People who become involved in the criminal justice system are likely to face numerous difficulties. They may be accused of serious crimes, and even if they are ultimately found not guilty, the damage to their reputation and their lives can be irreparable. In many of the worst cases, people may die while in police custody, or preventable deaths may occur in correctional facilities. Over the past several decades, there have been tens of thousands of deaths that occurred while people were in the custody of law enforcement. However, the true scope of this problem is unknown due to problems with the reporting of these types of deaths to the federal government.

Problems With the Implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act

The Death in Custody Reporting Act (DCRA), a federal law that was passed in 2000 and updated in 2014, requires states to report the deaths of people who are held in police custody, inmates in local and state correctional facilities, and others who are killed by police officers to the Department of Justice. This law also required the DOJ to compile statistics on these deaths and make a report to Congress with recommendations on how preventable deaths may be reduced.

Unfortunately, the DOJ has struggled to collect data from states, and even though its report to Congress was due in 2016, it has yet to provide the required information. While a voluntary reporting system used by the Bureau of Justice Statistics was able to document deaths that occurred between 2000 and 2019, this program ended in 2019. Since then, around 5,000 deaths have gone unreported, with 15 states failing to report any deaths related to arrests and seven states failing to report any deaths in local prisons.

In the American criminal justice system, juries play a vital role. They are responsible for determining a defendant's guilt or innocence, and their verdicts can have far-reaching consequences. However, there may be some cases where jurors may believe that defendants have been treated unfairly, or they may seek to correct injustices and biases in the system. In the United States, juries have the power to find defendants "not guilty" even if they believe that the defendant may technically be guilty of the crime. This is called jury nullification. 

Jury nullification is also known as "conscientious acquittal" or "juror veto," and it can happen for a variety of reasons. In some cases, jurors may not agree with the law that the defendant is accused of breaking. For example, some juries have used nullification to acquit defendants accused of possessing small amounts of marijuana, even though marijuana possession is still technically illegal in many states. In other cases, jurors may believe that the defendant's actions, while technically criminal, did not deserve to be punished. For example, a jury may choose to nullify a criminal charge against a homeless person who stole food because they believe that the defendant was driven by necessity. 

Issues That Affect Jury Nullification

In most cases, juries are instructed by the judge to base their decision solely on the evidence presented during the trial. However, to find a defendant guilty, the prosecution must prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the person committed the offense in question. This is a very high standard, and jurors may base a "not guilty" verdict on multiple forms of doubt. They may call the reliability of eyewitnesses' memories into question, or they may believe that the prosecution has not offered a plausible explanation for the timeline of events surrounding an alleged offense. 

Most people are aware of the practice of solitary confinement in prisons, either from watching movies about prison or hearing about the treatment of prisoners in the news. Prisoners in the United States are routinely subjected to this form of confinement, which is also known as isolation or segregated confinement. However, this practice has been shown to cause a great deal of psychological harm, as well as physical health problems. Because of this, advocates for prisoners' rights are seeking to reduce or limit the use of solitary confinement, especially since it can be an issue that disproportionately affects minorities who become caught up in the criminal justice system.

Problems With Solitary Confinement and New Laws and Policies to Address the Issue

Solitary confinement is defined as holding a prisoner in isolation and restricting their contact with other people for at least 22 hours per day for a period of 15 days or more. In many cases, prisoners in solitary confinement are held in a small cell, with no access to natural light or fresh air. They are often denied exercise, recreation, and contact with family and friends. Lights in cells may be left on at all times, limiting a person's ability to sleep. While short periods of isolation may be necessary to protect the safety of a person or others, there are some cases where prisoners may be held in solitary confinement for weeks, months, or even years. 

This type of isolation can have serious consequences to a person's mental and even physical health. People who are held in solitary confinement are likely to experience severe psychological distress, which may involve anxiety, depression, panic attacks, hallucinations, paranoia, and feelings of hopelessness that may lead them to attempt suicide. Those who have been held in long periods of isolation may experience social withdrawal, difficulties with impulse control, violent outbursts, memory problems, and a worsening of pre-existing mental health issues. Solitary confinement can have a number of physical effects as well, such as chronic headaches, dizziness, fatigue, pain in the muscles and joints, decreased appetite, problems with eyesight, sleep disorders, and difficulty managing conditions such as diabetes or high blood pressure. 

In recent years, the use of cell phone location data by police in criminal investigations has become a controversial issue. Critics argue that the use of this data violates privacy rights, while proponents argue that it is a valuable investigatory tool. While there is no denying that the use of location data can help law enforcement investigate crimes and identify suspects, there are valid privacy concerns that can affect the rights of defendants in criminal cases. Recently, the extent of police surveillance of private citizens has become more clear as advocates have uncovered the widespread use of a tool that can track people's location data.

Fog Reveal Provides "Mass Surveillance on a Budget"

An investigation by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has found that the company Fog Data Science LLC has provided a cell phone location data tracking tool to law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. This tool is known as Fog Reveal, and it allows police to access information about people's devices and track their movements over multiple months. While this has aided police in investigations and prosecutions of several high-profile cases, the use of this tool has been secretive, and in many cases, law enforcement officials and prosecutors have failed to disclose the methods used to identify suspects during criminal cases.

Fog Reveal uses information purchased from data brokers who obtain location data from apps used on people's smartphones. This data is supposedly anonymous, since it does not include any personal details such as people's names or addresses, and users are tracked through "advertising IDs" that are assigned to their devices. However, it is often a simple matter to identify a person by tracking the locations they visit regularly, such as their home and workplace. Most people are unaware that the apps they regularly use will sell their data to others and that this information may be accessed by law enforcement.

The criminal justice system in the United States often comes under fire for the way people are treated when they are arrested, charged with crimes, placed in detention, or imprisoned. While many criminal justice reform advocates have raised concerns about the treatment of adult prisoners, issues related to juvenile offenders are often even more troubling. Some recent reports have shown that minors in juvenile detention facilities throughout the United States are often subject to harsh treatment and placed in unsafe conditions. To ensure that their rights are protected, minors who are involved in the juvenile justice system and their family members can work with a criminal defense attorney who can help them determine the best ways to resolve their cases.

Problems With Juvenile Detention

When minors are accused of committing criminal offenses, juvenile courts will usually handle cases differently than when adults are prosecuted for crimes. The juvenile justice system is supposed to focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment. Minors should be provided with support to help address the causes of juvenile delinquency and help them avoid committing offenses in the future. While detention in juvenile facilities may be appropriate in some situations, other solutions may be used, such as placing a minor on probation, requiring them to attend educational classes or receive psychological treatment, or imposing sentences of community service and restitution.

Unfortunately, this is not always the reality. Officials in some states have been more likely to sentence minors to juvenile detention, and in recent years, there have been several reports of minors in juvenile detention facilities being mistreated. In Texas, minors in these facilities are often kept locked in cells for extended periods of time, without even being able to use the bathroom. In Louisiana, violence at juvenile facilities led the governor to move some minors to a maximum security prison. These issues have become worse due to understaffing at facilities, and some states have relaxed their requirements when hiring staff members, increasing the likelihood that minors will suffer mistreatment.