By Matthew R. Durose and Leonardo Antenangeli
This report presents findings on recidivism of females from BJS’s study on persons released from state prison across 34 states in 2012. It compares females and males by their commitment offenses, recidivism patterns during the 5 years following release (from 2012 to 2017), and post-release offenses.
Washington DC: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2023. 6p.
By Lauren G. Beatty and; Tracy L. Snell
This report provides statistics on whether prisoners were required to have a work assignment, the types of work they performed while incarcerated, and reasons they chose to have a work assignment if one was not required. Findings are based on data collected in the most recent Survey of Prison Inmates, which was conducted in 2016 through face-to-face interviews with a national sample of federal and state prisoners.
Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2023. 7p.
By Matthew R. Durose and Leonardo Antenangeli
For the first time, BJS used prison records from the National Corrections Reporting Program and criminal history data to analyze various characteristics and the arrest history of persons admitted to state prison in the United States. The report presents findings on the age at first arrest, number of prior arrests, and length of criminal history of persons admitted to state prison in 2009 and 2014. It also examines the post-prison arrests during the 2 years following their release from prison.
Highlights
More than 1 in 4 persons admitted to state prison in 34 states in 2014 had been sentenced for a violent offense.
The 369,200 persons admitted to state prison in 34 states in 2014 had an estimated 4.2 million prior arrests in their criminal histories, including the arrest that resulted in their prison sentence.
In both 2009 and 2014, persons admitted to prison had a median of nine prior arrests in their criminal histories.
About 1 in 10 persons admitted in 2014 at age 24 or younger had at least one prior out-of-state arrest, and about 4 in 10 persons admitted at age 40 or older had at least one such arrest.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 2023. 36p.
By Gabriel Tarde. Translated by Rapelje Howell
From the Introduction by Piers Beirne. ”…. Tarde's interventions in criminology are among the most elusive in the discipline. One among several reasons for this is that he was an insular and often bitter antagonist who cultivated neither the allies nor the disciples required of a systematic intellectual legacy. Indeed, almost to the end of his life, Tarde was unique among French academics in that, despising the intellectual domination of the metropolis, he had no secure position within the all-powerful French university system. Tarde's self-imposed isolation has doubtless contributed to the unfortunate fact that his many intellectual, political, and organizational interventions in the formative years of criminology tend nowadays to be relegated to the status of little more than a footnote in intellectual history….”
New Brunswick. Transaction. 2001. 606p. CONTAINS MARK-UP
Edited by Shampa Bissau and Zane Zalloua
From the Introduction: “Given the events of the last decade, the topic of torture, democracy, and the human body hardly needs any justification. Yet it is its apparent obviousness that makes the topic all the more urgent. What is torture? Who defines it? What are its immediate and longterm effects on the human body, on the social body, and the poliucal bond that ties these bodies together, that is, democracy. These quesuons resist easy answers. Torture, like any other contenuous concept, has its own twisted history. In this respect, we might do well to keep in mind Friedrich Nietzsche’s observation that “only that which has no history is definable.” The challenge at hand, however, is not simply to recognize that the interpretation of torture becomes an endless task and battle of interpretive wills, something that we never define once and for all. Rather, a genealogical perspective on the subject displaces the essentialist question “What is torture?" in order to ask instead “What meaning have we given to torture?” or “What is the function and purpose of torture today?” In other words, torture as such cannot be defined in isolation but refers back to systems of belief, social networks of power, and ideological worldviews thai invariably ascribe to torture a certain meaning. The nature of that meaning is precisely what is in question in contemporary debates on torture, and the authors in this volume approach that question from diverse angles.”
Seattle. University of Washington Press. 2011. 290p.
By Douglas Hay, Peter Linebaugh, John G. Rule, E. P. Thompson and Cal Winslow
From one point of view eighteenth-century England, with its settled aristocracy and gentry, its polite arts and culture, its urbane politics of interest and influence, appears as a stable, self-assured civilization. Historians have often described it as such. From another point of view it appears very differently. Year after year new capital offenses were enacted. In the heart of London great crowds asembled at hte regular publichang- ing days, and there were riots beneath the gallows at Tyburn for the possession of the bodies of the condemned. Highwaymen beset the roads of London. Large parties of armed smugglers invested parts of the coast. The estate papers of the great some- times reveal that they were more concerned about wholesale poaching on their lands than they were about rentals or crops.
