By Byun, W., Stevenson, K., & Loyo, M.

Pay-to-stay fees, also referred to as costs of incarceration, cost of care, cost of support, or room and board, are the costs charged to individuals for their incarceration. They may be automatically deducted from an individual’s wages or prison account, but often accumulate or are collected as debt after the conclusion of their sentence. Using an in-depth literature review, discussions with researchers, and interviews with people impacted by pay-to-stay fees, this report examines the imposition of room and board and medical fees at the state level during a period of incarceration. The authors conclude that pay-to-stay fees impose excessive financial burdens on individuals and their families, are a barrier to accessing basic goods and services, hinder successful reentry, and are ineffective fiscal policy. The authors urge state and local governments to ban the imposition of these fees.

Key findings:

48 states and Washington D.C. allow for the imposition of at least one category of pay-to-stay fees (adult room & board, adult medical, youth room & board, and youth medical).

California and Illinois have repealed fees for all categories.

26 states allow for both room & board and medical fees for both adults and youth who are incarcerated.

Among states that allow medical co-pays, the fee ranges from $.50 to $13.55 per visit.

15 states prohibit the denial of medical service for adults for lack of ability to pay.

A number of states allow for the direct garnishing of an individual’s resources to pay pay-to-stay fees.

12 states authorize the use of criminal prosecution for accured or unpaid fees for at least one category.

New York: Campaign Zero, 2025. 33p.

Chairman: Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd

This report, produced by an expert working group led by a former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, presents considered proposals aimed at protecting the public while ending the long-running IPP scandal for good.

Convened by the Howard League and chaired by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the group spent months exploring ways to end the detention of people serving indeterminate sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP).The report puts forward six recommendations – including an important change to the Parole Board test, which would require the Parole Board to give people on IPP sentences a certain release date, within a two-year window, and to set out what action is required to achieve that safely.

London: Howard League for Penal Reform, 2025. 26p.

By Kirsty Deacon

Key Findings  There has been significant progress made by prisons in relation to their work with and for families of people in prison.  All the participants in this research were passionate about their work with families and the importance of this.  There are many examples of good practice in relation to families across the prison estate, but not always opportunities to make sure this learning is shared or replicated.  While there was a general awareness of the Family Strategy and a recognition of elements distilled into operational documents it was seen as most, or solely, important for Family Contact Officers.  There were felt to be some discrepancies between the rhetoric of the Scottish Prison Service and their Family Strategy and the practice in relation to families in some prisons.  The Family Contact Officer role could be seen as simply a “stepping stone” for promotion or perceived as less valued than residential officers.  While there were examples of families being treated with dignity and respect this was not felt to be consistent across all staff.  There were examples of broad definitions of family being used, and flexibility in accommodating this, but there was not always a consistent approach across all prisons.  Families were viewed predominantly in terms of the role they can play in the reduction of reoffending, but also in terms of their own needs and rights as individuals.  The system the prison officers worked in could sometimes constrain their ability to work in rights-based ways. A distinction between roles focused on care and control and a perceived over-emphasis on the latter were mentioned.  Covid 19 has offered opportunities to change the ways in which families are able to engage with people in prison and the prison itself. The technological introductions were all welcomed and it was felt they should continue in some way.  There has been a significant impact on family relationships from lengthy periods of separation and a lack of meaningful contact, as well as the effects of isolation on those in prison during the pandemic. This is likely to continue to have an impact on prisoners, their families, and their relationships for some time.  The inherent nature of the criminal justice system and the high prison population in Scotland will constrain how much the Scottish Prison Service can achieve in relation to working with families.

Glasgow: Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research, 2022. 46p.

By Sophie Martens and Ben Crewe

While there is abundant literature on prison violence, much less has been written about how safety is perceived and conceived in prison. Even less is known about how these feelings of safety and their respective predictors may vary between prison systems. This study illustrates what predicts feelings of safety and how prisoners define and experience safety in two jurisdictions, Norway and England & Wales. The research employs a mixed-methods approach, using data from surveys (N = 984) and interviews (N = 199) from a major comparative penological project. It finds that while prisoners in Norway generally reported feeling safer than prisoners in England & Wales, the quantitative predictors of safety did not vary by jurisdiction. From a qualitative perspective, however, it was observed that prisoners in England & Wales held a more limited definition of safety (bounded safety) in which they accepted a constant need for vigilance, whereas prisoners in Norway showed more trust in their environment. This finding suggests that feelings of safety in prison may be (at least partly) context-dependent, which raises important questions regarding the much-debated ‘safety paradox’ in prison, and forms a relevant insight for future comparative work.

