By Rajan Basra and Peter R. Neumann

This report offers a wide‑ranging analysis of the role prisons can play in radicalising people – and in reforming them. Building on a 2010 study that used the same methodology, it examines the policies and approaches of ten European countries, identifying trade‑offs and dilemmas but also principles and best practices that can help governments and policymakers spot new ideas and avoid costly and counterproductive mistakes. • It paints a picture of countries trying to grapple with a challenging – and rapidly changing – situation. Over the past decade, many European countries have had to deal with a significant increase and diversification of their extremist offender populations, raising systemic questions about prison regimes, risk assessments, probation schemes, and opportunities for rehabilitation and reintegration that had previously often been dealt with on a case‑by‑case basis.

London: ICSR, King’s College London , 2020. 60p.

By The Anti-Defamation League, Center on Extremism

While there are almost certainly more, the following is an inventory of white supremacist prison gangs that the ADL Center on Extremism has created by working with correctional institutions and law enforcement, reviewing case files and news stories and tapping its own extensive body of information of white supremacist prison gang activities.

Key Points ■ For nearly four decades, white supremacist prison gangs have constituted one of the primary segments of the white supremacist movement, though they are different in many ways from “traditional” white supremacist groups. ■ Though they typically originate and are active in jails and prisons, most of these gangs are just as active on the streets as behind bars—including involvement in violence and other criminal acts. ■ Though they are white supremacist in nature, these prison gangs are usually a form of organized crime and frequently prioritize profit over ideology. ■ Most white supremacist prison gangs allow only men as full members, but women play important roles in most such gangs, including in criminal activity. ■ There are currently more than 75 different white supremacist prison gangs in at least 38 states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons, as well as in major county jails. They range from relatively small local gangs all the way to multi-state gangs with a thousand or more members. ■ The crimes committed by white supremacist gang members include traditional criminal activities such as running major drug dealing operations as well as ideologically motivated crimes such as hate crimes. Most white supremacist gangs also have a high association with violence—which includes violence directed even at their own members and associates.

ADL Center on Extremism , 2022. 36p.

By Filip Vojta

How criminal sentences are enforced, is of fundamental concern for the legitimacy of any justice system. However, fairly little is known about the practice of enforcing the prison sentences imposed by the international criminal tribunals. This volume offers a unique interdisciplinary lens - including international criminal and human rights law, penology, (supranational) criminology, transitional justice and terrorism studies - through which the policy and practice of enforcing the sentences of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) are analyzed. It is the first scientific work to comprehensively explore the significance of penal rehabilitation for the perpetrators of international crimes and its implementation in the prison treatment of the ICTY convicts. The analysis is informed by rich and systematically collected empirical data, including indepth interviews with the ICTY/MICT officials, national prison officials, imprisoned ICTY convicts and released ex-prisoners. It shows comparatively - and in previously unseen detail - the trials and tribulations the practice of enforcing the ICTY sentences in different European prisons faces and offers necessary recommendations for the improvement of the vertical system for enforcement of international sentences.

Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2020. 391p,

By Cesare Beccaria. Translated by James Anson Farrer.

This translation contains a 100 page introduction. From the opening page of the treatise: “To the Reader …The ill-conceived criticisms that have been published against this book are founded on the confused notions, and compel me to interrupt for a moment the arguments I was addressing to my enlightened readers, in order to close once and for all every door against the misapprehensions of timid bigotry or against the calumnies of malice and envy…”

Chatto & Windus, Piccadilly. 1880. 299p.

By George Ryley Scott

From the Preface: “In any debate on the merits and demerits of corporal punishment, the real points at issue are often confused, distorted or unnoticed in the personal reaction of the debater to the offences or crimes for which fustigation is held to be a fitting punishment. Indignation or hatred, which often degenerates into fanaticism, out- weighs every other factor. The inflaming or the development of the desire to punish results in the wish to maim or to crucify the individual responsible for the particular crime which has aroused hatred….”

London. T. Werner Laurie Ltd. (1938) 1943. 305p.

By Michel Foucault. Translated by AlanSheridan.

From Chapter 1, Torture. “We have, then, a public execution and a time-table. They do not punish the same crimes or the same type of delinquent. But they each define a certain penal style. Less than a century separates them. It was a time when, in Europe and in the United States,the entire economy of punishment was redistributed. It was a time of great 'scandals'for traditional justice, a time of innumerable projects for reform. It saw a new theory of law and crime, a new rnoral or political justification of the right to punish; old laws were abolished, old customs died out. 'Modern' codes were planned or drawn up: Russia, 1769; Prussia, 1780; Pennsylvania and Tuscany, 1786; Austria, 1788; France 1791 Year IV, 1808 and 1810. It wasa new age for pena justice…..Among so many changes, I shall consider one:the disappearance of torture as a public spectacle…”

Vintage Random House. (1977). 1995.353p.

