By Susan McNeeley

Prior research found routine activities in prison affect risk of victimization among incarcerated people. However, most of this work is cross-sectional in nature and does not establish temporal order between the expected risk factors and victimization. To address this gap, the current study examines a snapshot population of individuals incarcerated in Minnesota state prisons on January 1, 2021, following them forward to examine violent victimization during a six-month follow-up period. Results of Cox regression models and negative binomial models showed several inprison activities (e.g., treatment, work, visitation, misconduct) and individual characteristics (e.g., race, age, mental and physical health) were related to risk of victimization and/or the number of violent incidents experienced. In addition, race-specific models showed the specific predictors of victimization vary across racial groups. The results confirm the utility of lifestyleroutine activities theory as a framework for understanding victimization in prisons.

St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2022. 37p.

By Scott H. Decker and David C. Pyrooz

There is considerable speculation that prisons are a breeding ground for radicalization. These concerns take on added significance in the era of mass incarceration in the United States, where 1.5 million people are held in state or federal prisons and around 600,000 people are released from prison annually. Prior research relies primarily on the speculation of prison officials, media representations, and/or cross-sectional designs to understand the imprisonment-extremism nexus. We develop a tripartite theoretical model to examine continuity and change in activism and radicalism intentions upon leaving prison. We test these models using data from a large probability sample of prisoners (N = 802) in Texas interviewed in the week preceding their release from prison and then re-interviewed 10 months later using a validated scale of activism and radicalism intentions. We arrive at three primary conclusions. First, levels of activism decline upon reentry to the community (d = -0.30, p < .01), while levels of radicalism largely remain unchanged (d = -0.08, p = .28). What is learned and practiced in prison appears to quickly lose its vitality on the street. Second, salient groups and organizations fell in importance after leaving prison, including country, race/ethnicity, and religion, suggesting former prisoners are occupied by other endeavors. Finally, while we identify few correlates of changes in extremist intentions, higher levels of legal cynicism in prison were associated with increases in both activism and radicalism intentions after release from prison. Efforts designed to improve legal orientations could lessen intentions to support non-violent and violent extremist actions. These results point to an imprisonment-extremism nexus that is diminished largely by the realities of prisoner reentry.

PLoS ONE 15(11):. 2020. e0242910. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0242910

By The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General

(U) Objective (U) The objective of this audit was to review the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) policies, procedures, and practices for monitoring terrorist inmates and the BOP’s efforts to prevent further radicalization within its inmate population. (U) Results in Brief (U) As of March 2018, the BOP had more than 500 incarcerated inmates with a known nexus to domestic or international terrorism (terrorist inmates). BOP policy requires that all social communications of high-risk inmates, including terrorist inmates, are monitored. However, we found that the BOP had not identified all terrorist inmates in its custody and thus did not adequately monitor their communications. Although the BOP, in 2005, began to provide the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) with a list of soon to be released inmates, we found BOP did not take appropriate steps to ensure that information about all formerly incarcerated terrorists was provided to the FBI. In addition, we found that terrorist inmates who had been placed under a Special Administrative Measure (SAM) requiring 100-percent live communication monitoring by the sponsoring law enforcement agency, which for most terrorist inmates is the FBI, were not being monitored effectively because of the technological limitations of the BOP’s monitoring capabilities. Further, between January 2015 and December 2017, we found that the BOP had not monitored or only partially monitored thousands of communications of high-risk inmates, including terrorist inmates not under a SAM directive; did not review thousands of inmate emails, some of which contained potentially concerning language; and permitted terrorist inmates to communicate with unknown or un-vetted contacts. (U) Recommendations (U) We make 19 recommendations to improve the BOP’s accounting for, monitoring of, and security over terrorist inmates

Washington, DC: The Department, 2020. 67p.

