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

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

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

By The Center for Human Rights

The COVID-19 pandemic has spurred urgent and growing concerns about the health of immigrants held in detention centers in the United States. In fact, awareness of the problem is not new: in 2016, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) inspector general raised deep questions about the agency’s preparedness for a possible pandemic event,[1] concerns that were reiterated last December when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) denounced DHS for having medical infrastructure it described as “not sufficient to assure rapid and adequate infection control measures.”[2]

Here in Washington, over the course of recent years, increasing activism by people detained at the Northwest Detention Center[3] (NWDC) and community supporters has spurred pointed criticism by elected officials at the local, state, and national level of conditions within the facility. Sustained media attention and multiple lawsuits have also forced the facility to defend its practices. In March 2020, the Washington State Legislature passed HB 2576, a law mandating inquiries into state and local oversight mechanisms regarding conditions in the NWDC, further underscoring the perceived need to address gaps in understanding regarding the health and welfare of those housed within the facility.

In this context, the UW Center for Human Rights (UWCHR) considers it important to make our ongoing research on conditions within the NWDC available to the public. As part of our longstanding effort to examine the human rights implications of federal immigration enforcement in our state, UWCHR has sought, since 2017, to obtain information about conditions of detention in public and private detention facilities where immigrants are housed in Washington state.[4] While our efforts to obtain information about conditions within the NWDC have been only partially successful due to the lack of transparency surrounding the facility, the information we have obtained is sufficiently concerning, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, that we are choosing to share our initial findings with the public even as our collection and analysis of further data continues.

This report will be published as a series discussing areas of human rights concern at the facility, including background, methodology, and relevant human rights standards; sanitation of food and laundry; allegations of medical neglect; use of solitary confinement; COVID-19 and health standards; reporting of sexual assault and abuse; and uses of force and chemical agents. The report includes research updates covering concerns about cleanliness at the detention center going unanswered and a look at the context for Charles Leo Daniel’s death at the NWDC.

The Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington

By Paul H. Robinson and Jeffrey Seaman

The decarceration movement enjoys enthusiastic support from many academics and activists who point out imprisonment’s failure to rehabilitate and its potential criminogenic effects. At the same time, many fiscal conservatives and taxpayer groups are critical of imprisonment’s high costs and supportive of finding cheaper alternatives. Yet, despite this widespread support, the decarceration movement has made little real progress at getting offenders out of prison, in large part because community views, and thus political officials, are strongly committed to the importance of doing justice – giving offenders the punishment they deserve – and decarceration is commonly seen as inconsistent with that nonnegotiable principle. Indeed, almost no one in the decarceration movement has attempted to formulate a large-scale decarceration plan that still provides for what the community would see as just punishment.

In this Article, we offer just such a plan by demonstrating that it is entirely possible to avoid the incarceration of most offenders through utilizing non-incarcerative sanctions that can carry a total punitive effect comparable to physical prison. New technologies allow for imposing “electronic prison” sentences where authorities can monitor, control, and punish offenders in a cheaper and less damaging way than physical prison while still doing justice. Further, the monitoring conditions provided in electronic prison allow for the imposition of a wide array of other non-incarcerative sanctions that were previously difficult or impossible to enforce. Even while it justly punishes, electronic prison can dramatically increase an offender’s opportunities for training, treatment, education, and rehabilitation while avoiding the problems of unsupported families, socialization to criminality, and problematic reentry after physical incarceration. And, from a public safety standpoint, electronic prison can reduce recidivism by eliminating the criminogenic effect of incarceration and also provides longer-term monitoring of offenders than an equivalently punitive shorter term of physical imprisonment. Of course, one can imagine a variety of objections to an electronic prison system, ranging from claims it violates an offender’s rights to fears it may widen the net of carceral control. The Article provides a response to each.

