By Samantha Plummer and Jaclyn Davis

From July 2019 to May 2021, the Columbia Justice Lab developed and conducted a longitudinal interview study of nearly 300 people facing new criminal charges in New York City. The Rikers Island Longitudinal Study aimed to understand how defendants’ experiences in the pretrial process affected and were affected by their social and economic life conditions. After first interviewing people at court or in jail soon after their initial arraignments, the study re-interviewed them 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months later. This report highlights our key findings. The goals of this report are to: • Share the experiences of defendants who have varying degrees of contact with the criminal legal system in New York City. • Provide organizations that work with court-involved people information to understand the socioeconomic conditions of people going through the criminal courts. • Contribute to a citywide and national discussion about how to safely reduce jail populations. Key Findings Over 100,000 people are prosecuted in the New York City criminal courts every year. While there is excellent research on case processing and jail incarceration, less is known about the social and economic lives of people with court involvement. The Justice Lab’s analysis of over one thousand interviews with 286 defendants, and linked administrative data on criminal histories and social benefits use, shows that: • The sample of criminal defendants faced severe housing insecurity. – In the month before being arrested, about one-third of the sample had spent most nights in unstable housing. – About 20 percent of the sample had spent at least one night in a Department of Homeless Services shelter in the year before and/or after their arrest. • Unstable housing was strongly associated with mental health and substance use issues. – Study respondents with histories of mental illness and addiction were more than twice as likely to be unhoused or in a shelter or other temporary housing when they were arrested. – Half of study respondents without a history of substance use or mental illness had stable housing, compared to under a third of those with histories of mental illness and substance use problems. • Unemployment and precarious employment in the study sample were high and were closely related to housing, health, and substance use problems. – Only 25 percent of respondents in temporary or unstable housing reported employment at the initial interview whereas about 60 percent of individuals in any form of private residence reported employment. – Of the respondents who reported that they were employed at all four interview waves, only 41 percent reported working the same job across the entire study. • Exposure to violence was common, mostly in the form of victimization and witnessing rather than perpetration, and different experiences of violence were closely related. – Men, young people aged 18 to 34, and people with a history of mental illness and drug problems were more likely to report assaulting someone in the year after arraignment. Still, in each of these groups, around 80 percent of respondents reported not engaging in any threats or assaults. – Among respondents who were never attacked or had not witnessed other violence, only about 5 percent said they had attacked someone else, whereas 30 to 40 percent of those who had been attacked or witnessed violence reported attacking someone else. • Emerging adults (ages 18 to 25), who are incarcerated at more than double the rate of the adult population as a whole, faced particular health vulnerabilities. – Emerging adults reported a very low rate of health insurance coverage; a third of emerging adults in the sample were uninsured at their first interview, compared to 13 percent of respondents over age 25. – Three quarters of emerging adults reported some kind of ongoing health issue. Those who reported health conditions were much more likely to be uninsured (37%) than people over age 25 who reported health conditions (9%). • The sample reported a high prevalence of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), which were associated with poor health and substance use problems in adulthood. – Childhood adversity was more common in the project sample than in the U.S. population; RILS respondents were much more likely to have been removed from the home by the state, to have been physically or sexually abused, and to have lived with an incarcerated household member. – Respondents who reported four or more ACEs were significantly more likely to report mental health problems – Respondents largely did not receive support from adults to deal with extreme adverse events in childhood; across all ACEs, an average of 28 percent of respondents reported receiving help from an adult. • Criminal court processes were long and unpredictable, and disrupted study respondents’ social and economic well-being. – Ninety-five percent of respondents reported that court involvement disrupted their lives. One sixth of respondents reported losing housing due to their criminal case. – Respondents with mental health problems and living in unstable housing were more likely to have their focal arrests result in conviction

New York: Columbia University, Justice Lab, 2024. 50p.

