By Bruce Western

A large social science research literature examines the effects of prisons on crime and socioeconomic inequality, but the penal institution itself is often a black box overlooked in the analysis of its effects. This paper examines prisons and their role in rehabilitative programs and as venues for violence, health and healthcare, and extreme isolation through solitary confinement. Research shows that incarcerated people are participating less today than in the 1980s in prison programs, and they face high risks of violence, disease, and isolation. Prison conditions suggest the mechanisms that impair adjustment to community life after release provide a more complete account of the costs of incarceration and indicate the performance of prisons as moral institutions that bear a responsibility for humane and decent treatment.

Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 35, Number 4—Fall 2021—Pages 1–27

By Joseph Hennessy

Mass incarceration is a uniquely American phenomenon. With roots in chattel slavery, modern mass incarceration truly exploded in the latter half of the 20th Century. As Reagan-era politicians advocated for fiscal conservatism on the one hand and heavy-handed responses to crime on the other, private prison pioneers saw an opportunity to derive profit from society’s most vulnerable. Today, private prisons house as much as half of some states’ total prison population, and private prison corporations have demonstrated an insatiable desire to expand their reach. This Note explores the unique social vulnerability of privately incarcerated people through a statutory and judicial lens. It highlights the unique burdens placed on private prisoners that put them at greater risk of personal harm and civil rights violations than their publicly incarcerated counterparts. This Note attempts to incentivize corporate officers of private prisons to maintain safer prisons by imputing to them criminal liability for their subordinates’ crimes. It does so by advocating for the prosecution of unscrupulous corporate officers via the responsible corporate officer doctrine in the 9th Circuit, which has been particularly receptive to expansions of that doctrine.

33 J. L. & Pol'y 203 (2024), 31p.

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

Prison violence is a persistent problem for institutional corrections and the rehabilitation of incarcerated individuals. Estimates suggest that one in three men and one in four women in prison experience physical violence, while over half of correctional staff express fear of serious injury or death while on the job. However, these statistics are likely underreported due to limited data sources and challenges in data collection and reporting. As a result, the true prevalence of prison violence remains uncertain. In response to this pressing issue, with support of Arnold Ventures, the Prison Violence Consortium was established to better understand the scale, scope, and consequences of prison violence. The Consortium brought together researchers and practitioners from seven state correctional systems: Arizona, Colorado, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Through a multi-strategy approach, we collected and analyzed data from a variety of sources, including official records, self-reported data, and interviews from incarcerated persons and correctional staff. A key finding from our work is that, much like the “dark figure of crime” in general society, there is a substantial “dark figure” of prison violence. This discovery underscores that the current practices of documenting and examining prison violence are insufficient, as the majority of prison violence is not reported. Without a national comprehensive strategy to improve the accuracy of how we measure prison violence, efforts to reduce it will be inconsistent and likely ineffective.

Irvine, CA: UC Irvine School of Social Ecology, 2024. 12p.

By Richard Walton

Prisons exist to keep the public safe by depriving the most serious offenders of their liberty, and to enable them to become law-abiding citizens. In recent years, those priorities increasingly have been neglected by the Ministry of Justice and Her Majesty’s Prisons and Probation Service. The collective rights of the vast majority of the public have been overlooked, without noticeable benefit to those who have been sentenced to prison. The case of Usman Khan, who launched an Islamist terror attack in central London in November, despite being released on supposedly strict licence conditions, illustrates the inherent risks of an approach that appears to set poorly researched offender rehabilitation programmes above the safety of ordinary citizens. This is especially true in the context of extremist offenders, who are ideologically motivated and more difficult, sometimes impossible, to rehabilitate. Khan, previously convicted for involvement in a plot to bomb the London Stock Exchange, hoodwinked his supervisors, who allowed him to travel to the heart of the capital, with fatal consequences for two young people and their families. This should not have happened: the process that led to it has to be re-examined. It is clear that a reordering of priorities for ministers, officials, police and probation officers is urgently required. The alleged terrorist attack at HMP Whitemoor, which is said to have featured replica suicide vests, is further evidence that the most dangerous offenders are not being monitored effectively and in the public interest – even within a Category A prison. This report sets out some of the organisational changes that would help to achieve the necessary change.The recommendation for the Home Office to reabsorb Her Majesty’s Prisons and Probation Service (HMPPS) is persuasive. The Ministry of Justice, formed in 2007, has proven to be institutionally flawed and a cultural timidity still persists among officials around the management of terrorist offenders. The 13-year experiment, which removed prisons from the purview of the Home Office, has failed and should be brought to a close. It would make far more sense – in operational and strategic terms – for the Home Secretary, who has ministerial responsibility for domestic security, policing and public safety, to be once again accountable for the management of all prisoners, with the assistance of an able and knowledgeable Prisons Minister. A Home Office structured along traditional lines would also be in a stronger position to direct information-sharing and more carefully assess the risks to public safety posed by prisoners – notably terrorist offenders – on their release. A revamped Home Office must review how prisoner behaviour is evaluated, as well as the schemes designed to deradicalise terrorist offenders and rehabilitate other dangerous offenders. As the report explains, there has been little empirical study into the effectiveness of schemes designed to challenge extremist world views. Specialist training is vital here, and the use of the best psychological and neurological techniques to assess risk and danger. This is not work for the generalist: as Usman Khan’s case shows, those who are ideologically motivated of Islamist extremism are capable of hiding their true intent for long periods in order to carry out devastating acts of violence. Finally, legislating to prevent seriously dangerous convicted terrorists and possibly some other dangerous offenders from being released early into the community on licence is an idea that deserves serious consideration (and properly informed debate in both Houses of Parliament). It is likely to gain public support but judges must be persuaded of its legal integrity too. As the Government explores these legislative changes and structural changes in the round, it must ensure that public safety is paramount.

London: PolIcy Exchange, 2020. 28p.