Electronic prison is one of those rare policy proposals that should garner support from across the political spectrum due to effectively addressing the complaints against America’s incarceration system lodged by voices on the left, right, and center. Whether one’s primary concern is decarcerating prisoners and providing offenders with needed treatment, training, counseling, and education, or one’s concern is reducing crime, imposing deserved punishment, or simply reducing government expenditures, implementing an electronic prison system would provide a dramatic improvement over America’s current incarceration policies.

Written April 2024. U of Penn Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 24-20,

Sandra Babcock, Nathalie Greenfield and Kathryn Adamson

This article presents a comprehensive study of 48 persons sentenced to death between 1990 and 2023 who presented as women at the time of their trials. Our research is the first of its kind to conduct a holistic and intersectional analysis of the factors driving women’s death sentences. It reveals commonalities across women’s cases, delving into their experiences of motherhood, gender-based violence and prior involvement with the criminal legal system. We also explore the nature of the women’s crimes of conviction, including the role of male co-defendants and the State’s use of aggravating factors. Finally, we reveal for the first time the extent to which capital prosecutions are dominated by men—including judges, elected District Attorneys, defense attorneys, and juror forepersons—and explain why gender matters in determining who lives and who dies.

We present our data against the backdrop of prevalent theories that seek to explain both the rarity of women’s executions and the reasons why certain women are singled out for the harshest punishment provided by law. We explain why those frameworks are inadequate to understand the role that systemic gender bias plays in women’s capital prosecutions. We conclude by arguing for more nuanced research that embraces the complexities in women’s capital cases and accounts for the presence of systemic and intersectional discrimination.

Cardozo Law Review, Forthcoming (Written April, 2024}.

By Aaron Littman

The machinery of mass incarceration in America is huge, intricate, and destructive. To understand it and to tame it, scholars and activists look for its levers of power—where are they, who holds them, and what motivates them? This much we know: legislators criminalize, police arrest, prosecutors charge, judges sentence, prison officials confine, and probation and parole officials manage release.

As this Article reveals, jailers, too, have their hands on the controls. The sheriffs who run jails—along with the county commissioners who fund them—have tremendous but unrecognized power over the size and shape of our criminal legal system, particularly in rural areas and for people accused or convicted of low-level crimes.

Because they have the authority to build jails (or not) as well as the authority to release people (or not), they exercise significant control not merely over conditions but also over both the supply of and demand for jail bedspace: how large they should be, how many people they should confine, and who those people should be. By advocating, financing, and contracting for jail bedspace, sheriffs and commissioners determine who has a say and who has a stake in carceral expansion and contraction. Through their exercise of arrest and release powers, sheriffs affect how many and which people fill their cells. Constraints they create or relieve on carceral infrastructure exert or alleviate pressure on officials at the local, state, and federal levels.

Drawing on surveys of state statutes and of municipal securities filings, data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, case law, and media coverage, this Article tells overlooked stories—of sheriffs who send their deputies out door knocking to convince voters to support a new tax to fund a new jail, and of commissioners who raise criminal court fees and sign contracts to detain “rental inmates” to ensure that incarceration “pays for itself.” It also tells of sheriffs who override the arrest decisions of city police officers, release defendants who have not made bail, and cut sentences short—and of those who would rather build more beds than push back on carceral inertia.

A spotlight on jails and the officials who run them illuminates important attributes of our carceral crisis. The power and incentives to build jail bedspace are as consequential as the power and incentives to fill it. Expanding a county’s jailing capacity has profound ramifications across local, state, and federal criminal legal systems. Sheriffs have a unique combination of controls over how big and how full their jails are, but this role consolidation does not produce the restraint that some have predicted. Their disclaimers of responsibility are a smokescreen, obscuring sheriffs’ bureaucratic commitment to perpetuating mass incarceration. State courts and federal agencies have increasingly recognized and regulated public profiteering through jail contracting, and advocates have begun to hold jailers accountable, challenging expansion in polling booths and budget meetings.

74 Vanderbilt Law Review 861 (2021)

By Aaron Littman

What law governs American prisons and jails, and what does it matter? This Article offers new answers to both questions.

