By ALISSA SKOG AND JOHANNA LACOE 

California’s Three Strikes sentencing law lengthens prison sentences based on an individual’s prior convictions, specifically adding a “strike” for each prior “serious” or “violent” felony. Under the original law, a person with two prior strikes who was convicted of any third felony — regardless of whether it was serious or violent — faced a mandatory sentence of 25 years to life. This approach led to lengthy sentences for individuals whose third offense was neither serious nor violent, prompting concern about fairness and over-incarceration. In response, voters passed Proposition 36 in 2012, which generally limits the 25-years-to-life sentence to cases in which the third felony is also serious or violent. Although Prop 36 did not change the rule that a second strike results in a doubled sentence, it created a resentencing pathway for people serving third-strike life sentences for non-serious, non-violent offenses. Individuals that met the new criteria could petition the court for a reduced sentence, helping align past sentences with current sentencing standards. This brief examines who was resentenced under Prop 36, the offenses for which they were originally convicted, and their recidivism rates following release. Key findings • More than 2,200 people were resentenced and released earlier due to changes in California’s ThreeStrikes sentencing. There were 2,217 people incarcerated in California’s prisons for a non-serious, non-violent third-strike that were released earlier after Prop 36 prohibited the application of a 25-year-to-life sentence for these offenses and allowed people already incarcerated with this sentence to apply for resentencing. • People released under Prop 36 were largely Black and aged 50 or older at the time of release. Almost half (46%) of those released under Prop 36 were Black — compared to approximately 6% of California’s resident population and 24% of people released from prison in fiscal year 2018-19. Over two-thirds were 50 years old or older at release and 59% spent more than 15 years in prison. • Three-year recidivism rates for people released due to Prop 36 resentencing were lower than the total release population. Twenty-five percent of people released under Prop 36 were convicted of a new offense within three years, and nearly two-thirds of those convictions were for misdemeanors. In comparison, 42% of total releases were convicted of a new offense within three years, and 26% were misdemeanors.

By ALISSA SKOG AND JOHANNA LACOE 

Over the past 13 years, California has implemented numerous criminal justice reforms aimed at reducing prison sentences, limiting the use of sentencing enhancements, and shrinking the state’s prison population . Many of these reforms include “second look” provisions, allowing courts to review older sentences in light of new policies, and where appropriate, apply new laws retroactively . The efforts reflect a broader shift toward proportional sentencing, rehabilitation, and more equitable sentences . California’s resentencing policies are wide-ranging, affecting individuals serving sentences for both low-level, non-violent offenses and violent felony convictions with lengthy terms . To date, approximately 11,900 people have been resentenced under these laws . This research provides the first in-depth look at who is affected by these reforms and their recidivism rates . In this report and a series of accompanying policy briefs, we examine five of the most prominent resentencing policies enacted between 2012 and 2022 (Figure 1) . We present the number of people released from California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) custody under each reform, their demographic and case characteristics, and their recidivism rates . For context, we also provide summary statistics and recidivism rates for all individuals released from CDCR custody in fiscal year 2018–19 

by U.K. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons

This report into the quality of work and training in prisons makes depressing reading. Although we found some effective provision delivered by dedicated, creative staff, it was only available to a small minority of prisoners. Too often, prisoners were leaving prison having gained few skills which would make a difference in helping them to avoid reoffending. The lack of adequate purposeful activity provided to prisoners has been a criticism by the Inspectorate of Prisons since its founding in 1982, but since the pandemic things have got even worse. Despite attempts to promote a renewed focus on purposeful activity, we find prisoners are locked in their cells for longer than ever. Evening association, time in the gym and communal dining, which were once common, have become rarities. In the last three years our inspection scores for purposeful activity have been terrible; 94 of the 104 closed prisons we have inspected have been rated ‘poor’ or ‘not sufficiently good’. Only in open prisons do we regularly see prisoners involved in the sorts of training or education that will help them to resettle successfully when they are released. This report shows that in many jails there are simply not enough activity spaces for the population. This has been compounded by overcrowding and the failure by the prison service to maintain buildings which are often dilapidated or, in some cases, out of use. Even where there are sufficient spaces, attendance is atrocious. In the prisons we visited for this thematic report it was at an average of 67% – a level that would get any school or college closed down. Regime curtailments, security lockdowns or staff and prisoner indifference mean that many prisoners do not go to their allocated activities or arrive so late that it is hardly worth going at all. For instructors and teachers, low attendance is incredibly demoralising and not knowing who, if anyone, is going to turn up may in part explain why recruiting or retaining these staff is so difficult. Many of the workshops or classrooms I visit on inspection have only a handful of prisoners in them and often they seem to be drinking tea or playing cards rather than working.The working day in prisons is nothing like that on the outside, with even full-time workers often spending no more than five hours off the wing. Many are underemployed in wing work that bears little relation to any work in the community. The prison service has a comical definition of full- and part-time activity, which means that in jails we visit a prisoner who works for as little as 18 hours a week can be considered to be in full-time work. Part of the reason for poor attendance is that prisoners are not motivated by the work placements or courses on offer, or they do not get allocated to activities that will teach them the skills or help them to acquire the qualifications that they actually need. The positive initiatives we did find, such as training courses directly linked to employment opportunities, were limited in scope, and at other sites we visited uncertainty around funding had resulted in valuable courses being closed.Without adequate investment, prison leaders will have limited ability to make a meaningful impact on prisoners’ prospects on release. The prison service has a duty to protect the public by keeping those who the courts have sent to prison locked up, but there is also an obligation to protect the public by making prisoners less likely to reoffend when they are released. This report shows the failure of our prisons to fulfil this responsibility. With twothirds of prisoners not in work or training six months after release, there is little doubt that many have left jail and returned to criminality, causing mayhem in their communities and creating more victims of crime. Too many prisoners are spending their time in jail lying on their beds watching daytime television, often under the influence of drugs. Until leaders in the prison service take the provision of high-quality education and training more seriously, it is hard to see how appallingly high reoffending rates can be reduced.

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 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.

By Peter Leasure, Douglas A. Berman and Jana Hrdinova

In the current study, we provide an overview of federal law on intermittent confinement, present data on the use of intermittent confinement in the federal system and weekend incarceration in the state system, discuss existing research on intermittent confinement and weekend incarceration, and present results of a survey of federal probation officers on their opinions of intermittent confinement. Overall, the results of the study indicated that intermittent confinement and weekend sentences are rarely used in federal and state systems (relative to traditional incarceration sentences). Additionally, we found that a single federal district (Texas West) accounted for the majority of federal intermittent confinement cases across several years of data. Results of the survey of federal probation officers showed that logistical issues with intermittent confinement and incarceration facility availability may be a cause for low numbers of intermittent confinement sentences. The finding about logistical issues with intermittent confinement was consistent with previous research. Informed by these findings, directions for future research are discussed in detail.

Drug Enforcement and Policy Center. February 2024, 174pg