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 John Eric Humphries,, Cécile Macaire,, Aurélie Ouss,, Megan Stevenson,, Winnie van Dijk,

Using newly-linked administrative and commercial data from Virginia spanning 25 years, we study the consequences of incarceration. While previous research has examined labor market outcomes and recidivism, we focus on two of the primary channels through which low-income households build wealth: asset ownership (homes and cars) and human capital formation. To identify causal effects, we use a matched differencein-differences design. In line with much of the literature on the impact of incarceration in the U.S., we find no evidence of scarring effects on labor market outcomes or changes in recidivism beyond the incapacitation period. However, we find that incarceration leads to a persistent reduction in asset accumulation: seven years after sentencing, homeownership has declined by 1.1 percentage points (12.1%) and car ownership by 2.7 percentage points (18.1%). Incarceration also lowers human capital formation, reducing college enrollment by 1.4 percentage points (15.1%).

Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers. 2859.

New Haven, CT: Yale University, 2025. 70p.

By Laura McFeely

In the last decade, the United States has seen a wave of efforts to greatly reduce or eliminate the use of solitary confinement. In the light of growing international recognition that such treatment amounts to torture, these efforts are certainly encouraging and have contributed to a reduction of the number of people held in long-term isolation. But it is worthwhile to examine the extent of these reforms and what solitary confinement now looks like in states that have implemented such changes.

A robust literature exists on the harms of solitary confinement and ideas for reforming or eliminating its use. This paper adds to the literature by evaluating the success of such efforts, several years into this wave, now that there is more data available. It examines two states that have presented themselves as success stories, Massachusetts and Colorado, where the correctional agencies purport to have eliminated long-term solitary confinement. Although its use has been greatly reduced, it persists for some number of incarcerated people—prompting the question of why these agencies are not more forthright about their progress.

This paper uses these two states to illustrate larger trends and concludes by suggesting ways that advocates can ensure that their efforts are maximally successful as the trend of eliminating solitary confinement hopefully continues. It contributes to the scholarship evaluating how our democracy’s branches—judicial, executive, and legislative—can provide meaningful restraints on correctional agencies’ actions in order to protect the people in their custody.

20 Nw. J. L. & Soc. Pol'y. 122 (2024), 37p.