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 Nkem Adeleye

Several debates on the legitimacy, constitutionality, and acceptability of the death penalty have arisen throughout the years. The death row phenomenon refers to the psychological effects on prisoners of being on death row for a prolonged period while awaiting an imminent execution under harsh conditions of confinement. Having been declared a violation of a customary norm of international law by several international tribunals and national courts, this Article explores the possibility of the death row phenomenon, as a legal concept, becoming widely accepted and ultimately preventing the execution of another category of offenders. The existence of a lack of judicial consensus arising from different standards set by these courts in the determination of what constitutes delay could be an obstacle to this development. This Article suggests that if pursued diligently, the death row phenomenon could become universally accepted as an unacceptable practice and a standard could be set under international law which would become binding upon national courts.

SAN DIEGO LAW REVIEW ,  [VOL. 58: 875, 2021] , 28p.

By Christina Emilian, Noura Al-Juffali, Seena Fazel

Prison populations have been increasing worldwide. Previous studies suggest that there is a high burden of psychiatric morbidity in people in prison, but, to our knowledge, the last published meta-analysis of prevalence is more than a decade old. We aimed to describe the pooled prevalence of depression, psychosis, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia spectrum disorders for people who are incarcerated. Methods In this updated systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched six databases and grey literature published from database inception until Aug 8, 2024, with no language or geographical restrictions. We included primary quantitative studies that reported the prevalence of depression and psychotic disorders in the unselected prison population, based their diagnoses on clinical examination or from interviews and by the use of validated diagnostic instruments, met standardised criteria of the ICD or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders for the diagnoses, and provided pooled prevalences for psychosis in the previous 6 months and clinical depression in the previous 2 weeks to 1 month. We excluded studies that used selected samples or were only qualitative. We investigated bipolar and schizophrenia spectrum disorders as separate diagnostic subcategories. We synthesised studies using random-effects meta-analysis and explored heterogeneity with meta-regression and subgroup analyses. The protocol is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022378568. Findings We identified 131 publications reporting the prevalence of mental illness in 58838 people in prison in 43 countries. We estimated that the prevalence of depression was 12·8% (95% CI 11·1–14·6) and for any psychosis was 4·1% (3·6–4·7). For diagnostic subcategories, we found that the prevalence of bipolar disorder was 1·7% (1·0–2·6) and schizophrenia spectrum disorders was 3·6% (1·3–7·1). Between-study heterogeneity was substantial for these estimates (I² 69–97%) with few explanations. However, subgroup analyses revealed that people in prison in lowincome and middle-income countries had higher prevalences for depression (16·7% [95% CI 13·6–20·0]) than in high-income countries (10·8% [9·0–13·0]), and that, for people with psychosis who are incarcerated, psychiatrists were less likely to diagnose (3·5% [2·8–4·3]) than were non-psychiatrists (4·7% [3·9–5·5]). Interpretation Our study indicates that the prevalence of severe mental illness in people who are incarcerated worldwide is considerable. Meeting the treatment needs of people in prison who have mental ill health remains an ongoing challenge for public mental health. More evidence on how to improve the assessment, treatment, and linkage to services on release, which will require more research-friendly prison services, is now needed.

Lancet Public Health 2025; 10:, pages 97–110

By Sophie Shanshory

For individuals on probation and those reentering their communities after incarceration, finding employment is often one of multiple challenges. It can be overwhelming to think about finding and maintaining a job when concerns on an individual’s mind might be How will I get there? What if they find out about my record? Will I make enough money to support myself and my family? Employment is an important factor in reentry but getting to a place where the focus can be on a job, education, or a career requires support in other parts of life as well. In the workforce development field, supportive services are used to respond to a range of needs, encompassing those directly related to and outside of work. These services are considered an important complement to employment-focused services provided through local workforce development systems.

The Los Angeles County Innovative Employment Solutions Program (INVEST) is designed to address the complex range of employment and supportive service needs individuals may have and support them in pursuing their employment and career goals. MDRC, a nonprofit, nonpartisan education and social research organization, is studying INVEST along with several other Los Angeles County–based, criminal legal system and reentry-focused programs. INVEST takes an innovative approach to providing employment and supportive services to people on probation in Los Angeles County. The program prepares staff members to understand the unique needs and challenges of people on probation while at the same time using a flexible spending approach that allows for comprehensive service provision.

New York: MDRC, 2023. 12p.

By David S. Rubenstein & Pratheepan Gulasekaram

The vast majority of detained immigrants are held in facilities operated by private corporations. Over the past decade, academics and dedicated advocates have shed critical light on the structural causes and effects of privatized immigration detention, offering a range of policy prescriptions along the way. Until now, however, federalism has been a virtual blind spot in that reformist agenda. Intervening, this Essay draws federalism into the spotlight.

Stanford Law Review Online Volume 71 (2018-2019), 13p.