By The Bail Project

Across the United States, nearly half a million people are incarcerated pretrial on any given day, the majority of whom are jailed only because they cannot afford to pay the bail amount set in their case. The disproportionately large jail population in the United States is primarily driven by cash bail: approximately 60% of people in jail can’t pay their bail.1 These are legally innocent people who have not been convicted of the crime they are charged with. Cash bail creates a two-tiered system of justice: one where people with money are able to purchase their pretrial freedom, allowing them to maintain their jobs, contribute to the economy, and care for their families; and, another system for everyone else. The use of cash bail is unfair, affording benefits to people with financial resources, and punishing others. Broadly, the pretrial systems of most American cities, counties, and states reinforce this system of wealth based detention. Cash bail is set at amounts that are often unaffordable and people are punished before a verdict has been reached. If they are jailed pretrial, they are cut off from their lives and communities. Once incarcerated and isolated from their support networks, a person becomes more likely to lose their job, lose custody of their children, experience violence in jail, or find symptoms associated with mental illness worsening.2,3 Jails, which are full of people who are struggling with a mental illness or addiction, have become de facto psychiatric institutions, and although treatment services are more effective in-community, our states and counties have relegated these matters of public health to correctional facilities.4 The impacts of pretrial incarceration are devastating and increase the likelihood that a person will become incarcerated again in the future because they have lost the stability they need to improve their lives and thrive.5 Cash bail and wealth-based detention force these harms upon the most vulnerable people in our communities. A nationwide movement to replace cash bail has gained significant traction, emerging in jurisdictions across the country in response to the inequities, dangers, and unsustainable practices of the current pretrial system. This report, which provides an overview of modern bail and pretrial reforms, stems from that growing movement. Together, these reforms paint a picture of progress – highlighting the diversity of approaches, the momentum driving change, and the challenges that persist in the pursuit of a safer, fairer, and more equitable pretrial system This report primarily focuses on a descriptive analysis of legislative changes due to their enduring impact. However, this analysis also includes court decisions or rulings that substantially altered pretrial practices in a jurisdiction or state. To be included, a reform must have demonstrably shifted a jurisdiction away from wealth-based detention and toward a more equitable pretrial process that reduces unnecessary incarceration. We focused not only on reforms that restricted or minimized the use of cash bail altogether, but also those that: decreased the number of charges eligible for cash bail; prohibited courts from assigning bail amounts that are unaffordable, and/or increased the use of pretrial release without financial conditions. Beyond Bail also contains, where applicable and based on the availability of data, an assessment of the impacts and consequences of the reforms analyzed in this report. These implementation effects are examined through key questions: Did the reform achieve its intended goal? Did the pretrial population decrease following implementation? Did racial and ethnic disparities narrow? A discussion of public safety impacts is provided in the appendix.

Venice, CA : The Bail Project, 2025. 38p.

By Thana Ridha and Sylvie Frigon

For over forty years, William Head on Stage (WHoS) has operated as an inmate-run prison theatre, making it one of Canada’s longest-standing prison arts initiatives. Staging Prison Theatre in Canada: Setting the Spotlight on William Head on Stage delves into the story of WHoS through the voices of the men involved, offering a unique criminological perspective that situates their experiences within the prison context. The analysis explores how WHoS creates an alternative space within the social and emotional realities of incarceration. By unlocking participants’ capacities, skills, and confidence, the initiative fosters a sense of agency and community both inside the prison and beyond. WHoS becomes a space for transformation, offering men opportunities to re-imagine themselves and build meaningful connections. This work underscores the broader significance of arts-based initiatives like WHoS, not only within prisons but also in the fields of criminology, theatre, and community engagement. It offers valuable insights for correctional administrators, criminologists, theatre practitioners, scholars, students, and anyone interested in the intersection of art and rehabilitation.

University of Ottawa Press / Les Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa, 2025. 139p.

