By Brady P. Horn, Aakrit Joshi and Paul Guerin

Substance use disorders (SUD) are very prevalent and costly in the United States and New Mexico. Over 20 million individuals in the US meet diagnostic criteria for SUD and over 65 thousand US residents died from drug opioid overdose in 2020. It is well known that there is a strong correlation between SUD and incarceration. National studies have found that on average two thirds of prisoners have SUD and approximately 30% of inmates report having an opioid use disorder (OUD). There is growing momentum nationally to incorporate SUD, particularly OUD treatment, into incarceration systems and numerous studies have found that providing medication for opioids use disorder (MOUD) in incarceration systems is clinically effective. Since 2005, there has been a Methadone Maintenance Treatment (MMT) continuation program within the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) where individuals who were already receiving community-based treatment could continue their treatment within the jail. Prior work has found that this program was associated with reduced crime. In 2017 this program was expanded and started providing treatment to individuals who had not been receiving methadone in the community prior to incarceration. In this study we evaluate the impact of this treatment program. Data was collected from numerous different sources, linked, thoroughly cleaned, and a difference-in-difference empirical strategy is used. Robust evidence is found that MMT initiation reduced reincarceration. Our main results find that MMT initiation is associated with a per-person reduction in 19 incarceration days in the one-year period after jail-based MMT was received. We also find evidence confirming prior studies that found MMT continuation reduces recidivism. We find that jail-based MMT continuation is associated with a per-person reduction in 31 incarceration days in the one-year period post release. Also, a heterogenous treatment effect is found where individuals that received jail-based MMT for longer periods of time had larger reductions in reincarceration. Individuals who received MMT initiation for 70 days or more were associated with 22 fewer reincarceration days and individuals that received MMT continuation were associated with 60 fewer reincarceration days.

Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, Institute for Social Research, 2023. 43p

By Breanna Boyett, Camella Rosenberg,  Paul Guerin,

As an alternative to incarceration program, the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) Community Custody Program (CCP) aims to reduce recidivism rates among non- violent offenders while decreasing alcohol and substance use for a higher possibility of successful community reintegration. The program provides community-based supervision and treatment reporting for offenders who meet eligibility criteria. This review is designed as a process evaluation and a preliminary outcome evaluation. The evaluation comprises a CCP staff survey and a review of CCP inmate records. The study found that clients who participated in CCP experienced reductions in criminal justice system contacts following CCP. Approximately 70% of CCP participants did not have a court case following their exposure to CCP during the post-period, and 70% were not booked into the MDC following their exposure period. Inmates enrolled in CCP had a statistically significant reduction in both bookings and court cases after involvement in the program. When comparing pre- and post-period bookings and court cases, both felony and misdemeanor level bookings illustrated a statistically significant reduction in the follow up cases in the post-period. Clients who recidivated had the highest number of court cases and bookings in the first year after their time in the program, with recidivism decreasing in the second and third years following their release from CCP. The average client who recidivated did so in the first year post-CCP.

Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, Institute for Social Research , 2023. 37p.

By Samuel A. Torres

This report investigates the alignment of scores on the Criminogenic Risk and Behavioral Health Needs Framework (“risk-needs framework”) with recidivism likelihood as part of a broader evaluation of the Resource Reentry Center (RRC) and Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program (JMHCP) in Bernalillo County. Recidivism is operationalized as a subsequent arrest beyond an initial booking into the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC). The capacity of the risk-needs framework to predict new bookings is compared with that of the Proxy Risk to Recidivate Screener (“Proxy”), one of the screening tools used to construct risk-needs framework scores. Retrospective analysis of jail data over an eight-month period for over 6,000 inmates originally released between July and October 2019 indicates that risk-needs framework scores do not correspond to jail readmission rates or length of stay in a consistent manner. The Proxy scores align much more closely with subsequent bookings and length of stay. If the goal of the risk-needs framework is at least partly to predict recidivism risk, this report recommends the Proxy be used in lieu of the full framework to screen arrestees’ risk to reoffend.

Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, Institute for Social Research, Center for Applied Research and Analysis, 2021. 13p.  

By Elise M. Ferguson, Alise O’Connell 

 This report follows a cohort of more than 28,000 inmates released from the Metropolitan Detention Center in 2010 over a nine-year follow-up time period. Overall recidivism is described as well as recidivism by sex, race/ethnicity, and age at release. Also presented are cumulative recidivism rates and rates by year of first return to custody. 

 Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, Institute for Social Research, Center for Applied Research and Analysis, 2020. 80p

By Robin Joy

Vermont’s alternatives to the criminal justice system are available pre-charge, postcharge, and post-sentence. However, there has been some question about the extent to which access to alternative programs might be influencing racial disparities in the criminal justice system. To explore this notion, Crime Research Group (CRG) secured funding to examine whether there are disparities in who is served by alternative programs. By triangulating several data sources, researchers were able to describe who was served by Adult Court Diversion from 2015 through 2019, and who was served by the Treatment Courts from 2013-2018. However, several data quality issues impacted researchers’ ability to perform advanced statistical analyses capable of identifying factors that significantly contribute to whether an individual is served by an alternative program. On Measuring Disparities with Administrative Data Using administrative data to model human decision-making presents several challenges. First, because Vermont is a small state, researchers usually run into the issue of low numbers. This is especially true when trying to examine the experiences of marginalized populations within the state. Oftentimes, data on Asian, Indigenous, and Hispanic Vermonters must be excluded from analyses because there are so few people represented in the data that disclosing numbers has the potential to identify specific individuals. As a result, administrative data is not able to describe the experiences of these individuals. Qualitative research, which captures the themes of people’s experiences while masking their identities, is needed to bridge this gap. Second, issues arise when attempting to match data from one dataset to information stored within another dataset. Researchers were unable to match Treatment Court data with Vermont criminal histories because the data was inconsistent or non-existent. Successful diversion participants have their records expunged two years after the case is dismissed by the prosecutor so if no other record is found, an assumption is made that these are first time offenders. Researchers cannot be sure if an individual is a first-time offender, a consideration that is certainly used by prosecutors when determining whether to refer to Court Diversion.

Court Diversion Adult Court Diversion is governed by statute, administered by the Attorney General, and delivered by a network of non-profit organizations. CRG used Adjudication Data and Vermont Criminal Histories to test for disparities in who was referred to diversion; both data sets originate from Court records. Analysis of the data revealed that: x From 2015-2019, there were 6,127 defendants referred to Diversion. Most defendants referred were White (84.9% / 5,204). There were 259 Black defendants, 59 Asian defendants, and 45 Latinx defendants. The race of 530 (8.7%) defendants was either missing, unknown, or not reported. Race is as recorded by law enforcement. x The most common offense committed by those served in Court Diversion was Motor Vehicle offenses that were not DUI or Gross Negligent related (e.g., Driving on a Suspended License). Public order offenses were the second most common. The offenses include Disorderly Conduct, Trespassing, and Violations of Conditions of Release. For these offenses, 7% of all charges for Black and White offenders were referred to Court Diversion. x Statistical tests indicate that the race of the Public Order and Motor Vehicle offenders was associated with whether they entered Court Diversion. However, because of the administrative data issues discussed above (page 2), it was not possible to build a statistical model capable of determining exactly how race is related to the Court Diversion participation. Treatment Courts In Vermont, Treatment Courts operate as special dockets within the criminal court system. The Judiciary operates a Mental Health Docket and a Drug Treatment Docket in Chittenden County, a Drug Treatment Docket in Rutland and Washington Counties and a Regional DUI Docket serving residents in Windsor, Windham and Orange Counites. The dockets function in a team atmosphere to help the participant access treatment and hold them accountable for the underlying criminal offense. Treatment Courts are evidence-based, and several studies have found them to be effective for reducing recidivism (Gennette & Joy, 2019; Joy & Bellas, 2017; NPC Research Team, 2009; Wicklund & Halvorsen, 2014). Analysis of the Docket databases and the Court Adjudication data-based showed that: Between 2013 and 2018, 1,076 people entered Phase 1 of the Treatment Dockets. Chittenden’s combined dockets served 52% of the people, while the newest docket, the DUI Regional Docket, served the fewest with 57 people served. x During the five-year study period, all Treatment Dockets served only 30 black people, and even fewer Asian or Native American persons. x The Rutland docket served 12 (3.8%) people of color and 296 (95%) White people. The most common charge served by the docket was Violations of Conditions of Release (201). The next two most common charges were Retail Theft (196) and Petit Larceny (129), Burglary was the fourth most common charge (104). Black offenders were less likely than white offenders to be referred for property offenses. This indicates there may be some structural reasons or gatekeeping that are keeping Black offenders from being referred. x On the Washington County Treatment Docket, burglary offenses were the most common charge (59 charges, not people a person can have more than one burglary charge on the docket). During the study period there were 25 Black people charged with burglary offenses in Washington county, but none appeared in the Treatment Docket database. This indicates that there may be gatekeeping or structural reasons that result in Black burglary defendants not being referred. x The Southeast Regional DUI Docket served fewer than five people of color between 2013 and 2018. There were 476 White defendants with potentially eligible charges during the study period, there were 8 Black people. One of the program benefits is a shorter incarcerative sentence. Because DUI is not a common crime Black people commit or get sentenced to a correctional facility for, the program will not have the same impact on Black incarceration rates as it does for White incarceration rates. Recommendations:  Vermont policymakers should incorporate racial impact statements when creating criminal justice policies. Racial impact statements are an analysis of the impact the proposed policy would have on marginalized groups. These statements serve as a tool for policy makers to evaluate potential disparities or other collateral consequences that would result from enactment of a particular policy. Typically, racial impact statements are considered prior to the policy’s adoption and implementation. Several states have implemented the use of racial impact statements. Also, additional information should be recorded so that future efforts to analyze disparities using administrative data might be successful. CRG recommends including the following fields in Court Diversion and Treatment Court data collection by the entity best able to capture the information : whether the defendant was offered Diversion, whether the defendant refused Diversion, and any socio-economic or behavioral risk factors that may affect participation in Diversion or Treatment Court These additional fields will provide a clearer picture of why certain offenders are served by Court Diversion and Treatment Court and why others are not.    

