Abstract The shifting legal landscape of drug regulation in the United States has been marked by a growing divergence between state and federal approaches to cannabis and psychedelics. In recent years, numerous states have passed laws legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana and exploring the therapeutic potential of psychedelics, such as psilocybin and MDMA. At the same time, these trends are juxtaposed against rising opposition and legislative rollback, particularly in states like Oregon, where decriminalization efforts have been reversed. This article provides a comprehensive review of current drug policy developments, focusing on cannabis and psychedelics at the state level, the evolving federal stance under the Biden administration, and the potential impact of a second Trump term. It also explores the challenges and successes of state initiatives, the FDA’s evolving role in regulating substances like MDMA and esketamine, and the broader implications for public health and criminal justice. As the country navigates the complexities of drug rescheduling and reform, future federal policies under new leadership could further reshape the landscape of drug legalization and therapy in the United States.

Abstract This article explores the evolving role of faith-based organizations (FBOs) in federal prison rehabilitation programs, particularly within the framework of the First Step Act (FSA). It addresses constitutional and legal tensions surrounding the integration of religious initiatives in correctional settings and evaluates the empirical evidence for their effectiveness. Through a discussion of correctional science principles such as the risk-needs-responsivity (RNR) model and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), the article considers how faith-based programs align with or diverge from established rehabilitative practices. Emphasis is placed on the need for inclusive, evidence-informed approaches that respect both religious freedom and constitutional boundaries while supporting successful reentry and reduced recidivism.

Abstract This article analyzes Pennsylvania’s Sentencing Risk Assessment Instrument through the lens of legitimacy theory, focusing on issues of procedural transparency, bias and discrimination, and the ongoing tensions between algorithmic risk prediction and individualized justice. Spanning a decade (2010–20), the instrument’s development included multiple public hearings and reports aimed at crafting a tool to assess the recidivism risk of offenders. This tool is intended to guide judges on which cases require further evaluation and potential intervention. During the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing’s extensive and public development process, the instrument faced significant public skepticism due to concerns about procedural fairness, racial bias, gender discrimination, and due process. This article discusses these themes using public testimony about the tool. It concludes with recommendations for policymakers, urging thoughtful engagement with public input, transparent methodology, and rigorous procedural checks to balance fairness and utility. This case study underscores the inherent complexities and challenges in implementing predictive algorithms in criminal justice and suggests that legitimacy theory can help navigate the public’s concerns and build trust in these systems.

Abstract In the United States, much research on federal sentencing relies on data made available by the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC). As valuable as USSC data is, it also has “blind spots” that limit defendant-level analysis and corresponding insights into key aspects of sentencing, including disparities among codefendants and among judges within a common court. This article describes how we generated a dataset on more than 2,770 defendants without using USSC resources. Instead, we drew from the Public Access to Court Electronic Record (PACER) Website and a searchable Website maintained by the Bureau of Prisons to generate data on a specific defendant population: foreign nationals detained at sea by the U.S. Coast Guard. We describe the challenges we encountered during this process, including inconsistencies in data-sharing practices across federal courts, the high costs associated with accessing court records in PACER, and ethical concerns regarding access to sensitive information. Nevertheless, we show how our approach can yield vital information that would be unattainable through USSC-based analysis, including detailed data on the nature of the offense, demographic characteristics of defendants, and judge identifiers. We suggest ways for researchers interested in federal sentencing to streamline and automate our approach. We also propose that the USSC consider supporting similar data-gathering initiatives through grant opportunities to enrich understanding of judicial decision making.

Probation systems rely on urine screens to sort people for punishment. Probationers who test “clean” show that they are worthy of remaining in the community, while those who test “dirty” make themselves vulnerable to incarceration. This article draws comparisons between the testing mechanisms used in modern probation systems and the testing mechanisms used in the medieval ordeal. In undergoing a medieval ordeal, “probands” went through a physical test to determine whether their bodies were pure or impure. Those who failed the test were led away for punishment. Most people subjected to the medieval ordeal were poor, as are most people in modern probations systems who must prove that their urine is “clean.”

24/7 Sobriety programs largely focus on reducing alcohol consumption among justice-involved individuals whose alcohol use has led them to repeatedly threaten public safety. Participants are ordered to abstain from alcohol use and subject to frequent alcohol testing (e.g., twice daily breathalyzers, remote alcohol monitoring); those testing positive face an immediate sanction, typically a night or two in jail. Unlike drug courts and other forms of coerced substance use disorder treatment, 24/7 does not require participants to enter a treatment program or attend self-help group meetings; however, these approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The empirical evidence suggests that participants largely abstain from heavy drinking while in the program and that 24/7 participation is associated with lower probability of criminal legal involvement and mortality. This evidence is largely based on research in the Great Plains states with large rural populations. Several questions remain about these programs (e.g., optimal program length, possible benefits of incorporating positive incentives, efficacy of different alcohol testing technologies), many of which can best be answered in an experimental setting. In addition to reviewing the existing research on 24/7, this paper highlights additional research questions and ideas for conducting randomized controlled trials with the program, especially in more urban areas.