By Jacquelyn Sicilia

Domestic violence has plagued society for years. However, until 1994, domestic violence was not federally criminalized. Today, domestic violence affects over ten million Americans per year. Because of the criminal justice system’s slow reaction to domestic violence, how the criminal justice system handles domestic violence cases is far from ideal. Pretrial release in domestic violence cases is one area of domestic violence that is ripe for research, guidance, and change. Pretrial release brings to light a unique balance; defendants are presumed to be innocent, but at the same time, the fact of arrest may point to an ongoing risk of harm to victims if defendants are released pre-trial. With little known about which pretrial conditions are successful in non-domestic violence cases, the answer of how to strike the necessary balance is even more challenging. This Note examines the different approaches states use to assign pretrial release conditions to domestic-violence defendants who are granted pretrial release and proposes a model statute to address—and effectively account for—the risk of re-abuse and the rights of criminal defendants in pretrial release.

66 St. Louis U. L.J. (2022)., 37p.

By U.K. Parliament. House of Commons. Committee of Public Accounts

The Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ’s) and HM Prison and Probation Service’s (HMPPS’s) failure to increase prison capacity in line with demand has led to a prison estate in crisis. Their plans to deliver 20,000 additional prison places in England and Wales by the mid–2020s have been delayed by approximately five years until 2031, and will cost at least £4.2 billion more than planned. MoJ’s and HMPPS’s original plans were unrealistic and they did not work effectively with others in Government to address delivery risks. As at September 2024, HMPPS had delivered just 6,518 additional places, and its plans to deliver the remaining 14,000 are still subject to significant risk. The Lord Chancellor, in her December 2024 announcement of MoJ’s 10–year prison capacity strategy, emphasised the continued need for prison places, as it projected the prison population to increase by an average of 3,000 annually over the coming years. As a result of poor planning and delays, the adult male prison estate was operating at 98.0% to 99.7% occupancy between October 2022 and August 2024 and remains alarmingly full. Overcrowding is endemic, staff are overburdened, and access to services and purposeful activity is poor. The current prison system has had to focus on ensuring there are sufficient places to house prisoners. While the efforts of HMPPS staff to avert disaster are admirable, this state of crisis undermines their efforts to rehabilitate prisoners and reduce reoffending. It also represents poor value for money for the taxpayer, with MoJ and HMPPS unable to make sufficient progress on maintaining existing cells, and needing to rent police cells due to a lack of capacity. MoJ and HMPPS have relied on the early release of prisoners to prevent total gridlock in the criminal justice system. Despite releasing thousands of prisoners early, MoJ still forecasts it will run out of capacity by early 2026. It is relying on the ongoing independent Sentencing Review to prevent this. However, any decisions to divert more people from prison will likely increase pressures on other parts of the system, particularly the Probation Service, which already has issues with staff shortages and high caseloads. This Committee has recently reported on the Crown Court backlog, which is significantly delaying access to justice. Courts and prisons cannot be viewed in isolation: creating sufficient capacity in prisons is vital to enabling a reduction in the courts backlog, and in turn if the courts backlog is reduced this will decrease the number of people on remand. If prisons continue to operate at near–full capacity, this will exacerbate the backlog and stymie efforts to improve efficiency in the justice system.  

London: House of Commons, 2025. 27p.

By Andrew Garin, Dmitri K. Koustas, Carl McPherson, Samuel Norris, Matthew Pecenco, Evan K. Rose, Yotam Shem-Tov, and Jeffrey Weaver.

We study the effect of incarceration on wages, self-employment, and taxes and transfers in North Carolina and Ohio using two quasi-experimental research designs: discontinuities in sentencing guidelines and random assignment to judges. Across both states, incarceration generates short-term drops in economic activity while individuals remain in prison. As a result, a year-long sentence decreases cumulative earnings over five years by 13%. Beyond five years, however, there is no evidence of lower employment, wage earnings, or self-employment in either state, as well as among defendants with no prior incarceration history. These results suggest that upstream factors, such as other types of criminal justice interactions or pre-existing labor market detachment, are more likely to be the cause of low earnings among the previously incarcerated, who we estimate would earn just $5,000 per year on average if spared a prison sentence.

