (2020), Tennessee (2022), Vermont (2022), Alabama (2022), Utah (2022), and Oregon (2022).

Why the initiative failed in California but succeeded in Nevada has been partially and reasonably attributed to the fact that the language in the title and summary provided to voters in California did not use the word “slavery” (“slavery” doesn’t appear in its state Constitution, whereas it does in Nevada’s), but only the less-understood term “involuntary servitude,” leaving voters confused. In both instances, what is meant by involuntary servitude is forced labor, often with the threat of punishment if it is withheld. This was certainly the case in states like California and Nevada, where incarcerated people have been mandated to work, including in jobs that carry significant risk to their lives, like fighting fires, for either no wages or paltry wages. If incarcerated individuals refuse to work, they may be reprimanded and denied a range of privileges.

Some have argued that work in prison leads to better chances of employment upon reentry and less recidivism. However, most studies investigate voluntary work programs, so the true impact of forced labor on employment and recidivism is unknown. Affirmatively choosing to seek the benefits of work and gaining time credits or wages for that exchange in itself signals a likelihood of successful reentry.

The private sector has a strong, beneficial role to play here in the absence of a constitutional ban on forced labor. There can be a closer mapping of work inside to work outside, fair pay for services, and cultivation of future employees, such as is seen with the sales and marketing company Televerde, which hires women in prison, providing them with practicable sales training and access to marketing technology, as well as a workforce development program through their related foundation. There would need to be a commitment on the part of private employers, coupled with training, development, and openness to successful second chance practices, such as is seen with Nehemiah Manufacturing, which concentrates its hiring on the formerly incarcerated and provides them with wraparound services (like social workers, subsidized housing, and access to free transportation) to help with their re-entry.

From a policy perspective, there are several approaches to reducing the negative consequences of the failure of the ballot initiative. Doing away with employment restrictions and other collateral consequences is a clearer path to employment opportunities than coerced labor. Policy analysts at Reason have also noted that the California constitution should be interpreted to mean that judges can order involuntary servitude, but prison staff cannot. This would greatly reduce the availability of the tool of punishing incarcerated people for refusing work or impelling them to participate in work they do not wish to, for any reason, engage in.

Colorado Amendment 1: Constitutional bail exception for first degree murder

Result: Passed 69% to 31%

Postmortem analysis

Colorado’s Amendment 1, which passed with 69 percent of the vote, allows judges to deny bail to a person charged with first degree murder. This shouldn’t be interpreted as a rejection of bail reform but rather a return to a recent status quo. Colorado was one of 19 states that had a constitutional right to bail for all crimes except those accused of a capital offense. Colorado abandoned the death penalty in 2020, and so this meant that first degree murder, as a capital offense, was de facto eligible for bail, an interpretation upheld by the state Supreme Court.

Republican and Democratic lawmakers brought this constitutional amendment to the voters, also backed by the conservative action committee Advance Colorado, to restore the pre-2020 restriction on setting bail. Because this was in many senses a technical fix to update a statute after “capital offense” was removed as a category of crime in the state, it is hard to attach any significance to its passage. It is, of course, possible that voters intended to signal a mistrust of judges who were responsible—during the intervening period since the death penalty was abolished—for setting bail and release conditions that would prevent the pretrial release of people accused of first-degree murder.

It is helpful to understand a little context here about the significance of bail reform efforts. Through the 1960s, the only factor that judges could consider in setting bail was the likelihood of the defendant appearing in court, which made cash bail a useful tool. Then, reforms to the bail system in the 1970s and 1980s allowed judges to consider risks to public safety in their decisions as well. A point of concern remained as to how to ensure that the ability to pay bail does not determine whether someone can be released in the pretrial period, which would offend due process and justice interests.

In the 2010s and 2020s, cash bail reform began in New Jersey, spreading to New York, California, and Illinois. Cash bail reform became a controversial political flashpoint in state and local elections from “tough on crime” legislators. As reported by Reason Foundation, evidence suggests that restricting the use of cash bail among those deemed a low risk to public safety has positive effects, such as reducing the likelihood of being pressured into a plea deal, allowing defendants to keep their jobs and familial responsibilities, and “would not result in dramatic drops in court attendance or increased risk of reoffending. … There is even some evidence that pretrial reforms that reduce detention of low-risk, bond-eligible defendants may actually improve public safety.”

