By Mardet Homans, Denise M. Allen & Yesenia Mazariegos

The use of Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT), and specifically buprenorphine, to address opioid use disorder (OUD) is considered the gold standard of care in the community (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration (SAMHSA), 2023). However, while support of its use in correctional settings is expanding, and there are national promising practice guidelines, it remains underutilized within jails and prisons in the United States (U.S.) (National Commission on Correctional Healthcare (NCCHC), 2018; Friedmann et al., 2012). The efficacy of MAT to reduce opiate withdrawal, curb cravings, and support positive health, behavioral health, and criminal justice outcomes, including reductions in overdose deaths and recidivism, has gained national attention from criminal justice advocacy groups and policymakers. Jails and correctional agencies have been taken to court over the provision of MAT for incarcerated individuals with OUD. And state and federal courts have ruled denial of MAT for incarcerated individuals with OUD violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (Legislative Analysis and Public Policy Association (LAPPA), n.d.). The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and California Correctional Health Care Services (CCHCS) are at the forefront of providing MAT in a correctional setting under the Integrated Substance Use Disorder Treatment (ISUDT) Program. The ISUDT Program begins at intake into CDCR with a substance use disorder (SUD) screening and assessment and linkage to behavioral interventions and MAT with a targeted focus on preparing CDCR residents for release. This paper seeks to document the provision of MAT in correctional settings since it is expanding rapidly within the U.S. and there is currently not a national inventory of programs or practices. In addition, this paper aims to document best practices and lessons learned from California and other correctional systems that can be used to guide expansion of MAT to justice-involved populations. Contained in the appendix of this report is a comprehensive review of information regarding the current availability of MAT in U.S. jails and prisons.

Key Findings • According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) less than 1% of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) population received MAT in 2021. • Based on a review of publicly available information, it does appear that five states – Alabama, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming offer MAT in their correctional institutions. • A number of states have or are currently piloting MAT in corrections. • Besides California, only 14 states offer comprehensive MAT services at either intake and/or release in a considerable number of its jails and prisons. • Locating details regarding MAT provision on many state and local correctional websites is difficult or is missing altogether. This may present as a barrier to SUD treatment and discourage justice-involved individuals or their families from seeking MAT. • Overall, there is significant variability among states regarding the provision of MAT to incarcerated individuals.

Irvine, CA: Center for Evidence‐Based Corrections University of California, Irvine 2023. 18p.

By James Hess and Susan Turner

California Prison Industry Authority (CALPIA) is a self-supporting training and production program currently operating within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). CALPIA provides training, certification, and employment to inmates in a variety of different fields. The goods and services produced by CALPIA are sold to the state and other government entities, which provides an economic benefit to the state. In addition to the vocational and economic aspect of the program, one of CALPIA’s missions is to reduce the subsequent recidivism of their inmate participants. In 2021, the Center for Evidence-Based Corrections prepared a report on the recidivism outcomes for individuals who had participated in CALPIA programs for at least six months (Hess and Turner, 2021). That report examined the effect of participation in CALPIA on the recidivism of CDCR inmates by comparing CALPIA participants with at least 6 months in the program and released between August 2014 and July 2018 with inmates who were accepted into the CALPIA program but were released before they could actively participate (i.e., the “Waitlist” group). That report found that participation in CALPIA was associated with reduced offending. CALPIA individuals had lower rates of arrests, conviction, and incarceration during a three-year follow-up than a Waitlist comparison group. Although the sample size for our analysis of Career Technical Education (CTE) was small, participation in this CALPIA program yielded lower recidivism rates than other CALPIA program participation. This report further analyzes the sample of individuals who participated in CALPIA programs by separating the CALPIA programs into thirteen different groups, placing similar programs together. Thus, it is a comparison within CALPIA programs only. The analysis strategy is the same as used in our previous report: we examine arrest, conviction and return to custody calculated at one-, two- and three-year post release for the individuals. Propensity score analyses were used to adjust for baseline differences in the groups. Our findings suggest that the enterprise programs perform about equally well with the exception of CTE, which appears to do slightly better than other enterprises. We also found a positive effect for CTE in our earlier report. Several other programs show patterns of higher or lower recidivism which are suggestive but not conclusive due to lack of statistical significance. We note that small sample sizes, using propensity score analyses, may have limited our ability to detect significant differences.