Working Paper 32747, ”National Bureau of Economic Research”, July 2024. 77p.

By Christina Emilian, Noura Al-Juffali, Seena Fazel

Prison populations have been increasing worldwide. Previous studies suggest that there is a high burden of psychiatric morbidity in people in prison, but, to our knowledge, the last published meta-analysis of prevalence is more than a decade old. We aimed to describe the pooled prevalence of depression, psychosis, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia spectrum disorders for people who are incarcerated. Methods In this updated systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched six databases and grey literature published from database inception until Aug 8, 2024, with no language or geographical restrictions. We included primary quantitative studies that reported the prevalence of depression and psychotic disorders in the unselected prison population, based their diagnoses on clinical examination or from interviews and by the use of validated diagnostic instruments, met standardised criteria of the ICD or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders for the diagnoses, and provided pooled prevalences for psychosis in the previous 6 months and clinical depression in the previous 2 weeks to 1 month. We excluded studies that used selected samples or were only qualitative. We investigated bipolar and schizophrenia spectrum disorders as separate diagnostic subcategories. We synthesised studies using random-effects meta-analysis and explored heterogeneity with meta-regression and subgroup analyses. The protocol is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022378568. Findings We identified 131 publications reporting the prevalence of mental illness in 58838 people in prison in 43 countries. We estimated that the prevalence of depression was 12·8% (95% CI 11·1–14·6) and for any psychosis was 4·1% (3·6–4·7). For diagnostic subcategories, we found that the prevalence of bipolar disorder was 1·7% (1·0–2·6) and schizophrenia spectrum disorders was 3·6% (1·3–7·1). Between-study heterogeneity was substantial for these estimates (I² 69–97%) with few explanations. However, subgroup analyses revealed that people in prison in lowincome and middle-income countries had higher prevalences for depression (16·7% [95% CI 13·6–20·0]) than in high-income countries (10·8% [9·0–13·0]), and that, for people with psychosis who are incarcerated, psychiatrists were less likely to diagnose (3·5% [2·8–4·3]) than were non-psychiatrists (4·7% [3·9–5·5]). Interpretation Our study indicates that the prevalence of severe mental illness in people who are incarcerated worldwide is considerable. Meeting the treatment needs of people in prison who have mental ill health remains an ongoing challenge for public mental health. More evidence on how to improve the assessment, treatment, and linkage to services on release, which will require more research-friendly prison services, is now needed.

Lancet Public Health 2025; 10:, pages 97–110

Edited by Charles Richmond Henderson, Ph.D.

“The chaplain at Sing Sing testified that in eighteen years he had served under nine different wardens. Under the contract system, in the words of Dr. Theodore W. Dwight, "Convict labor becomes substantially slave labor, with many of its concomitant evils. Its rule is the same; the largest amount of work for the smallest return." The objections to that system may be tersely stated, as follows: ( 1) The farming-out of governmental rights and powers to private parties is contrary to public policy. What the government undertakes to do, it alone should do. The presence of the contractor in the prison leads to divided responsibility. (2) The financial interest of the contractor is a selfish interest. The prison wishes to sell its labor at a high rate; the contractor desires to buy it at the lowest possible price. The state wants a fair division of the profits of the establishment; the contractor cares little whether the state makes or loses money on the deal, if he can enrich himself. (3) The political connections and power of the contractor are often such as to enable him to dictate the selection of the managers and warden of the prison.

The Russell Sage Foundation, 1910, 168 p.

Edited by Charles Richmond Henderson, Ph.D.

