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 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: Mirko Bagaric and Morgan Begg

1. The objectives of the criminal justice system should be to ensure that incarceration is preserved for violent offenders and those who have perpetrated crimes of a sexual nature. The incarceration of low-risk, and non-violent offenders adds significant economic and social costs without delivering a benefit to the community in terms of improved safety outcomes.

2. The NSW government should recognise that the use of the prison system should be reserved for the most fearful and threatening offenders, those who must be incapacitated to reduce harms to society. By definition, white-collar criminals are non-violent who pose no physical threat to society. Incarceration should be a solution for only the most threatening to society. In the case of white-collar criminals, the aims of punishment can be equally achieved through other means, such as garnishing wages, severe financial penalties, and technological incarceration, which may be more effective at incapacitating white-collar criminals from recidivism.

3. In sentencing fraud offenders, courts should take into account three key considerations: (i) community protection; (ii) the principle of proportionality (the punishment should fit the crime); and (iii) the interests of victims, which is best promoted through reparation.

Melbourne: Institute of Public Affairs, 2022. 32p.

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 William J. Sabol, and Miranda L. Baumann

Justice reinvestment was introduced in the early 2000s as a means to respond to the massive growth in incarceration in the United States that had occurred during the past three decades by diverting offenders from prison and redirecting a portion of the associated corrections expenditures into communities to build their capacities to manage offenders locally. Over the next 17 years, the concept evolved into a Congressionally funded federal grant program that shifted the focus of reinvestment away from community reinvestment and toward a state-agency practice improvement model that ultimately aimed to improve public safety. A distinct form of justice reinvestment, the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI), was the dominant practice of justice reinvestment in the United States. It was organized as a public–private partnership that engaged states in bipartisan efforts to enact legislative reforms and other policies to address sentencing and corrections practices and adopt high-performing evidence-based practices (EBPs) that would yield the desired public safety benefits. JRI contributed to legislative reforms and adoption of EBPs, especially in community supervision. The federal JRI effort has not yet provided peer-reviewed, published evidence that it has achieved its objectives.

Annual Review of Criminology, Vol. 3:317-339, 2020.

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

By Nixon Randy Sinaga

Indonesia maintains a punitive war on drugs policy model. Various campaigns are conducted to emphasise that drug offences are the most serious crimes. This construction is clearly contrary to international human rights standards. The Human Rights Committee defines the meaning of ‘most serious crime’ through General Comment No. 36 (2018) on Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life (GC/36). Paragraph 35 of GC/36 does not place drug offences as one of the most serious crimes. This further confirms that Indonesia’s war on drugs policy has been built upon an erroneous and unfounded paradigm. Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics (Narcotics Law) which is in force until now contains offences that tend to open up extensive interpretations and overlap between one another. The implication of this overlapping offence in the Narcotics Law is the imprisonment of people who use drugs, people who have drug dependency, and people who abuse drugs. The paradigm of the most serious crime built by the government in narcotics cases actually brings problems to the conditions of correctional institutions in Indonesia. The problem is at least evident from the results of an assessment of the characteristics of people incarcerated for drug cases conducted by the Jakarta Regional Office of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, stating that at the end of 2018, the number of people in prison for drug cases reached 115,289 people or 95% of the total number of people imprisoned for special criminal cases in Indonesia. This figure is much higher than the number of people detained in corruption cases (5,110), illegal logging (890), terrorism (441), and money laundering (165).

London: International Drug Policy Consortium, 2024. 8p.

By Lulit Shewan

An exploitative labor economy exists within the confines of this nation’s prisons. This is a fundamental pillar of the criminal justice system, yet it is largely concealed from public view. In the United States, all state and federal prisons allow some form of involuntary labor as part of various correctional work programs. Even when prison labor is ostensibly voluntary, the combination of meager pay (often less than $1/hour) and the presence of harsh alternatives creates an inherently exploitative system that depends on the labor of those behind bars and perpetuates a cycle of exploitation and marginalization. Prison labor amplifies deep-seated issues within the criminal justice system and casts a stark light on the intersection of labor rights, social justice, and the ethics of incarceration