By Henry Pontell

Henry Pontell convincingly demonstrates that despite the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars, the enactment of many new laws exacting harsher punish-ments, and the growth of a vast criminal justice system, America is losing its “war on crime.” In fact, the crime rate seems to have kept pace with the increase in our ef-forts to control it. Although the United States has the highest incarceration rate of any advanced country, we still manage to experience the highest rate of violent crime. As we continue to focus on deterrence through punishment meted out by our criminal justice system, our courts re-ceive more cases than they can handle and our prisons and jails overflow with in¬mates. The message from a beleaguered criminal justice system, according to Pon-tell, is clear: there is limited capacity to punish.

Indiana University Press. 1985. 140p.

By William (Buzz) Alexander

Prisons are an invisible, but dominant, part of American society: the United States incarcerates more people than any other nation in the world. In Michigan, the number of prisoners rose from 3,000 in 1970 to more than 50,000 by 2008, a shift that Buzz Alexander witnessed firsthand when he came to teach at the University of Michigan. Is William Martinez Not Our Brother? describes the University of Michigan's Prison Creative Arts Project (PCAP), a pioneering program founded in 1990 that provides university courses, a nonprofit organization, and a national network for incarcerated youth and adults in Michigan juvenile facilities and prisons. By giving incarcerated individuals an opportunity to participate in the arts, PCAP enables them to withstand and often overcome the conditions and culture of prison, the policies of an incarcerating state, and the consequences of mass incarceration.

Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2010. 327p.

Edited by Francesca Torlone, Marios Vryonides

Prison education should be a top priority issue in most societies. Prison conditions must not infringe human rights and dignity and must offer meaningful treatment programmes in order to support inmates in their rehabilitation and reintegration in society. The use of ICTs within a penitentiary context plays a crucial role in that. The present Volume looks at the learning potential in prisons and reports on innovative (e-)learning pathways for basic skills education as designed and tested in Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Romania. Research investigated on what counts as ‘educational’ in such a complex context and how to combine relevant pieces in a ‘learning mosaic’ (the broad range of any learning opportunity across it). This Volume argues that such an approach may be adopted in a wider European perspective within the frame of dynamic security.

Florence, Italy: Firenze University Press, 2016.133p.

By Irene Marti

This open access book provides insights into the everyday lives of long-term prisoners in Switzerland who are labelled as ‘dangerous’ and are preventatively held in indefinite, probably lifelong, incarceration. It explores prisoners’ manifold ways of inhabiting the prison which can be used to challenge well established notions about the experience of imprisonment, such as ‘adaptation’, ‘coping’, and ‘resistance’. Drawing on ethnographic data generated in two high-security prisons housing male offenders, this book explores how the various spaces of the prison affect prisoners’ sense of self and experience of time, and how, in particular, the indeterminate nature of their imprisonment affects their perceptions of place and space. It sheds light on prisoners’ subjective, emplaced and embodied perceptions of the prisons' various everyday time-spaces in the cell, at work, and during leisure time, and the forms of agency they express. It provides insight into prisoners’ everyday habits, practices, routines, and rhythms as well as the profoundly existential issues that are engendered, (re)arranged, and anchored in these everyday contexts. It also offers insights into the penal policies, norms, and practices developed and followed by prison authorities and staff.

Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2023. 363p.

By Alycia Castillo, Jemima Abalogu and Lindsey Linder

Today in Texas schools, students at every grade level face disciplinary methods that can land them behind bars. School administrations have implemented punitive “zero tolerance” policies and have increased on-campus policing in response to various incidents over past decades; this has led to negative, unintended consequences and has pushed many students — particularly those most vulnerable — out of the classroom, where they can be subject to criminalization. But as the spotlight has shown more harshly on youth incarceration and the harm to children and their families, measures to reverse the “school-to-prison pipeline” are being piloted and implemented throughout Texas to ensure that, in efforts to create safe schools, we also have safe students who can reach their full potential. The Texas Criminal Justice Coalition talked to school discipline experts and students across the state to learn more about disciplinary practices and restorative justice, which addresses student misbehavior and holds them accountable in a safe, non-court setting, leading to better outcomes for students, victims, schools, and communities. Throughout this report, insights from experts and students shed additional light on the need for alternatives to harsh discipline, and they ultimately provide hope that Texas can reverse the school-to-prison pipeline.

Austin, TX: The Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, 2020. 35p.

By Naila AwanShruti Banerjee

More than 2 million people are incarcerated in prisons or jails each year. This population, which is often ignored and de facto disenfranchised, is disproportionately Black and brown. Black, Indigenous, and Hispanic Americans are 3.5 times, 2.1 times, and 1.08 times, respectively, more likely to be incarcerated in jail than someone who is white. These disparities exist in the prison population as well, with Black and Hispanic Americans being 5.72 times and 3.05 times, respectively, more likely to be incarcerated than someone who is white. The majority of people held in jails, as well as some of those who are held in prisons, remain eligible to vote.

