By Ray  Madding  Mcconnell

Ray Madding McConnell’s Criminal Responsibility and Social Constraint first appeared in 1912 as one of the more philosophically ambitious works of the American Progressive Era. Though rarely cited today, the book occupies a fascinating place in the early twentieth-century dialogue between philosophy, criminology, and legal reform. Its author, who died shortly before the book’s publication, taught social ethics at Harvard and belonged to a generation deeply convinced that clearer thought could repair the accumulating confusions of modern criminal law. His book is therefore both a legacy and an argument: a legacy of Progressive rationalism and an argument for reconsidering the foundations of punishment in an age increasingly aware of causation, psychology, and social science.

More than a century after its publication, Criminal Responsibility and Social Constraint offers a valuable perspective for scholars, legal theorists, and reformers. It is a window into the moment when American thought on crime and punishment began to absorb scientific psychology, social statistics, and philosophical determinism. It presents an early, coherent version of a consequentialist theory of punishment that still structures major parts of modern practice. And it invites readers to confront the perennial tension between causation and accountability: how can a society committed to science and determinism still punish, censure, and regulate?

McConnell’s answer is that responsibility is a socially constructed tool—one that must be justified by its utility rather than by metaphysical claims about freedom. Whether one accepts or contests that answer, it remains a stimulus to deeper thinking about the moral and practical foundations of the criminal law. In that sense, McConnell’s book continues to speak forcefully to our age, reminding us that the architecture of justice must rest on reasons we can defend, not merely on traditions we have inherited.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2025. p.234.

By David Cross In partnership with the Building Futures

This report forms part of the Prison Reform Trust’s (PRT) National Lottery Community Fund funded Building Futures Programme that, since 2020, has been exploring the experiences of people serving long-term prison sentences. The programme has defined its long-term cohort to include those men that will spend 10 or more years in prison and eight years or more for women. This prisoner-led collaboration sheds light on the perspectives of men serving such long-term sentences at HM Prison Glenochil in Scotland, regarding their progression within the prison system. It seeks to amplify the voices of those most directly affected by the progression process, highlighting their experiences and the personal impact associated with decision-making and delays. We conducted a comprehensive survey, designed and led by small working groups of men currently imprisoned in Glenochil, targeting all men with sentences of 10 years or more and those serving indeterminate sentences. This survey helped to identify the critical issues concerning prisoner progression as perceived by the men themselves. Subsequently, a series of focus groups provided a platform for in-depth discussions, allowing participants to express their experiences and concerns. The findings of the survey and focus groups reveal significant challenges faced by very long-term prisoners. One of the most telling points made in one of the sessions reflected a widely held view: Issues identified include the perceived fairness of access to programmes and to less secure conditions, and the impact of early release arrangements. The data reflects the urgent need for reforms aimed at enhancing the timeliness, fairness and transparency of these processes. These findings will be presented across six main themes: Personal change and development: while taking responsibility for personal change and development is clearly seen as being important from the perspective of the men serving long sentences - both for its own sake and in contributing to progression - there is a commonly held view that this is not reflected in the formal decision-making processes. Fostering and sustaining hope: the loss of hope permeated all of the discussions, and the uncertainties regarding the progression pathway and release dates, create a culture in which it is difficult to identify measures which could help to foster and sustain hope. Sentence length, tariffs and time served: for the majority of the men serving indeterminate sentences, there is an enormous gap between the ‘punishment part’ or tariff and the actual length of time served. This has a substantial impact on the prisoners’ experience of progression, and many reported having long periods in which there was no evident progression at all. Assessments, programmes and less secure conditions: many of the men identified difficulties arising from the processes related to all of these elements of the very long-term prison experience, and in particular, the overwhelming majority reported very significant delays throughout these processes which had the cumulative effect of adding years to the period of time actually served. Diversity and inclusion: there was evidence presented to the consultation that indicated that the difficulties experienced by very long-term prisoners in relation to their progression were exacerbated where there were additional characteristics, and that the prison did not take sufficient account of their statutory duties in this regard. Trust: prisoners reported that factors such as the gap between expectation and reality in the progression pathway; the range of factors contributing to this gap; the difficulty in establishing positive relationships with key staff at the right time; examples of demeaning and careless treatment; and the difficulty in establishing accountability for these difficulties combine to create a loss of trust. This in turn negatively affects the engagement of prisoners in activities that support progression.