By GHANI-UR-REHMAN, ANWAR GHANI, MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR , SYED HUSNAIN A. NAQVI1, DHANANJAY SINGH

Internet of Vehicles (IoV) is a new emerging concept and is an extended notion of Vehicular Ad-hoc networks (VANETs). In IoV the vehicles (nodes) are connected to the internet and able to transmit information. However, due to resources constraint nature of vehicles, they may not want to cooperate in order to save its own resources such as memory, energy, and buffer, etc. This behavior may lead to poor system performance. IoV needs an efficient solution to motivate the nodes in terms of cooperation to avoid selfish behavior. A novel mechanism Incentive and Punishment Scheme (IPS) has been proposed in this article where vehicles with higher weight and cooperation are elected as Heads during the election process. Vickrey, Clarke, and Groves (VCG) model has been used to scrutinize the weight of these heads. Vehicle participating in the election process can increase its incentives (reputation) by active participation (forwarding data). Vehicles with repeated selfish behavior are punished. The monitoring nodes monitor the performance of their neighbor nodes after the election process. A mathematical model and algorithms has been developed for the election, monitoring and incentive processes. The proposed approach has been simulated through VDTNSim environment to analyze the performance of the proposed IPS. The performance results demonstrate that the proposed schemes outperform the existing schemes in terms of packet delivery ratio, average delivery delay, average cost, and overhead.

IEEE Acess, 2019, 12p.

By Christian B. N. Gade

This article has two objectives, both of which are new. First, it presents a new framework of punishment in nine dimensions, which makes it possible to distinguish sys- tematically between different conceptualizations of the nature of punishment. Second, using the framework, it discusses the relationship between restorative justice and punishment, showing that some cases of restorative jus- tice constitute punishment from the perspectives of some of the punishment positions in the framework but not for others. Thus, according to some positions, restorative jus- tice (mediation, conferences, circles, etc.) is punishment.

Wiley, 2020, 29p.

The state is restricted in the imposition of punishment by the requirements of legality, equality, and the obligation to refrain from infringing certain important human rights. It is important to consider, too, restrictions on the authority re- sponsible for setting the sentence. The imposition of punishment, like the deter- mination of guilt or innocence, is usually understood as a judicial exercise.1 The importance of the judge lies at the heart of procedural fairness, which demands that individuals have the right of access to court in the determination of a crim- inal charge.2 The responsibility of the judge for the imposition of punishment is also of central importance, though, to the characterization of the sentence itself (and not just the manner of its imposition) as lawful or just.

31p.

By Masganti Sit

ismilllahirrramanirrahiim. Segala puji bagi Allah yang telah memberikan kami kemampuan untuk menyelesaikan penulisan buku yang berjudul “Kisah Inspiratif Pendidikan Anak dalam Al-Qur’an.” Kami bersyukur dengan segala limpahan rahmat-Nya sehingga memiliki kesempatan menuliskan ide-ide dalam modul ini. Salawat dan salam kepada Rasulullah, Muhammad SAW yang telah dipilih Allah sebagai penyampai Risalah Tauhid kepada umat manusia. Kerinduan kami kepada Allah dan Rasul-Nya mudah-mudahan dapat tertunaikan dengan syafaat beliau di hari akhir, Aamiin. Terima kasih kepada Ketua Prodi Magister Pendidikan Agama Islam Fakultas Ilmu Tarbiayah dan Keguruan Universitas Islam Negeri Sumatera Utara Medan yang telah mempercayai kami menjadi pengasuh mata kuliah Parenting Islami Tahun Akademi 2023-2024. Terima kasih kepada para mahasiswa yang menjadi penulis dalam buku ini

Research Gate July 2024, 209p.

