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 The Delaware Community Legal Aid Society, Inc. Disabilities Law Program

The Disabilities Law Program (DLP) of Community Legal Aid Society, Inc. (CLASI) serves as Delaware’s Protection and Advocacy (P&A) system, charged with protecting the legal rights of people with physical and mental disabilities. Under federal law, P&A systems have the authority to conduct monitoring and investigative activities in a variety of settings where people with disabilities live and receive services, including correctional facilities. Conditions in correctional facilities are of great concern to CLASI and to other P&A systems around the country, due to the overrepresentation of people with disabilities, including mental illness, in correctional settings. Research also suggests that the experience of incarceration, and of segregation or solitary confinement in particular, can cause mental health problems and also exacerbate existing mental illness. History of CLASI’s Interventions on Behalf of Incarcerated People with Mental Illness Held in Solitary Confinement In 2013, CLASI and the ACLU of Delaware became troubled by reports they were receiving about the placement of individuals with serious mental illness in solitary confinement, meaning that they were confined to cells for at least 22 hours per day, often for extended periods of time. After investigation, in 2015 CLASI, the ACLU, and Pepper Hamilton LLP filed a federal lawsuit, CLASI v. Coupe, against the Delaware Department of Correction (DDOC), which detailed concerns about the treatment of individuals with mental illness placed in restrictive housing environments, including solitary confinement. These concerns included minimal out-of-cell time, lack of access to mental health treatment, and conditions for individuals placed on suicide watch. The parties settled the suit in 2016, and DDOC agreed to make several changes related to the use of restrictive housing. These included: increased mental health staffing; minimum requirements for out-of- cell time; establishing that individuals could not be placed in disciplinary detention for more than 15 consecutive days; requiring a break of at least 15 days between disciplinary detention sanctions; and that no individual classified as seriously mentally ill could be placed in disciplinary detention for any period of time unless they presented an immediate danger and there was no reasonable alternative. The terms of the settlement were effective for five years and concluded in 2021. While the settlement was in effect, CLASI monitored DDOC’s progress by reviewing data, meeting regularly with DDOC leadership, and conducting on-site facility visits with an expert monitor. CLASI’s Recent Monitoring of Correctional Facilities and Treatment of Individuals with Mental Illness In the spring of 2023, CLASI retained two experts to assist its staff in conducting updated monitoring, in order to assess current conditions at DDOC facilities with a specific focus on restrictive housing units, including designated mental health units and units housing individuals in disciplinary detention. CLASI’s monitoring found areas where DDOC appeared to remain in compliance with the policy changes agreed to as part of the CLASI v. Coupe settlement. It also found areas where additional progress had been made, particularly in the implementation of Residential Treatment Units (RTUs) for individuals with mental illness at two facilities. However, the monitoring also identified several major areas of concern. These areas included: suicide prevention practices, the need to expand RTUs, the continuum of mental health services and crisis intervention practices, substance abuse treatment protocols, and the use of punitive point and classification systems and privilege sanctions as “backdoor” methods to restrict and isolate incarcerated individuals, now that more traditional disciplinary detention practices, such as solitary confinement, have been reformed. CLASI is particularly concerned with the need for increased transparency and data sharing to enable it to effectively assess current conditions and carry out its obligations as the P&A. During the monitoring process, DDOC unfortunately denied many of CLASI’s requests for more specific data and information, which made it difficult to assess how DDOC’s current practices compare with those reported while the CLASI v. Coupe settlement was in effect. There is a particular need for more transparency with respect to DDOC’s practices surrounding the use of points-based classification, privilege restrictions, and administrative segregation. CLASI urges DDOC to review the findings and specific recommendations in this report, summarized below, to ensure that incarcerated Delawareans with mental illness are treated fairly and humanely. We also urge DDOC to increase transparency by collecting and making available data regarding the length of restrictions, use of point-based classification, privilege restrictions, and administrative segregation in its facilities.

The Delaware Community Legal Aid Society, Inc, 2024. 25p.

By Charlie Taylor

The rate of self-harm among women in prison has rocketed in the last 10 years and is now 8.5 times higher than in men’s jails.

Rather than specific health care interventions, this thematic focuses on what practical support officers and leaders can offer women to reduce the likelihood that they will resort to self-harm.

We found that the paucity of regimes, the difficulties in enabling visits, and the lack of training or support for officers all contributed to a failure to help women cope. Staff spent a lot of their time helping women suffering acute crises, leaving little time to provide less intensive yet vital support for other women, which was taking a toll on the mental health of both staff and the women in their care.

London: HM Inspector of Prisons, 2025. 47p.