Montpelier, VT: Crime Research Group, 2022. 23p.

By Megan A. Novak

In 2013, the Vermont Department of Corrections (DOC) began planning for significant changes in the way it delivered programs. The DOC adopted the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) Eight Evidence-Based Principles and developed the Risk Intervention Services (RIS) model with these principles as the foundation, specifically focusing on Principles 1 through 6— assess risk, enhance intrinsic motivation, target interventions, use cognitive behavioral approach, provide positive reinforcement, and provide ongoing support. All services and curricula administered in the DOC are now placed under the Program Services Director. New initiatives were put in place, staff were trained, the priority target population was identified, and implementation began in 2018. Now is the time to address Principle 7 (measure the relevant processes and practices) and Principle 8 (provide measurement feedback/using data to guide actions). To our knowledge, Vermont’s RIS model is the only one of its kind operating nationally that integrates clinical programming, education, and vocational training. As with any innovation, many changes have been made throughout implementation. The following process evaluation will first document how the new integrated programming model was conceptualized and planned. Then, the remainder of the report will describe the roles and responsibilities of RIS staff, services and curricula provided, the implementation process, and issues that have arisen throughout RIS implementation.   

Montpelier, VT: Crime Research Group, 2023. 56p.

By  Jisha Menon  

This article explores the relationship between the law and personhood, dispossession and dignity. It asks: How might we move beyond a conception of dignity as the bounded property of the liberal, autonomous agent, toward a more capacious understanding of dignity, as the affective relationality between persons? How does the negative force of the death penalty radiate beyond the condemned and exert its power over their loved ones, family, and even the staff of the prison? What might it mean lose one’s autonomy, a word that derives from the law (nomos) over the self (autos), in the face of the state’s management of life and death? Exploring the moral and legal staging of the death penalty in Chinonye Chukwu’s Clemency (2019) and Boo Junfeng’s Apprentice (2016) this article examines conceptions of personhood when “civility” meets capital punishment.

Law, Culture and the HumanitiesOnlineFirst, © The Author(s) 2025, 17p.

By Rachel López and Geoff Dancy

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court grappled with an issue of first impression in this country, but one familiar to other jurisdictions around the world—that is, whether a former head of state should be immune from prosecution for his criminal acts while in office. Those who argue in favor of criminal accountability, at home and abroad, often trumpet the democratic benefits of punishing state officials. Such justifications have also been consecrated in law, finding their way into judicial decisions as a basis for overturning amnesty laws. But is there any evidence to support these claims? Can a government really punish its way to a more democratic future?

