Christine S. Scott-Hayward

Bio: Christine S. Scott-Hayward is an academic researcher from California State University, Long Beach. The author has contributed to research in topics: Criminal justice & Economic Justice. The author has an hindex of 6, co-authored 15 publications receiving 79 citations. Previous affiliations of Christine S. Scott-Hayward include California State University & New York University.

Taking Roll: College Students’ Views of Their Formerly Incarcerated Classmates

Abstract: For those with a criminal history, higher education can facilitate successful reentry and desistance from crime. Still, a number of obstacles discourage the pursuit of higher education by the forme...

Rethinking Federal Diversion: The Rise of Specialized Criminal Courts

Abstract: Over the last five years, there has been a proliferation in the federal system of front-end specialized criminal courts. Most of these courts are drug courts, but there are also veterans courts, courts for youthful defendants, and new "alternative to incarceration" courts. Although these courts are often described as "diversion" courts, most of them do not offer true diversion, whereby a defendant does not receive a criminal conviction. They have received significant support from a variety of stakeholders, including former Attorney General Eric Holder. This paper explores the origins and development of front-end federal specialized criminal courts, and situates them in the existing landscape of diversion and alternative to incarceration laws and programs, particularly those in the federal criminal justice system. It argues that their rapid expansion in such a short time is problematic for a variety of reasons. First, it is not clear what are the goals of these courts. Second, the use and effectiveness of specialized criminal courts in general is complicated; research on drug and other specialized courts in both the state and federal systems shows mixed results on measures such as recidivism reduction, cost-savings, and treatment outcomes. In addition, there are significant procedural and other equity concerns with specialized criminal courts. Third, although some of these new federal front-end specialized criminal courts show high completion rates, none has been formally evaluated, and publicly available documents about them raise questions about the extent to which they conform to evidence-based practices and their compliance with federal sentencing law. This article discusses the future of federal diversion and alternatives to incarceration, and suggests some ways to ensure that existing and future specialized criminal courts can achieve their goals. It also explores some other reforms that may achieve these same goals.

Does Privacy Require Secrecy? Societal Expectations of Privacy in the Digital Ages

Abstract: I Introduction 20II Katz, Reasonable Expectations of Privacy, and the ThirdParty Doctrine 23A The Property Rights Approach 23B United States v Katz and the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Approach 24C The Third Party Doctrine 26III The Fourth Amendment and Technological Changes 29A Physical Surveillance 30B Digital Surveillance 331 GPS Tracking 332 Cell-Phone Tracking 36C Transaction Surveillance 381 Email 382 Social Media 393 Metadata 404 The Cloud 415 Text Messages 42IV When is a Subjective Expectation of Privacy ObjectivelyReasonable? 45V Methodology 49A Data Collection 49B Sample 52C Analyses 52VI Results 52A Digital Surveillance 52B Transaction Surveillance 531 Email 542 Social Media 543 Internet History 544 The Cloud 545 Cellphone Text/Multimedia Messages 55C Ranking of Opinions Across Areas 56D Analysis of Demographic Differences in Expectations of Privacy 57E Analysis of Attitudinal and Other Differences in Expectations of Privacy 58VII Discussion and Conclusion 58I IntroductionWhereas some may assume that these cultural changes will force people to "reconcile themselves" to an "inevitable" "diminution of privacy that new technology entails," 1 think it is more likely that these trends have resulted in a greater expectation of privacy and a recognition that society views that expectation as reasonable1Americans today "reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks …

Brief of Amici Curiae Empirical Fourth Amendment Scholars in Support of Petitioner in Carpenter vs. United States

Abstract: The Court has recognized that public expectations of privacy are relevant to the Fourth Amendment. A growing body of social science research shows that a majority of people: (1) do not knowingly convey their location information to cell phone providers; and (2) believe that law enforcement needs to obtain, and ought to obtain, a search warrant before gathering this information. These studies addressed a range of surveilled information (cell site location and GPS tracking) and conduct (by cell phone providers and by law enforcement). On average across all the studies more than 60% of survey respondents (and often upwards of 70-80%) emphatically asserted a privacy interest in the information contained on or emitted from their cell phones. In relative terms, these privacy interests are as strong, or stronger, than paradigmatic cases where the Court has required law enforcement officials to first obtain a warrant. These empirical data, detailed below, expressly undercut the Sixth Circuit’s reliance on the third party doctrine in deciding this case, and affirmatively support a finding that warrantless searches of this information violate the Fourth Amendment. This Court should employ these empirical data - a critical tool that informs the proper scope and functioning of the Fourth Amendment - and reverse the decision below.

Pretrial Detention and the Decision to Impose Bail in Southern California

Abstract: This paper examines pretrial judicial decision making, specifically the decision to impose bail. At the bail hearing, judges must decide whether defendants should be detained, released on their own recognizance, or granted bail. In California, judges make this decision largely by relying on County Bail Schedules, which are similar to sentencing guidelines and prioritize the seriousness of the charged offense when determining bail. Being detained pretrial, either due to the denial of bail or the inability to afford the bail that was set has negative implications, including the fact that defendants who are denied bail are more likely to plead guilty, and upon conviction are more likely to be sentenced to incarceration. They also face longer sentences than defendants who are released pending trial. Despite the significant impact of the bail decision, there is limited research on the decision, including on the factors judges consider in making the bail decision and how judges make the decision. This paper presents the results of a qualitative study of bail hearings in two California counties. Relying on court observations and interviews, it finds that bail schedules are the most important factor considered by judges and that bail is usually set without regard to the ability of the defendant to pay.