Johan Axelsson, Leni Eriksson & Lina Grip

The literature on terrorism and the rehabilitation of terrorists is growing continuously, but primary studies of high quality are still scarce. In many countries, the number of clients convicted of terrorist offences is increasing. As such, prison and probation services serve as important actors in the prevention of recidivism and radicalisation. This scoping review identifies viable management and treatment methods and approaches to (a) prevent violent extremism in prison and probation services, and (b) manage violent extremist clients in prison and probation services. The findings of twentyseven primary studies highlight the importance of so-called soft approaches by building trust and resilience among violent extremist clients, and facilitating their prosocial engagement. Strength-based models could be considered as an alternative to the predominant risk-oriented practices in prison and probation services.

Terrorism And Political Violence. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2023.2169144, 2023.

By Beverly Powis, Louise Dixon and Jessica Woodhams

Study aims This exploratory qualitative study explores the extent and nature of prisoner radicalisation in three high security prisons in England, how the establishments were managing extremist prisoners and responding to the risk of radicalisation. Approach and interpreting findings Interviews were conducted, between January 2014 and January 2015, with 83 male prisoners and 73 staff from a range of disciplines, including, prison wing officers, security staff, psychologists, offender supervisors and chaplains across the three establishments. Interview material was analysed using thematic analysis. The findings should be viewed with a degree of caution as the views presented may not be representative of all prisoners or staff. Key findings While the study aimed to examine all forms of extremism, only Islamist extremism was reported by respondents, as this was considered to be the most prevalent extremist ideology in prisons at the time of the fieldwork. This study found that, despite their small number, those convicted of Islamist extremist offences had a disproportionately disruptive influence in the prisons, exerting power and influence over other prisoners. However, not all were interested in pursuing an Islamist extremism agenda. They tended to either be motivated by an extremism agenda or interested in orchestrating anti-establishment and criminal activities of what was frequently described as a ‘prison gang’. Those who were motivated by extremism were making attempts to radicalise others. While some prisoners outside of these groups were reported to express sympathies with Islamist extremism, there was little suggestion they would act upon this when released. Prisoners who were considered to be more susceptible to Islamist radicalisation were those thought to be most vulnerable within prison, who had the strongest sense of loss, loneliness, and alienation. They also tended to have grievances against society and the prison system, channelling their anger and frustration into extremism

Ministry of Justice Analytical Series 202. London: Ministry of Justice, 2021. 35p.

By Lily Robin, Arielle Jackson, and Erica Henderson

This report summarizes findings from the Urban Institute’s national scan of juvenile probation policies and practices which involved a scan of literature and nationwide surveys of state and local juvenile probation agencies. The goal of the scan was to understand and document variation in probation policy and practice within and across states and to offer recommendations and considerations for key stakeholders in juvenile probation policy and practice.

The findings span different parts of juvenile probation, including the purpose of juvenile probation, diversion, disposition, supervision, fines and fees and restitution, data collection and sharing, partnerships, and impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings indicate much variation in juvenile probation policies and practices across states, within regions, and within states. There also seems to be disagreement between state and local juvenile probation agencies regarding how much oversight states have of different juvenile probation policies.

Our findings suggest that delays implementing policies and pilot programs and resource constraints at the state and local levels could be driving variation and disagreement within states. This variation limits understanding of local policies and practices at the state level. This inhibits wide use of evidence-informed policies and practices in juvenile probation; it also inhibits states’ ability to implement and oversee policies at the local level and to provide localities the resources they need. Based on these findings, we offer considerations for federal, state, and local stakeholders seeking to improve juvenile probation policy and practice.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2023. 63p.

By Ashley Nellis, Ph.D. and Liz Komar

In 2018, Congress passed and then-President Donald Trump signed into law the bipartisan First Step Act, a sweeping criminal justice reform bill designed to promote rehabilitation, lower recidivism, and reduce excessive sentences in the federal prison system. Lawmakers and advocates across both political parties supported the bill as a necessary step to address some of the punitive excesses of the 1980s and 1990s.

The First Step Act includes a range of sentencing reforms which made the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 retroactive,I enhanced judicial discretion, created earned time credits, increased good time credits, reduced certain mandatory minimum sentences, and expanded the safety valve that allows persons with minor prior convictions to serve less time than previously mandated.