London: Prison Reform Trust, 2025. 22p.

By Jennifer Scaife, 

In March 2025, the New York State (NYS) Department of Correction and Community Supervision (DOCCS) and correction officers reached an agreement to end a 22-day unauthorized work stoppage.1 That agreement includes three terms related to the Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act (HALT), a law that limits and regulates DOCCS’ use of segregated confinement: (1) a 90-day suspension of the law’s programming provisions, (2) a directive for facility administrators to prioritize suspending general population programs over HALT-mandated ones on days with high staff vacancies, and (3) the establishment of a committee to recommend changes to the law (HALT Committee). Before these events unfolded, the Correctional Association of New York (CANY) set out to examine two interrelated issues: compliance with and perceptions of HALT within state correctional facilities. In March 2023, CANY published a report examining the first eight months of HALT’s implementation. Building on that earlier work, this report examines trends in DOCCS’ use of segregated confinement, compliance with key provisions of the law, and perceptions of HALT’s impact on work and life in prison. More specifically, this report covers the period from January 2023 to July 2024 but occasionally includes data from the year before and months after HALT was implemented for comparison. The analysis draws from one-on-one interviews, stakeholder meetings, and administrative data. It is presented in three sections: Part I: Analysis of DOCCS’ Data on the Special Housing Unit (SHU) and Rehabilitative Residential Unit (RRU), Part II: Implementing HALT, and Part III: Living and Working with HALT. The report finds that, since HALT was implemented, the number of people isolated from the general population for disciplinary reasons, either in a SHU or RRU, has increased. While the SHU and RRU are meant to serve distinct purposes, the law’s implementation—constrained by existing infrastructure, staffing challenges, and, at times, DOCCS’ interpretation—has led to gaps in compliance that blur the distinction between the two units.

New York: Correctional Association of New York, 2026. 111p.

By Mia Schlicht

Australia’s reliance on incarceration as the default punishment for a wide range of offences has come at a significant financial cost to taxpayers whilst failing to improve community safety. This report outlines the cost of prisons, trends in incarnation, the incarceration of non-violent offenders and recommendations for reform.

Key findings

• State and federal governments are now spending $6.8 billion each year on prisons, with spending having increased by 50% in 10 years.

• Incarceration costs Australian taxpayers $436 per prisoner per day, or $159,510 per prisoner per year.

• Governments spend up to $2.6 billion on imprisoning offenders who pose minimal risk to community safety.

• The reliance on incarcerating non-violent offenders is straining prison capacity.

• In the longer term, prison capacity concerns can only be resolved by adding new capacity or by sentencing reform.

• Sentencing non-violent offenders to alternatives to incarceration would reduce taxpayer expenses and improve community safety by reallocating resources to crime prevention.

Key recommendations

• Offender employment programs to address Australia’s worker shortage.

• Financial sanctions (‘offender super-taxation levy’).

• Technological incarceration such as electronic monitoring should be advanced as a criminal sanction.

Melbourne: Institute of Public Affairs, 2025. 20p.

By Jesper Ryberg

The ethics of punishment constitutes an area of research that has recently been through a significant expansion, both in breadth and depth. But why is such research important? And how can it be conducted in the most fruitful way? In this article it is argued, first, that the study of penal ethics is important in order to inform penal practice. However, second, it is shown that there are both theoretical and political obstacles to the possibility of delivering genuine action guidance to practitioners. Finally, four recommendations are presented that may help to ensure that research within the ethics of punishment is carried out in a manner that is consistent with the basic justification for its very existence, namely that it is needed to provide moral guidance of penal practices in the real world.

Crim Law Forum 36, 191–204 (2025).