By Emily J. Salisbury & Allison Crawford

Over 20 years has passed since the principles of gender-responsive correctional strategies were published in a foundational report in the U.S. These practices acknowledge the unique characteristics and life experiences of justice-involved women, have undergone rigorous empirical testing, and are shown to effectively reduce women’s recidivism. In part, they supported the United Nation’s adoption of minimum human rights afforded to women serving custodial and non-custodial criminal sentences. This paper presents updated research evidence that continues to amplify the need for gender-responsive principles and practices, including the role of victimization in girls’ and women’s offending trajectories and the intersection of relationships, relational identity, and trauma as key drivers for justice involvement. Further, because the perinatal needs of justice-involved women are a frequently overlooked area of inquiry among the gender-responsive literature, this scholarship is also summarized using a reproductive justice framework. Finally, we illustrate the impact of gender-responsive scholarship by sharing some of the practice and technology innovations that have emerged, while acknowledging there is much yet to accomplish.

Health & Justice, Vol. 13 (1) , 1-15,

By Cassia Rowland | Thomas Pope 

The prison system in England and Wales is in an extremely poor state. Levels of violence, self-harm and drug use are shockingly high, prisoners’ work and education opportunities severely limited. Buildings are crumbling or in severe disrepair, many dangerously so, and physical conditions often unsanitary.1,2 Inexperienced staff are struggling to cope with these increasingly fraught circumstances. The failure of successive governments since at least the early 2000s to expand the number of places to meet the growing number of prisoners has put severe pressure on capacity and exacerbated this decline.3 Deep funding cuts implemented in the early 2010s have still not been fully reversed, even as the prison population has hit new highs.4 And while capital investment has risen sharply in recent years, this is focused on building new prisons and is insufficient to address the growing maintenance backlog.5 In just the last two years, eight prisons have been issued with ‘urgent notifications’ by the prisons inspectorate, escalating serious concerns directly to the secretary of state.6 Cuts to prison officer numbers as part of the coalition government’s austerity programme began to bite from 2012/13, with officer numbers in 2013/14 down 26% from 2009/10 and then staying flat until 2016/17, even as the prison population rose.7 Recruitment since 2017/18 has partially reversed this, but many of these new officers have been to staff new prisons, leaving the number of prison officers per 1,000 prisoners in March 2024 still 8% below 2009/10 levels. Crucially, even as workforce numbers have recovered, the average officer is now much less experienced than before staff cuts. This combination of reduced staff numbers and experience is likely to have contributed substantially to prisons’ overall declining performance. That is the national picture. But what is the situation within individual prisons? Which are doing better or worse, and what might be driving that? This report – the first in a new series of analyses of public services at the local level across England and Wales from the Institute for Government and funded by the Nuffield Foundation – digs into the detail of prison performance to answer some of these questions. We find widespread decline across most prisons on a range of measures. Violence, self-harm and ‘protesting behaviours’ have risen sharply across almost all prisons. However, some buck the trend – particularly open prisons (category D sites). Clearly this is at least in part to do with the types of prisoner these prisons hold. But that is not the whole story, with open prisons continuing to outperform other categories even as the prisoner mix has changed in the last year. What is clear is that overcrowding and a lack of purposeful activity for prisoners are significantly associated with poor performance, especially violence. Reception prisons, with the highest levels of overcrowding and lowest purposeful activity, are over-represented among the worst performers 

London: Institute for Government, 2025. 45p.

By Ayumi Takano, Kunihiko Takahashi, Tatsuhiko Anzai, Takashi Usami, Shiori Tsutsumi, Yuka Kanazawa, Yousuke Kumakura, Toshihiko Matsumoto

Background: Methamphetamine use is related to severe health, social, and criminal challenges. However, there is limited evidence regarding the factors associated with the recurrence of drug use among individuals who have used methamphetamine, particularly within populations involved in the criminal justice system. This study aimed to identify predictors of illicit drug use at a one-year follow-up among males in Japan who have used methamphetamine and are involved in the criminal justice system.

Methods: The study participants were adult males on probation due to methamphetamine use or possession and were involved in a community-based program. The participants were recruited early in their probation period and participated in telephone-based surveys conducted by mental health center staff. We analyzed one-year follow-up data to investigate the recurrence rate of illicit drug use and associated risk factors using multiple logistic regression.

Results: Out of 234 participants, 27 (11.5 %) used illicit drugs during the one-year follow-up period. After adjusting for demographic characteristics, severity of drug use, type of probation, and use of treatment for substance use disorders, the use of social welfare services (OR = 2.78) and a lack of trustworthy relationships (OR = 3.17) were significantly associated with recurrence of illicit drug use.

Conclusions: This study suggested that individuals facing challenges in maintaining stable living conditions and building trustworthy relationships were more likely to return to drug use early in their probation period. Comprehensive and tailored support focused on social stabilization and relationship-building is recommended to aid recovery in males who have experienced methamphetamine use.

Drug and Alcohol Dependence Reports, Volume 14, March 2025, 100316

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 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