 By Roger Grimshaw  

This working paper seeks to clarify the key contexts in which the recent history of indefinite detention for people convicted of crimes should be placed and to suggest ways of interpreting the kinds of evidence and analysis which future inquiries or reviews may wish to consider. Here it is argued that the main contexts are, in order of scope and generality: A. Socio-political structures and state developments B. Operations of the state: law and administration C. Initiatives, reactions and effects at the individual level The paper gives most attention to contexts A and B on the grounds that these contain the sources of the fundamental problems to be resolved, while evidence about C continues to be documented. It is agreed that the recent history of indefinite detention is complex, with several strands that over time have become knotted, hindering lucid and effective solutions. In this paper an attempt has been made to identify some of the most convoluted, and to trace their origins and implications. Inevitably, Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) will loom large, though future work will seek lessons from other jurisdictions and from similar sentences. The act of clarification focuses our minds on what is entailed in challenging the conventional wisdom around political and institutional understandings of indeterminate preventive detention. As we shall see, a cluster of such sentences have emerged from a longstanding political context and sit inside a range of measures and technologies which are embedded in criminal justice as we know it. The account is neither reassuring nor redemptive, but its intention is to present a foundation for a cogent criticism of that history and a prospective agenda for a future alternative.

Working Paper 2  London:  Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, 2025. 14p.

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 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 Ashley Nellis, and Celeste Barry.

In the United States, the federal government and every state enforces sentencing laws that incarcerate people for lengths that will exceed, or likely exceed, the span of a person’s natural life. In 2024, almost 200,000 people, or one in six people in prison, were serving life sentences. The criminal legal system’s dependence on life sentences disregards research showing that extreme sentences are not an effective public safety solution.

This report represents The Sentencing Project’s sixth national census of people serving life sentences, which includes life with the possibility of parole; life without the possibility of parole; and virtual life sentences (sentences reaching 50 years or longer). The report finds more people were serving life without parole (LWOP) in 2024 than ever before: 56,245 people were serving this “death by incarceration” sentence, a 68% increase since 2003. While the total number of people serving life sentences decreased 4% from 2020 to 2024, this decline trails the 13% downsizing of the total prison population. Moreover, nearly half the states had more people serving a life sentence in 2024 than in 2020. The large number of people serving life sentences raises critical questions about moral, financial, and justice-related consequences that must be addressed by the nation as well as the states. We believe the findings and recommendations documented in this report will contribute to better criminal legal policy decisions and a more humane and effective criminal legal system. KEY NATIONAL FINDINGS • One in six people in U.S. prisons is serving a life sentence (16% of the prison population, or 194,803 people)—a proportion that has reached an all-time high even as crime rates are near record lows. • The United States makes up roughly 4% of the world population but holds an estimated 40% of the world’s life-sentenced population, including 83% of persons serving LWOP. • More people are serving life without parole in 2024 than ever: 56,245 people, a 68% increase since 2003. • Despite a 13% decline in the total reported prison population from 2020 to 2024, the total number of people serving life sentences decreased by only 4%. • Nearly half of people serving life sentences are Black, and racial disparities are the greatest with respect to people sentenced

to life without parole. • A total of 97,160 people are serving sentences of life with parole. • Life sentences reaching 50 years or more, referred to as “virtual life sentences,” account for 41,398 people in prison. • Persons aged 55 and older account for nearly two-fifths of people serving life. • One in every 11 women in prison is serving a life sentence. • Almost 70,000 individuals serving life were under 25—youth and “emerging adults”—at the time of their offense. Among these, nearly one-third have no opportunity for parole. • Racial disparities in life imprisonment are higher among those who were under 25 at the time of their offense compared to those who were 25 and older.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2025. 38p.

By Diane Cheng, Arthur Rizer and Nila Bala

Marcus Bullock was 15 years old when he was sentenced to prison. He struggled with his time behind bars—missing his family, feeling disconnected from the outside world and losing hope. After he became depressed, his mother Sylvia promised to keep in touch daily. Her detailed letters and photos curbed Bullock’s loneliness and helped him envision life after prison. In Bullock’s words: “Little did I know, it would be my mom’s letters that saved my life.” Sylvia’s frequent communications gave him the strength to survive his incarceration, start a successful contracting business and launch Flikshop, a company that uses technology to help inmates stay connected with their families and loved ones. Bullock’s story demonstrates the importance of family connections for people who are incarcerated. In 2018, more than two million individuals were incarcerated in jails and prisons across the United States. However, the impact of incarceration is felt by millions more through the children, spouses, siblings, parents and other relatives connected to incarcerated individuals. Recent research suggests that nearly half of adults in the United States have had an immediate family member incarcerated for at least one night in jail or prison. Almost half of the inmates in federal prisons have minor children. Additionally, about one in 25 children (nearly 2.6 million) have a parent in jail or prison. Incarceration separates parents from their children, strains interpersonal relationships, harms mental and physical health and exacts deep financial costs to families. Further, incarceration has a disproportionate effect on communities of color and low income families. For example, Black adults are three times as likely as white adults to have a close family member incarcerated for more than one year. As Bullock’s story shows, positive family connections during incarceration are critical for an inmate’s wellbeing, their likelihood of successful re-entry after time served and the overall strength of their family. Technology can help families stay connected, but the cost, accessibility and quality of current options often pose barriers to meaningful interaction. The COVID-19 pandemic presents further challenges for family connection within correctional facilities, but also an opportunity to improve existing infrastructure via technology. If done right, improvements to both technological and non-technological options for family connection would ultimately benefit incarcerated individuals, their families and their communities at large

R STREET POLICY STUDY NO. 203 September 2020, 13p.

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.