By Dirk van Zyl Smit & Christopher Seeds

Sentences of life imprisonment without a prospect of adequate review and release are prohibited in States party to the European Convention on Human Rights. Should the same principle apply when extradition is sought to States not party to the Convention? In Sanchez Sanchez v United Kingdom (2022), the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights applied a less strict standard for potential extraditees facing life without parole. We analyse this decision and its repercussions in light of the history of international cooperation in extreme punishment cases between Europe and the USA and recent interpretations of the new standard. The article concludes with an assessment of the level of proof litigants must present to satisfy the Sanchez Sanchez test and of how the law could continue to prevent inhuman and degrading treatment of extraditees facing life sentences.

Crim Law Forum 35 1–37 (2024).

By Creaig A. Dunton, Hayden P. Smith, and Frank Ferdik

Unanimously passed by Congress in 2003, the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) was designed to eradicate sexual violence from the American correctional system. Although sexual victimization is a significant issue in correctional facilities, there are other urgent concerns that weigh heavily on the minds of those in custody. To understand these focal concerns, open-ended survey data were collected from (N = 852) incarcerated persons who were serving sentences in four state prisons located in the Southeastern United States during a period of PREA implementation. Respondents cited staff shortages, enforced lockdowns, low-quality food, and inadequate rehabilitative services as focal concerns. Incarcerated persons utilized the PREA prompt as a proxy to share their concerns about safety, climate, and institutional issues. Results are discussed with reference to best practices for improving conditions of confinement to create safe carceral facilities.

By Eleni Manis, Aaron Thomas, Erin McFadden, Hope Romaine, Sarah Roth, Sophia Wright, and Corinne Worthington

In this report, S.T.O.P. details how family surveillance apps transfer surveillance used for probation and parole to familial contexts, enabling abusive parents and intimate partners. Courts have even opportunistically used Life360, one family surveillance app, to enforce probation. The report calls on regulators to reign in family surveillance apps based on federal and state wiretap laws, and demands developers prioritize user safety if they refuse to pull the apps entirely.

Key Findings Include:

• Family surveillance apps like Life360 repurpose the surveillance typically used to enforce probation and parole. In fact, some courts use Life360 in lieu of apps branded as probation or parole tools.

• Family surveillance apps frequently function as stalkerware, enabling abusers to track their targets anywhere they go. These apps can enable abusive parents, intimate partner violence, and other crimes.

• Most family surveillance apps track more data than needed to serve their core functions, compounding safety risks for tracked individuals.

• Short of pulling family surveillance apps entirely, developers should implement anti-abusability measures recommended by advocates for survivors of domestic abuse.

By Danielle Kaeb

This report presents findings on persons under community supervision on probation or parole in the United States in 2023. It includes characteristics of the U.S. community supervision population such as sex, race or ethnicity, and most serious offense. The report provides statistics on movements onto and off community supervision, and details types of exits, such as completing one’s term of supervision, being incarcerated, absconding, or other unsatisfactory outcomes while in the community. Findings are based on data from BJS’s Annual Probation Survey, Annual Parole Survey, and Federal Justice Statistics Program. This report is the 32nd in a series that began in 1981.

Highlights

At yearend 2023, an estimated 3,772,000 adults were under community supervision (probation or parole), up 27,900 (0.7%) from January 1, 2023.

From yearend 2013 to yearend 2023, among comparable agencies, the total adult community supervision population declined 23%.

During 2023, the number of adults on parole declined from 700,800 to 680,400 (down 2.9%).

The probation population increased for a second consecutive year in 2023, from 3,064,200 on January 1 to 3,103,400 on December 31 (up 1.3%).

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2025. 43p.

