The Open Access Publisher and Free Library
13-punishment.jpg

PUNISHMENT

Research Evaluation of the City of Columbus’ Response to the 2020 Summer Protests

By Trevor L. Brown,  Carter M. Stewart

  The murder of George Floyd, a Black man, by Derek Chauvin, a White Minneapolis, Minnesota, police officer on May 25, 2020, sparked months-long protests about racism and policing across the country and around the globe, including Columbus, Ohio. Captured on video and spread quickly through social media, Floyd’s death galvanized Americans to take to the streets in the midst of a global health pandemic to voice their anger and frustration about the many Black Americans who had been killed by police. The fairness of policing practice as applied to communities of color, particularly Black communities, and more fundamentally, the existence of the police as a legally sanctioned public institution were the clear motivations for the protests. Law enforcement agencies across the country, including the Columbus Police Department, also mobilized to the streets. Their job was to create a space for citizens to peacefully exercise their right to free speech, while simultaneously ensuring the safety of the community. In many protests, police are neutral actors managing the boundaries of the demonstration. In the protests of 2020, protestors saw the police as antagonists, and systematically racist; they were the object of the protest. When police are the focus of the protest, there is a significant increase in the likelihood of direct conflict between protesters and law enforcement personnel. Adhering to best practice in protest management and adapting to evolving protest dynamics become even more important to ensure free speech rights and community safety. This report provides the results of an eight-month research study evaluating how the City of Columbus, Ohio, inclusive of elected officials and the Columbus Division of Police (CPD), managed the protests in Columbus from May 28 through July 19, 2020. The purpose of the research study was three-fold: • document interactions between community members and law enforcement personnel as a part of the protests; • evaluate the City of Columbus’s preparation for and response to the pro tests; and • generate research-informed recommendations about how to improve the performance of the City of Columbus in preparing for and responding to future protests. The study was conducted by an independent research team organized by the John Glenn College of Public Affairs at The Ohio State University. The research team was composed of a lead investigative unit that gathered information, a diverse research advisory board. that provided subject-matter and technical expertise, and a core research group that assembled and synthesized the data, generated findings, and produced recommendations   

Columbus, OH: John Glenn College of Public Affairs, The Ohio State University, 2024. 111p.   

More Data is Needed on the Use of Solitary Confinement in D.C.

By  The Council for Court Excellence (“CCE”)

  Across the United States, jurisdictions as diverse as New York City and the states of Colorado and Nebraska are eliminating or severely restricting the use of solitary confinement – often referred to as “restrictive housing” or “segregated housing” – in correctional facilities. These changes are being driven by evidence showing both that solitary confinement is ineffective as a correctional management practice, and that it is harmful to the individuals placed in segregation. Here in Washington, D.C. (“D.C.” or “the District”), there is a growing call for the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) to end the use of solitary confinement in the D.C. Jail. Additionally, D.C. is in the process of designing a new correctional facility, creating an urgency to the question of whether it will or should include units designed for solitary confinement. To inform these conversations, the Council for Court Excellence (“CCE”) sought information on the use of the various forms of solitary confinement by DOC through D.C. Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests. This brief provides relevant background and context for these incarceration related issues and summaries of the information that DOC did and did not provide in response to the DC-FOIA requests. After more than two years of negotiation related to the DC-FOIA requests, DOC ultimately provided very limited information regarding its use of disciplinary or administrative segregation of people in the D.C. Jail. The data that was provided was incomplete and raised a number of concerns. For example, the average length of stay in segregated housing in Fiscal Year 2021 was 49 days – over three times longer than the United Nations considers the maximum time a person should be held in solitary confinement. And 29 people that year were released directly to the community from segregation; this has been shown to have detrimental impacts, such as homelessness, joblessness, and a greater likelihood of recidivism, as those released may not have had access to programming to help them get the housing, treatment and other services they need. Additionally, many of our requests remained unanswered, leaving much still unknown. For example, CCE was not provided responses related to the use of restraints on people in the jail; the races and ages of people in solitary – both disciplinary and administrative restrictive housing/segregation; the number of pregnant people in segregation; or the number of people in segregation who tried to or succeeded in hurting themselves or completing suicide. In the limited places where DOC did provide relevant numbers for Fiscal Year 2021, they did not provide the comparable data for 2019 and 2020 that was also requested. The findings are detailed in a later section of this brief.  