The First Step Act also seeks to expand opportunities for people in federal prisons to participate in rehabilitative programming to support their success after release. The law aims to produce lower odds of recidivism by incentivizing incarcerated individuals to engage in rigorous, evidence-based rehabilitation and education programming. In exchange and based on a favorable assessment of risk to the community, they may earn an earlier opportunity for release to community corrections.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) reports promising results thus far. The recidivism rate among people who have benefitted from the law is considerably lower than those who were released from prison without benefit of the law. Among the nearly 30,000 individuals whose release has been expedited by the First Step Act, nearly nine in every 10 have not been rearrested or reincarcerated. This 12% recidivism rate lies in stark contrast to the more typical 45% recidivism rate among people released from federal prison.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2023. 9p.

By Tammy Ayres, Ruth Hatcher and Emma Palmer

The Drug Recovery Prison (DRP) at HMP Holme House began in 2017 as a three-year pilot, jointly funded by NHS England (NHSE) and MOJ/HMPPS. The DRP aimed to address the supply of and demand for alcohol and illegal substances, improve treatment outcomes, and support ongoing recovery. The DRP process evaluation, jointly commissioned by MOJ and NHSE, aimed to understand how the pilot had been implemented, providing evidence on the roll out and capturing the perceptions and experiences of staff and prisoners.

Ministry of Justice Analytical Series, 2023. London: Ministry of Justice, 2023. 107p.

By Criminal Justice Testing and Evaluation Consortium

This technology brief is the third document in a four-part series (Figure 1) on technologies to support the monitoring and supervision of individuals on pretrial release, probation, and parole (i.e., community supervision). The goal of this series is to offer foundational insights from use cases, examine the challenges of community supervision, highlight example products, and discuss the future of select technologies and their implications for community supervision. This brief highlights technologies and solutions used to monitor alcohol and drug use for persons on community supervision.

CJTEC Retrieved October, 2023.

By Susan McNeeley, Valerie Clark and Grant Duwe

Individuals released from prison have an elevated risk of premature death, especially during the first few weeks after release. Furthermore, these consequences of incarceration may be exacerbated by racial and ethnic disparities. This study examined three types of post-release mortality – all-cause mortality, natural deaths, and unnatural deaths which include accidents, suicides, and homicides – among individuals released from Minnesota state prisons in order to identify characteristics and experiences that place individuals at risk. In addition, we conducted race-specific models examining these types of mortality among White, Black, and Native American releasees. The results of Cox regression models showed, first, that several personal characteristics were related to risk of death. Black, Asian, and Latino people had lower risk of mortality than White people, while Native American people had higher risk. Those affiliated with security threat groups (STG) had higher risk of death, as did those with more mental and physical health diagnoses and those with higher body mass index (BMI). Second, several aspects of criminal history and incarceration were related to post-release mortality. Sex offenders had lower risk of death, while those incarcerated for driving while intoxicated (DWI) had higher risk. Prison visitation reduced the risk of mortality. Risk of death was higher among those with more prior prison admissions, those incarcerated for supervised release revocations, and those with more discipline convictions – but was lower when individuals were incarcerated for longer periods of time. Third, the circumstances of release were related to risk of death. Individuals released to the Twin Cities Metropolitan area had higher risk of mortality, while those released to community programs had lower risk. Finally, the results also showed that, while many risk or protective factors appeared to be universal, some race-specific risk factors do exist.

St. Paul, Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2023. 43p.

By Susan McNeeley and Doyun Koo

Prior research on violent victimization in prison suggests noncitizens may be less likely to experience violence while incarcerated. In an attempt to better understand this relationship, this study examined whether citizenship status predicts risk among a subsample of foreign-born incarcerated people. In addition, we modeled violent victimization separately for foreign-born and native-born individuals to identify any differences in risk factors between groups. We tested these relationships using a sample of 7,326 individuals incarcerated in Minnesota state prisons. The results of Cox regression models showed foreign-born citizens and foreign-born noncitizens had similar risk for violent prison victimization. We also found that some risk factors for victimization (age, physical health, MnSTARR 2.0 risk level, and idle status) differed across native-born and foreign-born incarcerated people.

St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2023. 27p.