Using empirical evidence from other countries that have prosecuted state officials for their crimes over the last three decades, this study sheds light on the possible effects of these prosecutions on democratic institutions and behaviors. First, it examines an in-depth case study of Guatemala, a country where this issue recently came to the fore, to develop a set of hypotheses about the democratic effects of punishing state officials. To determine whether the lessons gleaned from Guatemala are more generalizable, it tests these hypotheses using the most extensive global data set of prosecutions of government officials in domestic courts, which specifically focuses on human rights prosecutions.

Interestingly, the findings reveal a paradox. While criminal prosecutions of state officials for human rights violations are associated with some pro-democracy outcomes, like increased civil society activism and pro-democratic mobilization, they are also associated with greater political polarization and anti-system backlash. By contrast, they appear to have little effect on democratic institutions. Considering this data, a central takeaway is that the democratic effect of prosecuting political leaders tends to rest with the people. Whether punishing them helps to ensure a more democratic future depends more on how the populace responds—negatively or positively—than on the limited institutional effects resulting from punishment.

2025, 68p.

By Andrzej Uhl, Justin T Pickett

Are public preferences for the type or amount of punishment stable? Instability over short periods would complicate empirical desert by undercutting the value of public preferences as policy guides. Using longitudinal, cross-national survey data from Central Europe, we examined within-person stability in punishment preferences along several dimensions: type, amount, and rank order. Individual-level instability was common; respondents frequently changed their punishment preferences across waves. In the aggregate, public opinion was more stable. Our findings support the ‘qualified public input’ model of policy making—aggregate preferences should provide loose guidance for policymakers, with individual-level instability suggesting the ‘latitude of acceptance’ or ‘zone of acquiescence’. Better-educated respondents exhibited more preference stability, thus greater weight should be given to informed public opinion.

The British Journal of Criminology, 2024, XX, 1–20 pages

By The Global Commission on Drug Policy

The Global Commission on Drug Policy’s report, Beyond Punishment: From Criminal Justice Responses to Drug Policy Reform, exposes how punitive drug policies have driven mass incarceration and grave human rights violations. In 2023 alone, over 3.1 million people were arrested for drug-related offenses, with 20% of the global prison population detained for such crimes - nearly half for simple possession.

The report underscores the devastating consequences of prohibitionist policies, including over one million overdose deaths in the U.S. in the past two decades and 40,000 in Canada in just eight years. It also highlights systemic inequities, such as Indigenous peoples in Canada being six times more likely to face drug-related arrests than white counterparts. Furthermore, the report illustrates the disproportionate burdens on women and children, deepening cycles of poverty and marginalization.

It examines the broad spectrum of criminal justice responses to drug offenses, ranging from stop-and-search practices that disproportionately target marginalized communities to extreme measures like the death penalty and enforced treatment. These approaches often violate human rights, perpetuate stigma, and fail to address the root causes of substance use.

Offering a roadmap for reform, the report advocates for evidence-based strategies, including harm reduction measures (e.g., Overdose Prevention Centers, naloxone distribution, and safer supply programs), decriminalization and the legal regulation of drug markets. These approaches not only save lives but also reduce societal harms, foster dignity, and promote health and equity.

Geneva: Global Commission on Drug Policy, 2024. 56p.