The British Journal of Criminology, Volume 65, Issue 3, May 2025, Pages 541–558,

By Kate Gooch

Although imprisonment for debt was abolished in England and Wales more than 50 years ago, a new debtor's prison has emerged. Debt within prison is now a significant problem, re-defining social relationships, and contributing to a rise in disorder, distress, harmful and criminal behaviour. Yet, engagement in the illicit economy, and the problem and consequences of indebtedness, has received relatively little academic attention. Based on ethnographic and qualitative research conducted in 10 prisons, this article seeks to correct this omission and expand the literature on illegal markets, prisoner safety, and prisoner society. It explores the functions and appeal of the illicit economy, the ways in which prisoner become indebted to each, and with what consequences.

Theoretical Criminology, 0(0)

By Marcella Alsan and Crystal Yang

The U.S. has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, with over seven million admissions to jails each year. Incarcerated individuals are the only group in the U.S. that have a constitutional right to receiving "reasonably adequate" health care. Yet, there is little oversight and funding for health care in jails, where illness and mortality are rampant. In this study, we randomize the offer of health care accreditation to 44 jails across the U.S. Surveys of staff indicate that accreditation improves coordination between health and custody staff. We also find that accreditation improves quality standards and reduces mortality among the incarcerated, which is three times higher among control facilities than official estimates suggest. These health gains are realized alongside suggestive reductions in six-month recidivism, such that accreditation is highly cost effective.

NBER Working Paper 33357

Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2025. 54p.

By The LOUISIANA LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR

We evaluated the treatment of women incarcerated in Louisiana’s state and local correctional facilities. We conducted this audit in response to House Concurrent Resolution 104 of the 2023 Regular Session, 1 which requested that the legislative auditor audit whether state and local correctional facilities are following state law regarding the treatment of pregnant incarcerated females, and the general healthcare and treatment of all incarcerated females. According to a report issued by the National Conference for State Legislatures (NCSL) in 2022,2 even though there are still more men than women involved in our nation’s justice systems, the rate of growth of the women’s population has vastly increased, and between 1980 and 2019 the number of incarcerated women (in both jails and prisons) increased by more than 700%. According to this report, state and local government systems and facilities are predominately designed to handle men. Louisiana’s Incarcerated Female Population. Incarcerated females in Louisiana are housed in both state and local correctional facilities. The Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPS&C), Division of Correction Services (DOC) oversees the custody and care of females (state offenders) serving a prison sentence for a felony conviction. DOC oversees one female correctional facility— Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women (LCIW). Out of the 64 parishes, 47 have local correctional facilities (local jails) that house females who are pre-trial or are serving sentences for non-felony convictions and usually a term of less than one year. In addition, some local jails house state offenders on behalf of DOC for a daily per diem of $26.39 per state offender. As of July 2024, there were 3,519 incarcerated females, with 1,582 being state offenders under DOC’s supervision. The purpose of this audit was to evaluate the treatment and care of incarcerated females in Louisiana. As of July 2024, 3,519 women were incarcerated in Louisiana. Of this number, 1,582 were state offenders under the supervision of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPS&C), Division of Correction Services (DOC). The remaining 1,937 were local offenders housed in local jails. DOC oversees the state’s only correctional facility for females – the Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women (LCIW). LCIW’s capacity currently is 450. As a result, 1,132 female state offenders are housed in local jails on behalf of DOC at a cost of $26.39 per day per individual. Overall, we found that local jails lack sufficient procedures to comply with state laws related to the treatment of incarcerated women in Louisiana. Additionally, while LCIW generally provides sufficient access to basic medical and educational services for incarcerated women, similar access in local jails varies. We also found that incarcerated men in local jails receive more developmental opportunities than women. Specifically, we found that none of Louisiana’s local jails, which house 87.2% of incarcerated women in Louisiana, have sufficient, written procedures encompassing all requirements in state law regarding female incarceration. In addition, although prohibited in state law, at least three jails indicated leg irons were used on pregnant or birthing women housed in their facilities. Local jails also did not always sufficiently document the use of restraints for pregnant women and did not always advise pregnant women in writing of their rights related to the use of restraints. We found as well that Louisiana’s local jails do not sufficiently address the healthcare needs of incarcerated women during and following pregnancy or provide preventive health screenings to all women. We also found that local jails could better protect the dignity of incarcerated women by ensuring sufficient access to hygiene supplies and activities such as showering, as well as increased privacy during different states of undress. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, educational and vocational programming, recreational time, and visitation during incarceration can improve reentry outcomes. However, we found that access to these opportunities varies across correctional facilities, with female offenders often having less access than male offenders. In addition, LCIW is working to complete the construction of a new facility designed to house approximately 950 female state offenders, which is double its current capacity. LCIW expects that the new facility will be operational by late summer of 2025. The report contains our findings and recommendations. I hope this report will benefit you in your legislative decision-making process.

