By Marcelo F. Aebi and Yuji Z. Hashimoto

The main findings of the SPACE II 2021 report are presented in a separate booklet (Probation and Prisons in Europe, 2021: Key Findings of the SPACE reports), which includes analyses of the data collected and comparisons with the main results of the SPACE I 2021 report on prison populations. This section only provides a snapshot of the situation regarding the use probation in Europe. ➢ The participation rate in the SPACE II 2021 Survey was satisfactory: 48 out of the 52 countries or administrative entities of the 47 Council of Europe Member States answered the questionnaire. ➢ Probation agencies are usually placed under the authority of the National Ministry of Justice. In ten countries/administrative entities, the Ministry of Justice is neither responsible nor co-responsible for their functioning. ➢ Probation agencies are independent from the Prison Administrations in 26 countries/administrative entities, while in 15 there is a shared prison and probation administration. ➢ 25 of the 48 probation agencies which provided data use the person as the counting unit. Seven probation agencies do not use the person as the counting unit for neither stock nor flow, two do not use the person for flow and 12 use it partially, most often only for the total stock and the total flow. ➢ Stock of probationers: On 31 January 2021, there were 1 773 556 persons under the supervision of the 32 probation agencies that provided data on this item and use the person as the counting unit for their stock. The absolute number of persons on probation is much higher than in 2019 because the Russian Federation provided data for SPACE II 2021 but not for SPACE II 2020. ➢ Flow of entries to probation: During the year 2020, 1 860 352 were placed under the supervision of the 29 probation agencies which provided data on this item and use the person as the counting unit for their flow of entries. ➢ Flow of exits from probation: During the year 2020, 1 700 528 persons ceased to be under the supervision of the 29 probation agencies which provided data on this item and use the person as the counting unit for their flow of exits. ➢ Non-custodial sanctions and measures are seldom used as an alternative to pre-trial detention; only 14% of the probation population on 31 January 2021 corresponds to persons placed under supervision before trial in the 18 probation agencies which provided data on this item and use the person as the counting unit for their stock of probationers. ➢ On 31 January 2021, among the 28 probation agencies which provided figures on female probation clients and use the person as the counting unit, women represented 11% of the total probation population. ➢ Among the 20 probation agencies that provided figures on foreigners and use the person as the counting unit, foreigners represented 13% of the total probation population. ➢ Among the 20 probation agencies that provided figures on minors and use the person as the counting unit, minors represented 4.8% of the total probation population. ➢ Among the 27 probation agencies that provided figures on total stock and total staff and use the person as the counting unit, there are around 38 probationers for each probation staff member, but that ratio varies considerably across countries. ➢ Among the 32 probation agencies that provided figures on total staff and pre-sentence reports, there are around six (6) pre-sentence reports produced for each probation staff member across Europe. ➢ In 40 jurisdictions, probation is used for all of the major categories of criminal offences specified (against persons, against property, drug offences, road traffic offences).

Strasbourg: Council of Europe & University of Lausanne, 2022 . 149p.

By Róisín Mulgrew

The State duty to prevent preventable prisoner deaths is easy to state and substantiate. Yet prisoner death rates are increasing around the world and are often much higher than those in the community. To understand why this is happening, the findings and recommendations of the country reports of international oversight bodies and thematic reports from international rapporteurs are synthesised with contemporary rights-informed penal standards, multi-disciplinary scholarship, non-governmental organization reports and media extracts. On the basis of this knowledge, this reform-oriented article explores the impact of structural, societal and environmental factors on natural and violent prisoner deaths and how these factors operate cumulatively to create dangerous and life-threatening custodial environments. The paper makes recommendations to reaffirm and enumerate the positive obligation to protect prisoners’ lives, develop specialist standards, adopt a broader approach to prison oversight and create a specific United Nations mandate on prisoner rights.

Human Rights Law Review, 2023, 23, 1–25

Prepared by W. Grinton Berry

The Actes and Monuments (full title: Actes and Monuments of these Latter and Perillous Days, Touching Matters of the Church), popularly known as Foxe's Book of Martyrs, is a work of Protestant history and martyrology by Protestant English historian John Foxe, first published in 1563 by John Day. It includes a polemical account of the sufferings of Protestants under the Catholic Church, with particular emphasis on England and Scotland. The book was highly influential in those countries and helped shape lasting popular notions of Catholicism there. The book went through four editions in Foxe's lifetime and a number of later editions and abridgements, including some that specifically reduced the text to a Book of Martyrs. (Wikipedia)

London John Day 1563. NY. Abingdon Press. 1913. 413p.