By Grace Y. Li

Prison has been used for diverse purposes and has taken on an array of social meanings, becoming so malleable as to form a permanent fixture of government. Despite the variety of ends toward which imprisonment has been deployed, the practice always relies on one central mechanism: control over the associative lives of the incarcerated. The exercise of this control marks an unalterable, essential feature of prison. Regardless of what other brutalities it entails, imprisonment necessarily means removing people from their homes and communities and limiting their possibilities for relationships with people outside, as well as compelling association with others inside. This Essay presents an analytical framing of incarceration as a tool of associative control.Using the associative lens, the Essay levies a unifying critique of effects of prison that are typically treated in isolation. It also offers a critical comparison of incarceration to its justice system alternatives, which mirror incarceration in their assertion of associative control over people in their custody but diverge in their particular associative goals: they seek to promote social bonds while incarceration seeks to limit them. In this sense, the prison works against the larger goals of the criminal justice system. The Essay argues all these carceral forms engage in associative overreach, but that the associative control is a reformable aspect of “community corrections” but not of prison. In this way, the associational lens informs the debate about prison abolition versus reform: the prison’s associational harms cannot be reformed, and if they are unjustifiable, the prison is too.The prison is instructive as a site of extreme associative control, but the associative lens is more broadly applicable. It can act as a synthesizing frame to understand harms and functions of family regulation, disability, immigration, and more.

 Ohio State Legal Studies Research Paper No. 936,  2025.

By Giada Girelli

The death penalty is an ineffective and inhumane punishment, and a prohibited one when imposed for drug offences. Still, as of 2024 it is retained in over 30 countries, and its implementation as a tool of drug control is a key driver of the use of capital punishment worldwide. At a time when its use is intensifying, by the part of an increasingly restricted but radical group of countries, it is critical to interrogate why and how governments around the world have abolished this measure or taken steps towards reducing its application. Such an assessment is key to understanding which actors and factors – social, political, cultural, economic – have influenced these processes, and which legal and policy steps were adopted to achieve that goal. In turn, this can offer important lessons to advocates, policymakers and practitioners on effective pathways to remove or restrict the application of the death penalty for drug offences in practice; as a step towards total death penalty abolition, and towards drug policies centred around dignity, health and rights. After a brief overview of the death penalty for drug offences, which builds upon Harm Reduction International (HRI) The Death Penalty for Drug Offences: Global Overview series (hereinafter: Global Overview), this report is divided into two main parts. The first one is a review of 17 case studies of countries and territories which have removed the death penalty for drug offences from their laws, or adopted reforms aimed at reducing its use. The second is an analysis of commonalities in and recurring features of these experiences, with a focus on agents of change, narratives, other influencing processes, and the role of transparency. The report closes with some recommendations for policymakers, experts and activists, building on the lessons that can be learnt from these case studies. 1. 2 OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY This report reviews and analyses case studies of national developments which aimed to or had the effect of removing or restricting the use of the death penalty for drug offences. A primary purpose is to provide a comparative review of driving forces that practitioners and abolitionist activists can draw upon to develop strategies aimed at restricting use of the death penalty for drug offences in their own country. Attention is thus limited to (a) countries and territories with laws prescribing death as a punishment for drug offences at some point in their history; and (b) legal, policy, judicial or other developments which had at least the potential of restricting the use of this punishment; considering developments related to the death penalty for drug offences specifically, as well as developments related to the death penalty generally in countries where this punishment was prescribed for drug crimes. The death penalty is an ineffective and inhumane punishment, and a prohibited one when imposed for drug offences. Still, as of 2024 it is retained in over 30 countries, and its implementation as a tool of drug control is a key driver of the use of capital punishment worldwide. At a time when its use is intensifying, by the part of an increasingly restricted but radical group of countries, it is critical to interrogate why and how governments around the world have abolished this measure or taken steps towards reducing its application. Such an assessment is key to understanding which actors and factors – social, political, cultural, economic – have influenced these processes, and which legal and policy steps were adopted to achieve that goal. In turn, this can offer important lessons to advocates, policymakers and practitioners on effective pathways to remove or restrict the application of the death penalty for drug offences in practice; as a step towards total death penalty abolition, and towards drug policies centred around dignity, health and rights. After a brief overview of the death penalty for drug offences, which builds upon Harm Reduction International (HRI) The Death Penalty for Drug Offences: Global Overview series (hereinafter: Global Overview), this report is divided into two main parts. The first one is a review of 17 case studies of countries and territories which have removed the death penalty for drug offences from their laws, or adopted reforms aimed at reducing its use. The second is an analysis of commonalities in and recurring features of these experiences, with a focus on agents of change, narratives, other influencing processes, and the role of transparency. The report closes with some recommendations for policymakers, experts and activists, building on the lessons that can be learnt from these case studies. 1. 2 OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY This report reviews and analyses case studies of national developments which aimed to or had the effect of removing or restricting the use of the death penalty for drug offences. A primary purpose is to provide a comparative review of driving forces that practitioners and abolitionist activists can draw upon to develop strategies aimed at restricting use of the death penalty for drug offences in their own country. Attention is thus limited to (a) countries and territories with laws prescribing death as a punishment for drug offences at some point in their history; and (b) legal, policy, judicial or other developments which had at least the potential of restricting the use of this punishment; considering developments related to the death penalty for drug offences specifically, as well as developments related to the death penalty generally in countries where this punishment was prescribed for drug crimes. For these reasons, this report does not attempt to provide a comprehensive, exhaustive overview of all domestic developments in all relevant countries and territories which had the potential or effect to restrict recourse to the death penalty for drug offence. Rather, it only describes and reviews some relevant developments, selected based on their perceived relevance for practitioners and experts, as well as availability of sufficient information and access to informants. 