This book explores these contrasts: a settled ruling class which could only rule through forms of judicial terror; a popu- lace deferential by day but deeply insubordinate by night; a class justice which defended property through the fair form of law. Instead of general description, the authors offer a number of detailed studies. An important introductory chapter discloses the way in which the law replaced religion at the center of the ideology of England's rulers, and analyzes the astonishing adaptability of the legal system to the same pressures of ni- fluence, interest, and property which dominated political life.
NY. Pantheon. 1975. 357p. CONTAINS MARK-UP
By Philip Bean
From the Preface: In 1976 I wrote Rehabilitation and Deviance as an intended polemic against the then prevailing view that rehabilitation was the only acceptable and humanitarian means of dealing with offenders. It brought forth from those who supported rehabilitation a considerable amount of hostility but no real debate. It was almost as if rehabilitation had become a belief system which was open to challenge only from the non-believers. However, in the last f o u ryears the subject matter has movedon a great deal, and it seems now as if the time is right to produce a less polemical and wider view of the issues involved in punishment. What follows therefore i san attempt to examine the major arguments relating to punishment, to show how those arguments relate to justice, and to show how a penal system would operate if any of those argumentsdominated. There is also a concluding chapter on the punishment of children - an area neglected by traditional forms of philosophical inquiry but now assuming increasing importance. The book is written mainly from a philosophical standpoint, for ti seemed to me that criminology must draw on its philosophical foundations fi ti is to continue its development. It also seemed as fi the argument about punishment was a moral one requiring constant justification.
London. Oxford. 1981. 222p. CONTAINS MARK-UP
By Alexes Harris, Mary Pattillo, Bryan L. Sykes
Monetary sanctions, also known as legal financial obligations (LFOs), are a highly consequential yet underexplored element of the criminal legal system. LFOs consist of fines, fees, costs, restitution, surcharges, and other financial penalties that are imposed on individuals when they encounter the criminal legal system. This contact can occur via traffic citation, or misdemeanor, juvenile, and felony conviction. Although indistinguishable for the people who are required to pay them, monetary sanctions are variably understood as punishments prescribed by state statutes and local codes, restitution for victims of crime, user fees to recoup system expenses or pay for services rendered, and additional charges for failure to pay. Most monetary sanctions are sentenced on conviction or citation, but some pretrial costs—such as jail booking fees, electronic monitoring, or public defender services in the absence of a conviction—can be passed on to defendants as well.1 These fines and fees are experienced as bills and debts for those on whom they are imposed and as revenue sources for the courts, agencies, jurisdictions, and states that collect them. Although the practice of imposing fines and fees on convicted persons has existed in law since the Magna Carta in 1215, research shows that the prevalence and amounts of monetary sanctions have grown over the last five decades across federal, state, and local governments.
The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences January 2022, 8 (1) 1-33
By Joshua D. Houy
Fines and fees for legal violations finance American criminal justice systems but often at a severe cost to those incurring fines and fees. While fines and fees are a long-standing feature of the United States criminal justice system, the use of fines and fees recently captured attention of scholars in the wake of questions prompted by recent social, political, and legal developments. The central question is: What, if any, association is there between race, socioeconomic disadvantage, and county fine and fee issuance? The main hypothesis is: Fine and fee issuance of the most populous counties positively and significantly associate with race and socioeconomic disadvantage. To test this hypothesis, census data and multivariate regressions are exploited to examine associations between county fine and fee issuance, race, and socioeconomic disadvantage. Conflict-oriented theory serves to rationalize findings. A conflict theorist would expect areas with comparatively low socioeconomic status and high concentrations of certain minorities to fine relatively heavily. The findings from this study indicate confirmation that counties with a higher percentage of Black residents issue more fines and fees on a per capita basis than counties with a lower percentage of Black residents. Yet, the findings from this study fall short of indicating counties with comparatively low socioeconomic status are more likely to issue fines and fees.