Irvine, CA: Center for Evidence‐Based Corrections University of California, Irvine 2023. 20p

By Nancy Rodriguez, H. Daniel Butler, Natasha Frost, Melinda Tasca, and Jillian Turanovic

This policy brief presents the findings of our multi-strategy approach, spearheaded by the Prison Violence Consortium, to examine the sources and consequences of prison violence. We capture prison violence using data on guilty violent infractions, violent incident reports, and interviews with incarcerated persons and correctional employees. We offer solution-driven recommendations to policymakers, institutional leaders, prison researchers, and other stakeholders, aiming to enhance prison safety and more effectively address institutional violence nationwide..

Key Findings ● Perpetrators of Violence & Timing: ● Prison violence was concentrated among a small subset of persons, as 10% of the population accounted for more than 50% of guilty violent infractions. ● Personal characteristics related to guilty violent infractions included younger age at admission, lower education, longer sentences, violent criminal histories, gang affiliations, and greater mental health needs. ● Most people (63%) committed guilty violent infractions within 6-12 months of admission, with fewer than 10% remaining violent throughout their incarceration. ● Common Forms & Situational Factors: ● Most violence (71%) occurred between incarcerated persons, while 29% was directed at staff, according to the incident reports. ● The most prevalent form of violence was fights between persons (38%), followed by assaults on persons (26%), assaults on staff (17%), biohazard incidents (13%), and unwitnessed physical altercations (6%). ● Violence most often occured in cells or housing areas (39%) and common areas (e.g., cafeteria and yard) (31%). ● Weapons and contraband were mentioned in 10% of the incident reports.

Irvine, CA: UC Irvine School of Social Ecology, Prison Violence Consortium, 2024. 23p.

Correctional Association of New York

The Correctional Association of New York (CANY) maintains an extraordinarily deep and broad understanding of New York’s state correctional facilities. This understanding allows for nuanced assessment of the greatest challenges DOCCS faces in safely operating institutions that support rehabilitation, public safety, and human dignity. CANY’s vantage also affords the ability to identify examples of good policy and practice, of which there are many within DOCCS. The following recommendations, which take into consideration both persistent challenges and opportunities to scale up examples of excellence, were submitted to DOCCS for a statutory 60-day review period on October 9, 2024—two months to the day before Robert Brooks was fatally assaulted at Marcy Correctional Facility. These recommendations arise from CANY’s unique historical role as the independent oversight entity for state correctional facilities and activities authorized by Correction Law 146(3), which grants the organization authority “to access, visit, inspect, and examine all state correctional facilities with seventy-two hours advance notice to the department.” In FY24, CANY conducted 19 prison monitoring visits; interviewed more than 1,000 incarcerated individuals and more than one hundred state employees who work in these facilities; received hundreds of phone calls, letters, and website inquiries from or on behalf of incarcerated people seeking assistance; distributed thousands of surveys; and published 15 public-facing work products including reports on monitoring visits, dashboards of processed administrative data, data analysis, and legislative testimony. To inform the discussion about prison closures, CANY published a series of tools that allow stakeholders to view staffing levels by facility: Mapping Closures, Capacity, Staffing, and the

CANY, 2025. 7p.