By Annie Harper, Callie Ginapp, Tommaso Bardelli, Alyssa Grimshaw & Marissa Justen & Alaa Mohamedali & Isaiah Thomas & Lisa Puglisi

People involved with the criminal justice system in the United States are disproportionately low-income and indebted. The experience of incarceration intensifies financial hardship, including through worsening debt. Little is known about how people who are incarcerated and their families are impacted by debt and how it affects their reentry experience. We conducted a scoping review to identify what is known about the debt burden on those who have been incarcerated and their families and how this impacts their lives. We searched 14 databases from 1990 to 2019 for all original research addressing financial debt held by those incarcerated in the United States, and screened articles for relevance and extracted data from pertinent studies. These 31 studies selected for inclusion showed that this population is heavily burdened by debt that was accumulated in three general categories: debt directly from criminal justice involvement such as LFOs, pre-existing debt that compounded during incarceration, and debts accrued during reentry for everyday survival. Debt was generally shown to have a negative effect on financial well-being, reentry, family structure, and mental health. Debts from LFOs and child support are very common among the justice-involved population and are largely unpayable. Other forms of debt likely to burden this population remain largely understudied. Extensive reform is necessary to lessen the burden of debt on the criminal justice population in order to improve reentry outcomes and quality of life.

American Journal of Criminal Justice (2021) 46:250–278

By The United States Sentencing Commission

This report updates and expands upon the Commission's 2012 Report to the Congress: Federal Child Pornography Offenses. In this report, the Commission provides data from fiscal year 2019 regarding:

• the content of the offender’s child pornography collection and nature of the offender’s collecting behavior;

• the offender’s degree of involvement with other offenders, particularly in an internet community devoted to child pornography and child sexual exploitation; and

• the offender’s engagement in sexually abusive or exploitative conduct in addition to the child pornography offense.

The report also examines the evolution of technology since the 2012 Child Pornography Report its continued impact on offender conduct and the widespread applicability of sentencing enhancements. Lastly, it provides a recidivism analysis of non-production offenders.

Washington, DC: USSC, 2021. 94p.

By Wendy Sawyer and Peter Wagner

Can it really be true that most people in jail are legally innocent? How much of mass incarceration is a result of the war on drugs, or the profit motives of private prisons? How has the COVID-19 pandemic changed decisions about how people are punished when they break the law? These essential questions are harder to answer than you might expect. The various government agencies involved in the criminal legal system collect a lot of data, but very little is designed to help policymakers or the public understand what’s going on. As public support for criminal justice reform continues to build — and as the pandemic raises the stakes higher — it’s more important than ever that we get the facts straight and understand the big picture. Further complicating matters is the fact that the U.S. doesn’t have one “criminal justice system;” instead, we have thousands of federal, state, local, and tribal systems. Together, these systems hold almost 2 million people in 1,566 state prisons, 102 federal prisons, 2,850 local jails, 1,510 juvenile correctional facilities, 186 immigration detention facilities, and 82 Indian country jails, as well as in military prisons, civil commitment centers, state psychiatric hospitals, and prisons in the U.S. territories. This report offers some much-needed clarity by piecing together the data about this country’s disparate systems of confinement. It provides a detailed look at where and why people are locked up in the U.S., and dispels some modern myths to focus attention on the real drivers of mass incarceration and overlooked issues that call for reform.

Easthampton, MA: Prison Policy Initiative, 2022. 58p.