By Nils Christie

Inflicting pain is a serious matter, often at variance with cherished values such as kindness and forgiveness. Attempts might therefore be made to hide the basic character of the activity, or to give various "scientific" reasons for inflicting pain. Such attempts are systematically described in this book, and related to social conditions. None of these attempts to cope with pain seem to be quite satisfactory. It is as if societies in their struggle with penal theories oscillate between attempts to solve an insoluble dilemma. Punishment is used less in some systems than in others. On the basis of examples from systems where pain is rarely inflicted, some general conditions for a low level of pain infliction are formulated. The standpoint is that if pain is to be applied, this should be done without a manipulative purpose and in a social form resembling that which is normal when people are in deep sorrow. Most of the material is from Scandinavia, but the book draws extensively on the crime control debate in the United Kingdom and USA.

Oxford. Martin Robertson. 1982. 117p.

Cesare Beccaria. Translation, Introduction and annotations by Graeme R. Newman and Pietro Marongiu.

Cesare Beccaria's influential treatise On Crimes and Punishments is considered a foundational work in the field of criminology. Three major themes of the Enlightenment run through the treatise: the idea that the social contract forms the moral and political basis of the work's reformist zeal; the idea that science supports a dispassionate and reasoned appeal for reforms; and the belief that progress is inextricably bound to science. All three provide the foundation for accepting Beccaria's proposals.

It is virtually impossible to ascertain which of several versions of the treatise that appeared during his lifetime best reflected Beccaria's thoughts. His use of many Enlightenment ideas also makes it difficult to interpret what he has written. While Enlightenment thinkers advocated free men and free minds, there was considerable disagreement as to how this might be achieved, except in the most general terms.

The editors have based this translation on the 1984 Francioni text, the most exhaustive critical Italian edition of Dei delitti e delle pene. This edition is the last that Beccaria personally oversaw and revised. This translation includes an outstanding opening essay by the editors and is a welcome introduction to Beccaria and the beginnings of criminology.

New Brunswick. Transaction. 2016. 191p.

By John H. Langbein

In Torture and the Law of Proof John H. Langbein explores the world of the thumbscrew and the rack, engines of torture authorized for investigating crime in European legal systems from medieval times until well into the eighteenth century. Drawing on juristic literature and legal records, Langbein's book, first published in 1977, remains the definitive account of how European legal systems became dependent on the use of torture in their routine criminal procedures, and how they eventually worked themselves free of it.

The book has recently taken on an eerie relevance as a consequence of controversial American and British interrogation practices in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. In a new introduction, Langbein contrasts the "new" law of torture with the older European law and offers some pointed lessons about the difficulty of reconciling coercion with accurate investigation. Embellished with fascinating illustrations of torture devices taken from an eighteenth-century criminal code, this crisply written account will engage all those interested in torture's remarkable grip on European legal history.

Chicago. he University of Chicago Press. 1976. 230p.

The 1970's have seen almost every aspect of parole decisionmaking come under sustained legal and political attack. Within a few years following the 1972 Morrissey decision, court rulings were handed down requiring a variety of due-process procedures for such matters as rescinding an unexecuted parole, increasing a term, granting a parole, and requiring disclosure of records. At the same time, parole boards, as principal actors in the sentencing process, were a target of political attack by legislators, leading academicians, criminal justice officials, and the public for inequities and lack of sentencing certainty produced by release decisions characterized as capricious and arbitrary. As a consequence of these pressures, legislators have taken action over the last 4 years to constrict the amount of discretion exercised by parole boards in many different areas, including decisions to parole, due-process procedures governing parole hearings and revocations, and disclosure of certain records. State legislatures have been especially concerned with the issue of sentencing. Statutes designed to modify, replace, or selectively prohibit indeterminate sentencing have dominated criminal justice legislative agendas. As 1980 closed, 12 States had passed various types of determinate sentencing laws to replace indeterminate statutes. Over the last 4 years, five States have created contract parole programs, and five passed laws establishing specific parole guidelines, in each case an effort to improve the exercise of indeterminancy. The most common response to dissatisfaction with paroling practices has been the passage of some form of mandatory sentencing. Thirty-seven States enacted this type of legislation, which prohibits indeterminate sentencing for specified categories of offenses/offenders. The trends for the near future are suggested by recent legislative history: States will continue to pass laws to limit the use of discretion by parole boards

