This thesis considers how potentially vulnerable populations are affected by various economic and policy shocks. In the first chapter, I investigate the impact of natural resource booms on crime by estimating the effect of the coal boom and bust of the 1970s and 1970s on reported crime rates. I begin by demonstrating that changes in the value of coal reserves affected local economic conditions and population composition, both of which have theoretical and empirical links to crime. The net effect is theoretically ambiguous. The estimates suggest that the immediate impact of increasing the value of natural resources is to depress crime rates, primarily through changes in property crime, but these changes erode over time. My findings are consistent with an initial change in criminal activity in response to local labor market conditions that is subsequently offset by selective migration. Individuals who are charged with committing a crime often find themselves behind bars while their case is adjudicated. In the United States, over 400,000 individuals are in jail each day waiting for their criminal cases to be resolved. The majority of these individuals are detained pretrial due to the inability to post low levels of bail (less than $3,000). In chapter 2, my coauthor and I estimate the impact of being detained pretrial on the likelihood of an individual being convicted or pleading guilty, and their sentence length, using data on nearly a million misdemeanor and felony cases in New York City from 2009 to 2013. Causal effects are identified using variation across arraignment judges in their propensities to detain defendants. We find that being detained increases the probability of conviction by over seven percentage points by causing individuals to plead guilty more often. Because pretrial detention is driven by failure to post bail, these adverse effects disproportionately hurt low-income individuals. While some public policies create burdens that fall most heavily on low-income people and households, the public safety net is comprised of programs intended to protect and support this vulnerable population. In chapter three, my coauthors and I examine whether programs that provide vouchers to households can continue to influence behavior even after the household leaves the program. Using detailed scanner data, we test whether benefit vouchers received through the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) change household purchasing decisions and whether these changes continue to persist even after households are no longer eligible to participate in the program. In 2009, the package of goods available through WIC vouchers changed to include additional items and place nutritional restrictions on other items. Examining variation due to this package change, we show that the WIC vouchers change purchasing decisions consistent with the nutritional guidelines of the program. However, we find evidence of limited persistence post-eligibility, and that households exposed longer to the revised package are generally not more likely to continue to purchase these items after eligibility ends.

Yes / The rule of law, that is, the fair, competent, effective, and predictable application of laws that enhance, rather than undermine, social accountability and fundamental human rights, is a core function of the state, and forms part of its social contract with the citizenry. However, ensuring that a government upholds the rule of law requires a number of checks and balances. Some of this accountability and enforcement function lies with the other branches of government: oversight of the executive by the legislative branch through its committees and reports, and by the judiciary, which has its own proactive powers and can be petitioned by citizens and their representatives. But this republican structure can still be unresponsive or resistant to scrutiny, particularly when elites across the branches of government are indifferent to, or collude in, maintaining chronic problems in the justice system. Active non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are therefore recognised as a crucial component in the effective application of the rule of law due to their independence from government and their often-different perspective on the impact of unevenly applied and unjust laws and law enforcement through direct contact with the victims of arbitrary treatment. This chapter explores ways in which NGOs (both international and local) can contribute to strengthening rule of law through a case study of how the Open Society Institute and its Justice Initiative (OSJI) and a network of Brazilian NGOs developed a campaign to reduce the excessive use of pre-trial detention. It demonstrates how NGOs can fulfil important watchdog functions and are able to change laws, policies and practices that significantly improve the rule of law by working strategically with one another, with international partners and with sympathetic state actors.