By Roger Grimshaw

Across the UK, an individual can find themselves detained, with no clear sense of when they might be released, under a number of different powers, laws and regulations. In the case of criminal justice detention, indeterminate detention takes three main forms. An unconvicted individual can be remanded in prison while awaiting trial. Given the current backlog of cases in the criminal courts, an individual can be left languishing in prison awaiting trial for months, in some cases years. Life imprisonment – mandatory in the case of a murder conviction – is the second form of indeterminate criminal justice detention. An individual subject to a life sentence has to serve a minimum period in custody (the so-called ‘tariff’) before they can be considered for release. Ongoing detention at the end of the tariff period is common. On release, a life sentence prisoner is subject to lifelong supervision, with recall to prison at any point a real possibility. The third form of indeterminate criminal justice detention are the three life sentence-like sentences: in England and Wales, the imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentence; in Northern Ireland, the indeterminate custodial sentence (ICS); and in Scotland, the order for lifelong restriction (OLR). The IPP, ICS and OLR sentences work in a way similar to the life sentence: an indeterminate period in custody, followed by ongoing supervision on release in the community, if the prisoner manages to secure release. They can, though, be imposed for a far wider range of offences than is allowed for by the relatively narrow set of offences in the case of a life sentence. The subject of this briefing is the IPP, ICS and OLR sentences. The main conclusion it draws relates to the question of whether such sentences should be considered a form of psychological torture. With the failed abolition of the IPP sentences in England and Wales, and the ongoing operation of the ICS and OLR sentences in Northern Ireland and Scotland, the torturous and unfair aspects of these indeterminate sentences are likely to become ever more apparent.

London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies , 2023. 8p.

By Helen Taylor and Lorana Bartels

This project scoped whether application software for a mobile or similar device (an app) that supports Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on bail or parole is regarded as appropriate, useful and beneficial within the ACT Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander communities involved with the justice system. To do this, the scoping project sought the views and advice of participants in the Galambany Circle Sentencing Court (Galambany) (i.e. the potential end-users of such an app), as well as the views of key stakeholders across several organisations that engage with Galambany and the justice system more generally, to determine whether to recommend to the ACT Government that such an app be developed. The aims of this research project were to: • ascertain whether an app that supports people on bail or parole is a priority for, and is of value to, Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander communities in the ACT that engage with Galambany; and • if so, gain input from Galambany participants (the potential end-users) and Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander and other professional stakeholders, who work in the ACT criminal justice system, on what app features would be useful in supporting compliance with bail and parole conditions, to inform the potential development of an app. The first section examines criminal justice data on the issues of bail, remand, parole and Indigenous incarceration. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), indicate that, in the March 2022 quarter, 40% of Indigenous adults in custody at the Alexander Maconochie Centre (AMC) were unsentenced. In addition, 27% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in prison in the ACT on 30 June 2021 had a justice procedure offence, which includes breach of bail or parole, as their most serious offence; this was much higher than for non-Indigenous prisoners in the ACT (23%) or both cohorts nationally (10% and 7% respectively) (ABS, 2021a). This highlights the need for measures that help Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people comply with their bail, parole and other justice orders, in order to reduce Indigenous incarceration. The second section examines the increasing availability and use of mobile technology for behaviour change. Such technological advances have created opportunities within the justice context and the past decade has seen the development and use of mobile technology in the criminal justice system. This section outlines the theoretical framework in which the research is situated, which draws on behavioural economics, especially nudge theory. The behavioural economics literature in general, and that on nudges in particular, is relevant for the design of criminal justice apps, as it provides a number of (non-coercive) influences on behaviour and thinking that can be used to improve justice outcomes. The third section outlines the methodology and ethics approval process undertaken for this research. The project adopted a mixed-methods approach, involving the use of semi- structured interviews, focus groups and analyses of secondary source material. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with two different stakeholder groups: professional stakeholders (Group 1) and Galambany clients, as people with lived experience of bail and/or parole (Group 2). In the fourth section, we thematically analyse responses from the semi-structured interviews and focus groups with Group 1 and Group 2 participants. Participants highlighted a range of challenges that make complying with bail and parole conditions harder, including the lack of stable housing, access to transport and other practical issues related to reporting requirements, trouble keeping track of appointments and a lack of structure in their daily lives. Participants also identified what they would consider to be the most useful features of a mobile app designed to help them comply with bail and/or parole conditions. These included an appointment reminder function, a list of useful information and contacts, and reminders of trigger times (those times during the day or week in which a person is particularly vulnerable). Nearly all of the people we spoke to (34 out of 35; 97%), supported the idea of an app to help people comply with their bail and/or parole conditions. However, a number of concerns were raised by participants, in particular how the data from an app would or could be used and whether the app would be able to track a person’s whereabouts. These concerns were raised by both Group 1 and Group 2 participants. The report concludes with the recommendation that a mobile app to help support people on bail and/or parole be developed and piloted, but that serious consideration regarding security and privacy concerns needs to be taken into account, in the development of any such app. The proposed app should be developed solely for the purpose of helping to support users’ success and should not be used as a compliance tool. It is further recommended that the app be trialled among a small cohort in the first instance, followed by an rigorous independent evaluation, to inform whether it is working as intended and is of utility to people on bail or parole.