By ACLU Smart Justice Nebraska

Fairness and freedom should not depend on how much money an individual possesses. Nebraskans who are struggling financially should have the same experience in the legal system as anyone else. Yet today, despite United States Supreme Court precedent and safeguards at the federal and state level, Nebraskans are still routinely confined simply because they lack the resources to pay fines or post bail or bond. This report reveals the findings of an intensive ACLU of Nebraska court watching project, the first of its scope in the state. ACLU staff and interns spent roughly three months in 2022 observing bail and sentencing hearings to document how recent reforms from the Nebraska Legislature — part of the nationwide movement to reform modern-day debtors’ prisons — are being implemented. What this project uncovered is a cause for concern. Observations from a combined 2,300+ bail and sentencing hearings show systemic disregard of laws meant to protect Nebraskans who are struggling financially. They also show continued reflexive practices that perpetuate a modern “debtors’ prison,” where Nebraskans are routinely confined simply because they cannot afford to post cash bail or pay fees or fines. This publication discusses the legal framework behind bail, fees and fines in Nebraska’s criminal legal system before detailing the court watching project’s findings and offering recommendations for reform. As readers progress through its pages, it is critical to remember that if the system were functioning as the Constitution and state law envision, in most cases, any person assigned cash bail or assessed a cou  

Lincoln, NE: American Civil Liberties Union - Nebraska, 2022. 36p.

By Elsa Augustine, Slissa Skog, Johanna Lacoe and Steven Raphael

Criminal justice reform has gained bipartisan support at a national level in recent years. One common reform practice is to divert some defendants from traditional criminal justice proceedings to alternative programs that provide social services or attempt to address underlying drivers of criminal justice involvement. San Francisco referred over 16,000 individuals between 2008 and 2018 through the Collaborative Courts and Pretrial Diversion programs; overall one quarter of filed criminal cases were referred to diversion. A larger share of new filings were referred to diversion in recent years as San Francisco's filing rates decreased at a faster pace than the diversion referral rate. In keeping with the general criminal justice-involved population in San Francisco, individuals referred to diversion programs were more likely to be young men of color than the average San Franciscan. People who were referred to diversion programs had longer criminal justice histories than those whose cases were not referred, but were otherwise demographically similar. Referred cases had lower conviction rates than nondiverted cases, but referred individuals had higher rates of subsequent criminal justice contact, on average. Individuals who were re-arrested after a diversion referral were typically arrested on less severe offenses than the original offenses. While this paper does not present causal estimates of the effects of diversion programs, future research will estimate the impacts of a referral to diversion on case outcomes and subsequent criminal justice contact, among other outcomes.

Los Angeles: California Policy Lab, 2020. 36p

By Aurelie Ouss and Megan T. Stevenson

Dozens of jurisdictions across the country are engaging in bail reform, but there are concerns that reducing monetary incentives will increase pretrial misconduct. We provide new evidence on this question by evaluating a prosecutor-led bail reform in Philadelphia. In February 2018, Philadelphia’s district attorney announced that his office would no longer request monetary bail for defendants charged with certain eligible offenses. This was an advisory change; bail magistrates retained final say. Using a difference-in-differences approach we find that this policy led to a 22% increase in the likelihood a defendant will be released with no monetary or supervisory conditions, but had no impact on pretrial detention. This provides a unique opportunity to evaluate the primary justification for cash bail: that it provides incentive for released defendants to appear in court. We find no evidence that cash bail or pretrial supervision has a deterrent effect on failure-to-appear or pretrial crime. We argue that one explanation is that asymmetric reputational penalties cause magistrates to set bail higher than necessary. In addition, our study provides evidence on the role of discretion within criminal justice reform. We find that discretion led to racial disparities in implementation, and diluted the impacts of the reform.

Working Paper, 2022. 59p

By Viet Nguyen

Criminal records can produce collateral consequences that affect access to employment, housing, and other outcomes. Adverse collateral consequences may be particularly acute for adults with limited professional capital and social networks. In recent years, there has been an expansion of prosecutor-led diversion programs that attempt to curb the effect of collateral consequences. However, the expansion of diversion programs may lead to net-widening if these programs simply substitute for cases that would have otherwise been dismissed. This study assesses the impact of an adult, misdemeanor diversion program on long-term recidivism outcomes and the future amount of court-imposed fees and sanctions. The misdemeanor diversion program reduced reconviction rates but produced a short-term net-widening effect by drawing in defendants whose cases would normally have been dismissed. The net-widening effects were curtailed over the longer term as the program significantly increased expungement rates. The results were driven by younger defendants. Implications of this study for theories of criminal desistance and policies around expunging criminal records are discussed.