By The Correctional Association of New York

The Humane Alternatives to Long-Term (HALT) Solitary Confinement Law (hereinafter “the HALT Law” or “the HALT Solitary Law”) passed on March 31, 2021, and went into effect on March 31, 2022, following years of grassroots organizing and advocacy. The Correctional Association of New York (CANY) – an organization that has been monitoring prison conditions since its founding in 1844 and is the only independent organization in New York State with authority to monitor state prisons and publicly report findings – has been monitoring implementation of the HALT Law in state prisons.1 The HALT Law is considered the most expansive and progressive legislative change in the United States concerning the practice of solitary confinement, known more generally as segregation. HALT dictates fundamental shifts in the duration and definition of segregation; perhaps even more significantly, the law prescribes a sea change in the philosophical underpinnings of behavior management in prisons. Implementation of the law has been met with harsh critique and resistance by some staff within the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), who have linked the law to reported increases in violence in the prisons; various data outlined in this report raise questions about the connection between any increase in violence and the implementation of HALT. Other corrections staff acknowledge that the Department had relied too heavily on segregation in the past and embrace the opportunity to expand programming, even as they navigate the challenges. This report presents CANY’s findings and recommendations regarding implementation of the law in state prisons thus far, based on CANY’s prison monitoring activities in the time leading up to implementation and between April and December 2022. The findings presented here should be considered in that context: CANY has monitored the first eight months of implementation of a law that seeks to transform practices that have been in place for decades. In anticipation of the HALT Law taking effect, DOCCS ended the practice of keeplock (a form of segregation or solitary confinement) starting in late 2021. The HALT Law has also led to a reduction in the use of Special Housing Units (SHU), another form of segregation or solitary confinement, and a reduction in the amount of time people are kept in SHU. In addition, some incarcerated people who had spent years and decades in SHU have been moved to alternative units or to the general population. Moreover, DOCCS is operating alternative units, known under the law as Residential Rehabilitation Units (RRUs), that are providing opportunities for out-of-cell programming and engagement. DOCCS has also published a variety of administrative data and reports in compliance with the law, representing an increase in information-sharing, transparency, and accountability.

New York: CANY, 2023. 65p

By The Correctional Association of New York

The Correctional Association of New York (CANY) is a non-profit organization, mandated by law to inspect, monitor and report on conditions in New York State (NYS) correctional facilities. CANY has repeatedly documented that across NYS incarcerated people report a lack of access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food and the systemic mechanisms to secure it. This report sheds light on key issues affecting food access and quality, and highlights opportunities to strengthen and expand existing DOCCS policies and programs to improve food and nutrition in NYS correctional facilities. The report covers three key areas: Part I: DOCCS food service. Part I of this report provides an overview and analysis of policies and practices scaffolding DOCCS menu design and planning, food production, and service. This includes an overview of the DOCCS “cook chill” food production center, based at Mohawk Correctional Facility in Rome, New York. The food production center is where most DOCCS meals are batch cooked, chilled and then shipped to the 44 DOCCS facilities to be reheated and served in the mess hall. Part I also includes analysis of both administrative and qualitative data regarding people’s experiences with food served in the mess hall. This encompasses an overview of concerns related to the quality, palatability, nutritional value, variety, and accessibility of food. Part II: Supplemental food sources and self-prepared meals. A significant number of incarcerated people reported that they either avoid the mess hall, or that mess hall meals are insufficient to meet their dietary needs. As a result of this, many people reported that they choose to prepare their own food using supplemental food sources, purchased from the commissary and/or outside vendors via the DOCCS package program. CANY consistently heard concerns about the accessibility and affordability of food in the commissary or through packages. CANY also observed that there are inconsistencies in access to cooking and food storage equipment for incarcerated people to self-prepare meals. Part II provides an overview of these challenges. Part III: DOCCS food and nutrition programming and initiatives. Part III provides an overview of current DOCCS food-related programming including Culinary Arts, Horticulture, Harvest Now, and other special events and programs which present an opportunity to increase the variety of foods available to incarcerated people. This part also highlights promising initiatives, like the recent pilot initiative launched by DOCCS to connect incarcerated people to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits up to 30-days prior to release. There is significant potential to strengthen and expand these promising initiatives to improve food and nutrition, including increasing training and certification for incarcerated people working in food service, and better integration of food programming and DOCCS food service. Based on CANY monitoring data, DOCCS’ administrative data, and research and analysis, this report makes key findings about issues affecting food access and quality in DOCCS facilities. It concludes that there are significant current and future opportunities to improve food and nutrition for people incarcerated in NYS prisons. These recommendations, if implemented, would increase meaningful access to food options that help incarcerated people thrive, improve health outcomes for an exceedingly marginalized population, and create replicable infrastructure for healthy food within other state facilities and jurisdictions.

New York: Correctional Association of New York, 2024. 61p.

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

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

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

Santa Monica, RAND, 2022, 16p.

By: Yuhanza Othman, Ida Rahayu, and Ekmil Krisnawati Erlen Joni

The government has introduced various programmes to rehabilitate and give treatment to drug dependent. However, statistic from Agensi Anti Dadah Kebangsaan (AADK) has shown that a number of drug dependents have increased annually. It is high time for the government to review and enhance the punishment for drug dependents. The Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983 is silent on imposing punishment on a first offender. Therefore, this paper will examine on imposing whipping as punishment for drug dependent as provided by Syariah law. Adopting the application of qiyas, the rule and punishment of drinking liquor which is stated in the Qur’an (5:90) and the hadith is extended to consuming drugs. This paper seeks to discuss alternative methods to deter the public from drug abuse and at the same time to decrease the government expenditure in providing rehabilitation programmes and services for drug dependents.