Canberra: ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods, 2022. 53p.

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

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

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

London: Prison Reform Trust, 2023. 27p.

By Essex County Civilian Task Force (NJ)

In 2019, the New Jersey Legislature enacted the Isolated Confinement Restriction Act (“ICRA”), significantly limiting isolated confinement in jails and prisons throughout the state. The impetus for the legislation was twofold: a responsive effort to address citizen complaints about the misuse of isolated confinement, as well as a proactive effort by legislators to mitigate the adverse impacts of isolated confinement. As part of its mandate to oversee the policies and practices of the ECCF and in response to concerns raised and explored at public meetings, the SHU Subcommittee has conducted an extensive review of the use of isolated confinement at the facility. The Subcommittee addressed four related issues: (1) whether the ECCF is complying with ICRA; (2) if not, what conditions prevent full compliance; (3) what recommendations the Task Force might make to alter the conditions preventing compliance; and (4) what steps ECCF administrators could undertake to improve operations and inmate conditions in the SHU. The answers remain incomplete. Although the ECCF has made substantial efforts to comply with ICRA, we cannot conclude that the facility complies entirely with ICRA’s prohibitions against excessive time in “isolated confinement”1 and the “isolated confinement” of vulnerable populations2. One of

Newark, NJ: Essex County Civilian Task Force, 2023. 478p.

By Britt Skaathun ,Francesca Maviglia,Anh Vo,Allison McBride,Sarah Seymour,Sebastian Mendez,Gregg Gonsalves,Leo Beletsky

Policing, corrections, and other carceral institutions are under scrutiny for driving health harms, while receiving disproportionate resources at the expense of prevention and other services. Amidst renewed interest in structural determinants of health, roles of race and class in shaping government investment priorities are poorly understood.

Methods: Based on the Social Conflict Model, we assessed relationships between city racial/ economic profiles measured by the Index of Concentration at the Extremes (ICE) and budgetary priorities measured by the novel Carceral Resource Index (CRI), contrasting investments in carceral systems with funding for health and social support across the 50 most populous cities in the United States (U.S.). Bivariate correlations, and unadjusted and adjusted polynomial regression models were used to assess the relationship between budgetary investments and population concentration at extremes in terms of income, racial/ethnic composition, and education, controlling for other demographic characteristics.

Results: In our sample, median CRI was -0.59 (IQR -0.64, -0.45), with only seven cities exhibiting positive CRI values. This indicates that most large U.S. cities spend more on carceral systems than on health and supportive services, combined. Adjusted polynomial models showed a convex relationship between the CRI and ICE-Education, and ICE-Race(White vs. Black)+Income, with quadratic terms that were positive and significant at p<0.05. After controlling for age, the strongest prioritization of carceral systems was observed in cities where the proportion of low-income Black residents approached or exceeded that of high-income white residents.

Conclusions: Municipal prioritization of carceral investments over health and social support is pervasive in the U.S and exacerbated by racial and economic disparities. The CRI offers new opportunities to understand the role of government investments as a structural determinant of health and safety. Longitudinal research is warranted to examine the relationship between budget priorities, structural racism, and health outcomes.

PLOS ONE 17(12): 2022.

Edited by Rui Abrunhosa Gonçalves

This book provides international perspectives on corrections, correctional treatment, and penitentiary laws. Although its focus is on African and South American countries, the information provided can be easily expanded to North America and Europe. The chapters present legal frameworks and applied research on prisons and their potential to deter crime and reduce recidivism rates. The book puts the human rights agenda at the forefront and is a useful resource for those who work in corrections, including prison, education, and probation officers.

London: InTechOpen, 2023. 146p.