No ano de 2016, o Brasil passou a ser o terceiro país com maior população carcerária do mundo. Levantamentos recentes indicam que o sistema de justiça tende a banalizar o uso da prisão cautelar (40% dos presos brasileiros são provisórios), em dissonância à legislação processual penal que traz a prisão preventiva como medida excepcional, assegurando a liberdade como regra até a decisão condenatória definitiva. O estudo dessa questão paradoxal é de interesse da comunidade jurídica por investigar se a tomada da decisão não está associada apenas ao conteúdo das regras jurídicas, mas a fatores extrajurídicos, desafiando as clássicas teorias da argumentação racional sobre a decisão judicial. Também de todo cidadão, potencial vítima de arbitrariedades no direito de liberdade, e da sociedade brasileira, já que o encarceramento em massa resulta em rebeliões, mortes, aumento da violência e canalização de recursos públicos de áreas produtivas para a contenção de pessoas. São os seguintes os problemas da pesquisa: 1) Para os magistrados, os sentidos da prisão preventiva e as razões de sua decretação são mais amplos do que os limites previstos na lei? 2) Em caso afirmativo, quais os sentidos construídos por eles e quais são os fatores considerados ou de influência para as decisões? Analisamos a questão a partir de premissas do realismo jurídico norte-americano, enquanto teoria descritiva da decisão judicial, para a qual o direito não é o único nem o principal elemento determinante das decisões. Objetivamos verificar quais são os sentidos construídos pelos juízes acerca da prisão preventiva e identificar como fatores extrajurídicos influenciam as decisões sobre ela. A investigação foi realizada coletando-se dados por meio de entrevistas semiestruturadas, a partir de amostra formada com dez participantes voluntários (juízes federais e estaduais). Procedemos à análise qualitativa, a partir da metodologia da produção de sentidos, na epistemologia do Construcionismo Social, oriundo da Psicologia Social. Os resultados encontrados indicam que os sentidos construídos pelos juízes acerca da prisão preventiva coincidem em parte, mas são mais amplos do que os conteúdos da legislação. Também revelam alguns fatores extrajurídicos de influência sobre as decisões de prisões cautelares. E demonstram como regras legais podem ser desconsideradas nas decisões quando elas não estiverem em consonância com as concepções individuais que os juízes constroem como solução justa ou correta. Concluímos, que de acordo com esta pesquisa, estão corretas as premissas do realismo jurídico: as regras legais têm influência, mas não exclusiva e nem necessariamente determinante, sobre as decisões. Para se compreender a extensão dos fatores extrajurídicos sobre as decisões judiciais é preciso prosseguir nas pesquisas empíricas interdisciplinares, que busquem compreender o fenômeno jurídico sob a perspectiva e com o instrumental de outros ramos do saber, já que estudos convencionais herméticos e meramente dogmáticos não conseguem revelar todos os seus aspectos, nem permitem conhecer o funcionamento operacional efetivo do sistema de justiça criminal. / Since 2016 Brazil has the third higher prison population in the world. Recent surveys indicate that the justice system tends to overuse pretrial detention (40% of Brazilian prisoners are pretrial detainees), in dissonance with the criminal procedural law that regulate preventive custody as exceptional measure, ensuring freedom to defendants as a rule until definitive conviction. The study of this paradoxical situation concerns to the law community once it investigates if the decision making is not only related to the content of the legal rules but also to extralegal factors, challenging the classic theories of rational argumentation about the judicial decision making. The inquiry matters to all citizens, potential victims of arbitrary imprisonment, and to the Brazilian society, since mass incarceration results in rebellions, deaths, increase of violence and channeling of public resources of productive areas for the containment of people. The research problems are as follows: 1) Are the meanings of pretrial detention for judges and the reasons for their enactment broader than the limits established by law? 2) If so, what are the meanings constructed by them and what are the factors considered or influencing decisions? We analyze the question from the premises of American legal realism as a descriptive theory of judicial decision, for which legal rules are not the only nor the main determinants of decisions. The purpose of the study was to verify which are the meanings constructed by the judges about the preventive custody and to identify extralegal factors influences at the decisions. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews, based on a sample of ten volunteer participants (federal and state judges). We proceed to the qualitative analysis, utilizing the production of meanings methodology, in the epistemology of Social Constructionism, from Social Psychology. The results indicate that the judges\' meanings about pretrial detention coincides in part, but they are broader than the contents of the legal rules. They also reveal some extralegal factors of influence on the decisions. And they demonstrate how legal rules can be disregarded in decisions when they are not in line with the individual conceptions that the judges construct as a just or right solution. We conclude that, according to this research, the premises of legal realism are correct: legal rules have influence, but not exclusively and not necessarily decisive, on decisions. In order to understand the extent of extralegal factors over judicial decisions, it is necessary to continue with interdisciplinary empirical research that seeks to understand the legal phenomenon from the perspective and with the instruments of other branches of knowledge, since hermetic, merely dogmatic studies cannot reveal aspects of how the criminal justice system functions.