Islamic perspectives relating to business, arts, culture and communication, January 2015

By: Mauricio Stegemann Dieter and Renato Rocha

This book introduces the ‘Southern criminology’ movement; explores its theoretical, methodological, and philosophical tools; offers analytical accounts on the development of criminological thoughts in marginalised regions; and showcases the cutting edge of criminological research from Southern settings.

Southernising Criminology is structured into three parts. The first part provides theoretical and methodological insights into how criminology can be Southernised, including renowned social scientists who share concerns for the need to reconceptualise the centre, the periphery, and their relations. The second part brings the reader up-to-date with the state of criminological research in different parts of the world and how far this landscape has changed when introducing Southern perspectives. The third part shows first-hand examples of how Southern criminology is done, with its challenges and transformative potential for criminological knowledge. Bringing together contributions from leading scholars working across the five continents and drawing on issues such as state criminality, violent crime, criminal justice practices, and state and non-state punishment, this book offers a critical 44account of the problems of metropolitan thinking, colonial and imperial power relations, and Western ethnocentric approaches to criminology. It offers a nuanced and grounded reflection on how things are being done differently and why that is important.

An accessible and compelling read, this book will appeal to students and scholars of criminology, sociology, politics, and policy makers from around the world who are interested in the field of criminology and are aware of the urgent need for it to be decolonised and democratised.

Southernising Criminology, April 2024

By Alexandra Gannoni and Samantha Bricknell

“The purpose of this paper is to provide a picture of trends and characteristics of Indigenous deaths in prison and police custody in the 25 years since the RCIADIC. A key focus is to describe the circumstances of Indigenous deaths in custody and how these compare with those reported by the RCIADIC and over time."The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCIADIC) was established in 1987 in response to growing concern over the deaths of Indigenous people in custody. The RCIADIC (1991) found Indigenous people in custody did not die at a greater rate than non-Indigenous people in custody, but were considerably more likely to be arrested and imprisoned. The RCIADIC (1991) recommended an ongoing program be established by the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) to monitor Indigenous and non-Indigenous deaths in prison, police custody and youth detention. In response, the National Deaths in Custody Program (NDICP) commenced in 1992. Since then, the NDICP has collected comprehensive data on the extent and nature of all deaths in custody in Australia.”

Australian Institute of Criminology. Statistical Bulletin. No. 17. Feb. 2019. 15p.

By Tony Parker

Recidivism and Rehabilitation: The document explores the challenges of rehabilitating repeat offenders, highlighting the cycle of crime and punishment.

Humanity and Understanding: It emphasizes the importance of treating criminals as human beings and understanding their circumstances.

Systemic Failures: The text discusses the inadequacies of the judicial and penal systems in addressing the root causes of criminal behavior.

Personal Struggles: The narrative of Charlie Smith illustrates the personal difficulties and societal rejection faced by habitual offenders.

Faber & Faber, 2013, 176 pages

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

By Sheldon Glueck And Eleanor T. Glueck

The book provides a comprehensive analysis of the after-conduct of discharged offenders, focusing on the implications for reforming criminal justice:

● Causal Relations: It emphasizes the importance of understanding the multiple causal factors, both biological and environmental, that influence criminal behavior.

● Predictive Techniques: The document discusses the feasibility of using predictive tables to aid in sentencing and parole decisions.

● Reform Proposals: It suggests reforms for criminal justice based on scientific insights, such as re-designing correctional equipment to address causes rather than symptoms.

● Scientific Insights: Follow-up studies are highlighted as a means to gain scientific insights into the effectiveness of sentencing, treatment, and parole practices.

These key insights aim to shift the focus from punitive measures to a more rehabilitative approach that considers the complex interplay of factors contributing to criminal behavior.

Cambridge University. London 1945. Kraus Reprint Corporation New York 1966. 129p.