The Exploitative Prison Labor Economy

Incarcerated men and women toil in workshops, kitchens, and fields, producing goods and services that reach far beyond their confinement. From manufacturing furniture and processing food to fighting fires and working in call centers, their labor fuels supply chains, corporate profits, and consumer markets. Yet these workers remain invisible, their contributions often overlooked or dismissed. The commodification of their labor perpetuates a cycle of vulnerability, where meager wages and limited rights prevail. In the intricate tapestry of the prison industrial complex, we confront a profound challenge that transcends temporary reforms. The only holistic and ethical approach calls for a paradigm shift, a reimagining of justice itself. Within this context, we fiercely advocate for granting incarcerated individuals fundamental rights: the right to choose voluntary work and earn fair wages, and the freedom to join unions. These rights are not concessions; they are affirmations of human dignity and agency, and are necessary to improving the material conditions of incarcerated people.

Washington, DC: CLASP, 2024. 6p.

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

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

BY Gordon Hawkins

The Prison: Policy and Practice delves into the intricate world of correctional facilities, offering a comprehensive overview of the policies governing them and the practices implemented within their walls. This book provides readers with a deep exploration of the evolution of prison systems, the impact of various policies on inmates and staff, and the challenges faced by modern correctional institutions. By examining the intersection of policy and practice, this insightful work sheds light on the complexities of the prison environment and the ongoing debates surrounding criminal justice reform. An essential read for scholars, policymakers, and anyone interested in understanding the role of prisons in contemporary society.

Chicago. University of Chicago Press. 1976. 228p.

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

By Ernest van den Haag

In the realm of criminal justice, the age-old debate surrounding punishment and its justifications continues to spark intellectual discourse. Examining the perspective famously articulated by Ernest van den Haag brings to light the complexities inherent in the concept of punishing criminals. Van den Haag's stance, advocating for the retributive nature of punishment as a means to uphold societal values and deter wrongdoing, remains a thought-provoking cornerstone in the field.

Delving into the intricacies of this enduring question sheds light on the multifaceted considerations at play when contemplating the appropriate response to criminal acts. As society grapples with the delicate balance between justice, rehabilitation, and retribution, the legacy of van den Haag's insights serves as a poignant reminder of the moral and ethical dilemmas woven into the fabric of punitive measures.

In a landscape where the dynamics of crime and punishment evolve alongside societal norms and values, the exploration of van den Haag's perspective offers a compelling starting point for engaging with the profound complexities inherent in addressing criminal behavior. Ultimately, the discourse surrounding punishing criminals remains a poignant reflection of humanity's ongoing quest for a fair and just society.

NY. Basic Books. 1975. 293p.

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

By Benedict S. Alper

"PRISONS INSIDE OUT: Alternatives in Correctional Reform" delves into innovative approaches to reforming the traditional prison system. From restorative justice practices to community-based rehabilitation programs, this book explores a range of alternative methods aimed at transforming the correctional system. By highlighting successful case studies and thought-provoking insights, this book challenges conventional norms and offers new perspectives on how we can redefine the purpose and effectiveness of prisons in modern society. Whether you are a policymaker, a criminal justice professional, or simply an interested individual, "PRISONS INSIDE OUT" is a must-read for those seeking a deeper understanding of the complexities of correctional reform.

Cambridge Mass. Ballinger Co. 1974.

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

EDITED BY TARA HERIVEL AND PAUL WRIGHT

"Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America's Poor" offers a compelling examination of the intersecting issues of poverty and incarceration in the United States. Through meticulous research and incisive analysis, this book sheds light on the troubling reality of how the most vulnerable members of society are disproportionately affected by the criminal justice system. Blending personal narratives with stark statistics, the author navigates the complex web of policies and practices that perpetuate a cycle of poverty and imprisonment. An urgent call to action, "Prison Nation" challenges readers to confront the deep-rooted inequalities that plague the American justice system and to advocate for meaningful change.

Routledge. NEW YORK AND LONDON. 2003. 333p.

