By Jacinto AzevedoI, Maria Vieira-Coelho, Miguel Castelo-Branco, Rui Coelho, Margarida Figueiredo-Braga

Introduction: Aggression is a clinical symptom of various psychiatric disorders that can be conceptualised as a physical act towards another person with the intent to cause harm. In antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), aggression is a frequent manifestation that differently compromise therapeutic and prognostic goals according to its impulsive or premeditated categorisation. ASPD is characterised by high levels of impulsivity, psychopathic traits, and a high prevalence of co-morbid substance use disorders (SUDs). Aggression in ASPD patients may determine long and recurrent imprisonment thus representing a challenge clinicians and legal experts face. Objectives: Our aims were to characterise impulsive and premeditated aggression in male ASPD offenders as well as to determine the potential role of SUDs, impulsivity, and psychopathic traits as predictors. Materials and methods In this cross-sectional study we evaluated a sample of ASPD offenders with a battery of clinical and psychometric, standardised instruments: the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), the European Version of the Addiction Severity Index (EuropASI), the Barratt Impulsivity Scale Version 11 (BIS-11), and the Impulsive/Premeditated Aggression Scale (IPAS). Results: We used a total sample of 134 offenders, all of whom were male. ASPD patients (n = 96) had a 71.9% prevalence of impulsive aggression and a 28.1% prevalence of premeditated aggression. ASPD patients with impulsive aggression had significantly lower scores of total PCL-R (p<0.01) factor 1 and interpersonal facet 1 (p<0.05), compared with ASPD patients with premeditated aggression. ASPD patients with impulsive aggression and ASPD patients with premeditated aggression had comparable BIS-11 mean scores, and exhibited an equal prevalence of SUDs. The interpersonal facet 1of the PCL-R predicted the aggression type (p<0.05) in ASPD patients, and the exponential beta value for facet 1 was 1.42 (CI = 1.03; 1.95). Conclusions The aggression type that is associated withASPD is mainly impulsive in nature. ASPD patients who have higher scores of psychopathic traits have a lower probability of exhibiting impulsive aggression and a higher probability of exhibiting premeditated aggression.Although ASPD patients have high levels of impulsivity and a high frequency ofSUDs, these two variables were not predictors of the aggression type.

PLoS ONE 15(3): 2020. e0229876.

By Ujjwal Kumar Singh

From the general editor’s introduction: “….The essays are also intended to be fairly detailed and empirical in emphasis, so as to stand in regard to the introduction in something of the relationship of evidence to interpretation. The project is directed both at specific problems and at a number of fundamental debates on the nature of discourse; and yet it is not intended primarily to generate new theory but rather to make its contribution by approaching questions from a new direction. Part of the dissatisfaction which lies behind the project is with Eurocentric terminology. This is not because we deny the possibility of there being any universal terms, nor because we think all knowledge produced by Europeans essentially the same and equally corrupted by power. It is because we are impressed by the need to avoid all essentialism, and by the importance, both intellectually and in practical situations, of an appreciation of difference. It is because we are uncertain how large categories may properly be constructed. Similar concerns are expressed in various ways in many disciplines, and constitute a crisis of interpretation…”

Delhi. Oxford University Press. 1998. 313p.

USED BOOK. MAY CONTAINMARK-UP

By Andrea Pitzer

FROM THE COVER; “A Smithsonian Magazine Best History Book Of The Year” For more than one hundred years, at least one concentration camp has existed somewhere on earth. First used as battlefield strategy, camps have evolved with each passing decade, in the scope of their effects and the savage practicality with which governments have employed them. Even in the twenty-first century, as we continue to reckon with the magnitude and horror of the Holocaust, history tells us we have broken our solemn promise of "never again." Beginning with 1890s Cuba, Andrea Pitzer pinpoints the histories of concentration camps around the world and across decades. From the Philippines and Southern Africa to the Soviet Gulag and detention in China and North Korea during the Cold War, camp systems have long been used as tools for civilian relocation and political repression. Through telling the stories of individual prisoners swept into detention across the past century, One Long Night shows how camps became brutal and dehumanizing sites that claimed the lives of millions. Featuring a new afterword that places US border detention and family separation within the context of this dark history, One Long Night exposes our collective failure and its continued toll.”