To many scholars and advocates, “prison law” means the constitutional limits that the Eighth Amendment and Due Process Clauses impose on permissible punishment. Yet, as I show, 'free-world' regulatory law also shapes incarceration, determining the safety of the food imprisoned people eat, the credentials of their health-care providers, the costs of communicating with their family members, and whether they are exposed to wildfire smoke or rising floodwaters.

Unfortunately, regulatory law’s protections often recede at the prison gate. Sanitation inspectors visit correctional kitchens, find coolers smeared with blood and sinks without soap—and give passing grades. Medical licensure boards permit suspended doctors to practice—but only on incarcerated people. Constitutional law does not fill the gap, treating standards like a threshold for toxic particulates or the requirements of a fire code more as a safe harbor than a floor.

But were it robustly applied, I argue, free-world regulatory law would have a lot to offer those challenging carceral conditions that constitutional prison law lacks. Whether you think that criminal-justice policy’s problem is its lack of empirical grounding or you want to shift power and resources from systems of punishment to systems of care, I contend that you should take a close look at free-world regulatory law behind bars, and work to strengthen it.

131 Yale Law Journal 1385 (2022)

UCLA School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 22-18

By U.S. National Institute of Justice

In a complex system, like a hospital system or a criminal justice system, an unexpected, negative occurrence or outcome is rarely the result of a single act, event, or slip-up. More likely the bad outcome is a sentinel event — a significant negative outcome that indicates fundamental weaknesses in the system and which is likely the result of multiple factors. A systematic review of the sentinel event can identify system gaps and opportunities that improve the system and reduce the risk of future bad events. For this reason, the fields of aviation, medicine, and the military conduct a Sentinel Event Review (SER) to assess the processes that resulted in the sentinel event. A SER seeks to identify systemic opportunities for improving processes. NIJ has made investments over the years in applying the SER process in the criminal justice field. The implementation of SER in criminal justice has involved the review of negative outcomes along with “near misses” and even successful outcomes to better understand the specific conditions contributing to negative outcomes. This report discusses the application of the SER process to the Successful Transition and Reentry Together (START) program in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, the first SER in the federal criminal justice system. The SER of START reviewed four cases of individuals who participated in the program. The reviews took reentry failure as their sentinel event, although two of the four cases were successes that the SER team defined as “near misses.

Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 2024. 72p.

By Switchback

The report focuses on prison-leavers’ mental health. We know that the experience of prison-release can cause high levels of anxiety. At the same time mental health care in prison and especially after release is minimal and worsening.

Meanwhile at Switchback, over the last two years we have seen a 15% rise in the number of our Trainees with identified mental health needs (from 29% to 44%).

This report highlights the urgent need for us to reshape the way we release people from prison. We are calling for better mental health support for people leaving prison and for a prison release system that responds to the emotional challenges that people leaving prison are facing. A system that supports people to live life differently.

The experiences included within the report demonstrate inequities in access to care for people from ethnic minority backgrounds, with 90% of Switchback Trainees being from an ethnic minority background. Importantly mental health was a repeated topic of discussion in our Experts by Experience meetings, and together we decided we wanted to do something about it.

London: Switchback, 2024. 24p.

By Matthew S Johnston , Rosemary Ricciardelli

Public safety personnel are at an elevated risk for suicidal thoughts and behaviors relative to the general public. Correctional workers in particular report some of the highest prevalence of suicidal thoughts and behaviors. To better understand this phenomenon, the current study draws on qualitative, open-ended survey response data (n = 94) that explores three distinct themes (occupational environment, lack of support, social silence) and how entrenched notions of mental health stigma and occupational culture inform how Canadian correctional workers understand their experiences with suicidal thoughts and behaviors. We conclude with a brief discussion of the research and policy implications, with an emphasis on mobilizing efforts to normalize mental health discussion in correctional workplaces, bolstering peer support resources, and collaboration, and assessing the limited organizational supports available to struggling staff.