By Hackjin Kim

It has long been debated whether approach and avoidance behaviors are controlled by largely segregated and functionally disso- ciable neural systems or they are served by a common neural mechanism (Boureauand Dayan, 2011; Cools et al., 2011; Palminteri and Pessiglione, 2017). In fact, much anatomical as well as neuropharmacological evidence seems to support the dual systems view. For example, one network including the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) and the nucleus accumbens (NAC)/the ventral striatum (VS) is preferentially involved in approach behavior, whereas another network including the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC), the dorsal striatum (DS), the insula, and the amygdala is involved in avoidance behavior (Palminteri and Pessiglione, 2017). In addition, this dual systems view seems to be also supported by functional dissociation between dopaminergic (DA) and serotonergic (5-HT) neuromodulatory systems, which have been shown to be involved in approach and avoidance behaviors, respectively (Daw et al., 2002). Alternatively, other theoretical and empirical studies support the uni ed system view, which suggests that approach and avoidance behaviors are not clearly distinguished from each other, possibly sharing common neural circuitries (Kim et al., 2006; Palminteri et al., 2015; Solomon and Corbit, 1974). In this article, I will rst review some key neural substrates of approach and avoidance behaviors, highlighting the inconsistencies between ndings that support the dual vs. uni ed systems views. Later I will suggest an alternative model of approach and avoidance learning based on hierarchical allostatic regulation, whereby con icts in competing internal bodily needs are regulated by incorporating external sensory information. This model can provide a useful theoretical framework to reconcile the inconsistencies, to integrate the current ndings, and to raise concrete and testable hypotheses.

Research Gate, 2021, 9p.

By Collin M McCabe

Large-scale cooperation, or the willingness of individuals to incur costs in order to help others, is a defining trait of the human species. However, cooperation poses a theoretical puzzle: since it is individually costly to cooperate, it seems that natural selection should favor non-cooperation (defection). Recently, it has been proposed that coordinated, collective punishment by cooperators of defectors can allow cooperation to invade a population of defectors. Here, we address the fact that in this previous analysis, coordinated punishment was only available to cooperators; defectors had no ability to punish cooperators (i.e. antisocial punishment was not possible). In other models, the inclusion of antisocial punishment has been shown to undermine the ability of punishment to promote cooperation. Thus we examine the effect of allowing coordinated antisocial punishment on the emergence of cooperation. Our results suggest that punishment confers no competitive advantage when it is a strategy available to both cooperators and defectors. While coordinated prosocial punishers can invade a population of non-punishing defectors, they cannot invade a population of coordinated antisocial punishers. These results question the conclusion that coordinated punishment played a central role in the evolution of human cooperation, and highlight the importance of not arbitrarily excluding antisocial punishment strategies from evolutionary models.

Research Gate · May 2014, 20p.

By Angela Diane Crocker and Stephen Allister Peté

Judicial corporal punishment is still widely used in many countries in Africa. Even those African countries which have abolished the practice have only done so relatively recently, following protracted struggles in the courts. In Britain, which was one of the major colonial powers in Africa, calls for a return to judicial corporal punishment continue to be made, more than half a century after its abolition in that country. The idea that the lash is the only form of punishment that is able to curb rampant criminality continues to exert a powerful hold over the public imagination in both Britain and its ex-colonies in Africa. This article focuses on both Britain and its former colonies in Africa and seeks to address the question as to why a method of punishment which, in theory, was becoming outmoded during the nineteenth century, continues to be used in certain countries in Africa and, even where it is not used, took an inordinately long time to be abolished. The extraordinary and continuing popularity of the idea of judicial corporal punishment, in the African context is examined and explained.

OBITER 2007, 20p.

By Victor Bailey

The history of English criminal justice has been my research focus for over forty years, yet a documentary history of the ‘long’ nineteenth century, covering the years from 1776 to 1914, was always likely to be a mite challenging for a single author. It is at such times that one is reminded of the value of the community of historians, whose scholarship is invaluable when ‘quick study’ is required. I have relied heavily on the research of historians Doug Hay and John Beattie, as well as the scholarship of those they so effectively supervised: Simon Devereaux, Allyson May, and Greg Smith. By the same token, this four-volume edifice rests heavily on the research of Peter King, Randy McGowen, David Philips, Marty Wiener, Sean McConville, and Vic Gatrell. Finally, we are all in debt to Robert Shoemaker, Tim Hitchcock, and Clive Emsley for their scholarly direction of the Old Bailey Proceedings Online.

Taylor & Francis Group, Volume II, Justice, Mercy, Death, 2022, 41p.