By Joe Russo, Samuel Peterson, Michael J. D. Vermeer, Dulani Woods, Brian A. Jackson

Racial and ethnic disparities are pervasive in the U.S. criminal justice system. These disparities often compound as an individual progresses through each stage of the justice system, beginning with police contact and continuing through prosecution and correctional control. Not surprisingly, people of color are overrepresented in the probation and parole population, yet relatively little attention has been paid to disparate treatment and outcomes at this stage.

Probation and parole staff and other system actors exercise considerable discretion in responding to technical violations. Technical violations are instances of noncompliance with the conditions of supervision — such as failing to report to the supervising officer, leaving the jurisdiction without permission, and testing positive on a drug test—that, while not criminal, can lead to severe consequences for justice-involved individuals. The spectrum of responses to technical violations can range from a warning all the way up to a recommendation to revoke supervision. Evidence suggests that technical violations are an important driver of incarceration.

The handling of technical violations may be influenced by a variety of factors, including officer judgment and jurisdictional policy, and there is evidence of racial and ethnic disparities in how they are handled. Ultimately, disparities in the processing of technical violations can exacerbate and perpetuate existing disparities in incarceration and undermine the legitimacy of the justice system. This report presents findings and recommendations from an expert panel that explored challenges and opportunities associated with reducing disparities at the technical violation decision point.

Key Findings

• The lack of evidence on the sources of disparities in community supervision contributes to a lack of known approaches for responding to them.

• The working relationship between an officer and a supervisee is critical to successful outcomes.

• A lack of diversity or cultural sensitivity among officers and supervisee perceptions of justice system illegitimacy can be barriers to forming quality relationships of trust.

• Research is needed to determine the impacts of (1) such factors as the working relationship between and officer and a supervisee, a lack of diversity or cultural sensitivity among officers, and supervisee perceptions of justice system illegitimacy on supervisee violation behaviors, (2) responses to these behaviors, and (3) disparities.

• Supervisees of color often have inequitable access to resources, which can be a barrier to successful completion of supervision and a contributing factor in disparate outcomes.

• Information management tools are needed to increase transparency about and accountability for disparities.

• Jurisdictions would benefit from developing data dashboards to help track, analyze, and display key metrics so that progress may be measured — and corrective actions taken as needed — at the officer and agency levels.

  Recommendations

• Develop best practices for the use of technology to eliminate barriers to compliance. Evaluate pros, cons, and impacts of these approaches on outcomes and disparities.

• Develop best practices and strategies to directly provide resources (e.g., food pantries, clothing, transit vouchers) to disadvantaged supervisees and/or coordinate with community resources to provide these services. Explore the feasibility of monetary assistance for sustenance and/or emergency support.

• Conduct research into supervisee perceptions of the justice system’s legitimacy along racial and ethnic lines and the impact of these perceptions on compliance and outcomes.

• Conduct research to determine whether the use of credible messengers improves relationships with supervisees and to examine the impact of this practice on supervision outcomes.

• Study jurisdictions that have reduced disparities to better understand the dynamics associated with successful outcomes and to develop an evidence base of effective strategies.

• Conduct research to determine the impacts of more-general system reforms (e.g., caps on probation sentences, reductions in the number of technical violations) on disparities in technical violation behaviors, responses, and outcomes.

• Develop management tools (e.g., dashboards) to track disparity metrics, in near real time, at the agency, supervisor, and officer levels to promote transparency and accountability and to identify patterns to be investigated and addressed (e.g., coachable moments for staff, policy or program review).

• Reinforce supervision practices in which staff actively engage in barrier-reduction strategies to "meet supervisees where they are" in terms of appropriate accommodations and service delivery that do not compromise public safety.

Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2023. 32p.

By Giada Girelli, Marcela Jofré, and Ajeng Larasati

Harm Reduction International (HRI) has monitored the use of the death penalty for drug offences worldwide since our first ground-breaking publication on this issue in 2007. This report, our 13th on the subject, continues our work of providing regular updates on legislative, policy and practical developments related to the use of capital punishment for drug offences, a practice which isa clear violation of international human rights and drug control standards.

This year marks the beginning of a new approach to our flagship publication. Every edition of this report will provide key data and updated categories, as well as high-level developments at the national and international level. A deeper analysis of developments and trends will be published in the 2024 edition and on alternate years. The methodology used for both reports remains the same. HRI opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception.

Harm Reduction International, 2024. 22p.