INTRODUCTORY IN this volume may be found an account by specialists of the institutions of correction through which the criminal law is enforced. The story is not boastful but critical; the weak places of our establishments are as faithfully disclosed as the high aims of the most enlightened administrators are set forth for apprecia­ tion. Of a national "system'' of prisons nothing is said, for none exists. Most of the book is devoted to reformatories and prisons in the northern states of the Union; one paper is devoted to a de­ scription, explanation and criticism of the agencies of punishment of the southern states, and to an acccount of the worthy and hopeful efforts of wise citizens of those districts to correct abuses and improve methods. The warm climate of the South, the predominance of agriculture, and the presence of millions of negroes are facts which must be considered in forming a judgment about these methods. It is manifest that the fundamental and universal principles of correctional methods must there take a very different direction from that which is most reasonable in the North.

Russell Sage Foundation, 1910, 345p.

By Steven Schmidt, Kristin Turney, & Angie Belen Monreal

Objective. We use the case of housing insecurity to examine how romantic partner incarceration results in increased and prolonged surveillance of women at home. Background. Romantic partner incarceration prompts surveillance from the criminal legal system while simultaneously eroding women's finances, health, and family relationships. Less is known about how these symbiotic harms of romantic partner incarceration enable surveillance beyond the criminal legal system. Method. We use longitudinal interviews with 35 (previously coresident) romantic partners of incarcerated men, showing how incarceration prompts unwanted moves for partners, how women manage housing insecurity following partner incarceration, and how they become embedded into living arrangements where they are monitored, evaluated, and controlled. Results. We identify three primary findings. First, women experiencing housing insecurity after romantic partner incarceration relied heavily on their social ties (and, to a lesser extent, institutional housing providers) while enduring stressful and prolonged housing searches. Second, the homes that women move into expose them to increased surveillance. Women encounter domestic, caregiving, romantic, and financial surveillance. Romantic partner incarceration prompts large changes in surveillance among women who left independent homes, moderate changes in surveillance among women who left comparatively desirable doubled-up homes, and prolonged surveillance among nonmovers. Finally, women respond to surveillance by monitoring burdens on hosts and reframing stays in shared homes as temporary. Conclusion. Taken together, these findings extend prior research on the symbiotic harms of romantic partner incarceration, how women attached to incarcerated men experience surveillance, and how doubled-up families sustain shared homes.

 Journal of Marriage and Family 86(2): 2024., 391–411 pages

By Naomi Sugie, Kristin Turney, Keramet Reiter, Rebecca Tublitz, Daniela Kaiser, Rebecca Goodsell, Erin Secrist, Ankita Patel, & Monik Jiménez

U.S. prisons were especially susceptible to COVID-19 infection and death; however, data limitations have precluded a national accounting of prison mortality (including but not limited to COVID-19 mortality) during the pandemic. Our analysis of mortality data collected from public records requests (supplemented with publicly available data) from 48 Departments of Corrections provides the most comprehensive understanding to date of in-custody mortality during 2020. We find that total mortality increased by 77% in 2020 relative to 2019, corresponding to 3.4 times the mortality increase in the general population, and that mortality in prisons increased across all age groups (49 and under, 50 to 64, and 65 and older). COVID-19was the primary driver for increases in mortality due to natural causes; some states also experienced substantial increases due to unnatural causes. These findings provide critical information about the pandemic’s toll on some of the country’s most vulnerable individuals while underscoring the need for data transparency and standardized reporting in carceral settings.

Science Advances,  Sugie et al., Sci. Adv. 9, eadj8104, December 2023, 20 p.

