By Mia Schlicht

Australia’s imprisonment rate has increased sharply in the last four decades and governments are spending increasing amounts of taxpayer funds on maintaining overburdened prison systems.

The author argues that Australia's over-reliance on incarceration, particularly for non-violent offenders, is not only financially unsustainable but also fails to effectively address crime and often perpetuates a cycle of recidivism. The essay advocates for a shift in focus towards alternative sentencing options, such as electronic incarceration, offender-employment programs, and youth rehabilitation ranches, coupled with increased investment in proactive policing and community-based initiatives.

Key recommendations

• Reverse the bureaucratisation of police forces, focusing police efforts on law and order, and redirecting savings from reduced incarceration of non-violent offenders.

• Implement electronic incarceration for non-violent crimes, using technology to monitor and restrict the movements of offenders, allowing them to continue working and contributing to society.

• Non-violent offenders should be given the opportunity to work for willing businesses, earning award wages and contributing to society while providing restitution to victims.

• Require offenders to pay a significant portion of their income as tax until the total amount wrongfully obtained is repaid threefold – with one-third going to the victim and two-thirds to the state.

• Establish youth rehabilitation ranches to provide education, skills training, and support for young offenders.

Melbourne: Institute of Public Affairs, 2024. 64p.

By Todd Foglesong, Ron Levi, Léo Henry, Enrique Bouchot, Emma Wildeman

This report analyzes data on crime and violence across hundreds of cities and counties in the United States between 2014 and 2023 to appraise the relationship between violent crime and prosecutors deemed “progressive.” We find no evidence to support the claim that prosecutors of any type were responsible for the increase in homicide or other violent crimes before, during, or after the pandemic. Instead, we infer that fluctuations in violence and crime during this period are likely rooted in the changing social ecology of urban centers and rural areas. We recommend that further analyses of violent crime be supplemented by quantitative research on social inequality and qualitative research into the documented practices of prosecutors in cities and counties that record divergent patterns in violent crime.

Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy at the University of Toronto, 2024. 70p.

By U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division; U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia

In September 2022, Lashawn Thompson died alone in a filthy cell in the mental health unit of the Fulton County Jail. Mr. Thompson, who had a history of mental illness and was unhoused, was accused of spitting at a Georgia Tech police officer and arrested on a simple battery charge, then held on an old warrant. Three months after his arrest, Mr. Thompson was found in his cell, slumped over with his head on his toilet. A medical examiner reported that his malnourished body was infested with an “enormous presence of body lice,” and concluded that he was “neglected to death.” There was widespread reporting and outrage about the conditions that led to Mr. Thompson’s death. But there was another death on the mental health unit—several months before Mr. Thompson’s—that never made the news. An unhoused man with serious mental illness was arrested and held in Fulton County Jail’s mental health unit after breaking into a building to seek shelter and warmth. On the mental health unit he stopped taking his medications, and his health declined. He was found unresponsive following a likely seizure and was transported to an outside hospital for care, but never recovered. He died in hospice a month later. Two more people died in the Jail’s mental health unit in the weeks following Mr. Thompson’s death. Both men had serious mental health needs; one had a developmental disability. Both were killed by their cellmates, and both were found with their feet bound. One of them was wrapped up in bedding “like a mummy.” Altogether, these four Black men with serious mental health needs died in the Jail’s mental health unit in under a year. In July 2023, we opened a civil rights investigation into conditions in the Fulton County Jail under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, 34 U.S.C. § 12601. Within weeks of opening our investigation, six more Black men had died in the Jail. One person was found unresponsive in his cell after his cellmate strangled him. And days later, tensions in the Jail erupted in violence: within 24 hours, five units in the Jail saw violent assaults, at least seven people were stabbed, and one person was killed. After an extensive investigation, we find reasonable cause to believe that Fulton County and the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office violate the constitutional and statutory rights of people incarcerated in the Fulton County Jail. Fulton County Jail fails to adequately protect incarcerated people from the substantial risk of serious harm from violence, including homicides and stabbings by other incarcerated people. Serious violence has harmed people with mental health needs and other vulnerable populations. Assaults are carried out with weapons fashioned from Jail fixtures and are made possible by physical deficiencies in the Jail environment, such as unlocked doors. The Jail has long had inadequate practices for reporting and responding appropriately to sexual violence. Poor supervision, poor classification practices, and inattention to the maintenance of the Jail are major contributors to the unacceptable violence. Fulton County Jail deputies and detention officers use force against incarcerated people without adequate justification. This includes a practice of deploying Tasers against incarcerated people without reasonable cause. Understaffing in the facility contributes to the excessive use of force, as do poor policies, training, and the failure of supervisors to identify, correct, and discipline officers. Fulton County Jail living conditions do not meet basic constitutional standards. The Jail has allowed housing areas to fall into a state of serious disrepair, with standing water collecting in living areas, exposed wires, pests poorly controlled, and deficient services for providing clean clothing and sheets. These conditions are dangerous and unsanitary. Meals are served to the incarcerated population in an unsanitary manner and do not meet nutritional standards. As a result, people in the Jail have suffered harms from pest infestation and malnourishment. Medical and mental health care in the Fulton County Jail do not meet constitutional standards. The Jail impedes access to medical and mental health care through a lack of security staff. Medication administration gaps lead to medical and mental health complications and injuries. When medical emergencies occur, the Jail fails to provide appropriate medical care. And although people with mental health needs are overrepresented in the Jail population, the Jail environment exacerbates symptoms of mental illness. The Jail does not adequately protect people from a risk of suicide and does not adequately treat serious mental health needs. Restrictive housing conditions in the Jail pose a substantial risk of harm, including acute mental illness and self-injury, and restrictive housing practices are discriminatory and unlawful. The Jail places people in isolation without adequate monitoring for decompensation. Restrictive housing placement processes discriminate against people with mental health disabilities in violation of the ADA. Jail officers punish people with long terms in restrictive housing without adequate due process protections. Georgia is one of only four states where the juvenile justice system’s jurisdiction ends at 16. There are 17-year-old boys and girls at the Jail, many of whom spend over a year in custody. These children are subjected to violence and excessive force, experience sexual abuse, and are denied adequate mental health care. The Jail’s use of restrictive housing uniquely harms these children because they are psychologically different from adults, making their time in isolation much more damaging, exacerbating the onset of mental illness, increasing the risk of suicide, and causing long-lasting trauma. The Jail also fails to provide special education services to 17-year-old boys and girls who are entitled to them, in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400–1482. None of these problems are new. And despite widespread awareness of these issues, the unconstitutional and illegal conditions have persisted. Vulnerable populations— including children, those who are gay or transgender, people with medical and mental health needs, and others—often bear the brunt of these conditions. Deaths and other harms have continued. In April 2024, an incarcerated person died in the Jail after being stabbed 20 times. Less than a week later, a man was found dead in his cell, likely hours after his death. The report that follows explains the scope of our investigation and provides background information about the Jail. The report describes the constitutional and statutory violations that we found in the Jail, including the legal framework applied, the unacceptable conditions identified, and the deficient practices that led to the problems. We end by identifying changes that need to be implemented to fix the violations and prevent further harms.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2024. 105p.

By Anita Mukherjee and Nicholas J. Sanders

Correctional facilities commonly lack climate control, producing a setting absent endogenous responses to hot weather like avoidance, adjustment, and mitigation. We study daily weather variation across the state of Mississippi, and show that high temperatures increase intense violence among the incarcerated. Days with unsafe heat index levels shift both the intensive and extensive margins of violence, raising daily violent interactions by 20%, and the probability of any violence by 18%. Our setting cleanly identifies the effect of heat on violence, and highlights previously unobserved social costs of current facility infrastructure. Rising global temperatures could substantially increase violence absent adjustment.

NBER Working Paper No. 28987, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2021. 42p.

By The Correctional Association of New York

This report describes the findings from a survey of incarcerated individuals that CANY conducted regarding the New York prison system’s Incarcerated Grievance Program (IGP). Survey responses indicated that people who are incarcerated perceive the IGP to be unclear, unfair, takes too long, and subjects incarcerated people to retaliation after they raise concerns. CANY will soon release a follow-up report that offers recommendations for addressing the problems they identified in this report.