Front Psychol.. 2023 Jan 4:13:1026821. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1026821. eCollection 2022.

By Matthew S. Johnston, Rosemary Ricciardelli and Laura McKendy

Researchers illuminate the mental health plight of correctional workers by demonstrating a high prevalence of mental health disorders among the group. yet, structural barriers persist in preventing correctional staff from accessing treatment and support—barriers that may result in more prolonged and pronounced symptoms. we consider correctional staff perspectives on how mental health policies at the organizational level can foster better well-being outcomes for employees. Data are drawn from open-ended survey responses from provincial and territorial correctional employees (N = 870) in Canada. Responses collectively highlight the need for a correctional staff mental health paradigm that reflects the sources of stress among correctional workers, including access to specialized mental health services that are easily accessible, immediately available, and comprehensive in nature. Additional aspects of the work environment were identified as venues for important change, including improvements in work and schedule structures, improved manager–staff relations, and changes to the physical environment.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2022, Vol. 49, No. 7, July 2022, 951–970.

By Jingxuan Zhao; Jessica Star; Xuesong Han, et al

IMPORTANCE People with a history of incarceration may experience barriers in access to and receipt of health care in the US. OBJECTIVE To examine the associations of incarceration history and access to and receipt of care and the contribution of modifiable factors (educational attainment and health insurance coverage) to these associations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Individuals with and without incarceration history were identified from the 2008 to 2018 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 cohort. Analyses were conducted from October 2022 to December 2023. MAIN MEASURES AND OUTCOMES Access to and receipt of health care were measured as self reported having usual source of care and preventive service use, including physical examination, influenza shot, blood pressure check, blood cholesterol level check, blood glucose level check, dental check, and colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screenings across multiple panels. To account for the longitudinal study design, we used the inverse probability weighting method with generalized estimating equations to evaluate associations of incarceration history and access to care. Separate multivariable models examining associations between incarceration history and receipt of each preventive service adjusted for sociodemographic factors; sequential models further adjusted for educational attainment and health insurance coverage to examine their contribution to the associations of incarceration history and access to and receipt of health care. RESULTS A total of 7963 adults with 41 614 person-years of observation were included in this study; of these, 586 individuals (5.4%) had been incarcerated, with 2800 person-years of observation (4.9%). Compared with people without incarceration history, people with incarceration history had lower percentages of having a usual source of care or receiving preventive services, including physical examinations (69.6% vs 74.1%), blood pressure test (85.6% vs 91.6%), blood cholesterol level test (59.5% vs 72.2%), blood glucose level test (61.4% vs 69.4%), dental check up (51.1% vs 66.0%), and breast (55.0% vs 68.2%) and colorectal cancer screening (65.6% vs 70.3%). With additional adjustment for educational attainment and health insurance, the associations of incarceration history and access to care were attenuated for most measures and remained statistically significant for measures of having a usual source of care, blood cholesterol level test, and dental check up only. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The results of this survey study suggest that incarceration history was associated with worse access to and receipt of health care. Educational attainment and health insurance may contribute to these associations. Efforts to improve access to education and health insurance coverage for people with an incarceration history might mitigate disparities in care.

JAMA Health Forum. 2024;5(2):e235318. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.5318

By Valerie A. Clark and Grant Duwe

Research from the past few decades has highlighted the long- and wide-reaching effects of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). These experiences can negatively affect mental and physical health, as well as behaviors and interpersonal relationships well into adulthood. While it is generally understood that ACEs are prevalent in correctional populations, no prior studies have measured this issue using a large representative and racially and ethnically diverse sample of both male and female adult correctional populations in the United States. The data used for this study were collected via an assessment administered to more than 2,100 adults in Minnesota’s prison system. Descriptive findings revealed that multiple and varied forms of ACEs were common in the histories of this state’s incarcerated population, particularly among females and incarcerated persons who identified as Black, White/non-Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaskan Native. The multivariate results revealed that past exposure to ACEs increased the likelihood and speed of disciplinary convictions after admission to prison for males, but not for females. Overall, the results underscored the importance of assessing for responsivity factors upon admission to prison, including ACEs.