By Eli Miller, Bryan D. Martin, and Chad M. Topaz

During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, Mayor Bill de Blasio ordered the release of individuals incarcerated in New York City jails who were at high risk of contracting the disease and at low risk of committing criminal reoffense. Using public information, we construct and analyze a database of nearly 350,000 incarceration episodes in the city jail system from 2014—2020, paying special attention to what happened during the week of March 23—29, 2020, immediately following the mayor’s order. In concordance with de Blasio’s stated policy, we find that being discharged during this focus week is associated with a lower probability of readmission as compared to being discharged during the same calendar week in previous years. Furthermore, comparing the individuals discharged during the focus week of 2020 to those discharged during the same calendar week in previous years, we find that the former group was, on average, slightly older than the latter group, although the difference is not large. Additionally, the individuals in the former group had spent substantially longer in jail than those in the latter group. With the release of long-serving individuals demonstrated to be feasible, we also examine how the jail population would have looked over the past six years had caps in incarceration been in place. With a cap of one year, the system would experience a 15% decrease in incarceration. With a cap of 100 days, the reduction would be over 50%. Because our results are only as accurate as New York City’s public-facing jail data, we discuss numerous challenges with this data and suggest improvements related to the incarcerated individual’s age, gender, race, and more. Finally, we discuss the policy implications of our work, highlight some opportunities and challenges posed by incarceration caps, and suggest key areas for reform. One such reform might involve identifying and discharging low-risk individuals sooner in general, which might be feasible given the de Blasio administration’s actions during the early stages of COVID-19.

PLoS ONE 17(1): 2022, 20p.

By Marco Castillo, Sera Linardi, Ragan Petrie:

Many previously incarcerated individuals are rearrested following release from prison. We investigate whether encouragement to use reentry support services reduces rearrest. Field experiment participants are offered a monetary incentive to complete different dosages of visits, either three or five, to a support service provider. The incentive groups increased visits, and one extra visit reduces rearrests three years after study enrollment by six percentage points. The results are driven by Black participants who are more likely to take up treatment and benefit the most from visits. The study speaks to the importance of considering first-stage heterogeneity and heterogeneous treatment effects.

IZA DP No. 17522

Bonn: IZA – Institute of Labor Economics, 2024. 46p.

By Hannah Miles Merran McAlister Samantha Bricknell

The National Deaths in Custody Program has monitored the extent and nature of deaths occurring in prison, police custody and youth detention in Australia since 1980. The Australian Institute of Criminology has coordinated the program since its establishment in 1992, the result of a recommendation made the previous year by the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. In 2023–24, there were 104 deaths in custody: 76 in prison custody, 27 in police custody or custody-related operations and one in youth detention. In total, there were 24 Indigenous deaths and 80 non-Indigenous deaths in custody. This report contains detailed information on these deaths and compares the findings with longer term trends.

Statistical Report no. 49, Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. 2024. 59p.

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 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 Laurin Bixby, Stacey Bevan, and Courtney Boen

Disabled people are disproportionately incarcerated and segregated from society through a variety of institutions. Still, the links between disability and incarceration are underexplored, limiting understanding of how carceral institutions punish and contribute to the social exclusion of disabled people. Using data from the 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates, we estimated disability prevalence in state and federal prisons, assessing disparities by race, ethnicity, and sex, and we examined inequities in previous residence in other “punitive” and “therapeutic” institutions. Sixty-six percent of incarcerated people self-reported a disability, with Black, Hispanic, and multiracial disabled men especially overrepresented in prisons. Compared with nondisabled incarcerated people, disabled incarcerated people were more likely to have previously resided in other institutions, such as juvenile detention facilities and psychiatric hospitals. Together, our findings advance the understanding of disability in carceral institutions, highlighting the need for policy interventions redressing the mechanisms contributing to the high incarceration risks of disabled people and the disabling nature of prisons and other carceral institutions.

Health Affairs Vol. 41, NO. 10, 2022, 28 p.

By Sarah Waite

This article examines women's experiences of moving from a closed to an open prison in England. Transition to an open prison is often viewed in a positive, reformist light and although androcentric auto-ethnographical work has demonstrated challenges associated with this pivot when serving a long-term sentence, much less is known about the experiences of women. Using interview discussions, this article draws upon the concept of transcarceral habitus to examine experiences of transfer and adaptation to the open prison within the broader context of the lives of criminalised women. By extending our understanding of the women's open prison as a site of punishment and recognising the connections and pluralities of women's carceral experiences, this article seeks to disrupt unhelpful binaries that legitimise the incarceration of women and the open prison estate.

The Howard Journal of Crime and JusticeEarly View, Oct. 2023.

By Penal Reform International

In January 2019, the Central African Republic (CAR) approved a “National Strategy for the Demilitarisation of Prison Establishments“, developed in partnership with the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA) and Penal Reform International (PRI). Following its adoption, the National Demilitarisation Strategy was incorporated into the Justice Sector Policy 2020-2024.