The historical origins of the grievance process in New York State. The grievance program in New York and across the United States has a direct link to the legacy of the Attica uprising in 1971. During the uprising, incarcerated people engaged in negotiations on key complaints. In the aftermath of Attica, the McKay Commission recommended a series of reforms.6, 7, 8 This included “Reform No. 18: Establish an inmate grievance commission comprised of one elected inmate from each company, which is authorized to speak to the administration.”9 The grievance process came into existence in New York State in 1976.10

New York: Correctional Association of New York 2023. 111p.

By Michele Deitch

This in-depth article provides comprehensive background information about the nature, value, and history of correctional oversight; documents the shifting landscape and increasing momentum around the oversight issue over the last decade; highlights key distinctions between prison and jail oversight; and provides a comprehensive assessment of the state of prison and jail oversight in the U.S. today. The article includes tables listing and categorizing every correctional oversight body in the United States as of 2020.

American Journal of Criminal Law 47, no. 2 (2020): 207–74.

By Mirko Bagaric

The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) has taken a lead role in providing empirically-grounded reform proposals for the criminal justice system, with a strong focus on reducing incarceration numbers. The report released in 2017, titled Australia’s Criminal Justice Costs: An International Comparison noted that ‘despite spending more than most countries [on prisons] and more and more each year, our results are poor and people don’t feel safe’.

In recent years, this problem has become more acute. Prison rates have continued to increase, with an enormous amount of public money being spent on prisons and no improvement in community safety.

Over the past two decades the United States – known in criminology circles as the ‘mass incarcerator’ – has made significant progress in reducing the incarceration of low-risk, non-violent offenders. This has reduced the overall incarceration rate which delivers a dividend to taxpayers through less spending on prisons, some of which can be re-invested to strengthen the policing of violent and sexual offences to improve community safety. Additionally, reducing unnecessary rates of incarceration allows more Americans to be productive members of society, through working, paying taxes, and supporting their families and local communities.

The adage applied by reformers predominately from deep-red conservative states such as Georgia and Texas was ‘jail is for people we are afraid of, not those we are mad at.’ This recognises the unique nature of prison and that it should be reserved for people who are a threat to community safety. For those who are not a threat to safety, but who have nonetheless broken the law and ought to be punished, alternatives to prison should be pursued.

Australia, however, is lagging behind the world-leading reforms undertaken in the United States, and across many parts of Europe and Scandinavia over the past two decades.

The criminal justice system has a number of stages, including investigation, arrest, trial and conviction or acquittal and then the imposition of sanctions against offenders. This last stage, sentencing, is arguably the most important aspect of the system: the sanctions available against offenders target the most cherished and coveted individual interests, including the right to liberty. Moreover, mistakes at the sentencing stage of the process threaten to undermine the integrity of the entire criminal justice system. If, for example, murderers habitually received only small fines or shoplifters were sentenced to life imprisonment, this would seriously undermine the efficacy of the entire criminal justice process. This report focuses on reforms to the sentencing system. This system is fundamentally broken in Australia. There is no tenable rationale that can justify the jarring reality that Australia’s imprisonment rate has increased three-fold over the past three decades, making Australia one of the most punitive developed nations on earth.

The most pressing and important issue relating to sentencing law and practice is its continued disregard of expert knowledge and empirical evidence. Sentencing is the institution where there is the greatest gap between practice and knowledge. Most other social institutions and areas of learning, such as medicine, engineering and education, readily embrace and change their practices in response to new learning that demonstrates more efficient and effective ways of achieving desirable outcomes. By contrast, the key sentencing policies and practices which are responsible for the incarceration crisis have been implemented and maintained despite extensive research which demonstrates that the system is flawed.

Empirical evidence highlights that key sentencing objectives that have been invoked to justify heavier penalties, such as marginal general deterrence and specific deterrence, are unattainable, yet they remain central goals of Australian sentencing system.