Vermillion, SD: University of South Dakota, 2022. 134p.
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
By Charlie Brooker and Karen Tocque
There is a high prevalence of mental illness in probation including suicide. It is important for probation staff to recognise mental illness and to refer on to an appropriate agency once it is detected. Probation’s staff knowledge about mental illness was therefore examined across Europe in this study using a well validated measure – the Mental Health Literacy Scale (MHLS). Response rates within services and countries varied widely from 0-74%. Scores on the MHLS also varied considerably from 113-138 with an average score of 128. This overall average score is similar to other groups of the population such as university students and the clergy. There was a strong association between knowledge and confidence in working with people with a mental illness. The policy implications of these findings are discussed. It is clear there is a continuing role for CEP in this arena especially in the light of the Council of Europe’s recent White Paper on mental health in probation and in prisons.
Utrecht: Confederation of European Probation, 2023. 33p.
By Liz Komar, Ashley Nellis; and Kristen M. Budd
As the United States marks 50 years of mass incarceration, dramatic change is necessary to ensure another 50 do not follow. In no small part due to long sentences, the United States has one of the world’s highest incarceration rates, with nearly two million people in prisons and jails. The destabilizing force of mass incarceration deepens social and economic inequity – families lose not only a loved one, but income and childcare. By age 14, one in 14 children in the United States experience a parent leaving for jail or prison.3 Individuals returning to the community face profound barriers to employment and housing. Meantime the communities most impacted by crime – poor communities and communities of color – disproportionately bear the burden of incarceration’s impacts. Long sentences affect young Black men disproportionately compared to every other race and age group. Twice as many Black children as white children have experienced parental incarceration.6 Mass incarceration entrenches cycles of harm, trauma, and disinvestment and consumes funds that might support investment in interventions that empower communities and create lasting safety. In the United States, over half of people in prison are serving a decade or longer and one in seven incarcerated people are serving a life sentence.8 To end mass incarceration, the United States must dramatically shorten sentences. Capping sentences for the most serious offenses at 20 years and shifting sentences for all other offenses proportionately downward, including by decriminalizing some acts, is a vital decarceration strategy to arrive at a system that values human dignity and prioritizes racial equity. This report begins by examining the evidence in support of capping sentences at 20 years. Countries such as Germany and Norway illustrate that sentences can be far shorter without sacrificing public safety. A wealth of criminological evidence makes clear that unduly long sentences are unnecessary: people age out of crime, and even the general threat of long term imprisonment is an ineffective deterrent. m Prison Sentence
Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2023. 21p
By Justice Policy Institute
The Maryland Parole Commission (MPC) suffers from a series of systemic problems that result in the parole system’s inability to conduct its duties effectively. Safe at Home assesses how well parole practices in Maryland are aligned with other states, identifies inefficiencies in release decision-making, and provides options for changes to policy and practice informed by best practices in the field.
JPI conducted a comprehensive analysis of national parole practices and identified several policy options grounded in best practices in parole decision-making and supervision. JPI identified these policies by conducting interviews with system and field experts, attorneys, community members, and those with lived experience. These policy options are a mere blueprint that can help guide legislative and administrative actions better align the MPC with best practices across the country. Maryland decision-makers must now solicit input from a broad range of stakeholders, including community members, to operationalize these options into policy.
The MPC should adopt a structured decision-making tool that incorporates a validated needs assessment tool.
The MPC should operate under the presumption that the goals of punishment have been met at the time of initial parole eligibility. Parole release decision-making should be based solely on objective factors related to an individual’s future risk to public safety.
Supervision should be imposed selectively, with the length and conditions of supervision linked to risk. Conditions should be the least restrictive necessary to meet the goals of reentry and public safety. Resources should be frontloaded, and people should have the opportunity to shorten their parole term through good behavior.
The MPC should work closely with other criminal justice agencies and support agencies to develop a parole release plan that supports a successful reentry.
The MPC should employ transparency in parole release decision-making protocol and practices. The applicant and victim should be fully informed of the process and be allowed to participate actively.