There is strong evidence that pretrial detention severely inhibits an individual’s ability to mount a legal defense and undermines the presumption of innocence and the ideals of due process. Pretrial determinations should, therefore, be made on an individualized basis and impose the minimum restrictions on liberty necessary to preserve the integrity of the adjudication process and to protect the community from definable threats of harm.

Colorado Proposition 128 and Arizona Proposition 313: Violent crime sentencing and parole

Result: Proposition 128 passed 62% to 38%; Proposition 313 passed 65% to 35%

Postmortem analysis

Colorado’s Proposition 128 saw a decisive win, garnering 62% of voter support. As with Proposition 130, 128 was sponsored by the conservative policy advocacy organization Advance Colorado. Unlike Proposition 130, though, it was a citizen-initiated ballot

Starting in January 2025, parole guidelines changed, requiring people convicted of certain crimes of violence, such as second-degree murder, first-degree assault, first-degree burglary, and aggravated robbery, to serve 85% of their sentences before becoming eligible for parole. It also ends earned time reductions for completing in-prison programming designed to reduce recidivism.

While these crimes are certainly far from sympathetic and create real harm and fear in the public, the marginal increase in public safety expected from the passage of this proposition is questionable. According to an analysis by the legislative council staff, 218 people per year will be affected by the change. This is out of a system that held 17,168 prisoners in 2022, an increase over the prior year. Because the average governing sentence for these crimes is a hefty 23 years, this will mean that instead of becoming eligible for parole after an average of 17 years, those convicted will serve 19.5 years. An additional, arbitrary 10 percent served towards the sentence, or 2.5 years, is unlikely to have enhanced deterrent or rehabilitative value. And although the individual is incapacitated for another 2.5 years, these years are on top of an already almost two-decades-long sentence. Each additional year beyond 10 years has a decreasing impact on recidivism.  It, therefore, is not a parsimonious use of state restriction on freedom.

It is also not an effective use of an additional $12 to $28 million per year in prison costs, which is on top of a strained Colorado budget now committed to $350 million for local law enforcement through Proposition 130. The loss of incentives through earned time credit to participate in rehabilitative programming that facilitates reentry, on the other hand, may mean that preparedness for release may decrease. Taken with Proposition 130 and Amendment 1, Prop. 128 was indicative of a pro-law-enforcement, risk-averse sentiment towards particularly violent crime that saw fiscal concerns as secondary.

Eligibility for parole after 75% of the time served, per the previous requirements, was not a guarantee of parole; in the same way, it is not a guarantee at 85% of the time served. In fact, discretionary parole has been more difficult to obtain due to pressure for punitive approaches and fear of having exceptional cases of reoffending capture public attention. The Colorado Parole Board approved 39% fewer people for parole in 2022 than in 2019. The Board is tasked with using risk-assessment tools, evidence of rehabilitation and work, and other indications of readiness to return to the community in their decisions. These methods, already conservative, allow for some individualization in determining whether a sentence has been sufficient to produce change and maintain public safety. The passage of Prop. 130 may be seen as a mandate for harsher sentencing and may result in an increase in discretionary denials of parole, no matter what percentage of time has been served.

“Second Look” legislation already enacted in Colorado, which allows for resentencing/sentencing modification for those convicted under habitual offender laws after serving at least 10 years, can provide a way to counteract the cost, both fiscal and societal, of increasing the time-served requirement for parole. However, this legislation is limited, applying only to offenses committed after 2023 and, therefore, will not have an impact until at least 2033. It should be made fully retroactive and expanded so that mandatory reviews are given after 10 years.

While Colorado’s proposition dealt with “back end” sentencing increases, Prop. 313 in Arizona addressed “front end” sentences by mandating life imprisonment for a class two child sex trafficking conviction. The previous discretionary sentence was seven years to life for the same crime. The measure passed readily with 65% of voters supporting it, unsurprising given that crimes against children, and especially sex crimes against children, are among the most instinctively reviled by the public.