London: Harm Reduction International, 2024. 70

By The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman

This report is part of the Ombudsman's ongoing own motion investigation into instances where the Department of Home Affairs (the Department) has detained people it suspects to be unlawful non-citizens, but later identifies they were not unlawful and releases them from detention. It covers 11 cases of wrongful detention the Department identified between 1 July 2023 and 30 June 2024, including the wrongful detention of an Australian citizen. In one case, the person was wrongfully detained for one year and six months. Under section 189 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) an officer must detain a person they 'know or reasonably suspect' to be an unlawful non-citizen. While a decision to detain a person may have been lawful because an officer held the required reasonable suspicion at the time, in each of the cases considered in this report, their detention was wrong because that suspicion was later found to be incorrect. Wrongfully depriving a person of their liberty is serious. We commend the Department’s commitment to continually improving its policies and procedures to mitigate the risk of wrongful detention. However, since we began monitoring the issue in 2005, we have observed the same types of errors are causing people to be wrongfully detained. In addition, the Department has not improved the way it addresses its mistakes with the individuals it has wrongfully detained. The Department does not offer people it has wrongfully detained any form of redress, formal apology, or financial compensation. Although the Department may identify and acknowledge the mistake to the individual, the onus is on the individual to navigate the complex and often costly process of lodging a civil claim to seek damages for unlawful detention through the judicial system. Furthermore, because affected individuals are only informed verbally (rather than in writing) that an error has occurred on their release, they may not be aware of their ability to make such a claim or have access to the information required to support it. Of the 11 individuals who were wrongfully detained in this reporting period, only one has made a civil claim for unlawful detention.  

 Canberra:  The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, 2024. 35p.

By John Tillson and Winston C. Thompson.

In this chapter we analyze general views on punishment in order to consider what behavioural requirements schools may establish for students and which (if any) they may enforce through punishment, during compulsory education. Punishment, as we use the word, is the intentional imposition of burdensome treatment on someone – usually on the rule breaker – for having broken a rule, partly because the treatment is burdensome. By carefully analyzing various aspects of punishment, we aim to identify principles that should guide and constrain which behaviours schools punish, and how and why they punish them. In brief, we develop the following principles regarding legitimate requirements that can be made of students and the ways punishment may be used to enforce them. Before children are autonomous, schools may establish both paternalistic, and other-regarding requirements, but not requirements imposed from within comprehensive conceptions of the good. 2 They may punish children in order to ensure a fair distribution of the burdens and benefits of social arrangements. Schools may punish children for paternalistic reasons, including developmental reasons, but not for reasons of general deterrence. When children become autonomous, compulsory schooling may establish only other-regarding requirements of student conduct. 3 They may punish to ensure a fair distribution of the burdens or benefits of social arrangements; this includes punishing for reasons of general deterrence, due to children’s responsible choices enhancing their liability, as well as for other-regarding developmental reasons.