Baton Rouge, LA: LOUISIANA LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, 2025. 47p.

By A. I. Schaap, A. C. Molewijk, M. M. Stolper

We present a study about an ethics support instrument, Moral Case Deliberation (MCD), which is used to support and further professionalize Dutch prison staff. MCD can facilitate prison staff in dealing with moral dilemmas from practice. We present an embedded mixed-methods study on the experienced outcomes of 16 teams participating in both single and in series of MCD sessions. Prison staff and MCD facilitators completed evaluation forms (n=871 by staf, and n=122 by facilitators) after participating in a single MCD session (n=131). Staff filled out another evaluation form (n=149) after participating in a series of 10 MCD sessions. Our multilevel quantitative analyses show overall positive outcomes, with significant differences between professional disciplines. Prison staff, e.g., reported a better understanding of the discussed moral dilemma and the related perspectives of colleagues. The qualitative thematic content analysis of the experienced outcomes of single MCD sessions resulted in 8 outcome categories, e.g., improved moral awareness, awareness of responsibilities and limitations in decision-making, and feeling empowered to address issues. The experienced outcomes of MCD provide some insights in the process of fostering moral learning of prison staff; staf gained moral awareness, and improved their perspective-taking and the ability to better control their frustrations and emotions. Further research should focus on studying the impact of MCD on moral decision-making in the day-to-day practice of prison staff and on what the organization can learn from the MCD sessions.

European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research (2025) 31:173–192

By Riley Doyle Evans∗ & Stefen R. Short

Prisons and jails are “total institutions.”1 Incarcerated people, to a large extent, depend on correctional agencies for their basic welfare and have limited power to resist harmful conditions and practices.2 While incarcerated people and their advocates have historically turned to the courts to remedy dangerous and inhumane conditions,3 increasingly, state legislatures have become important sites of intervention,4 especially to address profoundly harmful conditions that courts have, nonetheless, held pass constitutional and statutory muster.5 Solitary confinement is one example. Since the 1960s and 1970s, litigation has percolated through the federal courts challenging the use of solitary confinement both as applied to vulnerable groups and more broadly.6 In these lawsuits, incarcerated people have typically advanced claims under the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause7 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.8 Courts have construed these sources of rights as limited and narrow, and as a result, these lawsuits have proven unavailing as tools to eliminate solitary confinement wholesale9 — even for vulnerable groups.10 And although Justice Kennedy, citing the “terrible price” that prolonged solitary confinement exacts on human beings, all but invited a constitutional challenge to that practice,11 courts have largely upheld its use on non-vulnerable groups.12 To be sure, litigation played a role in reducing the harm attendant to the use of solitary confinement as a penological tool. Federal court litigation over decades has indeed mitigated some of the most deplorable conditions in solitary confinement units,13 established limited protections for certain vulnerable people,14 and secured procedural protections.15 Given the limited nature of these successes — and because the core practice of solitary confinement continues to exist — anti-solitary litigators have begun to pair litigation approaches with legislative campaigns.16 Litigators, seeking to secure through the state and local legislatures what they have failed to secure through the courts, have joined incarcerated and formerly incarcerated leaders and other community advocates.17 In recent years, state and local legislatures have begun to respond to these efforts by attempting to reform solitary confinement through legislative oversight — including hearings and investigations — and, at times, legislation.