This report presents the results of a study documenting the level of implementation of the National Strategy for the demilitarisation of prisons in all its components, carried out a few months before the end of the implementation cycle. Data collection took place between April and May 2023 to analyse the relevance of the strategy, its degree of implementation, the impact of progress, and any barriers to its implementation.

London: PRI, 2023. 50p.

By Jason S. Sexton

n the aftermath of World War II, eugenics and the pseudoscientific base used to justify its practices are generally understood to have phased off the scene. If, however, eugenics never actually disappeared but has been persistent, and in turn becomes one of the best explanations for mass incarceration today, what role did Christianity—especially Evangelicalism—play in this unprecedented moment of imprisonment? Building on legal scholarship identifying the significant role of eugenic philosophy that manifests in penal policy and an ongoing into the early twenty-first century, this article examines key figures in the backdrop of eugenics’ particular early developments, as well as leading figures—namely, Billy Graham and Prison Fellowship’s Chuck Colson—whose ministries operated in close proximity to the prison during the latter twentieth century and especially over the past fifty years as incarceration rates skyrocketed. After examining several important theological tenets reflected within Evangelicalism that are compatible with eugenic logic, a critical approach is developed drawing from more robust theological considerations that if appropriated earlier might have found evangelicals resisting the mass incarceration building efforts rather than supporting them.

Journal of Law & Religion 39/1 (2024), Forthcoming, 71p.

By Hernandez D. Stroud, Lauren-Brooke Eisen, and Ram Subramanian

Few issues have received more sustained attention from U.S. policymakers over the last decade than the country’s unique overuse of incarceration. After decades of growth in imprisonment rates, states have attempted to reduce the number of people behind bars. Their reforms have been driven by a recognition that incarceration is expensive and often counterproductive and by research demonstrating that many people can be safely supervised in the community

New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law , 2023. 24p.

By Mia Schlicht

Australia’s imprisonment rate has increased sharply in the last four decades. In 1975, there were 8,900 people in prisons across Australia – there are now over 40,500. The number of prisoners has increased by 355 per cent despite the population of Australia increasing by just 86 per cent. This has resulted in an incarceration rate of 205 per 100,000 of the adult population which places Australia as one of the fastest growing incarcerators in the world amongst other OECD countries.

Of these 40,500 prisoners, 38 per cent have been imprisoned for non-violent offences. Alternative justice measures such as electronic monitoring, home detention, fines, tax penalties, restitution orders and other such measures may be preferable. These alternatives would better realise the interests of those who suffer the most from crimes, the victims, who have vocalised their discontent with the tough-on-crime rhetoric in Australia that has led to an over-reliance on incarceration as a form of justice.The crime landscape across Australia has seen a change in recent years. Offender rates have declined along with the number of victims of crime. Despite this notable shift, sentencing reform has not responded. Of those fewer non-violent offenders, more are being imprisoned for short lengths of time which is contributing to Australia’s high reoffence rate. More than 60 per cent of Australia’s prison population has been previously incarcerated which is one of the highest reoffending rates in the world. Over a third of convicted prisoners in 2021-22 received a prison sentence of less than six months. Short and frequent sentences are associated with high recidivism rates and 66 per cent of these short sentences are served by non-violent offenders.

Criminal behaviour must be punished. However, a distinction needs to be made between those we are afraid of and those we are mad at. For those who are low risk offenders, alternative justice measures should be imposed to punish behaviour whilst also incentivising criminals to make better decisions and foster their rehabilitation with the community.

This paper presents the case for reform to Australia’s incarceration policies by presenting the costs of the criminal justice system in Australia; investigating who is in the system and why; analysing the reasons behind the changing crime scene; and suggesting directions toward an improved system.

This paper finds that the policy surrounding incarceration has not changed for a long time despite obvious changes in the nature of offending and criminal behaviour. Prisons are being used for broader purposes than necessary. Of the aims of the criminal justice system – public safety, deterrence, retribution, and restitution – only public safety through incapacitation can uniquely be achieved by prison. Where public safety is not a concern, alternative methods should be introduced.

Melbourne: Institute of Public Affairs, 2023. 40p.