L’objectif de ce mémoire est de dresser un portrait de l’évolution du recours à la détention provisoire au Québec depuis 2002 jusqu’à 2012, pour ensuite préciser les caractéristiques des personnes prévenues en comparaison à celles détenues tel qu’elles se dessinent en 2012, pour la population générale en détention dans les institutions carcérales de juridiction provinciale au Québec, et pour les populations spécifiques que forment les femmes et les personnes autochtones en regard de leur proportion dans la population générale. Pour ce faire, les tendances actuelles en matière de recours à la détention provisoire sont établies et comparées à celle de 2002. Aussi, un portrait des personnes en détention provisoire au Québec en 2011-2012 est dressé à partir de certaines caractéristiques sociodémographiques et criminelles liées à la détention provisoire selon les écrits précédents sur la question. Ce portrait est comparé à celui des personnes incarcérées dans les mêmes institutions suite à une condamnation à une peine de prison de deux ans moins un jour ou moins. Par la suite, des analyses bivariées sont effectuées dans le but de comprendre la relation entre la détention provisoire et l’issue du processus pénal, qui consiste, dans la présente étude, à la condamnation à une sentence de détention ou une sentence autre des personnes admises en détention provisoire dans un premier temps. Des analyses de régression logistiques viennent préciser quelles variables permettent le plus clairement de prédire l’imposition d’une sentence de détention aux personnes prévenues dans les institutions carcérales provinciales, au Québec en 2012. Les résultats de nos analyses indiquent qu’il y a une surreprésentation des hommes et des Autochtones en détention provisoire au Québec. De plus, certaines caractéristiques sociodémographiques et criminelles se révèlent significativement liées à la condamnation à la détention comme le fait d’être un prévenu d’origine autochtone, de posséder des antécédents judiciaires, d’avoir commis un ou des délits de système et de faire partie d’un groupe criminel. Il s’agit du même coup de bons prédicteurs de l’imposition d’une sentence de prison suivant la détention provisoire. Lorsqu’un individu cumule ces caractéristiques, il fera face à une sentence d’incarcération dans le trois quarts des cas. Finalement, il apparaît que malgré la volonté exprimée de longue date et reprise à l’entrée en vigueur de la Loi C-25 de faire de la détention provisoire une mesure de dernier recours, le recours à cette mesure ne cesse de croître, alors même que la détention découlant d’une condamnation paraît diminuer, ce qui se traduit par un rapport de plus en plus disproportionné entre personnes prévenues et personnes condamnées au sein des prisons du Québec, le ratio jouant en défaveur des personnes prévenues. / The objective of this thesis is to trace a portrait of the evolution of recourse to pretrial detention in Québec from 2002 to 2012, then to specify the characteristics of the defendants in comparison to defendants who are detained as they emerge in 2012, for the general population incarcerated in Québec penal institutions under provincial jurisdiction, for specific populations comprised of women and native peoples in regard to their proportion in the general population. To achieve this, the present tendencies of recourse for pretrial detention are established and compared to those of 2002. Also, a portrayal of detainees awaiting trial in Québec in 2011-2012 is prepared according to certain socio-demographic and criminal characteristics in relation to pretrial detention according to previous written works on the subject. This portrayal is compared to persons incarcerated in the same institutions following a conviction of a prison sentence of two years minus one day or less. Next, bivariate analyses are carried out to further understand the connection between pretrial detention and the outcome of the penal process, which consists, in the present study, of a conviction to a sentence of incarceration or other sentence of persons in pretrial detention at the onset. Analyses of logistic regression help pinpoint which variables allow us to most clearly predict the imposition of a sentence of incarceration to persons detained in provincial penal institutions in Québec for 2012. The results of our analyses indicate that there is an over-representation of men and native peoples in pretrial detention. We also note that certain socio-demographic and criminal characteristics reveal significant connections to a conviction of incarceration, such as being a defendant of native origin, having previous criminal history, having committed one or many systemic offenses, as well as belonging to a criminal group. This is also a good predicative of imposition of a prison sentence following pretrial detention. When an individual accrues these characteristics, he will face a sentence of incarceration in at least three-quarters of cases. Finally, it appears that despite long-standing will expressed and resumption of discussions when Law C-25 came into force to make pretrial detention a last resort measure, recourse to this measure keeps rising, whereas incarcerations resulting from convictions seem to be diminishing. This translates to a report that is more and more disproportionate between persons who are convicted within Québec prisons, the ratio being to the disadvantage of the person being detained in pretrial detention.