By: Mandy Spears

A companion report looks at historical trends in Tennessee’s incarcerated and corrections populations. Two additional reports will focus on community supervision, prison releases, and recidivism as well as pre-trial incarceration.

Key Takeaways:

• Funded almost entirely by state revenues, the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC) is consistently among the state’s six largest state revenue expenses.

• Incarceration costs make up over 80% of TDOC spending.

• Since FY 1995, TDOC spending increased by an average of 4.1% per year — the same as growth in overall state revenue spending.

• TDOC houses 27% of state prisoners in local jails to manage overcrowding in state facilities, a factor in slowing the growth of the department’s budget.

Nashville, TN: The Sycamore Institute, 2019. 7p.

By: Mandy Spears

This report provides context for discussions about criminal justice reform, using historical data to reveal trends in Tennessee’s incarcerated and corrections populations. It focuses on state prisoners, who fall under the jurisdiction of the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC).

A companion report looks at the budgetary aspects of incarceration in Tennessee. Two additional reports will focus on community supervision, prison releases, and recidivism as well as pre-trial incarceration.

Key Takeaways:

• Tennessee’s state felony incarceration rate grew 68% from FY 1991-2018. Trends in state incarceration and crime rates vary significantly by offense type.

• State prisoners are disproportionately black, although the proportion of black inmates is falling. White women are the fastest growing segment of state prisoners.

• The state prisoner population is getting older, which could affect the state budget since older individuals tend to incur more medical expenses.

• In FY 2018, Tennessee housed 73% of its incarcerated felons in state prisons and 27% in local jails. The majority of state prisoners in local jails are waiting for space in a state facility.

• Average sentences and time served are getting longer for most offense types, especially drug offenders who make up a growing share of incarcerations.

Nashville, TN: The Syramore Institute, 2019. 11p.

By Nazgol Ghandnoosh, Celeste Barry, and Luke Trinka

As noted in the first installment of this One in Five series, scholars have declared a “generational shift” in the lifetime likelihood of imprisonment for Black men, from a staggering one in three for those born in 1981 to a still troubling one in five for Black men born in 2001. The United States experienced a 25% decline in its prison population between 2009, its peak year, and 2021. While all major racial and ethnic groups experienced decarceration, the Black prison population has downsized the most. But with the prison population in 2021 nearly six times as large as 50 years ago and Black Americans still imprisoned at five times the rate of whites, the crisis of mass incarceration and its racial injustice remain undeniable What’s more, the progress made so far is at risk of stalling or being reversed. This third installment of the One in Five6 series examines three key causes of racial inequality from within the criminal legal system. While the consequences of these policies and issues continue to perpetuate racial and ethnic disparities, at least 50 jurisdictions around the country—including states, the federal government, and localities—have initiated promising reforms to lessen their impact.

Washington DC: The Sentencing Project, 2023. 34p 

Michael L. Walker

Marshaling ethnographic data from a county jail, this study introduces “autonomy”—a novel concept and measurement of the degree to which an actor's exchange initiations are regulated by other exchange relations. This study rearticulates mutual dependence arguments about the social order of penological living in terms of social exchange theory and offers several innovations: 1) the structural forms of exchange relations in a penal housing unit stratify “carceral autonomy” across members of a social order; 2) diminished carceral autonomy contributes to the buildup of “exchange frustration”—the mixture of discontent and sadness experienced when goals cannot be achieved due the structure of an exchange network; 3) deprivations, inefficacies, and imported cultural standards contribute to what is exchanged and with whom in a penological setting; 4) caretaking in penological housing units is as much about maintaining social order through a form of generalized exchange as it is about network members helping each other; and 5) the emotional landscape of penological living can be mapped, in part, by examining the distribution of carceral autonomy and exchange frustration.