While it may satisfy a deep retributive impulse, the lack of discretion means that judges are not given the opportunity to take into account the individual aggravating and mitigating factors of cases. Removing parole entirely as an option denies any possibility for successful reintegration and rehabilitation. The measure may also ensnare some of the victims of sex trafficking themselves, as they can be coerced to traffic others; in total, the measure represents an overextension of punitive power.

California Prop. 36, Florida Amendment 3, Massachusetts Question 4, Nebraska Measures 437 and 438, North Dakota Measure 5: Drug policy

Result: Proposition 36 passed 68% to 32%; Amendment 3 failed 44% to 56%; Measures 437 and 438 both passed 71 % to 29% and 67% to 33%, respectively; Measure 5 failed 52.5% to 47.5%.

Postmortem analysis

California’s tough-on-crime Proposition 36 passed decisively in the liberal-leaning state, with close to 70% of the vote, a bellwether for the national climate shift towards punitiveness. The measure was wide-ranging and had many elements, including increasing penalties for various drug and theft crimes and elevating numerous misdemeanors to felonies.

In substance, Prop. 36 returns California to a harsher drug prosecution approach. It backs away from earlier commitments to shift away from incarceration and toward treatment as the prevalent response to drug possession and use offenses. Proposition proponents widely publicized the heightened sanctions as a purported solution for particularly notorious retail thefts and visible homelessness in recent years. While it is important to deploy robust law enforcement resources to address public safety disruptions, the prevailing evidence shows that increasing penalties will greatly increase incarceration but will do little to eliminate retail theft or solve homelessness. On the contrary, research shows that the length of a sentence is not a factor in deterrence, but that certainty of apprehension is.

One confusing aspect of the measure is that it created a new category called a “treatment mandated felony,” which mandates involuntary treatment (with no funding allocation to support it) for certain people with multiple drug arrests and then requires the ones who don’t successfully complete the program supplied to them to serve time in prison for up to three years. Reported estimates are that this will increase incarceration rather than treatment. Meanwhile, it is likely to exacerbate an already devastating lack of treatment beds in the state, as well as remove services that were funded through the savings gained from reducing these same penalties, which amounted to $800 million in the state (65 percent of which was allocated to treatment costs). It is worth noting that the people who received that funding had an impressively low rate of subsequent offenses, 15.3 percent, when recidivism rates upwards of 35 percent are generally seen in the state. Thus, these programs appear to be effective at reaching a population for whom rehabilitative community programming is preferable—at pennies on the dollar—to incarceration.

According to the legislature’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Office, Prop. 36 will likely inflate state criminal justice system costs by “hundreds of millions of dollars” a year. “Some of these costs could be offset by reductions in state spending on local mental health and substance use services, truancy and dropout prevention, and victim services due to requirements in current law.” Local governments may also see tens of millions of dollars in added costs largely from increased jail incarceration.

Proponents claimed that these costs “will be money well spent,” and of course, if the policies would substantially eliminate retail theft crime and drug overdoses, their funding would be worthwhile. But a lot of money will be wasted, and a lot of incarceration will result from these changes, and none of that money will be available for communities to offer needed services that are proven to reduce drug overdoses, crime, and homelessness. Instead, the new policies prioritize prison—which should be used sparingly because it is expensive and harmful.

In this political fight, well-resourced interests—notably, $16 million from big retailers and law enforcement—won the day, and the public returned the state to a policy focused on incarceration instead of diversion and treatment. As discussed above, even if there is a shared goal of reducing criminal activity, adding penalties for drug crimes will not eliminate drug harm.

Voters in several states also declined to legalize or decriminalize certain drugs. These results, coupled with California’s Prop. 36, suggest that any consensus about drug policy—at least for expanding marijuana legalization—may be evaporating. Massachusetts residents turned down a citizen-driven ballot measure, Question 4, to establish regulated access for adults to natural psychedelic substances like psilocybin (a.k.a. mushrooms) that show therapeutic potential in treating mental health conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder, with 57 percent voting against it.  

Only two states have passed policies allowing for legal access to psychedelics thus far: Oregon and Colorado. Massachusetts has had legal marijuana for recreational use since 2016.