Washington, DC:  The Council for Court Excellence (“CCE”), 2024. 13p,

Maddy B
The Use of Drama in the Rehabilitation of Violent Male Offenders

By Michael Balfour

The book discusses the use of drama in the rehabilitation of violent male offenders. Itexplores the theoretical territory of criminology and the rehabilitation perspective, aswell as the application of drama with offenders. The document also includes information on the outcomes and evaluation of drama-based rehabilitation programs.

ResearchGate, 2003, 302 pages

AFTER-CONDUCT OF DISCHARGED OFFENDERS

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

By Sheldon Glueck And Eleanor T. Glueck

The book provides a comprehensive analysis of the after-conduct of discharged offenders, focusing on the implications for reforming criminal justice:

● Causal Relations: It emphasizes the importance of understanding the multiple causal factors, both biological and environmental, that influence criminal behavior.

● Predictive Techniques: The document discusses the feasibility of using predictive tables to aid in sentencing and parole decisions.

● Reform Proposals: It suggests reforms for criminal justice based on scientific insights, such as re-designing correctional equipment to address causes rather than symptoms.

● Scientific Insights: Follow-up studies are highlighted as a means to gain scientific insights into the effectiveness of sentencing, treatment, and parole practices.

These key insights aim to shift the focus from punitive measures to a more rehabilitative approach that considers the complex interplay of factors contributing to criminal behavior.

Cambridge University. London 1945. Kraus Reprint Corporation New York 1966. 129p.

The Lena Baker Story

By Lela Bond Phillips

"The Lena Baker Story" by Lela Bond Phillips is a compelling account of the life of Lena Baker, a Black woman wrongfully convicted of murder in Georgia in the 1940s. This book delves into the injustices Lena faced as she navigated a racially charged legal system and tells the story of her fight for justice in the face of insurmountable odds. Through meticulous research and poignant storytelling, Lela Bond Phillips sheds light on a forgotten chapter of American history and brings Lena Baker's courageous struggle for truth and dignity to the forefront."

Wings Publishers, 2001, 103 pages

Care and Punishment : The Dilemmas of Prison Medicine

By Curtis Prout and Robert N. Ross

Care and Punishment: The Dilemmas of Prison Medicine delves into the ethical and practical challenges faced by healthcare providers in correctional facilities. Authors Curtis Prout and Robert N. Ross examine the complex intersection of healthcare, criminal justice, and human rights within the confines of prison walls. Through a series of compelling case studies and rigorous analysis, this book sheds light on the dilemmas that arise when medical care interacts with the punitive nature of incarceration. A crucial read for anyone interested in the intersection of medicine and justice, Care and Punishment offers valuable insights into the complexities of providing healthcare in carceral settings.

University of Pittsburgh Press, 1988, 276 pages

Gruesome Spectacles : Botched Executions and America's Death Penalty

Gruesome Spectacles : Botched Executions and America's Death Penalty By Auston Sarat

In "Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America's Death Penalty," author Auston Sarat meticulously examines the dark history of flawed executions in the United States. Through detailed analysis and compelling narratives, Sarat sheds light on the often overlooked human errors and systemic failures that have plagued the American justice system. This thought-provoking book challenges readers to confront the ethical complexities of capital punishment and its impact on society. Sarat's compelling exploration of botched executions raises crucial questions about the efficacy and morality of the death penalty in contemporary America.

Stanford University Press, 2014 - 273 pages

The History of the Death Penalty in Colorado

MICHAEL L. RADELET

"The History of the Death Penalty in Colorado" delves into the complex and controversial practice of capital punishment within the state. Revealing the evolution of laws, cases, and sentiments surrounding the death penalty, this book provides a comprehensive examination of its impact on Colorado's justice system and society. From landmark legal battles to public opinion shifts, this thorough exploration offers valuable insights into a contentious aspect of Colorado's history."

UNIVERSITY PRESS OF COLORADO. Boulder. 2017. 300p.

The Fairer Death: Executing Women in Ohio

Victor L. Streib

"The Fairer Death: Executing Women in Ohio" delves into the overlooked history of female executions in the state of Ohio. Through meticulous research and compelling storytelling, this book sheds light on the lives and crimes of these women, exploring the societal attitudes and legal systems that led to their ultimate fate. A thought-provoking examination of gender, justice, and the death penalty, "The Fairer Death" challenges readers to confront uncomfortable truths about our criminal justice system's treatment of women offenders.

Ohio University Press Series. Athens. 2005. 202p.