By Harry Annison and Thomas Guiney, with assistance from Zoë Rubenstein

Moments of crisis and scandal are an ever-present feature of the political cycle and the decisions taken in the heat of the moment can, and frequently do, have consequences and policy legacies that last for decades. The neat distinction sometimes drawn between ‘normal’ and ‘exceptional’ times is a convenient fiction that distracts us from how the criminal justice system operates.

This discussion paper, written by Harry Annison and Thomas Guiney, with assistance from Zoë Rubenstein, aims to shine a light on these important themes, and support those with a stake in the penal system to better understand the forces at work during these intense periods.

London: Prison Reform Trust, 2023. 27p.

By Penal Reform International and Thailand Institute of Justice

Global Prison Trends 2022 is Penal Reform International’s annual flagship report, published with the Thailand Institute of Justice, identifying the key trends and challenges in prison systems worldwide.

Two years into the COVID-19 pandemic, despite repeated calls to reduce prison populations since the onset of the crisis, the global prison population has reached an all-time high. Global Prison Trends 2022 exposes that, rather than a decrease in prison numbers, many governments are instead increasing prison capacity, with a significant expansion in the global prison estate in the past year.

London: PRI and Thailand Institute of Justice 2022. 64p.

By Ireland Department of Justice

The Programme for Government 2020: Our Shared future contains a broad range of policies and proposals that represent a coherent approach to enhancing and sustaining a more just and safe society. In September 2020, the Department of Justice established a working group including the Head of Criminal Justice Policy, the Director-General of the Irish Prison Service and the Director of the Probation Service to take forward the Government’s commitment to review policy options for prison and penal reform. The review considered commitments and ongoing developments across the justice sector and beyond, including those outlined in the Youth Justice Strategy 2021 - 2027, the Probation Service Strategy 2021-2024, the Irish Prison Service Strategic Plan 2019-2022, the Joint Irish Prison Service and Probation Service Strategic Plan 2018-2020, the Joint Action Plan on the Management of Offenders 2019-2021 and the Social Enterprise and Employment Strategy 2021 – 2023. The on-going work in relation to the Criminal Justice Sectoral Strategy and work on developing a Community Safety Policy was also taken into account.

Dublin: Ireland Department of Justice, 2022. 71p.

By Thomas Mathiesen

A leading text of worldwide renown: available in Norwegian, Danish, English, Swedish, German, Spanish, Italian - and now being translated into Chinese. In this new Third Edition - with its new preface, epilogue and other revisions (plus all the material from earlier editions) - the author expands on the control aspects of prison, the gear change brought about by responses to international terrorism post-September 11 and the London bombings and explains how contemporary events are changing the boundaries of crime and punishment and increasing the risks to civil liberties and the Rule of Law. Thomas Mathiesen also argues for an 'Alternative Public Space' where discussion of serious and fundamental issues of this nature can take place free from the superficial world of knee-jerk reactions from politicians and the entertainment driven needs of the press and media.Part of the "Waterside Press Criminal Policy Series", Prison On Trial distils the arguments for and against imprisonment in a readable, accessible and authoritative way, making Thomas Mathiesen's work a classic for students and other people concerned to understand the real issues. It is as relevant today as when it was first published, arguably more so as policy-making becomes increasingly politicized and true opportunities to influence developments diminish. Mindful of this, Mathiesen recommends an 'alternative public space' where people can engage in valid discussion on the basis of sound information, free from the survival priority of the media, to entertain.

Winchester, UK: Waterside Press, 2006. 215p

Edited by Tom Daems and Luc Robert

This volume explores the role that European institutions have come to play in regulating national prisons systems. The authors introduce and contribute to advancing a new research agenda in international penology (‘Europe in prisons’) which complements the conventional comparative approach (‘prisons in Europe’). The chapters examine the impact – if any – that institutions such as the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the European Court of Human Rights have had on prison policy throughout Europe. With contributions from a wide range of countries such as Albania, Austria, Belgium, Ireland, Norway and Spain, this edited collection offers a wide-ranging and authoritative guide to the effects of European institutions on prison policy.

Cham: Springer International Publishing , 2017. 333p.