New York, Back Bay Books. Little, Brown And Company. 2017. 494p.

USED BOOK. MAY CONTAIN MARK-UP.

By Annie Samuelli

FROM THE PREFACE: “From 1949 to 1961, I was one of a large community of women held in the political prisons of Communist Romania, all harshly convicted, not for their misdeeds but for what they actually represented. Since the advent of Communism, citizens who upheld faith, justice and the principles of democracy-from former prime ministers to simple peasants and confused members of the working class-now were convicted of treasonable activities on just those grounds. The elementary freedoms of opinion, speech, movement, religion and charity, hemmed in by arbitrary government decrees, had been virtually abolished, any transgression being paid for by long imprisonment. Persecution was directed as much against the aristocracy and bourgeoisie, ostensibly the chief targets of class warfare, as against any person, irrespective of origin, who consciously or not expressed criticism or the slightest opposition to the regime. For instance, spouses, parents, children are likewise incriminated as accessories after the fact, and whole families went to prison for having failed to denounce or for having harboured a fugitive from justice for his political beliefs or for violating one of the all-embracing Communist laws.

Thus the women's prisons were filled with representatives from all ranks of society, from the intellectual down to the illiterate. As I shared their lives day by day, night by night for twelve years, I had the opportunity of studying them closely, and it is mainly on them that this book is based.”

Washington, D.C.. Robert B. Luce, Inc. 1967. 241p.

USED BOOK. MAY CONTAIN MARK-UP

By Oleg V. Khlevniuk. Translated by Vadim A. Staklo. With editorial assistance and commentary by David J. Nordlander. Foreword by Robert Conquest

FROM THE FOREWORD: “Although it is sometimes suggested that the Gulag was in some way derived from an older Russia, one has only to read about Dostoevsky's experiences as a political prisoner in The House of the Dead to find many differences. By the early twentieth century a number of Russian people--far fewer of them in any case than in Soviet times--were either in prison or in "exile." The latter penalty, whose victims included Lenin and Stalin, simply meant forced residence at some distant village, with a monetary allowance, sometimes with wives, but with no barbed wire or penal labor. The Gulag is only one example of how the Soviet regime represented a huge decline in civilization in Russia. But it is a revealing one. Areas of the Stalinist experience still remain obscure…”

NY. Yale University Press. 2004. 449p.

USED BOOK. MAY CONTAIN MARK-UP

By Karlo Stajner. Translated By Joel Agee. With An Introduction By Danilo Kis

AUTHOR'S NOTE: “I was born Karl Steiner on January 15, 1902, in Vienna. After moving to Zagreb, the capital of the Yugoslav Republic of Croatia, in 1922, I adopted the Serbo-Croation spelling of my name, Karlo Stajner. In 1932, I emigrated to the Soviet Union, where I remained until 1956. Because of my Austrian origin, I was accused of being a Nazi agent and condemned to ten years at hard labor; a second ten-year term was later added to my sentence. After my release from prison in 1956, I returned to Yugoslavia and continued calling myself by my Serbo-Croatian name: Karlo Stajner. K.S.”

NY. Farrar Straus Giroux. 1988. 408p.

USED BOOK. MAY CONTAIN MARK-UP

By Cairine Petrie

FROM THE FOREWORD: “During the last two decades in the United Kingdom, we have increasingly locked up children who are difficult or delinquent. This study explores the uses and consequences of custody for young people. Cairine Petrie compares a number of boys held in a unit of maximum security with a similar number of delinquents resident in an open training school. The book also provides interesting insights into the workings of the Scottish List D schools which, unlike institutions for young offenders in England and Wales, still remain the responsibility of the central authorities. South of the border since 1969, persistent delinquents have been sheltered in community homes and are in the care of the local authorities. Those who cling to the myth that effective reformatory schools have been swept away by permissive legislation will gain little comfort from this book.”

London. Saxon House. 1980.