Pedagogies of Punishment: The Ethics of Discipline in Education.. Bloomsbury Academic. 2023. pp. 35-62

By Martin Dufwenberg , Flora Li , and Alec Smith

We study the effect of communication on beliefs and behavior in a three-stage trust game with punishment. We propose a novel behavioral mechanism, frustrationdependent anger, that links unmet payoff expectations with the willingness to forgo material payoffs to punish others. We conjecture that communication works through this mechanism to raise expectations about the likelihood of belief-dependent costly punishment and to increase trust, cooperation, and efficiency. In an experiment we allow communication in the form of a single pre-play message. We measure beliefs and our design permits the observation of promises and deception. The results are consistent with the theory that costly punishment results from belief-dependent anger and frustration. Promises drive the effect of communication on beliefs and broken promises lead to higher rates of costly punishment.

Preliminary draft. September 13, 2018

By H. M. Fogle. Intrdosction by Graeme Newman

At once a chronicle and a funeral dirge, The Palace of Death stands as a haunting testament to early twentieth-century American penal culture. Published in 1909 by an Ohio penitentiary official, H. M. Fogle's volume compiles 59 firsthand accounts of incarceration and execution—each rendered with chilling precision and accompanied by stark photographic documentation. The period covers the execution by hanging and the transition to the electric chair, all in considerable detail. These narratives propel the reader through the twilight of life, revealing how society confronts its most extreme judgments. Yet, behind the factual veneer lies a provocative tension: does Fogle intend to expose the tragedy of fallen humanity, or to feed a voyeuristic appetite for death? In this liminal space between documentation and spectacle, the work demands not only attention, but moral inventory.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2025. p.229.

By The Justice Policy Institute

As Virginia faces a critical labor shortage and rising incarceration costs, the state also sits on an untapped resource: thousands of incarcerated individuals eligible for federal Pell Grants who are eager to learn, work, and contribute to their communities. Unlocking Virginia’s Workforce makes the economic and moral case for expanding access to higher education in Virginia’s prisons and offers a comprehensive policy blueprint for reform.

This report outlines the high cost inaction, presenting data-driven arguments for how postsecondary education reduces recidivism, strengthens families, and helps meet the state’s urgent workforce needs. It highlights policy gaps and systemic barriers – from outdated technology infrastructure to racial, gender, and geographic inequities – and offers concrete recommendations for Virginia’s elected officials, education institutions, employers, and corrections leaders.

Drawing on lessons from across the country and the lived experience of incarcerated learners, Unlocking Virginia’s Workforce shows how aligning prison education with the state’s economic priorities can reduce public spending, grow the talent pipeline, and build a more inclusive Commonwealth.

Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2025. 59p.

By The  Productivity Commission

Australia is locking up a record number of people. Our imprisonment rate has grown steadily since the 1980s and is around its highest level in a century (figure 1). On 30 June 2020, more than 40 000 Australians were in prison. Many more flow through the prison system each year. Over one third of prisoners are on remand, waiting for trial or sentencing. And nearly 60 per cent have been in prison before The increase in imprisonment cannot be explained solely by changes in either the amount or type of crime. It is, at least in part, a policy choice. As a policy, imprisonment serves multiple objectives — deterring crime, removing dangerous individuals from the community, punishing and rehabilitating offenders, and supporting the rule of law. But it is also expensive. This raises a key economic question for policy makers. Is the current policy of increased use of imprisonment producing benefits for Australia that outweigh the costs? And what, if any, are the alternatives? In this paper — the Productivity Commission’s first venture into research on the criminal justice system — we highlight the information, data and options that policy makers need to answer these questions. The Commission has used an economic approach to help guide policy makers in weighing up the benefits of criminal justice policies against their costs. Even though this is only one perspective, it provides valuable insights into the complex trade-offs facing policy makers   

Canberra: Productivity Commission, 2021. 159p.