By Kristin Turney, Katelyn Malae, MacKenzie Christensen, & Sarah Halpern-Meekin

Jail incarceration substantially transforms romantic relationships, and incarceration may alter the commitment between partners, thereby undermining or strengthening relationships. In this article, we use in-depth interviews with 85 women connected to incarcerated men (as current or former romantic partners) to explore how women articulate relationship changes that stem from their partner’s jail incarceration, a common but understudied form of contact with the criminal legal system. We identify three interrelated and mutually reinforcing processes, which are shaped by and shape a partner’s commitment to the relationship. First, incarceration produces liminality in the status of the relationship. Second, incarceration fosters women’s sense of independence from their incarcerated partners. Third, incarceration creates space for partners to reevaluate how they prioritize the relationship in their lives. Jail incarceration intervenes in romantic relationships at different points during each relationship, and accordingly, women experience heterogeneity in processes of liminality, independence, and reprioritization. These processes contribute to differential relationship experiences, with some relationships deteriorating during incarceration, others strengthening, and others neither deteriorating nor strengthening. By systematically uncovering these processes linking jail incarceration to romantic relationships, we advance an understanding of how the criminal legal system can shape relationship commitment processes and inequalities among families.

Criminology. 2023;1–28.

By James Bargent, et al

Over the last five years, Ecuador has been engulfed in violence and a criminal chaos unprecedented in its modern history. The roots of this security crisis can be traced directly to the country’s prison system and the criminal networks that have evolved inside of it. Shaped by a series of failed reforms and the state’s negligence, corruption, and incapacity, the prisons provided a space for these groups, known in Ecuador simply as “mafias,” to take root and grow. More than that, they also provided an economic base for this growth in the form of multi-million-dollar criminal markets that have turned the prisons into one of the most lucrative criminal economies in Ecuador.

Fueled by these profits, the mafias leveraged the opportunity the prisons provided to make connections to gangs on the streets, facilitating their territorial expansion on the outside, and granting them access to the upper echelons of organized crime, including the booming transnational cocaine trade. Competition to control strategic territories and criminal economies between these mafias have driven soaring murder rates on the streets and a series of prison massacres that have claimed hundreds of lives. These criminal networks have also destabilized the country’s democracy with terror-style tactics and political violence. The security crisis stemming from the prisons has provoked a hard-line response from Ecuador’s government, which declared an “internal armed conflict” with “terrorist” groups and deployed the military to the prisons and the streets. While this has disrupted some mafia operations, there has been little sign of any strategy to tackle the systemic failures that led to their rise. And there are signs that both the mafias and corruption networks are reconstituting and setting the stage for a new cycle of violence and criminal activity. Major Findings

▶ Ecuador’s prisons became the epicenter of organized crime because of years of government failures and half-measures. To begin with, hard-line anti-drug laws filled the prisons beyond capacity. The state’s subsequent struggles to control the overcrowded facilities created vacuums in authority, which were filled by corruption networks and criminal gangs. And, after the construction of a series of “mega-prisons” failed to control the internal chaos, the government slashed the operational budget and dismantled the ministry responsible for running it, providing the catalyst for the total criminal takeover of the system.

▶ The concentration of the population in the mega-prisons increased the profits from internal rackets. This converted the penitentiary system into a multimillion dollar criminal economy based on exploiting the lack of state control and the failure to provide basic services. These markets are run both by gangs and extensive corruption networks, which may work with the gangs or independently. The profits from this economy drove the evolution and expansion of the prison mafias, while providing a powerful incentive for corrupt actors to undermine attempts at reform.

▶ The prison mafias grew quickly by recruiting bands of small-time criminals and youth gangs in the prisons and integrating them into federations of semi-autonomous criminal structures operating both in the prisons and on the streets. The mafia leaders were then able to put these networks at the service of criminal elites. This created a unique role for them, coordinating and connecting the different levels of organized crime.

▶ Through this process, the prison mafias have established themselves as important links in the transnational cocaine supply chain. However, for the most part, they remain at the operational level of trafficking, providing logistical and security services to Mexican, Colombian, European, and individual Ecuadorian drug traffickers.

▶ The ceding of the prisons to the mafias, the growth of the criminal economies that fund them, and the opportunities to access the transnational drug trade led to criminal competition that fuelled high levels of violence inside and outside the prison system that has been difficult to control. The catalyst for this rise in violence was the power vacuum left by the murder of Choneros leader Jorge Luis Zambrano, alias “Rasquiña” or “JL,” who had previously limited competition by integrating numerous criminal interests and powers into a single network held together by his individual authority.