This report examines the gulf between sentencing knowledge and practice, and makes recommendations regarding the measures that need to be undertaken to bridge that gap, so that law-makers can bring sentencing practice in line with current knowledge and make it fairer and more efficient. If the proposals in this report are adopted, the incarceration rate could be reduced by up to 30%, far less tax-payer dollars will be spent on prisons and the community will be safer.

The election of the Albanese Federal Government and increased focus on problems with the sentencing system provides a window in which the community and law-makers are receptive to evidence-based reforms to sentencing. To take advantage of this opportunity, it is necessary understand the flaws of the current system and the barriers to implementing progressive reforms and provide coherent evidence-based reform proposals.

The reform proposals in this report will make changes to the sentencing system which will secure the following four objectives:

1. Reducing crime;

2. Punishing criminals appropriately;

3. Minimising the cost of the system; and

4. Ensuring that the system does not violate important moral norms.

In order to improve the sentencing system, it is necessary to reassess the current aims of sentencing; give content to the principle of proportionality; harmonise aggravating and mitigating considerations, establish standard penalties for key offence types and introduce new criminal sanctions. This matters are now discussed below, after examining the failings of the current system.

Melbourne: Institute of Public Affairs, 2022. 24p.

Written by: Mirko Bagaric and Morgan Begg

Australia is experiencing both an incarceration crisis and an unprecedented worker shortage. Sensible criminal justice reform can address the excessive burden on Australia’s prison system while also filling persistent job vacancies in the economy.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there are currently close to 450,000 jobs vacancies across the economy, which is double the number of job vacancies prior to covid-19. And close to one in four businesses have stated they cannot find the workers they need.

In terms of incarceration, Australia’s incarceration rate has increased by 240 per cent since the mid-1980s. This is three times our population growth rate. This is much higher than other commonwealth countries with similar legal systems, such as Britain and Canada, and more than double European countries such as Germany, The Netherlands, and Sweden.

The total cost to the Australian taxpayer of imprisoning roughly 42,000 prisoners is now nearly $4.5 billion annually. Over-incarceration imposes an additional cost on Australians by depriving our labour force of healthy, working age men and women who could otherwise be productive members of society.

Approximately 42 per cent of prisoners have not committed sexual or violent offences. Not imprisoning these low-risk non-violent offenders would support, and most likely enhance, their rehabilitation. It has been firmly established that many employers are prepared to employ people who have prior convictions for non-violent and non-sexual offences, and when they do employ such people they are invariably pleased with their decision.

If Australian governments reformed sentencing so that non-violent low-risk offenders were not detained at taxpayer expense, but rather were put to work in industries which urgently need workers, this could deliver substantial benefits to taxpayers without compromising community safety.

If this reform had been implemented in 2021-22 as many as 14,000 young and healthy adults could have been added to the workforce, which would have improved government budgets by $1.95 billion in reduced incarceration costs and increased income tax revenue. If this reform had been implemented between 2016-17 and 2021-22, total budgetary savings would have been in the order of $10.4 billion in reduced incarceration costs for state governments and additional income tax revenue for the federal government.

Diverting low-risk non-violent offenders from prison and giving them the opportunity to work would enhance their lives and prospects, promote community safety, improve the economy through increased productivity, and reduce net government spending and debt.

Melbourne: Institute of Public Affairs, 2023. 20p.

By The Death Penalty Information Center

It is a common assumption that the federal death penalty is reserved only for the most serious crimes against the country, like terrorism, that have a unique federal interest. But an expansion of the federal death penalty in the 1990s added more than 60 crimes that carried a potential death sentence. The cases the federal government decides to pursue are rarely “exceptional” compared to the cases tried at the state level. Federal defendants also share many of the same characteristics as state court defendants: they are often poor, traumatized and mentally impaired, and disproportionately people of color. This report documents use of the federal death penalty from its earliest beginnings through modern day. Like many state-level capital punishment systems, the federal death penalty has been used in a racially biased manner, a conclusion that the many historical examples and data in this report confirm. The federal death penalty was a tool historically used by the government to intimidate and subjugate people of color, particularly Black and Native American communities. Today, the most active death-sentencing federal jurisdictions were once the nation’s leaders of extra-judicial lynchings, a through line of connection that links the past to the present and raises serious questions about the future use of the federal death penalty.

