About

Professor Ojmarrh Mitchell is a faculty member in the Department of Criminology, Law & Society at the University of California, Irvine. His research examines the effectiveness and equity of criminal justice policy, with particular attention to drug policy, sentencing and corrections, prosecutorial discretion, and racial disparities in criminal justice outcomes. Mitchell’s work draws on large administrative datasets and advanced quantitative methods, including quasi-experimental designs and research synthesis, to evaluate criminal justice interventions and policies. Recent research examines prosecutorial discretion and cumulative disadvantage in felony case processing, with a focus on sentencing outcomes and racial disparities in Florida courts. He holds a Ph.D. in Criminology and Criminal Justice from the University of Maryland, along with a master's degree in the same field and a bachelor's degree in Sociology from the University of Washington. Mitchell serves as the Editor in Chief of Criminology & Public Policy, Vice President of the American Society of Criminology, and chairs the ASC Publications Committee and the Ad Hoc Committee on Publisher Selection.

Research topics

• Political Science
• Sociology
• Medicine
• Surgery
• Internal medicine
• Criminology
• Radiology
• Dermatology
• Pathology
• Law
• Virology

Selected publications

• Rethinking Drug Prosecution: The Impact of Progressive Prosecutors on Outcomes and Disparities

  Crime & Delinquency · 2026-04-21

  article

  To address concerns about a legal system frequently viewed as overly punitive and racially unjust, progressive chief prosecutors have sought to reduce or eliminate the prosecution of low-level drug offenses. Yet, no empirical research has examined whether jurisdictions led by progressive prosecutors treat such offenses less punitively or exhibit smaller racial/ethnic disparities than jurisdictions led by traditional prosecutors. Using case-level data, we find that low- and high-level drug offenses receive less punitive outcomes in progressive jurisdictions, which are more likely to impose non-felony convictions and alternatives to incarceration. Additionally, disparities disadvantaging racial minorities were more common in traditional than in progressive jurisdictions. Decomposition models suggest these differences stem from prosecutorial discretion rather than case characteristics. These findings highlight the potential of progressive prosecution to promote more equitable, less punitive justice.

  PublisherDOI

• P3.14.04 High-Volume Surgical Centers for Pleural Mesothelioma Are Associated With Lower Perioperative Mortality

  Journal of Thoracic Oncology · 2025-10-01

  article
  PublisherDOI

• Does variation across judicial circuits matter? Examining the role of bail schedules and pretrial detention on drug case outcomes in Florida

  Journal of Criminal Justice · 2025-07-01 · 2 citations

  article
  PublisherDOI

• Incarceration-Based Drug Treatment

  Oxford University Press eBooks · 2024-01-23

  book-chapter1st authorCorresponding

  Abstract Individuals held in prisons and jails are much more likely than the general population to have a drug use disorder. Drug-involved inmates often also face mental health disorders and homelessness. These co-occurring problems reinforce one another and complicate treating drug use disorders, as effective solutions to drug problems may require multimodal treatments to address the host of challenges facing this population. Given that a large proportion of drug-involved individuals are incarcerated at some point in time, correctional institutions have a plum opportunity to intervene in the cycle of uncontrolled drug use, drug-related crime, and reincarceration. This chapter discusses these issues and reviews research assessing the effectiveness of common incarceration-based drug treatment programs.

  PublisherDOI

• Do progressive prosecutors increase crime? A quasi‐experimental analysis of crime rates in the 100 largest counties, 2000–2020

  Criminology & Public Policy · 2024-04-18 · 17 citations

  articleOpen access

  Abstract Research summary In recent years, there has been a rise in so‐called “progressive prosecutors” focused on criminal justice reforms. Although there has been considerable debate about the relationship between progressive prosecution policies and crime rates, there has been surprisingly little empirical research on the topic. Building on the limited extant research, we examined whether the inauguration of progressive prosecutors in the nation's 100 most populous counties impacted crime rates during a 21‐year period (2000 to 2020). After developing an original database of progressive prosecutors in the 100 largest counties, we used heterogeneous difference‐in‐differences regressions to examine the influence of progressive prosecutors on crime rates. Results show that the inauguration of progressive prosecutors led to statistically higher index property (∼7%) and total crime rates (driven by rising property crimes), and these effects were strongest since 2013—a period with an increasing number of progressive prosecutors. However, violent crime rates generally were not higher after a progressive prosecutor assumed control. Policy implications Despite concerns that the election of progressive prosecutors leads to “surging” levels of violence, these findings suggest that progressive‐oriented prosecutorial reforms led to relatively higher rates of property crime but had limited impact on rates of violent crime. In fact, in absolute terms, crime rates fell in jurisdictions with traditional and progressive prosecutors. Yet, relative property crime rates were greater after the inauguration of progressive prosecutors. Given that prior research shows progressive prosecutors reduce mass incarceration and racial inequalities, our findings indicate that higher property crime rates may be the price for these advancements.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Intersectionality in probation: examining gender and race disparities in probation conditions and sentence length

  Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice · 2024-10-01 · 1 citations

  articleSenior author
  PublisherDOI

• Do progressive prosecutors increase crime? A quasi-experimental analysis of crime rates in the 100 largest counties, 2000–2020

  CrimRxiv · 2024-04-18

  preprintOpen access

  In recent years, there has been a rise in so-called "progressive prosecutors" focused on criminal justice reforms.Although there has been considerable debate about the relationship between progressive prosecution policies and crime rates, there has been surprisingly little empirical research on the topic.Building on the limited extant research, we examined whether the inauguration of progressive prosecutors in the nation's 100 most populous counties impacted crime rates during a 21-year period (2000 to 2020).After developing an original database of progressive prosecutors in the 100 largest counties, we used heterogeneous difference-in-differences regressions to examine the influence of progressive prosecutors on crime rates.Results show that the inauguration of progressive prosecutors led to statistically higher index property (7%) and total crime rates (driven by rising property crimes), and these effects were strongest since 2013-a period with an increasing number of progressive prosecutors.However, violent crime rates generally were not higher after a progressive prosecutor assumed control. Policy implicationsDespite concerns that the election of progressive prosecutors leads to "surging" levels of violence, these findings suggest that progressive-oriented prosecutorial reforms led to relatively higher rates of property crime but had limited impact on rates of violent crime.In fact, in absolute terms, crime rates fell in jurisdictions with traditional and progressive prosecutors.Yet, relative property crime rates were greater after the inauguration of progressive prosecutors.Given that prior research shows progressive prosecutors reduce mass incarceration and racial inequalities, our findings indicate that higher property crime rates may be the price for these advancements.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• The Rise of Progressive Prosecutors in the United States: Politics, Prospects, and Perils

  CrimRxiv · 2024-10-01 · 1 citations

  preprintOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  Throughout much of the United States, progressive chief prosecutors (PCPs) have campaigned for office by pledging to end mass incarceration and reduce disparities therein. In this review, we summarize the progressive prosecution movement and the evidence base concerning PCPs. We attribute the rising number of PCPs to a disjuncture between the criminal justice policy preferences of state-level policymakers and voters. Although voters, especially in urban areas, prefer reforms aimed at reducing excessive punitiveness and increasing fairness, state-level policymakers have been reluctant to enact such reforms. PCPs bridge this gap by using their authority to implement local reforms without altering state laws. We detail the number of PCPs leading prosecution in urban counties, examine their characteristics, discuss the controversies surrounding PCPs, and critically review the emerging body of evidence concerning the influence of PCPs on sanctioning and public safety.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• The Rise of Progressive Prosecutors in the United States: Politics, Prospects, and Perils

  Annual Review of Criminology · 2024-10-01 · 13 citations

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  Throughout much of the United States, progressive chief prosecutors (PCPs) have campaigned for office by pledging to end mass incarceration and reduce disparities therein. In this review, we summarize the progressive prosecution movement and the evidence base concerning PCPs. We attribute the rising number of PCPs to a disjuncture between the criminal justice policy preferences of state-level policymakers and voters. Although voters, especially in urban areas, prefer reforms aimed at reducing excessive punitiveness and increasing fairness, state-level policymakers have been reluctant to enact such reforms. PCPs bridge this gap by using their authority to implement local reforms without altering state laws. We detail the number of PCPs leading prosecution in urban counties, examine their characteristics, discuss the controversies surrounding PCPs, and critically review the emerging body of evidence concerning the influence of PCPs on sanctioning and public safety.

  PublisherDOI

• P4.14C.05 Incidence of Pseudoprogression and Hyperprogression in Patients with Pleural Mesothelioma Treated with Ipilimumab and Nivolumab

  Journal of Thoracic Oncology · 2024-10-01

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherOA PDFDOI

Frequent coauthors

• Doris Layton MacKenzie

  Pennsylvania State University

  26 shared

• David B. Wilson

  11 shared

• Angela R. Gover

  7 shared

• Gaylene J. Styve

  6 shared

• Michael S. Caudy

  University of Central Florida

  5 shared

• Deanna M. Pérez

  Utah State University

  3 shared

• Jasper Bekker

  Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  3 shared

• Amy Eggers

  3 shared

Education

• Ph.D., Criminology and Criminal Justice

  University of Maryland

• M.A., Criminology and Criminal Justice

  University of Maryland

• B.A., Sociology

  University of Washington

Awards & honors

• Editor in Chief, Criminology & Public Policy
• Vice President, American Society of Criminology
• Chair, ASC Publications Committee
• Chair, ASC Ad Hoc Committee on Publisher Selection