Philadelphia: Working Paper, University of Pennsylvania, Criminology2022. 43p.

By John Irwin

Combining extensive interviews with his own experience as an inmate, John Irwin constructs a powerful and graphic description of the big-city jail. Unlike prisons, which incarcerate convicted felons, jails primarily confine arrested persons not yet charged or convicted of any serious crime. Irwin argues that jail disorients and degrades and instead of controlling the disreputable, actually increases their number by helping to indoctrinate new recruits to the rabble class. In a forceful conclusion, Irwin addresses the issue of jail reform and the matter of social control demanded by society.

Los Angeles, California University of California Press, Ltd. 1985. 160p.

By Robert Hughes

(Mr Hughes) has felt his way back into the past with passion and insight, mined an enormous mass of material and welded the results of his researches into a commanding narrative... Already widely known as an art critic, he now reveals his formidable gifts as a social htstonan "           —The New York Times

'Although The Fatal Shore is both lengthy and scholarly, it is alio fun to read One of Hughes's greatest gifts as a joumalist has always been his ability to express senous themes in accessible language. In his marvelous new history, he brings convict Australia to life both in his own words and those of its inhabitants……The idiosyncratic voices of the individual convicts he quotes imbue the narrative with the spark and savor of real life in all its chaotic, intimate detail. This kind of history is as exciting and entertaining as a good novel.” — Chicago Sun-Times

NY. Vintage. 1988. 743p.

By Ian O’Donnell

The Evidence Review of Recidivism and Policy Responses examined:

(i)  factors underpinning recidivist and prolific offending behaviour;

(ii) public policy interventions that tackle recidivism and prolific offending; and

(iii) effectiveness of these interventions and likelihood of successful transplantation to an Irish context.

The review findings concluded that:

• Suspended sentences or community service can be more effective in terms of reducing recidivism than short terms of imprisonment.

• Planned and structured early release, including parole, may reduce recidivism.

• Perception of fairness may have an impact on likelihood of recidivism. A perception of procedural unfairness can lead to alienation, resistance and noncompliance whereas a belief that one has been treated fairly may reduce the likelihood of future offending.

• There appears to be a significant treatment effect associated with cognitive behavioural interventions delivered both in community and custodial settings.

Dublin: Irish Department of Justice and Equality, 2020. 104p.

By Louise Kennefick and Eoin Guilfoyle

The Community Service Order (‘CSO’) was introduced to Ireland in 1983 as an alternative to custody in order to address concerns relating to prison overcrowding and rising crime rates. International consensus on the null to criminogenic effects of prison on reoffending rates has renewed calls for decarceration. At the same time, the evidence reviewed shows that community service results in lower recidivism rates and more positive outcomes for those who have offended and their community, when compared with short-term prison sentences. Notwithstanding these findings, the CSO remains underutilised in this jurisdiction. The purpose of this review is to evaluate research findings and knowledge from peer-reviewed journals, national and international policy materials, reports, and publications relating to community service spanning the key areas of strategic innovation, operational practice, legal structure, impact, evaluation and related developments. The recommendations contained in this report are intended to provide broad guidance to the Probation Service in the development of community service in Ireland, and to highlight key areas that require further investigation.  

Dublin: Irish Probation Service, 2022. 108p.

By Josh Pacewicz and John N. Robinson III

This article investigates a trend in the Chicago region that defies conventional accounts of municipal politics and revenue-motivated policing: since the Great Recession, higher-income black suburbs have sharply increased collection of legal fines and fees. To explain this, we draw on a study of municipal officials to develop a racialization of municipal opportunity perspective, which highlights how racial segregation in the suburbs intersects with policies that encourage competition over tax revenue to produce fiscal inequalities that fall along racial lines. Officials across the region shared views about ‘good’ revenues like sales taxes paid mostly by nonresidents, but those in black suburbs were unable to access them and instead turned to ‘bad’ revenues like legal fines to manage fiscal crises—even where residents were fairly affluent and despite the absence of discriminatory intent at the local level. These findings invite inquiry into the racially uneven consequences of seemingly colorblind municipal fiscal practices in the USA and the distributional consequences of municipal governance in other national contexts.  