USED BOOK. MAY CONTAIN MARK-UP

By Debra Smith

FROM THE INTRODUCTION: “After being anti-privatisation (and I am still very concerned about how much of all this is real and will last) I am coming to a positive view of this private prison. In the short term it is certainly better for the prisoners in the long term I don't know what safeguards are there that it is maintained. But it is a 20-year business plan and contract so if I'm still here in 2017 I guess I' be able to make a judgement.' Ididn't make it to 2017 - in September 2004 I received a letter terminating my contract: services no longer required…..”

Adelaide, Aus. Ginninderra Press. 2008. 129p.

USED BOOK. MAY CONTAIN MARK-UP.

Edited by Beverly R. Fletcher, Lynda Dixon Shaver, and Dreama G. Moon. Foreword by George Henderson. Illustrations By Lisa J. Billy

FROM THE FOREWORD: “Perhaps nothing captures the debilitating effects of sexism more vividly than an in-depth study of women incarcerated in our correctional institutions. Beneath the statistics lie a human tragedy of a magnitude most people cannot fully comprehend: a disproportionate number of women are wasting away in nonrehabilitative institutions that perpetuate rather than correct criminal behaviors. The editors and contributors to this book capture cogent slices of life of some of the role players in the prison drama. And they do so with the sensitive touch of social surgeons who carefully lift and examine one layer of human behavior and then another. But they do not stop there. They also examine some of the attitudes, beliefs, and values of incarcerated women and their keepers (prison staff). The total work is an insightful glimpse of a neglected subculture.”

Westport, CT. Praeger. 1993. 202p.

by Solitary Watch and the Unlock the Box Campaign

The watchdog group Solitary Watch and the advocacy coalition Unlock the Box released a groundbreaking joint report showing that at least 122,840 people are locked daily in solitary confinement in U.S. prisons and jails for 22 or more hours a day. Calculating Torture is the first report to combine the use of solitary in local and federal jails in addition to state and federal prisons. It is based on analysis of data recently released by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) as well as by state prison systems that did not report to BJS, and data from a survey of local jails conducted by the Vera Institute of Justice.

These report numbers come closer than have any previously published figures in accounting for the total number of people in solitary confinement in U.S. prisons and jails. Previous counts have largely focused on prisons, failing to include jails. In some cases, earlier data also omitted some states, and/or counted only those individuals held in solitary confinement for more than two weeks. For these reasons, previous reports have offered an incomplete picture of how extensively the discredited practice is used and the number of people it affects.

Solitary Watch and the Unlock the Box Campaign, 2023. 16p.

By the Unlock the Box Campaign

There is a growing movement across the United States to end or restrict solitary confinement and to employ alternative interventions that improve safety and well-being. Fueling this surge in efforts at ending solitary is a recognition that solitary confinement is a form of torture. It inflicts terrible suffering and injury—physical, psychological, emotional, and social—on individuals who have experienced it or are currently subjected to it and has severe effects on their loved ones and on the wider community. This horrific practice is in extensive use across the country, damaging or destroying untold lives. Deeply disturbed by this reality, an increasing number of campaigns led by people who have survived solitary confinement and those with loved ones in solitary now or in the past have helped spur legislative and administrative policy changes to curb the use of solitary and to promote alternatives. Between 2009 and 2022, in 45 states, 886 bills were introduced to restrict or end solitary confinement in some form; 40 states have passed at least one of these bills. In 2021 alone, 153 pieces of legislation were filed across 37 states to regulate some aspect of solitary confinement, the vast majority seeking to end at least some aspect of the practice in state prisons and jails, youth facilities, and other carceral settings. An additional 74 bills were introduced in 2022, and 16 bills were passed in 2022, namely, in New York, Kentucky, Illinois, Connecticut, Louisiana, Virginia, Hawaii, Colorado, and Maryland, with additional bills to be acted on, as of the writing of this report. Anti-solitary efforts have also contributed to the closure of entire prisons, buildings, and units used to inflict solitary, most recently with the closure of supermax prisons in New York and Connecticut

Unlock the Box Campaign, 2023. 64p.