Rand research shows about 3% of American adults used psilocybin in 2023. Perhaps Massachusetts voters are worried about the increased use of these drugs. That said, if the measure had passed, it might only have increased use locally for at least a novelty period since use rates of hallucinogenic drugs are quite stable over time, but it certainly wouldn’t have resulted in a proverbial mushroom cloud on every street corner in Boston.

The failure doesn’t necessarily portend a shift in broader criminal justice attitudes in Massachusetts, either. After all, mushrooms are not associated with crime in public consciousness. Opposition in the state may have been perceived as credible since several large medical associations spent money opposing the proposal and casting doubt on the medical benefits claims of proponents.

North Dakotan voters similarly rejected the legalization of marijuana narrowly by about 53% (they got closer than the last two times voters tried it). South Dakota, which had legalized marijuana by ballot in 2020 only to have the bill declared unconstitutional—and tried again in 2022, only to lose by 53%—this year lost by 56%. Not the proponents’ desired trajectory. Meanwhile, Florida’s legalization constitutional amendment, Amendment 3, despite receiving a majoritarian 56 percent of the vote, failed to reach the requisite 60 percent supermajority threshold. The measure faced strong opposition from Gov. Ron DeSantis. This is the first year since 2017 in which there will be no new states voting to permit recreational adult-use legal marijuana. This breaks a pretty good streak since 2010 when Colorado passed the first state legalization measure, but it does not necessarily spell the end of the trend.

In Nebraska, paired proposals to legalize and regulate marijuana for medical use passed handily, with one pulling 71%; however, there was a cloud (pun intended) that hung for weeks over the result because of ongoing litigation over the signatures submitted to qualify the ballot initiative, though a judge later allowed the laws to go into effect. The sanctioned use of medical marijuana brings Nebraska in line with the vast majority, becoming the 39th state (plus D.C.) to authorize medical use of the substance.

It would be wrong to interpret the result in Nebraska on medical marijuana, however, as indicative of growing support for recreational marijuana legalization in the state. Rather, Nebraska is kind of a straggler when it comes to medical marijuana. And when Nebraska’s legislature considered a bill for recreational legalization last fall, it died in committee. In this election, as has been noted, the states seeking recreational use did not fare well.

Looking forward

Ballot initiatives are enormously useful in evaluating public sentiment about specific criminal justice reform issues. Through their use of direct democracy in voting for the measures’ passage or failure, they allow us to read the pulse of the public without some of the mediating influence of politicians. That said, ballot measures are much blunter instruments than legislation and frequently can’t deliver as much detail and nuance as carefully crafted laws can, whereas sentencing is, by nature, a very intricate process that needs individuated attention. Thus, sentencing reform is often more aptly suited to legislative intervention. Moreover, ballot measures can reflect a public sentiment that may not accord with that of the governing majorities.

This year’s slate of ballot initiatives produced several results that bode ill for criminal justice reform writ large and speak to recent trends toward knee-jerk, punitive responses that are impervious to cost and don’t account for lessons learned from decades of failed policy.

Nevertheless, despite the losses on the drug legalization front, there are separate signs that the Trump administration may be favorable toward federal marijuana legalization, which would clear up a lot of confusion over the status of state-legal schemes. Coupled with the closeness of the tallies, it appears marijuana legalization is not in a retrenchment position, even though it might appear so on its face.

Additional reforms that are sorely needed in the system are not completely dead, either, though the passage of Prop. 36 in California stings. Incremental, bipartisan criminal justice reforms that prioritized public safety while seeking to reduce the collateral consequences of the overreach of punitive, ineffective, and expensive state punishments have, nevertheless, continued over the past few years in states from Oklahoma to New Jersey.

It is important for policymakers and advocates at this moment to recognize the concern reflected in their states’ votes this election and in their attempts to reform the system and balance that acknowledgment with the reality that overcriminalization and over-incarceration are participants in creating, not reducing, harm. It is critical to be locking up only the people for whom the positive effects of incarceration outweigh the costs that accompany that choice of remedy. When large groups of people are subject to additional incarceration, it is harder to get that calculation right.   

The post What election results reveal about the future of criminal justice reform appeared first on Reason Foundation.