The Future of Parole Release

Abstract: American parole boards have played a critical role in the formulation and administration of states’ prison policies in recent decades—and could play an equally important part in helping end mass incarceration. Long neglected by academic, research, and policy communities, systems of discretionary prison release are in need of improvement, if not “reinvention.” A plan for revitalization of parole release should lay out a comprehensive and aspirational model for the future. It must address the institutional structure of parole boards, how much release discretion they are given, the substantive grounds for release decisions, the use of risk assessments in the decisional process, decision-making tools such as parole release guidelines, the requirements of fair and reliable procedures, victims’ rights at parole hearings, the need for parole supervision in some but not all cases, the intensity of parole conditions, and the length of parole supervision.

An Empirical Assessment of the Intrusiveness and Reasonableness of Emerging Work Surveillance Technologies in the Public Sector

Abstract: As public sector work environments continue to embrace the digital governance revolution, questions of work surveillance practices and its relationship to performance management continue to evolve, but even more dramatically in the contemporary period of many public servants being forced to shift to remote work from home in response to the COVID‐19 pandemic This article presents the results of three surveys, two of them population‐based survey experiments, all conducted during the onset of the COVID‐19 pandemic in Canada that compare public servant (n = 346) and citizen (n = 1,008 phone;n = 2,001 web) attitudes to various cutting‐edge—though no doubt controversial among some—digital surveillance tools that can be used in the public sector to monitor employee work patterns, often targeted toward remote working conditions The findings represent data that can help governments and public service associations navigate difficult questions of reasonable privacy intrusions in an increasing digitally connected workforce Evidence for PracticeNew work surveillance technologies are available to use within the public sector and will present acceptability challenges to public managers as they contemplate the introduction of these technologies Multimodal survey data from Canada reveals that public servants and citizens find these emerging work surveillance technologies to be quite intrusive and unreasonable but show relatively more tolerance for digital surveillance over physical surveillance practices Understanding surveillance anxieties among targeted employees will be key to finding a balance between employee privacy rights and employer desires to manage employees in a remote or digital environment

Wards of the State: Care and Custody in a Pennsylvania Prison

Abstract: In this dissertation, I examine the challenges and contradictions as well as the expectations and aspirations involved in the provision of healthcare to inmates in a maximum-security prison in Pennsylvania. In 1976, the Supreme Court granted inmates a constitutional right to healthcare based on the notion that a failure to do so would constitute “cruel and unusual punishment.” Drawing on two years of ethnographic fieldwork from 2014-2016 in the prison’s medical unit with inmates, healthcare providers, and correctional staff, I demonstrate how the legal infrastructure built around this right to healthcare operates in practice and the myriad effects it has for those in state custody. Through traversing the scales of legal doctrine, privatized managed care, and collective historical memory, bringing these structural components to life in personal narratives and clinical interactions, I advance the notion that the physical space of the prison’s medical unit is a “ward of the state” – a space of care where the state itself is “made” through interactions among individuals who relay and enact the legal regulations on inmate healthcare. I also argue that incarcerated men themselves are cast as “wards of the state” – the biological and financial property of the state placed in its custody. As such, the state has an obligation to care for inmates as quasi-citizens who are granted a right to healthcare in the setting of rights deprivation as punishment. Even though this right primarily exists as a mandate not to inflict too much harm, it also creates the conditions for which inmates come to rely on the state for life-saving and life-sustaining services, perpetuating historical forms of racial subjugation through care and containment in the process. Finally, I outline the paths inmates make for themselves to find meaning amidst the multitude of losses they experience and to seek belonging amidst disenfranchisement. While the forms of legal, personal, and political recognition that are available to inmates are few, the structural features of an institutionalized right to healthcare open up spaces for them to envision futures and to make both personal and structural appeals to justice with both tragic and hopeful consequences. Degree Type Dissertation Degree Name Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) Graduate Group Anthropology First Advisor Philippe Bourgois

Ending Mass Probation: Sentencing, Supervision, and Revocation

Abstract: Summary:The United States' high incarceration rate gets a lot of attention from scholars, policy makers, and the public. Yet, writes Michelle Phelps, the most common form of criminal justice supervision is not imprisonment but probation—and thats just as true for juveniles as for adults.Probation was originally promoted as an alternative to imprisonment that would spare promising individuals from the ravages of institutionalization, Phelps writes. But instead, it often serves as a net-widener, expanding formal supervision to low-level cases. Like mass incarceration, she demonstrates, mass probation is marked by deep racial and class disparities, and it can have devastating consequences for poor and minority communities.In her review, Phelps covers three aspects of probation supervision—who is sentenced to probation, what they experience, and when and why probation is revoked (that is, when probationers are sent to jail or prison for violating the terms of supervision). She then presents policy recommendations for each of these three stages that could reduce the harms of mass probation. They include scaling back the use of probation, offering probationers more meaningful help to improve their lives, and raising the bar for revoking probation. Though probation reform may not be a cure-all, she writes, it could reduce the scale of our criminal justice system and temper its detrimental effects.

Carceral territory : experiences of electronic monitoring practices in Scotland

Abstract: ............................................................................................2 Lay Summary.......................................................................................4 Declaration..........................................................................................5 Acknowledgements................................................................................6