By Ganga Shreedhar, Alessandro Tavoni, and Carmen Marchiori

With the aid of a lab experiment, we explored how imperfect monitoring and punishment networks impact appropriation, punishment, and beliefs in a common-pool resource appropriation dilemma. We examined the differences between a complete network—with perfect monitoring and punishment, in which everyone can observe and punish everyone else—and two imperfect networks that systematically reduced the number of subjects who could monitor and punish others: the directed and undirected circle networks. We found that free riders were punished in all treatments, but network topology affected the type of punishment. The undirected circle induced more severe and prosocial punishment compared to the other two networks. Both imperfect networks were more efficient overall, as the larger punishment capacity available in the complete network elicited a higher amount of punishment.

EnvironmentandDevelopmentEconomics(2019),1–29

By Ole Martin Moen & Aksel Braanen Sterri

Corporal punishment is punishment by means of infliction of bodily pain. In this chapter we discuss the ethical permissibility of corporal punishment, focusing on the method of judicial caning as this is carried out in Singapore. We compare the overall effects of this type of corporal punishment to incarceration in three domains: the welfare of individual convicts (Section 1), fairness between different categories of convicts (Section 2), and the welfare of society at large (Section 3). We conclude that although there are downsides to corporal punishment that should be taken very seriously, this method of punishment also has a number of upsides. We are mistaken, moreover, if we assume that it is more humane to inflict psychological pain over long stretches of time (as in the case of incarceration) than to inflict intense bodily pain over a very short period of time (as in the case of corporal punishment).

The Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Punishment, 2024, 25p.

By Simeon Chavel

Many works collected in the Hebrew Bible present Israel’s god as one who punishes children because of their parents, and entire generations because of their predecessors. Intergenerational punishment is an idea about how Yahweh holds people of Israel and Judea to account for certain offenses, be it the nation as a whole, specific groups within the nation, or individuals.1 Most writings that engage the idea present it positively, as a feature of godly greatness. Two later texts, though, present Judeans criticizing it and Yahweh responding to the criticism, at Jer 31 and Ezek 18. How did the idea that Yahweh behaves this way originate? Why did most writers see it as positive? How did some come to challenge it? And why, for over two thousand years, has it been so misunder- stood – to the persistent denigration of Jews and Judaism?

The Pentateuch and Its Readers, Ed. Joel S. Baden and Jeffrey Stackert, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2023, pp. 285–306

By Kieran Edmond James

Based on my extensive interviews with ex-football star Henry Dyer, I explain and contextualise the following events so as to illustrate how discipline and punishment worked in the Western Fiji towns from 1985 up until the present: the imprisonment of Dyer and his escape and recapture during the military coup year of 1987; Dyer’s removal from the captaincy and the Fiji team to play Australia in November 1988, due to his alleged involvement in criminal activities; Dyer jumping the stadium fence to avoid police before a national-league game at Lautoka; and Dyer’s recent release from court with the case dismissed. Also covered is: an Indigenous villager’s theft of money from a Chinese gangster. The main findings are as follows: Even as a criminal, you are still marked as an Indigenous Fijian, via the non-mechanical approach, and hence are always an insider and subject to rehabilitation logic. Loopholes are retained, in the interests of fraternity and the awareness that, in Western Fiji, remote and thinly-populated as it is, people tend to know each other and so justice should be specifically-tailored. The strong Christian foundation of culture means that ex-prisoners will often couch their quest narratives in terms of suffering and redemption.

Imprisonment and Punishment in Fiji and the Links to Narrative Styles and Christian Culture, 18p.