Harvard Law Review, VOLUME 138ISSUE 7MAY 2025

By The U.K. Parliament. HOUSE OF LORDS Justice and Home Affairs Committee

We have the highest imprisonment rate in Western Europe and it is only increasing. There are over 87,000 people in prison in England and Wales. This is almost double the prison population in 1993.1 The prison population is expected to exceed 100,000 by 2029.2 80 per cent of offending is reoffending. The economic and social cost of reoffending is estimated to be around £18 billion a year and is a major contributor to the size of the prison population. Our prisons are currently operating in a state of crisis. They are overcrowded, often in bad and unsanitary condition, and face issues such as a shortage of funds, gangs operating with impunity, drones undermining security, an alarming availability of drugs and over-stretched, demoralised staff. We know that access to purposeful and productive activities makes prisons safer and reduces reoffending on release. However, the current situation in our prisons hinders the provision of these activities, preventing prisoners from seeking support with mental health problems and addiction, or securing training and education opportunities that can prepare them for life outside. There is urgent need for wider prison reform, not least to reduce reoffending. The Government is addressing some of the most urgent problems, and other Parliamentary Committees are scrutinising these actions. We have focused on the leadership, governance and staffing of prisons. The Government must give a clear lead to ensure that prisons fulfil their primary purpose of preparing offenders for their release—in the hope that they will be able to lead stable and meaningful lives in future and not reoffend. What we found • A lack of clarity about the purpose of prisons; • Lack of public understanding about prisons; • Limited autonomy for prison governors; • A wholly inadequate prison staff recruitment procedure; • Poor staff assessment and training arrangements; • Siloed working, with a lack of effective cross-agency collaboration within His Majesty’s Prison and probation Service (HMPPS) and with external partners; • Insufficient ‘purposeful activity’ designed to reduce re-offending; • A sense of complacency and inadequate accountability arrangements throughout the prison service. Reviewed in totality, HMPPS is inflexible, and overly bureaucratic. Whether it is fit for purpose remains to be proven.

London: U.K. Parliament, 2025. 107p.

By The Centre for Mental Health and the Prison Advice and Care Trust (Pact)

Summary Nine out of ten people in prison have at least one mental health, neurodevelopmental or substance use problem, and rates of severe mental illness are ten times those in the general population Rates of self-harm in prisons are high and rising, with the highest rates in women’s prisons. Prison mental health services currently support one person in seven in the prison population. They provide vital care and support but are often overstretched because of high levels of need and complexity. Involving family members in providing mental health support in prisons can be beneficial but is often limited. Transfers from prison to hospital for urgent treatment are still too often delayed, sometimes by weeks and months. Community sentences with mental health treatment can divert some people from custody. This reduces pressure on prisons and enhances their chances of successful rehabilitation. We urge the Government to invest in community-based options, in line with the Sentencing Review and the NHS 10-year plan for healthcare in England, as an alternative to prison expansion.

London: Centre for Mental Health, 2025. 14p.

By The Justice Policy Institute

This paper reveals how nearly 50 years of punitive sentencing have created a crisis inside U.S. prisons, with elders serving decades-long sentences, being left sick, vulnerable, and detained, but unlikely to reoffend

According to the National Commission on Correctional Health Care, by 2030, one-third of all incarcerated people in the U.S. will be over the age of 50.

Behind bars, these older individuals face increasing health problems – dementia, heart disease, diabetes, and mobility issues – exacerbated by conditions of confinement. The result? A growing humanitarian and financial crisis.

Older people cost at least twice as much to incarcerate as younger people, yet pose little risk to public safety. Fewer than 2% of people aged 55 and over who are incarcerated for a violent offense return to prison for a new crime.

Sentenced to Grow Old examines data from Iowa, Texas, and Illinois to:

Diagnose the causes of the aging prison population

Reveal the financial and human cost of extreme sentences

Point to proven solutions: parole reform, compassionate release, and second look laws

The proven solutions are more than just policy tools; they are pathways to dignity, care, and a smarter justice system. By addressing aging in prison, states can alleviate their financial obligations, provide better healthcare for their citizens, and maintain public safety.

Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute 2025. 30p.

By Caroline Mary Parker and  Julienne Weegels 

 The punitive turn in crime control has radically altered the shape and meaning of citizenship across the Americas. Imprisonment, compulsory drug rehabilitation, and alternative forms of penal control have multiplied, circumscribing citizens’ options for social and political participation while also leading to striking new modes of social, political, and economic membership across the region. While criminalization is ordinarily viewed as something that threatens ‘full’ citizenship, this special collection explores the new and differentiated kinds of political, economic, and social belonging being devised by the region’s criminalized men and women. In paying close attention to how penal power and its subversion articulate with existing stratifications of citizenship, we illuminate how distinct kinds of carceral citizenship are emerging in various locales across Latin America and the Caribbean. In this article, we also introduce the other contributions to this Special Collection. Keywords: Imprisonment, carceral citizenship, criminalization, Latin America, Caribbean.

EUROPEAN REVIEW OF LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN STUDIES REVISTA EUROPEA DE ESTUDIOS LATINOAMERICANOS Y DEL CARIBE No. 116 (2023): July-December, pp. 69-85 

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 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 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 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.