▶ While the military intervention in the prisons in 2024 disrupted the mafia’s capacity to operate freely, the evident lack of mid- and long-term strategies to tackle the systemic issues at the heart of the prison crisis or dismantle the prison business makes it highly likely organized crime and corruption networks will reestablish operations within the prisons. Furthermore, the weakening of leadership ties between the prisons and the streets has accelerated a trend towards the atomization of the mafias, leading to increased territorial disputes and predatory criminal activities outside the prisons, principally affecting Ecuador’s most economically deprived and marginalized communities.

Washington, DC: Insight Crime, 2024. 76p.

By Nidhi Kalra, Brian G. Vegetabile, Shawn D. Bushway, and Greg Baumann

In this paper from RAND, the authors argue that the recidivism statistics cited most often in debates about the collateral consequences of criminal conviction are not appropriate to answer the questions inherent in those debates. In particular, the behaviors of criminal justice cohorts are too often mistakenly used to describe, or are entangled with descriptions of, behaviors of the overall population of people who have ever had a conviction, served time in prison, or experienced some other event in the criminal justice system. This confusion has consequences.

This paper demonstrates that the most-cited recidivism statistics often are based on criminal justice cohort samples that disproportionately contain frequent participants in the criminal justice system and, as a result, have higher recidivism rates compared with the broader population of concern.

Santa Monica, RAND, 2022, 16p.

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 Abhay P. Aneja and Carlos F. Avenancio-Leon

We document that incarceration significantly reduces access to credit, and that in turn leads to substantial increases in recidivism, creating a perverse feedback loop. In the first part of the paper, we use random assignment of criminal cases across judges to document significant post-release reductions in credit outcomes, including credit scores, mortgages, auto loans, and lender assessment of income. In the second part, we use sharp discontinuities in lending based on credit scores to show that this loss of nancial access feeds back into future crime. Consequently, the financial distortions that imprisonment creates undermine the crime-reduction goal of incarceration

Unpublished paper, 2020. 75p.

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

By Johannes Andenaes

Andenaes explores the intricate relationship between punishment and deterrence, shedding light on the complexities of these concepts within the realm of criminal justice. By delving into the various theories and practices surrounding punishment, Andenaes addresses how the fear of punishment can potentially deter individuals from engaging in criminal behavior. Through his analysis, Andenaes underscores the fine balance that must be struck between exacting punitive measures and fostering a deterrent effect to effectively combat crime in society. His work prompts readers to critically examine the role of punishment as a means of deterring future criminal acts, highlighting the nuances and challenges inherent in this multifaceted process.

University of Michigan Press, 1974, 189p

By Benjamin Justice

Researchers have written a good deal in the last two decades about the relationship between public education and criminal justice as a pipeline by which public school practices correlate with or cause increased lifetime risk for incarceration for Black and Latinx youth. This article flips the script of the school-to-prison pipeline metaphor by reversing the question. What are the effects of criminal justice on public schooling? Reviewing recent social science research from multiple disciplines on policing and incarceration, this article describes the relationship of criminal justice to public education as hobbling, a social process by which the massification of policing and incarceration systematically compromises the ability of target demographics of American children to enjoy their rights to a free and appropriate public education.

Annual Review of Law and Social Science, vol. 17, 2021. pp 31-51

By Coral Sirdifield, Charlie Brooker, Rebecca Marples

A narrative systematic review was undertaken of the literature concerning the health of people on probation or parole (community supervision). In this paper, we provide an up-to-date summary of what is known about substance misuse in this context. This includes estimates of the prevalence and complexity of substance misuse in those under community supervision, and studies of the effectiveness of approaches to treating substance misuse and engaging and retaining this population in treatment. A total of 5125 papers were identified in the initial electronic searches, and after careful double-blind review only 31 papers related to this topic met our criteria. In addition, a further 15 background papers were identified which are reported. We conclude that internationally there is a high prevalence and complexity of substance misuse amongst people under community supervision. Despite clear benefits to individuals and the wider society through improved health, and reduced re-offending; it is still difficult to identify the most effective ways of improving health outcomes for this group in relation to substance misuse from the research literature. Further research and investment is needed to support evidence-based commissioning by providing a detailed and up-to-date profile of needs and the most effective ways of addressing them, and sufficient funds to ensure that appropriate treatment is available and its impact can be continually measured. Without this, it will be impossible to truly establish effective referral and treatment pathways providing continuity of care for individuals as they progress through, and exit, the criminal justice pathway.