GUILLOTINE: IT'S LEGEND AND LORE

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

DANIEL GEROULD

Guillotine: It's Legend and Lore delves into the history, cultural impact, and myths surrounding the infamous device that became the symbol of the French Revolution. This comprehensive book examines the origins of the guillotine, its evolution, and the significant historical events it was associated with. Through meticulous research and captivating storytelling, the author explores the diverse perspectives on the guillotine, shedding light on its enduring legacy in both history and popular culture. Whether you are a history enthusiast or simply curious about this macabre yet fascinating subject, Guillotine: It's Legend and Lore is a compelling read that offers a fresh look at one of history's most notorious inventions.

BLAST BOOKS • NEW YORK. 1992. 332p.

Carceral Geography Spaces and Practices of Incarceration

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

DOMINIQUE MORAN

“The 'punitive tum' has brought about new ways of thinking about geography and the state, and has highlighted spaces of incarceration as a new terrain for exploration by geographers. Carceral geography offers a geographical perspective on incarceration, and this volume accordingly tracks the ideas, practices and engagements that have shaped the development ofthis new and vibrant subdiscipline, and scopes out future research directions. By conveying a sense of the debates, directions, and threads within the field of carceral geography, it traces the inner workings ofthis dynamic field, its synergies with criminology and prison sociology, and its likely future trajectories. Synthesizing existing work in carceral geography, and exploring the future directions it might take, the book develops a notion ofthe 'carceral' as spatial, emplaced, mobile, embodied and affective.”

Ashgate. Surrey, England. 2015. 188p.

The Case for the Corporate Death Penalty: Restoring Law and Order on Wall Street

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

Mary Kreiner Ramirez and Steven A. Ramirez

FROM THE PREFACE: “In defiance of any notion of the rule of law, our government failed to prosecute any senior bankers or large banks at any ofthe major financial firms at the center ofthe financial crisis of 2007 to 2009. This book demonstrates that the US government failed to pursue criminal misconduct that justified charges against the financiers at the center ofthe subprime crisis, and that justified dismantling Wall Street's most powerful megabanks under current law. At the outset, however, we must highlight that this book ofnecessity must proceed upon an inadequate factual foundation specifically because the government failed to adequately investigate and prosecute the enormous crimes underlying the financial crisis.”

NEW YORK New York. UNIVERSITY PRESS. 2017. 260p.

Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Technical Violations of Probation or Parole Supervision

By Joe Russo, Samuel Peterson, Michael J. D. Vermeer, Dulani Woods, Brian A. Jackson

Racial and ethnic disparities are pervasive in the U.S. criminal justice system. These disparities often compound as an individual progresses through each stage of the justice system, beginning with police contact and continuing through prosecution and correctional control. Not surprisingly, people of color are overrepresented in the probation and parole population, yet relatively little attention has been paid to disparate treatment and outcomes at this stage.

Probation and parole staff and other system actors exercise considerable discretion in responding to technical violations. Technical violations are instances of noncompliance with the conditions of supervision — such as failing to report to the supervising officer, leaving the jurisdiction without permission, and testing positive on a drug test—that, while not criminal, can lead to severe consequences for justice-involved individuals. The spectrum of responses to technical violations can range from a warning all the way up to a recommendation to revoke supervision. Evidence suggests that technical violations are an important driver of incarceration.

The handling of technical violations may be influenced by a variety of factors, including officer judgment and jurisdictional policy, and there is evidence of racial and ethnic disparities in how they are handled. Ultimately, disparities in the processing of technical violations can exacerbate and perpetuate existing disparities in incarceration and undermine the legitimacy of the justice system. This report presents findings and recommendations from an expert panel that explored challenges and opportunities associated with reducing disparities at the technical violation decision point.

Key Findings

  • The lack of evidence on the sources of disparities in community supervision contributes to a lack of known approaches for responding to them.

  • The working relationship between an officer and a supervisee is critical to successful outcomes.

  • A lack of diversity or cultural sensitivity among officers and supervisee perceptions of justice system illegitimacy can be barriers to forming quality relationships of trust.

  • Research is needed to determine the impacts of (1) such factors as the working relationship between and officer and a supervisee, a lack of diversity or cultural sensitivity among officers, and supervisee perceptions of justice system illegitimacy on supervisee violation behaviors, (2) responses to these behaviors, and (3) disparities.

  • Supervisees of color often have inequitable access to resources, which can be a barrier to successful completion of supervision and a contributing factor in disparate outcomes.