Criminology, Volume 61, Issue 4 November 2023, Pages 1022-1044

By Kelly Marie King

Extensive research exists documenting national trends in incarceration and the myriad “collateral consequences” individuals face upon returning home from prison or jail. Few studies to date, however, have examined men’s social conditions and lived experiences during periods of confinement, presenting a timely opportunity for qualitative inquiry. Such insight is of particular importance for Black men residing in urban neighborhoods, given the disproportionate burden of incarceration shared by this group. To better understand how incarceration affects men’s social networks and mental health, this dissertation analyzed secondary data from N=22 in-depth, qualitative interviews with N=20 formerly incarcerated Black men in Baltimore, Maryland (MD). Semi-structured interviews, conducted by a Black, female, doctoral student, took place at an academic, community-based research center between October 2014 and June 2015. Inductive analysis was used to uncover salient themes relevant to recently released men’s lives. Chapter 3 explores potential pathways underlying observed associations between incarceration and social network turnover. Losing loved ones to death or incarceration, perceived lack of support, desire to “do different," and social isolation all emerged as possible mechanisms through which imprisonment alters men’s relationships with friends and family. Results highlight the need for additional opportunities for men to foster prosocial connections. Chapter 4 investigates informal social network structures within correctional environments. Men

• More.....

  described four social subgroups within the correctional context: preexisting ties, gang membership, “staying to yourself,” and homosexuality. Findings may be used to shape existing correctional policies to support the development of meaningful, nonviolent connections, across subgroups. Chapter 5 assesses the impact of the correctional environment on men’s mental health during and following periods of confinement. High levels of institutional control and exposure to violence emerged as drivers of poor mental health, including hypervigilance, emotional withdrawal, distrust, institutionalization, and suicide. Results help clarify existing relationships between incarceration, depression, anxiety, and PTSD, and underscore the need for appropriate screening and treatment modalities, within and outside of correctional facilities. Finally, Chapter 6 describes the theoretical, programmatic, and policy implications relevant to this dissertation, offers an overview of the strengths and limitations associated with the chosen research design, and provides suggestions for future research.

Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, 2018. 184p.

By The American Civil Liberties Union and The University of Chicago Law School, Global Human Rights Clinic

Our nation incarcerates over 1.2 million people in state and federal prisons, and two out of three of these incarcerated people are also workers. In most instances, the jobs these people in prison have look similar to those of millions of people working on the outside: They work as cooks, dishwashers, janitors, groundskeepers, barbers, painters, or plumbers; in laundries, kitchens, factories, and hospitals. They provide vital public services such as repairing roads, fighting wildfires, or clearing debris after hurricanes. They washed hospital laundry and worked in mortuary services at the height of the pandemic. They manufacture products like office furniture, mattresses, license plates, dentures, glasses, traffic signs, athletic equipment, and uniforms. They cultivate and harvest crops, work as welders and carpenters, and work in meat and poultry processing plants. But there are two crucial differences: Incarcerated workers are under the complete control of their employers, and they have been stripped of even the most minimal protections against labor exploitation and abuse.  From the moment they enter the prison gates, they lose the right to refuse to work. This is because the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which generally protects against slavery and involuntary servitude, explicitly excludes from its reach those held in confinement due to a criminal conviction. More than 76 percent of incarcerated workers report that they are required to work or face additional punishment such as solitary confinement, denial of opportunities to reduce their sentence…..

• More.....

  and loss of family visitation, or the inability to pay for basic life necessities like bath soap. They have no right to choose what type of work they do and are subject to arbitrary, discriminatory, and punitive decisions.

The American Civil Liberties Union and The University of Chicago Law School, Global Human Rights Clinic, 2022. 149p.

By Kierra B. Jones, Paige S. Thompson and Marina Duane

Pennington County, South Dakota has roughly 113,000 residents and is the place of origin for many Indigenous peoples who reside on reservations in and around Rapid City. Over the last 20 years, Indigenous communities have been overrepresented in jail and the criminal legal system in Pennington County. As such, Pennington County pursued Safety and Justice Challenge funding to safely reduce its jail population by improving case processing practices and creating alternatives to incarceration in the community. This case study, a part of a series highlighting work supported by the Safety and Justice Challenge, examines how Pennington County implemented three core strategies to reduce its overall jail population and racial and ethnic disparities in that population. These strategies were (1) improve tribal outreach activities and strengthen tribal relationships, (2) create alternatives to incarceration, and (3) optimize case processing and operations.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center, 2022. 50p.