St. Paul, Minnesota: Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2024. 35p.

By Susan McNeeley, Mark Morgan and Matthew W. Logan , et al.

The physiological effects of imprisonment are well-documented and include a heightened risk for various forms of mortality post-release. The incarceration-mortality nexus does not apply equally to all groups, however, and research shows that some demographics (i.e., vulnerable populations) confer a greater likelihood of death. In the current study, we analyze correctional data over a 10-year period (2010-2019; n = 36,716) from Minnesota to assess the extent to which formerly incarcerated military veterans differ from non-veterans in their relative risk of mortality, net of relevant control variables. We also examine whether specific risk factors for post-release mortality differ between these groups. Findings indicate that veteran status is not a significant predictor of all-cause, natural, or unnatural mortality among released offenders, though several notable within-group differences were observed. Policy implications of the current study are discussed in relation to the provision of veteran-centric healthcare services and directions for future research are given.

St. Paul, MN Department of Corrections , 2023. 27p

By Bryce E. Peterson, KiDeuk Kim, and Rochisha Shukla

This document provides a technical summary report of the Urban Institute’s research on contraband in jails and prisons in the United States, as well as the interdiction strategies that correctional agencies use to prevent, detect, and removed contraband from their facilities. The study employed a mixed-methods design which consisted of field testing the National Survey of Correctional Contraband (NSCC) in the six state Departments of Correction, and conducting in-depth case studies in 11 prisons and jails, including facility walk-throughs, observations, and semi-structured interviews with correctional facility leadership and staff. Key findings are organized based on four themes: entry points; interdiction strategies; prevalence of contraband; correlates of contraband levels. The summary concludes with a discussion of the implications of key findings for criminal justice policy and practice, as well as recommendations for future research on contraband issues and interdiction strategies.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2024. 37p.

By United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division and United States Attorney’s Offices, Northern and Southern Districts of Mississippi Civil Divisions

The Department of Justice has reasonable cause to believe that the State of Mississippi and Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) violate the constitutional rights of people incarcerated at Central Mississippi Correctional Facility (Central Mississippi), South Mississippi Correctional Institution (South Mississippi), and Wilkinson County Correctional Facility (Wilkinson).

• MDOC fails to protect incarcerated persons from violence. MDOC does not adequately supervise incarcerated people, control contraband, and investigate incidents of harm and misconduct. These basic safety failures and the poor living conditions inside the facilities promote violence, including sexual assault. Gangs operate in the void left by staff and use violence to control people and traffic contraband.

• Restrictive housing practices create a substantial risk of serious harm. MDOC holds hundreds of people at Central Mississippi and Wilkinson in restrictive housing for prolonged periods in appalling conditions. Restrictive housing units are unsanitary, hazardous, and chaotic, with little supervision. They are breeding grounds for suicide, self-inflicted injury, fires, and assaults.

These violations are systemic problems that have been going on for years. In April 2022, we found conditions at another MDOC facility, Mississippi State Penitentiary (Parchman), violated the Constitution. Many of the conditions we identified at Parchman exist at Central Mississippi, South Mississippi, and Wilkinson. Across all these facilities, MDOC does not have enough staff to supervise the population. The mismatch between the size of the incarcerated population and the number of security staff means that gangs dominate much of prison life, and contraband and violence, including sexual violence, proliferate. Prison officials rely on ineffective and overly harsh restrictive housing practices for control. This Report begins by explaining the methodology and scope of our investigation. It then describes the facilities we investigated. Next, the Report identifies the constitutional violations. We grouped the violations into two sections: failure to protect from violence and substantial risk of serious harm from restrictive housing practices. In each section, we highlight particular incidents of violence, gang activity, and misconduct as examples of the type of incidents that give rise to constitutional violations and to show the severity of the harm. We also examine MDOC’s recent steps to address these concerns and why their efforts fall short. We end by outlining the minimum measures needed to remedy the violations.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2024. 60p.