Death Penalty Information Center, 2024. 36p.

By: Michael L. Marumo and Connie Zulu

Maintaining good learner discipline continues to be a battle in many schools amidst debates around the human rights of learners and the effectiveness of current systems of learner discipline. The purpose of this study was to investigate teachers’ and learners’ perceptions of alternatives to corporal punishment in Mahikeng Township secondary schools of the North-West province in South Africa. A qualitative research design based on the social constructivist or interpretive paradigm was adopted in this study. Teachers who had been in the field before the official banning of corporal punishment were purposefully selected from four schools. Grade 11 and 12 learners were also purposefully sampled on the basis of their ‘maturity’ as senior learners who had been in the school long enough to experience the new, alternative disciplinary measures. Data were collected through focus group interviews, four with educators and four with learners, and thereafter subjected to qualitative data analysis procedures. The findings showed conflicting perceptions. Although some teachers and learners felt that alternative forms of discipline were effective to a certain extent, the general perception was one of scepticism. Both teachers and learners expressed the need for a return to corporal punishment in cases of serious misconduct. Some learners applauded the introduction of alternative forms of discipline only because this system replaced what was considered to be an abusive system of corporal punishment. Although teachers attributed their negative perceptions to a lack of adequate training in the implementation of alternative forms of discipline, continuous repetition by learners of the same offences for which they had been ‘positively’ disciplined resulted in learners’ negative perceptions. The main recommendation is that follow-up training and workshops on alternative forms of discipline should be regularly held for teachers to develop confidence in the use of these strategies and to improve perceptions.

A scholarly inquiry into disciplinary practices in educational institutions, January 2019

By: Emanuel Tirosh, Shlomit Offer Shechter, Ayala Cohen, and Michael Jaffe

Objectives: To assess physicians’ attitudes towards corporal punishment in childhood and their subsequent actions regarding the reporting of child abuse.

Participants: 107 physicians (95 pediatricians and 12 family practitioners) who work in hospitals and community clinics in northern Israel were interviewed. Of the participants, 16% were new immigrants.

Procedure: A structured interview was conducted by one of two pediatric residents.

Results: Attitudes towards corporal punishment were not influenced by the physicians’ sex or specialty. Corporal punishment was approved by 58% of the physicians. A significant difference in attitudes towards corporal punishment between immigrants and Israeli-born physicians was found (p = .004). Family practitioners and especially senior ones were found significantly less tolerant towards corporal punishment than pediatricians (p = .04). While reporting behavior was not found to be associated with parental status and the past experience of the physicians with child abuse, a significant effect of attitudes towards corporal punishment on reporting behavior was found (p = .01).

Conclusions: (1) Corporal punishment is still perceived as an acceptable disciplinary act by a significant proportion of physicians responsible for the health care of children in our area. (2) Attitudes towards corporal punishment are different between immigrants and native-born Israeli-trained doctors and, unexpectedly, pediatricians were more tolerant of corporal punishment than family practitioners.

Child Abuse & Neglect 27 (2003) 929–937

By: Rose Ashraf and George W Holden

It is increasingly being recognized that children have the right to not be hit by anyone, including parents and teachers. This chapter focuses on the need to protect children from corporal punishment (CP) and represents an update to our chapter in the first edition (Holden & Ashraf, 2016). The chapter will review what is known about the use of CP in one country in South Asia: Pakistan. The chapter marshals the available evidence about the prevalence of CP in the home and schools, as well as problems associated with its use. We then examine the legal status of corporal punishment from the perspective of federal, provincial, and Shariah laws. Recent efforts at federal law reform will then be reviewed. The final section of the chapter will provide recommendations for advancing the protection of Pakistani children from CP and their right to safety.