By Damon M. Petrich, Travis C. Pratt, Cheryl Lero Jonson, and Francis T. Cullen

Beginning in the 1970s, the United States began an experiment in mass imprisonment. Supporters argued that harsh punishments such as imprisonment reduce crime by deterring inmates from reoffending. Skeptics argued that imprisonment may have a criminogenic effect. The skeptics were right. Previous narrative reviews and meta-analyses concluded that the overall effect of imprisonment is null. Based on a much larger meta-analysis of 116 studies, the current analysis shows that custodial sanctions have no effect on reoffending or slightly increase it when compared with the effects of noncustodial sanctions such as probation. This finding is robust regardless of variations in methodological rigor, types of sanctions examined, and sociodemographic characteristics of samples. All sophisticated assessments of the research have independently reached the same conclusion. The null effect of custodial compared with noncustodial sanctions is considered a “criminological fact.” Incarceration cannot be justified on the grounds it affords public safety by decreasing recidivism. Prisons are unlikely to reduce reoffending unless they can be transformed into people-changing institutions on the basis of available evidence on what works organizationally to reform offenders.

Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Volume 50. 2021

By Human Rights Watch

“A Nightmare for Everyone: The Health Care Crisis in Pakistan’s Prisons,” documents widespread deficiencies in prison health care in Pakistan and the consequences for a total prison population of more than 88,000 people. Pakistan has one of the world’s most overcrowded prison systems, with cells designed for a maximum of 3 people holding up to 15. Severe overcrowding has compounded existing health care deficiencies, leaving inmates vulnerable to communicable diseases and unable to get medicines and treatment for even basic health needs, as well as emergencies.

Washington, DC: HRW, 2023. 63p.

By Kristen M. Budd, Ph.D. and Niki Monazzam

Twenty-seven states and the federal government incarcerated 96,370 people in private prisons in 2021, representing 8% of the total state and federal prison population. Private for-profit prisons incarcerated 96,370 American residents in 2021, representing 8% of the total state and federal prison population. Since 2000, the number of people housed in private prisons has increased 10%. Harmful crime policies of the 1980s and beyond fueled a rapid expansion in the nation’s prison population. The resulting burden on the public sector led to the modern emergence of for-profit prisons in many states and the federal system. Of the 1.2 million people in federal and state prisons, 8%, or 96,370 people, were in private prisons as of year end 2021.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2023. 3p.

By Ashley Nellis

Extreme punishments, including the death penalty and life imprisonment, are a hallmark of the United States’ harsh criminal legal system. Nationwide one of every 15 women in prison — over 6,600 women — are serving a sentence of life with parole, life without parole, or a virtual life sentence of 50 years or more. The nearly 2,000 women serving life-without-parole (LWOP) sentences can expect to die in prison. Death sentences are permitted by 27 states and the federal government, and currently 52 women sit on death row. This report presents new data on the prevalence of both of these extreme sentences imposed on women. Across the U.S. there are nearly 2,000 women serving life-without-parole (LWOP) sentences and another 52 women who have been sentenced to death. The majority have been convicted of homicide. Regarding capital punishment, women are sitting on death row in 15 states. Women are serving LWOP sentences in all but six states. Three quarters of life sentences are concentrated in 12 states and the federal system. It is notable that in all states with a high count of women serving LWOP, there is at least one woman on death row as well. Two exceptions to the overlap are Colorado and Michigan which do not have anyone serving a death sentence because it is not statutorily allowed.

Brooklyn: National Black Women's Justice Initiative, 2021,

By Ashley Nellis

Before America’s era of mass incarceration took hold in the early 1970s, the number of individuals in prison was less than 200,000. Today, it’s 1.4 million; and more than 200,000 people are serving life sentences – one out of every seven in prison. More people are sentenced to life in prison in America than there were people in prison serving any sentence in 1970. Nearly five times the number of people are now serving life sentences in the United States as were in 1984, a rate of growth that has outpaced even the sharp expansion of the overall prison population during this period. The now commonplace use of life imprisonment contradicts research on effective public safety strategies, exacerbates already extreme racial injustices in the criminal justice system, and exemplifies the egregious consequences of mass incarceration. In 2020, The Sentencing Project obtained official corrections data from all states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons to produce our 5th national census on life imprisonment.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2021. 46p.