By Christina Das and Jackie O’Neil

Across the country, thousands of elected officials wield considerable power over the function and outcomes of the criminal legal system. Each year, in some states and districts, voters elect state attorneys general, district attorneys, sheriffs, state supreme court judges, and trial court judges. These elected officials make choices and take actions that formatively influence the functions of the criminal legal system. For example: district attorneys have considerable discretion when deciding whether to file criminal charges against someone accused of committing a crime, and trial court judges make decisions that significantly impact the outcomes of criminal trials, such as determining what evidence can be shown to a jury. However, millions of Americans who have a vested interest in the fairness of our criminal legal system – those who are detained while awaiting their criminal trial – are denied a meaningful opportunity to vote, despite their right under the law to do so. Most individuals held in city or county jail at any given time have not been convicted of any crime and are awaiting a trial, meaning they retain their legal right to vote, but procedural and logistical barriers make it difficult or impossible for them to do so. Reforms that make it easier to vote from jail, up to and including the establishment of polling locations inside jail facilities, will help eligible incarcerated voters to actualize their right to vote from jail.

New York: NAACP Legal Defense Fund and Educational Fund, Thurgood Marshall Institute, 2023. 15p.

By Michele Goodwin

 Nearly sixty years ago, Dr. King penned the illuminating Letter from a Birmingham Jail, marking the persistence of criminal punishment in the lives Black Americans seeking inclusion, equality, and freedom. Symbolically, his confinement both foreshadowed the strange and troubling role incarceration would play in the lives of Black Americans generations to come and illustrated the connective fabric of slavery to his present conditions. The profundity of the letter cannot be ignored, nor the space from which Dr. King wrote it—incarcerated after peacefully protesting to advance civil rights for Black Americans. Decades later, many of the concerns undergirding the impetus for Dr. King’s powerful missive, including voter suppression, persist. Similarly, equality in education remains an unanswered goal and incomplete vision for the civil rights movement. In fact, the modern challenge no longer demands inclusion and desegregation alone—the urgent objectives undergirding  Brown v. Board of Education —but rather sparing Black children from unequal surveillance, punishments, and the “school to prison” pipeline. Yet, equality in voting and education—as crucial as they are—did not comprise nor define the full vision for the civil rights movement or emancipation from enslavement for that matter. The path to substantive civil liberties and civil rights—and freedom in a meaningful sense—included dismantling discrimination in housing, employment, healthcare, food access, and criminal justice forged by lawmakers. 

Boston: Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 2022. 68p.

By Zarek Khan

The literature on probation supervision has paid significant attention to prisoner reintegration into society. Many of these studies are based on retrospective samples of ex-prisoners as their primary analytical focus. Research studies on the early transitions from prison to the community have predominantly examined men’s experiences. This article explores the experiences of a small group of men and women serving their sentences in the community while under probation supervision. Drawing on interview extracts, it is argued that probation practices hinder, rather than support, post-release necessities for men and women seeking to reintegrate into society. The article highlights the implications for future research on probation supervision and re-entry.

Probation Journal 2023, Vol. 70(4) 350–366

By Carolyn Yule and Rachel Schumann

Accused individuals employ various techniques in response to the challenges posed by living with bail conditions. By asking ‘what advice would you give to an accused individual who must appear in bail court and who will be assigned conditional bail’, this study assesses how individuals navigate release on bail in the community. A thematic analysis of interviews with 108 accused yielded three master themes: ‘abiding by the system’; a ‘broken system’; and ‘working the system’. The findings add to current research by identifying points of similarity, but also difference, in how common discourses used by bail court actors and bail scholars – including responsibilisation, self-governance, and accountability – are responded to by accused. The results reveal how individuals accused of a crime find ways to assume a more advantageous position within a system largely perceived as working against them.

Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, Pages: 516-534 First Published: 26 July 2023