  • Information management tools are needed to increase transparency about and accountability for disparities.

  • Jurisdictions would benefit from developing data dashboards to help track, analyze, and display key metrics so that progress may be measured — and corrective actions taken as needed — at the officer and agency levels.

    Recommendations

  • Develop best practices for the use of technology to eliminate barriers to compliance. Evaluate pros, cons, and impacts of these approaches on outcomes and disparities.

  • Develop best practices and strategies to directly provide resources (e.g., food pantries, clothing, transit vouchers) to disadvantaged supervisees and/or coordinate with community resources to provide these services. Explore the feasibility of monetary assistance for sustenance and/or emergency support.

  • Conduct research into supervisee perceptions of the justice system’s legitimacy along racial and ethnic lines and the impact of these perceptions on compliance and outcomes.

  • Conduct research to determine whether the use of credible messengers improves relationships with supervisees and to examine the impact of this practice on supervision outcomes.

  • Study jurisdictions that have reduced disparities to better understand the dynamics associated with successful outcomes and to develop an evidence base of effective strategies.

  • Conduct research to determine the impacts of more-general system reforms (e.g., caps on probation sentences, reductions in the number of technical violations) on disparities in technical violation behaviors, responses, and outcomes.

  • Develop management tools (e.g., dashboards) to track disparity metrics, in near real time, at the agency, supervisor, and officer levels to promote transparency and accountability and to identify patterns to be investigated and addressed (e.g., coachable moments for staff, policy or program review).

  • Reinforce supervision practices in which staff actively engage in barrier-reduction strategies to "meet supervisees where they are" in terms of appropriate accommodations and service delivery that do not compromise public safety.

Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2023. 32p.


The death penalty for drug offences: Global overview 2023

By Giada Girelli, Marcela Jofré, and Ajeng Larasati

Harm Reduction International (HRI) has monitored the use of the death penalty for drug offences worldwide since our first ground-breaking publication on this issue in 2007. This report, our 13th on the subject, continues our work of providing regular updates on legislative, policy and practical developments related to the use of capital punishment for drug offences, a practice which isa clear violation of international human rights and drug control standards.

This year marks the beginning of a new approach to our flagship publication. Every edition of this report will provide key data and updated categories, as well as high-level developments at the national and international level. A deeper analysis of developments and trends will be published in the 2024 edition and on alternate years. The methodology used for both reports remains the same. HRI opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception.

Harm Reduction International, 2024. 22p.

The impact of court fines on people on low incomes: A data review

by Phil Bowen

This data review is a quantitative analysis of Citizens Advice data for clients who faced fine arrears between 2019 and 2023. It sits within our research project looking at the impact of court fines on people on low incomes, alongside our report, 'Where the hell am I going to get that money from?: The impact of court fines on people on low incomes'. It specifically seeks answers to the following questions: How has the court fine been used over the past five years?; Which offences do people get fined for?; Who gets fined and what are the demographics of those individuals who receive fines?; And what are the outcomes associated with fines, specifically repayment rates, re-offending rates and imprisonment for fine default?

London: Centre for Justice Innovation, 2024. 37p.

Fines for low level offences: The impact of court fines on people on low incomes

by Lucy Slade

Despite court fines being the most used sentence in the English and Welsh criminal justice system, it is rare that they feature in the discussion of justice reform engaged in by policymakers, academics and the third sector. To shine a light on this important, but under examined, area of our justice system, the Centre has undertaken a research project looking specifically what is the impact of their use. It is the first of its kind to look at what ought to happen— and what actually does. As part of this project, we have reviewed the literature of court fines and financial impositions in the criminal courts of England and Wales. This is accompanied by our report, which brings together the findings of our review of publicly available data, and qualitative interviews with people in low-incomes who have received a fine.

London: Centre for Justice Innovation, 2024. 11p.

“Where the hell am I going to get that money from?”: The impact of court fines on people on low incomes

by Lucy Slade and Stephen Whitehead

Almost everyone who is convicted in a court in England and Wales leaves with a bill to pay. Yet there is a striking gap in our knowledge on the most common sentencing outcome handed down by our courts: the court fine. A new report by the Centre for Justice Innovation published today (16 May 2024) seeks to address this knowledge gap. The report is called: “Where the hell am I going to get that money from?” The impact of court fines on people on low incomes.