The Monitoring Team is issuing this Special Report to advise the Court and the Parties of the continued imminent risk of harm to incarcerated individuals and staff in the New York City jails. The first few months of 2022 have revealed the jails remain unstable and unsafe for both inmates and staff. The volatility and instability in the jails is due, in no small part, to unacceptable levels of fear of harm by detainees and staff alike. Despite initial hopes that the Second Remedial Order (dkt. 398), entered in September 2021, would help the Department gain traction toward initiating reform on the most immediate issues, the Department’s attempts to implement the required remedial steps have faltered and, in some instances, regressed. These failures suggest an even more discouraging picture about the prospect for material improvements to the jails’ conditions. Furthermore, the Department’s staffing crisis continues and the New York City Mayor’s Emergency Executive Order, first issued on September 15, 2021, and still in effect (through multiple extensions) as of the filing of this report, acknowledges that, among other things, “excessive staff absenteeism among correction officers and supervising officers has contributed to a rise in unrest and disorder.” The Monitoring Team’s staffing analysis, discussed in detail below, reveals that the Department’s staff management and deployment practices are so dysfunctional that if left unaddressed, sustainable and material advancement of systemic reform will remain elusive, if not impossible, to attain. …

New York: The Independent Monitoring Team, 2022. 78p.

By James Bonta

The search for ‘what works’ in the assessment and rehabilitation of justice-involved persons dates back at least to the 1960s and an argument can be made that it is even earlier than that. However, it was probably Lipton, Martinson, and Wilks’ (1975) review of the treatment literature that catapulted ‘what works’ to the forefront of correctional research and practice. The story of their review and Robert Martinson’s popularisation of the review is well known. The conclusion from the review was that ‘these data…give us little reason to hope that we have in fact found a sure way of reducing recidivism through rehabilitation’ (Martinson, 1974, p.49). This proclamation was quickly translated into ‘nothing works’ and opened the gates to the ‘get tough’ movement. After all, it was argued, if treatment does not work then our only alternative is to punish law-breakers justly and fairly in the hope that it will deter them from further crime. The view that ‘nothing works’ did not go unchallenged. Ted Palmer (1975) was almost alone in supporting rehabilitation efforts at the time. …

Manchester: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2023. 13p.

By Jennifer Peirce, Madeline Bailey, and Shahd Elbushra

These two research briefs summarize analysis of county jail bookings in seven rural Georgia counties (2019–2020) and five rural Washington counties (2015–2021). In both Georgia and Washington, jail incarceration rates are higher in rural counties than in urban and suburban counties. The briefs, created in partnership with the University of Georgia and Washington State University, demonstrate that jails in these rural counties are primarily holding people for minor charges. Vera calls on local actors to use citation in lieu of arrest and automatic pretrial release policies, as well as to strengthen pretrial services and avoid using jail as a penalty for failing to appear in court or for technical probation violations. The majority of jail admissions in rural counties in both Georgia and Washington were for nonviolent charges, including driving with a suspended license, penalties related to navigating criminal legal system rules (like failure to appear in court), and probation violations.

DOWNLOAD: Punitive policies are driving jail incarceration in rural Georgia

Punitive policies are driving jail incarceration in rural Georgia

DOWNLOAD: Rural Washington State Needs Criminal Legal System Reform

By Melvin Washington II

For decades, the United States has responded to social issues like mental health and substance use crises, chronic homelessness, and ongoing cycles of interpersonal violence with jail. This has disrupted the lives of millions of people—disproportionately harming Black and Indigenous people—without improving public safety. There’s a better way. Communities can instead invest in agencies and organizations that address these issues outside the criminal legal system. The proven solutions highlighted in this multimedia report look beyond jails to promote safe and thriving communities.

More than 3,000 jail facilities operate in the United States. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, those jails processed about 10 million bookings annually. Some people stayed for hours and others for months. Overall, the number of people in jail has grown exponentially over the past 40 years—from about 220,000 in 1983 to more than 750,000 in 2019. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, some jurisdictions took emergency actions to prevent the virus’s spread among incarcerated people and jail staff, which cut jail populations by an estimated 24 percent during the first half of 2020. However, these changes proved temporary; by June 2020, national jail populations were already rising. By the end of 2020, the population had rebounded by more than 50,000 people.

New York Vera Institute of Justice, 2021. 28p.