Reasons for denial of parole must be made public, documented in writing, and appealable.
An applicant should have access to counsel and be provided all materials that the MPC will use to make its decision in advance of a hearing.
Establish standards for parole board member eligibility, including education and work/life experience.
The parole board must have transparent rules and procedures that reflect the input of all interested parties.
The parole board should adopt a robust set of performance measures that are publicly reported regularly.
JPI works with state leaders and community stakeholders to advance comprehensive policy options for consideration by the Maryland General Assembly, the Maryland Parole Commission, and other state decision-makers. Our work in Maryland is part of our broader efforts, in places like the District of Columbia, to draw attention to the harms of mass incarceration and long prison terms and support evidence-based reforms that provide options to earn release and safely return home.
Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2023. 59p.
By The HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
Most prisoners in England and Wales are adult men held in prisons, designated according to different security categories: A, B and C in closed sites, and category D prisoners in open prisons (for definitions see Appendix II). The allocation and management of men in the highest security prisons (category A) is the responsibility of a small number of prisons built to a higher security specification, making escape far more difficult. In March 2023, women and children made up less than 5% of the prison population. The small numbers meant women were held in two categories of prison: closed and open. As none of the establishments holding children and women are built to high security specification, additional measures – under the heading ‘restricted status’ – are imposed to minimise the possibility of escape and protect the public from harm. HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) first formalised the restricted status system for women and children in 2010, and although used sparingly, the system is very much informed by the category A model used for men. We believe it fails to reflect the different capabilities, motivation and resources for women and children’s escape potential, not to mention the very different environments and facilities in which they are held. Our thematic review found weaknesses in the assessment of women and children’s specific risks before deciding to apply extensive additional security measures. Oversight of restricted status prisoners, including decisions to remove additional restrictions, was undertaken by the long-term and high security prisons group director through a category A review board, which also managed category A adult male prisoners. Membership of the board did not, however, include leaders from the youth custody service (YCS) or the women’s estate, which would have added expertise and specialist knowledge and helped to deliver a more effective system, tailored to the specific risks posed by women and children. Some children had previously lived in lower security settings – including secure training centres (STCs) and secure children’s homes (SCHs) – where they had no additional security measures applied, despite meeting the restricted status criteria. When they moved to more secure settings, they were subject to far more restrictions, despite the high levels of supervision in children’s YOIs. There was no justification for such anomalies. ...
London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2023. 30p,
Edited by Larissa Tracy and Jeff Massey
From the cover: “The decapitation motif recurs in nearly all medieval and early modern genres, from saints' lives and epics to comedies and romances, yet decollation is often little regarded, save as a marker of humanity (that is, as the moment mortality exits) or inhumanity (chat is, as the moment the supernatural enters). However, as a seat of reason, wisdom, and even the soul, the head has long been affordeda special place in the body politic, even when separated from its body proper. Capitalizing upon the enduring fascination with decapitation in European culture, chis collection examines-through a variety of critical lenses-the recurring "roles/rolls" of severed human heads in the medieval and early modern imagination.”
Boston. Brill. 2012. 371p. CONTAINS MARK-UP
By Ulla V. Bondeson
From the cover: “Prisoners in Prison Societies is a study of criminal career patternsover time, demonstrating specifically how and in what ways imprisonment has a positive correlation with later recidivism. The book combines original research and a ten-year follow-up study of Swedish inmates, surveying their attitudes o neverything from political ide- ology to prison reform. The work is m u c h more than a survey of prisoner attitudes, however; it includes official statements and administrative staff assessments at the in- stitutions examined. As a result, it is many sided and avoidsthe usual specialpleading of criminological writings. Among its unique features, Prisoners in Prison Societies analyzes thirteen correctional institutions, ranging from training schools to youth and adult prisons as well as a preventive detention facility.”