The research, specifically conducted during this cost of living crisis, suggest that the impacts of getting a court fine are often highly disproportionate: while better off people experience only minor hardships, such as forgoing a holiday,for a significant number of those on the lowest incomes paying their court fine pushed them deeper towards unmanageable debt, destitution and significant levels of anxiety and mental anguish.

The research highlights that, contrary to the sentencing objectives of the court fine, the financial impact of fines and charges are not experienced equally by people with different levels of means. The research also found major gaps on the data collected, especially on the socio-economic status of those who are fined, meaning there is not a clear picture of who gets fined, who pays and who doesn’t (and why).

The research. The research is a comprehensive study based on a wide range of sources including interviews with 56 people with experience of fines who live on a low income; a literature review; analysis of public data on court fines; and of Citizens Advice data for clients who faced fine arrears between 2019 and 2023; and focus groups with 14 magistrates.

Findings from the data review:

  • Men received the majority of fines (2,534,714, 64%), with women receiving 944,547 (24%), and a further 474,557 fines issued where sex was not recorded (12%). This is in keeping with the preponderance of men in the sentencing and the criminal justice caseload more generally.

  • Women were proportionally more likely to receive fines than men (85% compared with 73%), in part, because they are more likely to commit the less serious offences, which result in a fine.

  • Of the ten offences for which fines are most often issued, women receive the majority of fines for only one of these, TV licence evasion, where they represent three quarters of people whose gender is recorded.

Key findings

Almost everyone who is convicted of a crime in a court in England and Wales leaves with a bill to pay. Over 75% of people convicted each year are sentenced to a fine. Yet while many of the offences for which fines are given are deemed “minor,” the research suggests that, for people on low incomes, the impact of fines is anything but.

  • A large number of the offences for which court fines are imposed are strongly linked to people’s pre-existing poverty, such as TV licence evasion.

  • Many of the 56 interviewees reported that the financial burdens placed on them by the court had pushed them further into debt, with some pushed into destitution and into further offending to pay off the court fine.

  • For some, the financial burdens took a severe toll on their mental and physical health, particularly where they faced prolonged payment periods in a never-ending cycle of payments.

  • While fine amount

    • are meant to be determined by an individual’s financial circumstances, this system did not seem to work effectively in practice.

    • The imposition of other non means-tested financial charges alongside the fine, such as prosecution costs, often pushed the total amount owed to the court up from something affordable to an amount that felt impossible to pay in the time allowed.

    • Court fine enforcement action (which is subject to less regulation than commercial credit recovery), particularly the threat of bailiffs, added further financial and wellbeing strains, especially for those already struggling to make insufficient household budgets last.

    • Magistrates suggested that they often felt their hands were tied, leaving them to sentence people on low incomes to fines, the magistrates knew they could not pay.

    • Many interviewees felt that a fine was, in theory, an appropriate punishment for the offence they committed, but the confusing processes of the current system often meant that the total amount they eventually needed to pay was seen as excessive

London: The Centre for Justice Innovation, 2024, 41p.

Broken Promises: How a History of Racial Violence and Bias Shaped Ohio’s Death Penalty

By The Death Penalty Research Center

In January 2024, Ohio lawmakers announced plans to expand the use of the death penalty to permit executions with nitrogen gas, as Alabama had just done a week earlier. But at the same time the Attorney General and the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association are championing this legislation, a bipartisan group of state legislators has introduced a bill to abolish the death penalty based on “significant concerns on who is sentenced to death and how that sentence is carried out.” The competing narratives make it more important than ever for Ohioans to have a meaningful, accurate understanding of how capital punishment is being used, including whether the state has progressed beyond the mistakes of its past.

Early 19th century Ohio Black Laws imposed various legal restrictions on the rights and status of Black people in the state, not dissimilar to what would later become Black Codes in many Southern states. As constitutional historian Dr. Stephen Middleton explains, “Although the penal code of Ohio did not explicitly provide for a dual system for handling criminal cases, the Black Laws naturally made race an element in the criminal justice system.”

Ohio’s 1807 “Negro Evidence Law” prohibited Black people from testifying against white people in court, thus instituting a legal double standard. Articles in African American newspapers from the time reported numerous instances where white assailants attacked Black victims with impunity because there was no legal consequence without a white person who could testify on the victims’ behalf. The state also passed racial restrictions on juries in 1816 and 1831, officially barring Black people from jury service. These laws no longer exist, but modern studies reveal that jury discrimination continues.