By Julianna M. Lynch, Jonathan D. Lane, Colleen M. BerryessaI, Joshua RottmanI

Evidence of perpetrators’ biological or situational circumstances has been increasingly brought to bear in courtrooms. Yet, research findings are mixed as to whether this informa- tion influences folk evaluations of perpetrators’ dispositions, and subsequently, evaluations of their deserved punishments. Previous research has not clearly dissociated the effects of information about perpetrators’ genetic endowment versus their environmental circum- stances. Additionally, most research has focused exclusively on violations involving extreme physical harm, often using mock capital sentences cases as examples. To address these gaps in the literature, we employed a “switched-at-birth” paradigm to investigate whether positive or negative information about perpetrators’ genetic or environmental backgrounds influence evaluations of a perpetrator’s mental states, character, and deserved punishment. Across three studies, we varied whether the transgression involved direct harm, an impure act that caused no harm, or a case of moral luck. The results indicate that negative genetic and environmental backgrounds influenced participants’ evaluations of perpetrators’ inten- tions, free will, and character, but did not influence participants’ punishment decisions. Overall, these results replicate and extend existing findings suggesting that perpetrators’ supposed extenuating circumstances may not mitigate the punishment that others assign to them.

PLoS ONE 14(10): e0224093. 2019, 20p.

By ESPEN WALDERHAUG

he government’s proposal, Drug policy reform – from punishment to help, means that society’s reaction to illicit drugs for personal use will be transferred from the justice sector to the health sector (1). Today, the use and possession of narcotics is penalised with fines and up to six months’ imprisonment or a decision not to bring criminal charges followed by monitoring and drugs testing. This will change if the government gets its way. The police will continue to focus on use and possession, but if you are caught with small amounts of narcotics, this will instead result in a compulsory meeting with the municipal drugs counselling services. Selling drugs will continue to be criminally prosecuted as it is today. The same applies to the storage of large quantities of narcotics, production and import as well as driving under the influence.

The Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association 2020, 3p.

By Sandy Xie, Colleen M. Berryessa, and Farah Focquaert

In 1972, Cecil Clayton suffered a serious accident during which a piece of wood shot into his head and dislodged bone shards that pierced his brain, leading to around 20 percent of his frontal lobe being surgically removed. After the removal, Clayton, who had previously been a loving husband, father, and preacher, transformed into an aggressive alcoholic whose wife divorced him. Clayton spent the next twenty years after his accident trying to get psychiatric help, suffering from extreme depression, violent episodes, anxiety, and hallucinations. Eventually, Clayton killed a sheriff’s deputy who responded to a domestic violence call. The deputy had not even left his car when Clayton shot him point blank. Clayton did not appear to understand the wrongness of his actions, even asking a friend who was with him at the time if he should shoot other officers that came to arrest him, to which his friend answered no.

In M. Altman (Ed.), Cham, Switzerland: The Palgrave Handbook on the Philosophy of Punishment. London, UK: Palgrave MacMillan., 38p.

By Rajeev K. Goel and Umad Mazhar

Capital punishment is the final frontier in enforcement. Given that there is no remediation in case there is an error in prosecution and/or conviction (and due to related moral issues), many nations do not have capital punishment, have eliminated this extreme form of punishment or have it on paper and have seldom used it (abolitionists in practice). The presence of death penalty, a legal instrument of crime deterrence, remains a politically charged issue worldwide.1 Typically, capital punishment is reserved for violent crimes, usually involving the death of the victims. However, in some cases, capital punishments are also handed out for other crimes. Even in nations where there is no capital punishment or where there is such punishment for specific crimes, the demonstration effect or learning on part of lawmakers might embolden them to consider suc

Wiley, 2018, 25p.

By JOAN E. DURRANT

Objective: In 1979, Sweden became the first nation to explicitly prohibit all forms of corporal punishment of children by all caretakers in an effort to: (1) alter public attitudes toward this practice; (2) increase early identification of children at risk for abuse; and (3) promote earlier and more supportive intervention to families. The aim of this study was to examine trends over recent decades in these areas to assess the degree to which these goals have been met. Method: Primary data were collected from official Swedish sources for the following variables: public support for corporal punishment, reporting of child physical assault, child abuse mortality, prosecution rates, and intervention by the social authorities. Lines of best fit were generated and Cox and Stuart tests for trend were conducted. Results: Public support for corporal punishment has declined, identification of children at risk has increased, child abuse mortality is rare, prosecution rates have remained steady, and social service intervention has become increasingly supportive and preventive. Conclusions: The Swedish ban has been highly successful in accomplishing its goals.

Child Abuse & Neglect, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 435–448, 1999