La législation actuelle permet la prise en compte du temps de détention présentencielle dans la détermination de la peine. Le paragraphe 719(3) du Code criminel encadre la comptabilisation du crédit sur la peine de ce type de détention. Depuis l’entrée en vigueur de la Loi sur l’adéquation de la peine et du crime en 2010, le Code criminel stipule que le juge doit appliquer un crédit de un jour sur le temps de la peine pour chaque jour passé en détention présentencielle. Un maximum d’un jour et demi pour chaque jour de détention présentencielle peut être accordé lorsque les circonstances le justifient. Cette loi, qui s’inscrit dans un durcissement des politiques pénales, apporta un resserrement législatif en circonscrivant le pouvoir judiciaire quand au calcul du crédit pour le temps déjà passé sous garde. L’objectif de l’étude est de comprendre l’application et l’interprétation de la Loi sur l’adéquation de la peine et du crime par les acteurs judiciaires entre 2010 et 2016. Pour ce faire, une analyse d’arrêts de la Cour du Québec et de l’arrêt Summers (2014) de la Cour Suprême du Canada a été réalisée. Les motifs évoqués par les juges quant au calcul du crédit ont été mis en lumière. Il ressort que les conditions de vie en détention présentencielle et que le comportement de l’accusé appuient les décisions des juges. En effet, les résultats de l’étude indiquent que la difficulté des conditions de détention est un motif qui contribue à l’octroi d’un crédit majoré. Ce motif repris par les juges fait appel à un argument de la jurisprudence antérieure aux changements législatifs de 2010. De plus, le « mauvais comportement » de l’accusé peut amener les juges à calculer le crédit à la baisse. Nous concluons que les acteurs judicaires ont résisté face à la politique pénale de 2010, mais aussi qu’une sévérité pénale teinte le calcul du crédit. / Current legislation allows for pre-sentence detention time to be taken into account in sentencing. Subsection 719 (3) of the Criminal Code regulates the accounting of the credit for the penalty for this type of detention. Since the Truth in Sentencing Act came into force in 2010, the Criminal Code stipulates that the judge must apply on the sentence a one-day credit for each day spent in pre-sentence detention. A maximum of one and a half days for each day of pre-sentence detention may be granted when the circumstances warrant. This law, which would be part of a punitive turn of criminal policies, brought in legislative tightening by circumscribing the judicial power when calculating the credit for the time already spent in custody. The objective of this study is to understand the application and interpretation of the Truth in Sentencing Act by judicial actors between 2010 and 2016. To do so, an analysis of judgments of the Court of Quebec and R.v. Summers (2014) of the Supreme Court of Canada has been carried out. The reasons given by the judges for the calculation of the credit have been highlighted. It appears that the living conditions in pre-sentence detention and that the behavior of the accused support the judges' decisions. Indeed, the results of the study indicate that the difficulty of the remand conditions is a reason which contributes to the granting of increased credit. This reason taken up by the judges draws on an argument from the case law prior to the legislative changes of 2010. In addition, the “bad behavior” of the accused may lead the judges to calculate the credit downwards. From this, we conclude that the judicial actors partly resisted the penal policy of 2010, but also that a penal severity tints the calculation of the credit.