Forensic Science International: Mind and Law 1 (2020) 100031

Edited by O. Hayden Griffin III and Vanessa H. Woodward

The Routledge Handbook of Corrections in the United States brings together original contributions from leading scholars in criminology and criminal justice that provide an in-depth, state-of-the-art look at the most important topics in corrections. The book discusses the foundations of corrections in the United States, philosophical issues that have guided historical movements in corrections, different types of punishment and supervision, trends in incarceration, issues affecting race, ethnicity, and special populations in corrections, and a variety of other emerging issues.

This book scrutinizes innovative community programs as well as more traditional sanctions, and exposes the key issues and debates surrounding the correctional process in the United States. Among other important topics, selections address the inherent discrimination within the system, special issues surrounding certain populations, and the utilization of the death penalty as the ultimate punishment. This book serves as an essential reference for academicians and practitioners working in corrections and related agencies, as well as for students taking courses in criminal justice, criminology, and related subjects.

NY. Routledge. 2018. 516p.

By Elsa Augustine, Slissa Skog, Johanna Lacoe and Steven Raphael

Criminal justice reform has gained bipartisan support at a national level in recent years. One common reform practice is to divert some defendants from traditional criminal justice proceedings to alternative programs that provide social services or attempt to address underlying drivers of criminal justice involvement. San Francisco referred over 16,000 individuals between 2008 and 2018 through the Collaborative Courts and Pretrial Diversion programs; overall one quarter of filed criminal cases were referred to diversion. A larger share of new filings were referred to diversion in recent years as San Francisco's filing rates decreased at a faster pace than the diversion referral rate. In keeping with the general criminal justice-involved population in San Francisco, individuals referred to diversion programs were more likely to be young men of color than the average San Franciscan. People who were referred to diversion programs had longer criminal justice histories than those whose cases were not referred, but were otherwise demographically similar. Referred cases had lower conviction rates than nondiverted cases, but referred individuals had higher rates of subsequent criminal justice contact, on average. Individuals who were re-arrested after a diversion referral were typically arrested on less severe offenses than the original offenses. While this paper does not present causal estimates of the effects of diversion programs, future research will estimate the impacts of a referral to diversion on case outcomes and subsequent criminal justice contact, among other outcomes.

Los Angeles: California Policy Lab, 2020. 36p

By Aurelie Ouss and Megan T. Stevenson

Dozens of jurisdictions across the country are engaging in bail reform, but there are concerns that reducing monetary incentives will increase pretrial misconduct. We provide new evidence on this question by evaluating a prosecutor-led bail reform in Philadelphia. In February 2018, Philadelphia’s district attorney announced that his office would no longer request monetary bail for defendants charged with certain eligible offenses. This was an advisory change; bail magistrates retained final say. Using a difference-in-differences approach we find that this policy led to a 22% increase in the likelihood a defendant will be released with no monetary or supervisory conditions, but had no impact on pretrial detention. This provides a unique opportunity to evaluate the primary justification for cash bail: that it provides incentive for released defendants to appear in court. We find no evidence that cash bail or pretrial supervision has a deterrent effect on failure-to-appear or pretrial crime. We argue that one explanation is that asymmetric reputational penalties cause magistrates to set bail higher than necessary. In addition, our study provides evidence on the role of discretion within criminal justice reform. We find that discretion led to racial disparities in implementation, and diluted the impacts of the reform.

Working Paper, 2022. 59p