By Maja Vlajnic, Caitlin Flood, Rachel Schmidt, and Amanda Coscia 

To identify the factors that drive parole and probation revocations, the Crime and Justice Institute, conducted a comprehensive assessment of community supervision policies and practices in Colorado, Florida, Mississippi, and Montana.  In this report, the authors present their findings and identify areas of opportunity for reform. Among other barriers, the report highlights the lack of transportation and financial obligations as significant challenges to successful completion. Participants reported that the excessive costs of supervision, and fines and fees significantly impacted their experience on supervision. Additionally, 42 percent of people who had their probation revoked for absconding had a suspended or revoked license.

Boston: The Crime and Justice Institute (CJI) , 2025. 35p

By The Center for Crime and Justice Institute

To understand the scope and the urgency of these challenges in Minnesota, state leaders sought assistance from the Crime and Justice Institute (CJI), funded by Arnold Ventures, to examine aspects of the state’s criminal justice system. This assessment included an examination of past and current prison population trends, prison conditions in the oldest prison facilities, and the costs associated with potential solutions. CJI analyzed publicly available data, performed statutory analysis, and interviewed criminal justice practitioners and stakeholders, including system-impacted individuals, attorneys, legislators, and staff at advocacy organizations.

The United States built its first prison in 1773 in an old copper mine. 1 The nation’s criminal justice system has grown and evolved, yet many facilities that the system continues to rely on were built in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Minnesota is an example of this, with over 2,000 individuals housed in two facilities built more than 100 years ago. 2 Continued use of these facilities is problematic as their structures prohibit the programming necessary for effective rehabilitation, and the conditions within their walls create dangerous safety and health hazards for staff and those incarcerated. 3 Since 1990, Minnesota’s prison population rose steadily until it peaked at over 10,000 people in 2016. The prison population declined during the COVID-19 pandemic, as it did nationally. However, post-pandemic, the population climbed, from 7,300 incarcerated people in 2021 to 8,277 in January 2025. 4,5 As of January 2025, the 109-year-old prison in Stillwater houses more than 1,100 people, and the 135-year-old prison in St. Cloud houses nearly 950 people.6,7 The dangerous conditions within these two facilities present an urgent need to act. Since 2023, there have been major disruptions in operations at both facilities. Individuals in custody refuse to return to their cells, and violent incidents that necessitate lockdowns further create stress and frustration inside the prison gates.8,9,10 This assessment found: • While Minnesota’s prison population and incarceration rate are below the national average, they are rising at a faster pace than the national rate. 11 • Stillwater and St. Cloud house a significant number of incarcerated individuals whom other facilities would have to accommodate if either facility had to shut down. 12 • The conditions at these facilities limit opportunities for programming, education, vocational training, and, thus, the ability for incarcerated individuals to earn credit to receive time off their sentences and to prepare to integrate successfully into their communities. 13,14 • While the recent passage of the Minnesota Rehabilitation and Reinvestment Act (MRRA) and other similar pieces of legislation are expected to reduce the amount of time incarcerated individuals serve in the state and, ultimately, the size of the overall prison system,15 these impacts will not be immediate. As the state waits to see these legislative efforts bear fruit, immediate steps are necessary to improve public safety, reduce recidivism, and improve the safety of the people who live and work in the prison system. This examination, which includes ways other states addressed similar challenges, will enable state leaders to make informed decisions about potential next steps to achieve these goals.

Boston: The Crime and Justice Institute (CJI)2025. 20p.

By Holly Ventura Miller, 

This report for the US Congress Committees on Appropriations, published by the Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), National Institute of Justice (NIJ), provides an overview on formerly incarcerate women experiencing reentry. The report reviews the literature related to female offending, victimization, and reentry and examines the extent and nature of women’s involvement in the justice system, with a focus on gender-specific pathways to crime as well as female reentry and rehabilitation. The report describes current trends in female reentry, describes the challenges faced by incarcerated women, and reviews the extant literature related to the effectiveness of reentry programming for women. Finally, the report concludes with suggestions for future research, along with specific recommendations for policy and practice. DOJ provides this report on formerly incarcerated women and reentry consonant with the House Report 116-101 accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116- 93). 

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs FY 2020 Report to the Committees on Appropriations 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice, 2021. 51p.