Child Safety, Welfare and Well-being, Issues and Challenges, March 2022

By: Eunice K. Najoli, Tawanda Runhare, James B. Ouda

Since the beginning of this century, a global tendency to abolish corporal punishment has been introduced to challenge old dependence on corporal punishment as a tool for reforming children’s misbehavior. This tendency was highly supported by the contemporary call for protecting human rights including the right in security and human treatment and child rights in physical protection. Corporal punishment continues to be practiced at unacceptable rates in Kenyan schools; at the same time violence rates are rising. Management of children’s behavioral problems presents a significant challenge for many teachers in schools. The purpose of this research is to analyze why corporal punishment is being practiced in schools in spite of its legal ban. The paper highlights the attitudes of teachers, parents, pupils and the use of corporal punishment as a tool for discipline. A survey research design was used to collect data on attitudes of 32 parents, 32 teachers, 160 students and 8 Principals in secondary schools in western region of Kenya. A sample size of 232 respondents was included and participated in the study. The main finding of this study is that while most teachers understand and support the policy of banning corporal punishment in schools, there remain certain concerns on the effect of such a ban on children rights and equally alternative warm contributions of punishment as a means of maintaining school discipline. These concerns and conflicting viewpoints are over issues related to the difficulty in disciplining students and respecting the students’ human rights.

Open Journal of Social Sciences, 7, 51-69.

By: Yuhanza Othman, Ida Rahayu, and Ekmil Krisnawati Erlen Joni

The government has introduced various programmes to rehabilitate and give treatment to drug dependent. However, statistic from Agensi Anti Dadah Kebangsaan (AADK) has shown that a number of drug dependents have increased annually. It is high time for the government to review and enhance the punishment for drug dependents. The Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983 is silent on imposing punishment on a first offender. Therefore, this paper will examine on imposing whipping as punishment for drug dependent as provided by Syariah law. Adopting the application of qiyas, the rule and punishment of drinking liquor which is stated in the Qur’an (5:90) and the hadith is extended to consuming drugs. This paper seeks to discuss alternative methods to deter the public from drug abuse and at the same time to decrease the government expenditure in providing rehabilitation programmes and services for drug dependents.

Islamic perspectives relating to business, arts, culture and communication, January 2015

By Catherine Flynn and Kathryn Gor

This report presents the findings of consultations held with affected children aged between 11 and 15 years old who have a parent in prison. It highlights the lack of research and policy attention given to this disadvantaged group and seeks to contribute to a stronger evidence base for future policy decisions by sharing their experiences.

An estimated 40,000 children in Australia have a parent in prison on any given day. Despite this, only three studies have heard directly from children of prisoners in the past decade and Australia currently has no guidelines around supporting children during the time of parental arrest.

Findings

1. Children largely rely on informal family supports, but there are frequently limitations on support available.

2. Teachers have the potential to be strong supporters of children who experience parental imprisonment, but need improved knowledge and skills.

3. Adults in the justice system are largely absent from children’s view.

4. The normal activities and experiences of childhood remain important to children when they have a parent in prison.

5. Children desire respect for their privacy.

6. Children want their own needs and rights to be recognised and responded to.

Melbourne: Monash University 2024. 53p.

By Sheri Lynn Johnson

With respect to African Americans, the history of racial discrimination in the imposition of the death penalty is well-known, and the persistence of racial disparities in the modern era of capital punishment is well-documented. In contrast, the influence of Latino ethnicity on the imposition of the death penalty has been studied very little. A review of the limited literature reveals evidence of discrimination against Latinos. Archival studies generally find ethnicity-of-victim discrimination, and some of those studies find ethnicity-of-defendant discrimination disadvantaging Latino defendants; these findings parallel the findings of the much more robust literature investigating bias against African American defendants and victims. The controlled experimental studies generally show both ethnicity-of-defendant and ethnicity-of-victim discrimination disadvantaging Latinos. Related literature investigating stereotypes, animosity, and discrimination in other criminal justice decisions further suggests the likelihood of ethnicity discrimination in the imposition of capital punishment, as well as the need for further research.

Annual Review of Law and Social Science Vol. 16:421-431 2020.