Socio-Economic Review, 2021, Vol. 19, No. 3, 975–1003   

By The Fines and Fees Justice Center

Fees are imposed on people accused of offenses in criminal, juvenile, municipal, and traffic courts around the country and are used to fund all types of court- or government-related programs, activities, or functions. For decades, justice fees have been a way that states raise revenue through a system of hidden taxes.1 Among these court-imposed costs, there is a particularly pernicious category of fees that are imposed on people simply because they are involved with the justice system. Whether they are called administrative assessments, surcharges, court costs, privilege taxes, docket fees, or something else, the one thing they have in common is that they are imposed in nearly every criminal, traffic, or local ordinance case—regardless of the offense, sentence, or specific circumstance of the particular case. Most are imposed only after conviction, but others, like docket fees, are imposed even if a person is acquitted or the charges are dismissed.2 For the purposes of this report, we collectively call these fees “assessments and surcharges,” recognizing that they may go by other names in different jurisdictions. Ultimately, these are “catch all” fees that legislatures impose to collect money exclusively from people drawn into a state’s various justice systems.3  

New York: Fines and Fees Justice Center, 2022. 28p.

By Emily Cunniffe

Detention and alternatives to detention can be used for immigration-related purposes in Ireland. Detention takes place in Garda Síochána stations and prisons. Throughout 2019, 477 people were detained in Irish prisons for immigration-related reasons, reducing to 245 people in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Alternatives to detention, such as regularly reporting to a Garda station, however, tend to be used more routinely and in the first instance.
This study presents a comprehensive review of legislation and practice on detention and alternatives to detention in international protection and return
procedures in Ireland. It is based on the Irish contribution to a European Migration Network (EMN) report comparing the situation in EU Member States. Immigration detention in the EU and the UK has been the subject of considerable academic research; however, there has been comparatively less research on the situation in Ireland, particularly regarding alternatives to detention.

Dublin: The Economic and Social Research Institute. 2021. 109p.

By Hindpal Singh Bhui, Rebecca Stanbury. et al.

Black and minority ethnic (BME) groups are greatly overrepresented in the prison population: as of March 2020, 27% of prisoners were from a BME background, compared with only 13% of the general population. People who identify as ‘black’ are imprisoned at an even more disproportionate rate: they comprise only 3% of the general population but 13% of adult prisoners (UK Prison Population Statistics, 2020). HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMI Prisons) inspection reports consistently show that BME prisoners report worse experiences and outcomes than white prisoners across a wide range of indicators covering most areas of prison life. The Lammy Review (published in 2017 and subtitled ‘An independent review into the treatment of, and outcomes for, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic individuals in the Criminal Justice System’) drew extensively on HMI Prisons’ evidence and other sources to highlight under-identification of BME prisoners’ vulnerabilities, widespread feelings among BME prisoners of being treated less well than white prisoners and shortcomings in important systems of redress and internal assurance. People from a BME background have less trust in the criminal justice system than white people and worse perceptions of the system’s fairness, whether or not they have had any significant involvement in it (Lammy, 2017). The reasons for these perceptions are complex and under-researched, and result not just from criminal justice processes, but also from long-term patterns of social inequality and prejudice (Bhui, 2009). Developing a greater understanding of the perceptions of prisoners and disproportionalities in the prison system, and finding ways to address them, is an important task for those working in prisons. This thematic review is a small but original contribution to that effort. We will consider carefully how the findings might be built upon in future work. Little has been written on BME prisoners’ experiences of offender management and resettlement services, and there is very limited work on the increasingly influential concept of ‘rehabilitative culture’ and the degree to which efforts to achieve it have taken account of the specific experiences of BME prisoners.   

London: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons, 2020. 58p.

By Mia Bird, Omair Gill, Johanna Lacoe, Molly Pickard, Steven Raphael and Alissa Skog

Criminal sentences resulting in admission to a California state prison are determined by both the nature of the criminal incident as well as the criminal history of the person convicted of the offense. Cases with convictions for multiple offenses may lead to multiple sentences that are either served concurrently or consecutively. Characteristics of the offense (such as the use of a firearm) or aspects of the person’s criminal history (such as a prior conviction for a serious or violent offense) may add to the length of the base sentence through what are commonly referred to as offense or case enhancements, respectively. California’s Three-Strikes law presents a unique form of sentence enhancement that lengthens sentences based on an individual’s criminal history. Consider an individual with one prior serious or violent felony conviction (one “strike”) who is subsequently convicted of another felony. Under Three Strikes, the sentence for the subsequent felony will be double the length specified for the crime regardless of whether the new conviction is for a serious or violent offense. For an individual with two prior violent or serious felony convictions, a third conviction for a serious or violent felony would receive an indeterminate prison term of at least 25 years to life, with the exact date of release determined by the Parole Board.

Los Angeles: California Policy Lab, 2022. 45p.