New Brunswick. Transaction Publishers . 1989. 364p. CONTAINS MARK-UP
By Desmond Seward
From the Preface: “In the priory of San Marco at Florence there is a painting by an unknown artist of an execution ni the city's Piazza della Signoria. Dating from about 1500, scarcely more than folk art, the painting has a disturbing quality that for me verges on the sinister reminiscent of the irrational fear felt when reading ghost stories. Clearly the work of an eyewitness, it tells a tale ni three parts. First, three figures in long white shirts kneel before a group of dignitaries; next, each figure flanked by men in black hoods, they are led down a timber platform to a gibbet in the middle ot the Piazza; finally, they hang in chains over a great fire - the executioners are bringing faggots to make the flames burn higher. Some of the spectators in the scene look on with fascination, others run away in dismay. Such a death in so beautiful a setting seems peculiarly cruel and unnatural; but it was this painting, supplizio del Savonarola, that made me want to know more.”
London. Sutton Publishing. 2006. 332p.
By David Downes
From chapter 1. Comparative criminology is nothing new. In their broadest sense, of contrasting institutional arrangements and/or forms of conduct between whole societies, comparative studies have long been an invaluable, though under-used, resourcein historical and socio-economic studies. Travels abroad can be as influential as journeyings at home in the realm of criminal and penal policies. It is difficult otherwise to account for such phenomena as the rapid rise of the penitentiary across the continents of Europe and North America in the first few decades oft h e nineteenth century. More recently, the appeal ofvictim-related measures has, from relatively small beginnings in the United States in the late 1960s, fanned out to most liberal democratic societies around the globe. From time to time, Britain has attracted streams of enquirers into the workings of the latest penal or reformative innovation. The Borstal system in the interwar period was much admired abroad.
Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1988. 236p. CONTAINS MARK-UP
By Caitlyn Norman
Prisoners have significantly greater levels of drug use than the general population, which is related to many adverse outcomes both during and post-imprisonment. Reducing the availability of drugs in prison can lead to a reduction in the drug use of prisoners but requires knowledge of the different drug smuggling routes and the implementation of effective security measures. The main smuggling routes identified in the literature are through visitors; mail; prisoners on reception, remand, or work release; staff; and perimeter throwovers, but they differ between prisons depending on various contextual factors and security measures in place. Based on a total of 81 studies from 22 different countries, the average prevalence of drug use during incarceration is 32.0% with a range from 3.4% to 90%. The types of drugs used in prisons vary among geographical regions, countries, and even regions within countries. The most common drug reported to be used by prisoners in most studies was cannabis, except in South Asia and Scotland, where heroin was more prevalent. The drugs used in prison tend to reflect the prevalence of drugs in the local community, except where a drug has advantages unique to use in prison. It is vital to examine the prevalence of drug use and different types of drugs used during incarceration to help inform drug treatment services, assist prison staff in identifying potential drug use or intoxicated prisoners, and advise prisons about the most prevalent drug smuggling routes so new security measures can be considered
WIREs Forensic Sci. 2022;e1473
By Gretta L. Goodwin; et al.
Approximately 45 percent of people released from a federal prison are rearrested or return within 3 years of their release. The First Step Act included certain requirements for DOJ and BOP aimed to reduce recidivism, including requiring the development of a system to assess the recidivism risk and needs of incarcerated people. It also required BOP to provide incarcerated people with programs and activities to address their needs and if eligible, earn time credits. The First Step Act required GAO to assess the DOJ and BOP’s implementation of certain requirements. This report addresses the extent to which DOJ and BOP implemented certain First Step Act requirements related to the (1) risk and needs assessment system, (2) identification and evaluation of programs and activities, and (3) application of time credits. GAO reviewed legislation and DOJ and BOP documents; analyzed 2022 BOP data; and interviewed DOJ and BOP headquarters officials and BOP’s employee union. GAO also conducted non-generalizable interviews with officials from four BOP regional office facilities, selected to ensure a mix of different facility characteristics. What GAO Recommends GAO is making eight recommendations for BOP to improve its implementation of the First Step Act, including collecting data, ensuring its evaluation plan has goals and milestones, having monitoring mechanisms, and tracking unstructured productive activities. BOP concurred with six recommendations,
Washington, DC: United States Government Accountability Office , 2023. 110p.