One of the most significant ties between historical death sentencing and the modern use of capital punishment is the preferential valuing of white victims. Multiple Ohio-specific studies have concluded that when a case involves a white victim—especially a white female victim—defendants are more likely to receive a death sentence or be executed. A review of all aggravated murder charges in Hamilton County from January 1992 through August 2017 revealed that prosecutors are 4.54 times more likely to file charges with death penalty eligibility if there is at least one white victim, compared to similarly situated cases without white victims. A separate study of Ohio executions between 1976 and 2014 found that homicides involving white female victims are six times more likely to result in an execution than homicides involving Black male victims. DPIC independently analyzed race of victim data for all 465 death sentences in the state and found that 75% of death sentences were for cases with at least one white victim. For context, most murder victims in the state are Black (66%).

Black capital defendants have also faced instances of overt racism from jurors, prosecutors, and even their own attorneys. During closing arguments, the prosecuting attorney in Dwight Denson’s trial suggested that if jurors did not sentence him to death, they might as well rename Cincinnati’s Over-the-Rhine neighborhood to “Jungle Land,” adding, “Leave it to Dwight Denson. Leave it to people like him.” An attorney for Malik Allah-U-Akbar (tried as Odraye Jones) reiterated false, racialized testimony from an expert witness during closing arguments: “I think it’s a quarter of the…urban [B]lack American youth come up with antisocial personality disorder…. This isn’t a situation you can treat. … You have to put him out of society until it runs its course.”

As the current debate over the use of the death penalty in Ohio continues, this report provides historical information, context, and data to inform the critical decisions that will follow.

Washington, DC: Death Penalty Information Center, 2024. 49p.

Louisiana on Lockdown: A Report on the Use of Solitary Confinement in Louisiana State Prisons, With Testimony from the People Who Live It

By Solitary Watch, American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana; Jesuit Social Research Institute/Loyola University New Orleans

The use of solitary confinement in the state of Louisiana has penetrated the broader public consciousness largely through the story of the Angola 3. Over the past decade, the harrowing saga of three African American men—all likely innocent of the prison murders that were used to justify confining them in solitary for up to 43 years—sparked media attention and public outcry as the ultimate expression of harsh, racist, Southern injustice. But there is another story to be told about solitary confinement in Louisiana. Like the story of the Angola 3, it is deeply rooted in the history of racial subjugation and captivity in the South, which begins with slavery and stretches through convict leasing and Jim Crow to the modern era of mass incarceration. However, it extends far beyond the lives of just three men. This is the story of a prison system where, on any given day, nearly one in five people is being held in isolation, placed there by prison staff, often for minor rule violations or “administrative” reasons. When it conducted a full count in the fall of 2017, the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (LADOC) reported that 19 percent of the men in its state prisons—2,709 in all—had been in solitary confinement for more than two weeks. Many had been there for years or even decades. The Vera Institute of Justice, which released its own report on solitary confinement in Louisiana earlier this year, similarly found over 17 percent of the state’s prison population in solitary in 2016. These rates of solitary confinement use were more than double the next highest state’s, and approximately four times the national average. Given that Louisiana also has the second highest incarceration rate in the United States, which leads the world in both incarceration and solitary confinement use, it is clear that Louisiana holds the title of solitary confinement capital of the world. The state has this dishonorable distinction at a time when a growing body of evidence offers proof of the devastating psychological and social harms caused by prolonged solitary confinement, as well as its ineffectiveness as a tool to reduce prison violence. In 2015, when it revised its Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (known as the Mandela Rules), the United Nations acknowledged that solitary confinement of 15 days or more is cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment that often rises to the level of torture. Taken together, these facts indicate that the state of Louisiana is abusing and at times torturing thousands of its citizens for no legitimate purpose whatsoever. The numbers, however, still tell only part of the story. Just as Albert Woodfox’s memoir "Solitary" powerfully conveys what it is like to live for decades in conditions that are designed “to break people,” the words of individuals living in solitary confinement are vital to understanding the reality of what is happening today in Louisiana’s prisons. For this report, we collected information directly from those men and women. The bulk of the report is based on detailed responses from more than 700 lengthy surveys completed by individuals in solitary, whose names and identifying information have been changed to protect their safety and privacy. Their descriptions paint a grim picture of long stretches of time spent in small cells that are often windowless, filthy, and/or subject to extreme temperatures, where they are denied basic human needs such as adequate food and daily exercise, and subject to many forms of abuse as well as to unending idleness and loneliness, resulting in physical and mental deterioration. Since surveys were returned voluntarily, the results cannot be viewed as a comprehensive or representative sampling. Yet with more than 700 responses from all nine of the state’s prisons, which provided personal narratives as well as quantitative data,8 we believe our report complements, builds upon, and adds an even greater sense of urgency to previous recommendations for reform of solitary confinement in Louisiana, including those included in the recent report by the Vera Institute of Justice. At a moment when LADOC has, for the first time, shown willingness to reconsider and reduce its use of solitary confinement, the findings in this report offer vital insights—and illuminate a path toward the sweeping changes that must be made if Louisiana is to create a prison system that succeeds in both advancing public safety and preserving the human rights of incarcerated people. Major findings from this report include the following: • More than 77 percent of respondents said they had been held in solitary confinement for more than a year, and 30 percent said they had been in solitary for more than five years. LADOC has not collected data on duration of time in solitary. Nationally, less than 20 percent of individuals in solitary, on average, have been there for more than one year. The United Nations has called on countries to ban the use of solitary beyond two weeks. • Just over 56 percent of respondents were in Extended Lockdown, which is generally used as punishment for prison rule violations, and which has no maximum duration. This type of segregation violates UN prohibitions on both using isolation for punishment (as opposed to safety) and using it for indefinite periods. • African Americans were over-represented among respondents. This racial disparity is consistent with the Vera Institute’s report, which also found higher percentages of African Americans and lower percentages of whites in solitary than in the general prison population. • More than half of respondents believed their mental health had worsened during their time in solitary. Most others said it had stayed the same or weren’t sure. • Many described psychological problems consistent with research on the negative mental health effects of prolonged solitary confinement. These include anxiety, panic attacks, depression, hopelessness, sensitivity to light and sound, visual and auditory hallucinations, rage, paranoia, and difficulty interacting with others. Some expressed fear that the damage would be permanent, and they would “never be the same again.” • More than one-quarter of respondents reported engaging in self-harm, including cutting and head-banging, while in solitary, while less than 6 percent said they had done so while in general population. More than 66 percent said that they had witnessed others attempting to harm themselves frequently while in solitary. Of those who had harmed themselves, 4 percent said they received counseling in response, while more than 26 percent said they were punished for it. etc.....