By Paul Kaplan

This review focuses on empirical research about contemporary challenges to the death penalty in the United States. Challenges are factors that obstruct capital punishment, including legal or political restrictions; elimination at the federal or state level; or the hindrance of the process at its operational stages of charging, adjudicating, appeals, clemency, or executions. By the best-known measures, the death penalty has been in decline in the United States since the turn of the century. Lethal injection errors—“botches”—are arguably the most important current challenge to the institution. Wrongful capital conviction has made capital punishment less tolerable to the general public. Mitigation remains an important challenge to the death penalty. This review emphasizes botches, innocence, and mitigation but also touches on disparate impact, failure-to-deliver a social benefit, and cost. Along the way, this review proposes a framework for considering challenges as they occur on two continua of impact, a micro/meso/macro axis and a narrow/wide axis.

ANNUAL REVIEW OF LAW AND SOCIAL SCIENCE Vol. 20:353-368, 2024.

By Carol S. Steiker, and Jordan M. Steiker

This review addresses four key issues in the modern (post-1976) era of capital punishment in the United States. First, why has the United States retained the death penalty when all its peer countries (all other developed Western democracies) have abolished it? Second, how should we understand the role of race in shaping the distinctive path of capital punishment in the United States, given our country's history of race-based slavery and slavery's intractable legacy of discrimination? Third, what is the significance of the sudden and profound withering of the practice of capital punishment in the past two decades? And, finally, what would abolition of the death penalty in the United States (should it ever occur) mean for the larger criminal justice system?

Annual Review of Criminology, Vol. 3 (2020), pp. 299–315

By Sharon Dolovich

When the state incarcerates, it assumes an affirmative, non-negotiable obligation to keep people in prison safe and to provide for their basic needs. In the United States, the three branches of government—legislative, executive, and judicial—are in theory collectively responsible for making certain that this obligation is fulfilled. In practice, the checks and balances built into the system have failed to ensure even minimally decent carceral conditions. This review maps this regulatory failure. It shows that, in all branches of government, rather than policing prison officials, the relevant institutional actors instead align themselves with the officials they are supposed to regulate, leaving people in custody unprotected and vulnerable to abuse by the very actors sworn to keep them safe. This pattern is no accident. It reflects a palpable normative hostility and contempt toward the incarcerated, an attitude with deep roots in the virulent race hatred endemic to the American carceral project from its earliest days.

Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2022. 5:153–77

By Sharon Dolovich

Any time a correctional officer (CO) physically assaults someone in prison, their conduct demands an especially compelling justification and robust ex post scrutiny. Instead, governing Eighth Amendment doctrine almost entirely defers to COs’ own judgments as to the need for force. This highly deferential approach is especially ill advised given the institutional culture of the modern American prison, which systematically demonizes and dehumanizes people in custody and thus primes COs to use violence unnecessarily. Even a standard of “objective unreasonableness” would not suffice to prevent case outcomes from reflecting a callous indifference to the safety of people in prison. What is needed instead is a reasonableness standard explicitly framed in terms of the state’s obligations to the incarcerated. This Article makes the case for such a morally robust reasonableness standard and develops an account of both the normative foundations for this approach and the principles that ought to guide, not only factfinders in individual cases, but all actors in a position to shape carceral policy. What drives the inquiry—and sets it apart from the Supreme Court’s own treatment of the constitutional claims of people in custody—is the attention paid to the concrete realities of the modern American prison. The current Supreme Court is unlikely to regard with sympathy the account offered here. But it remains open to the rest of us to insist that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment has meaningful moral content beyond the narrow, often pinched reading that currently shapes the legal doctrine. This Article is intended as part of this larger project of self-conscious moral reclamation. Its animating goals are: to expose the deep flaws in the governing law, to excavate the normative content of Eighth Amendment limits on the state’s power to inflict criminal punishment, and in the process to provide a reinvigorated moral vocabulary for understanding and challenging the use of violence by state officials against the fellow human beings they are sworn to protect. In these ways, this enterprise has considerable overlap with the growing national effort to set moral limits on police violence.

14 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 415; UCLA School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 24-35