New Orleans: Solitary Watch American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana Jesuit Social Research Institute/Loyola University New Orleans. 2019. 135p.

The Second Look Movement: A Review of the Nation’s Sentence Review Laws

By Becky Feldman

Today, there are nearly two million people in American prisons and jails – a 500% increase over the last 50 years. In 2020, over 200,000 people in U.S. prisons were serving life sentences – more people than were in prison with any sentence in 1970. Nearly one-third of people serving life sentences are 55 or older, amounting to over 60,000 people. People of color, particularly Black Americans, are represented at a higher rate among those serving lengthy and extreme sentences than among the total prison population.

Harsh sentencing policies, such as lengthy mandatory minimum sentences, have produced an aging prison population in the United States. But research has established that lengthy sentences do not have a significant deterrent effect on crime and divert resources from effective public safety programs. Most criminal careers are under 10 years, and as people age, they usually desist from crime. Existing parole systems are ineffective at curtailing excessive sentences in most states, due to their highly discretionary nature, lack of due process and oversight, and lack of objective consideration standards. Consequently, legislators and the courts are looking to judicial review as a more effective means to reconsider an incarcerated person’s sentence in order to assess their fitness to reenter society. A judicial review mechanism also provides the opportunity to evaluate whether sentences imposed decades ago remain just under current sentencing policies and public sentiment.

Second Look Defined

Legislation authorizing judges to review sentences after a person has served a lengthy period of time has been referred to as a second-look law and more colloquially as “sentence review.”

This report presents the evolution of the second look movement, which started with ensuring compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Graham v. Florida (2010) and Miller v. Alabama (2012) on the constitutionality of juvenile life without parole (“JLWOP”) sentences. This reform has more recently expanded to other types of sentences and populations, such as other excessive sentences imposed on youth, and emerging adults sentenced to life without parole (“LWOP”). Currently, legislatures in 12 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government have enacted a second look judicial review beyond opportunities provided to those with JLWOP sentences, and courts in at least 15 states determined that other lengthy sentences such as LWOP or term-of-years sentences were unconstitutional under Graham or Miller.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2024. 42p.