COVID-19 has exposed the cracks in our current democratic system, and advocacy groups have provided recommendations for voting during the pandemic. What groups have largely failed to do, however, is address how we best protect the right to vote for eligible voters being held in prisons and jails. We must not let a pandemic exacerbate the de facto disenfranchisement these individuals face and further restrict the ability of eligible, incarcerated voters to have a say in who and what laws govern them.

New York; Washington, DC: Demos, 2020. 12p.

By Erika Wood and Rachel Bloom

Voting is both a fundamental right and a civic duty. However there remains a significant blanket barrier to the franchise: 5.3 million American citizens are not allowed to vote because of criminal convictions. As many as four million of these people live, work, and raise families in our communities, but because of convictions in their past they are still denied the right to vote.

State laws vary widely on when voting rights are restored. Maine and Vermont do not deny the franchise based on a criminal conviction; even prisoners may vote there. Kentucky and Virginia are the last two states to continue to permanently disenfranchise all people with felony convictions unless they receive individual, discretionary clemency from the governor. The remaining 46 states fall somewhere in between, with the varied state laws forming a patchwork across the country. Some states restore voting rights upon release from prison, others upon completion of probation and parole, and others impose waiting periods or other contingencies and categories before restoring voting rights.

• More.....

  This disenfranchisement by law of millions of American citizens is only half the story. Across the country there is persistent confusion among election officials about their state's felony disenfranchisement policies. Election officials receive little or no training on these laws, and there is little or no coordination or communication between election offices and the criminal justice system. These factors, coupled with complex laws and complicated registration procedures, result in the mass dissemination of inaccurate and misleading information, which in turn leads to the de facto disenfranchisement of untold hundreds of thousands of eligible would-be voters throughout the country

New York: ACLU and Brennan Center for Justice, 2008. 24p.

By The American Civil Liberties Union

Right to Vote, a campaign to end felony disfranchisement, is part of the American Civil Liberties Union's Racial Justice Program. Together with the Voting Rights Project, Right to Vote works with ACLU affiliates throughout the country on legislation, litigation and public education to reform felony disfranchisement policies and practices, and to promote the fundamental, democratic right to vote for all citizens.

Unless you live in Maine or Vermont, where incarcerated citizens may vote, there is important work to do on this issue. One of the greatest barriers to felon enfranchisement is the lack of public awareness of the issue; where awareness exists, the information available is often misleading or inaccurate. Well over five million Americans are legally barred from voting due to a felony conviction (and in six states, a misdemeanor conviction), while millions more are disfranchised due to ignorance, misunderstanding or confusion about disfranchisement law in their states. In this toolkit, you will find the individual pieces that, when combined, will help you launch a successful campaign in your state. Additional information is also available at www.aclu.org/righttovote, including sample bills, public education materials, op-eds and more

New York: American Civil Liberties Union, 2008. 72p.

By Tracy Sohoni

"In this dissertation I [Sohoni] examine the effect of states’ collateral consequence laws in the categories of voting, access to public records, employment, public housing, public assistance, and driver’s licenses. I examine the impact of these laws on state rates of returns to prison, as measured by percent of prison admissions that were people on conditional release when they entered prison, the percent of exits from parole that were considered unsuccessful due returning to incarceration; the percent of exits from parole that were returned to incarceration for a new sentence, and the percent of exits from parole that were returned to incarceration for a technical violation. I also run an additional fixed effects analysis on the effect of restrictions on Temporary Assistance for Needy Children (TANF) over a seven year period." This study is the first one done to address what is known empirically about how certain collateral consequence laws negatively influence the ability of ex-offenders to reenter their communities.

• More.....

  This dissertation is comprised of five chapters: introduction to reentry and the era of mass incarceration, goals and realities of collateral consequence laws, and the current study; collateral consequence laws in the United States—overview, legal challenges and concerns, effects, and collateral consequences and recidivism; data and methods; findings regarding voting, access to records, employment, public housing, public assistance, driver's licenses, the cumulative effect, fixed effects analysis of TANF restrictions, and discussion of results; and conclusions.

Report to the U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2014. 181p.

By Christopher Uggen, Ryan Larson, Sarah Shannon, and Robert Stewart

In the past 25 years, half the states have changed their laws and practices to expand voting access to people with felony convictions. Despite these important reforms, 5.2 million Americans remain disenfranchised, 2.3 percent of the voting age population.

In this presidential election year, the question of voting restrictions, and their disproportionate impact on Black and Brown communities, should receive greater public attention. This report is intended to update and expand our previous work on the scope and distribution of felony disenfranchisement in the United States For the first time, we present estimates of the percentage of the Latinx population disenfranchised due to felony convictions. Although these and other estimates must be interpreted with caution, the numbers presented here represent our best assessment of the state of felony disenfranchisement as of the November 2020 election.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2020. 20p.

By Danielle Root and Lee Doyle

In November 2017, men residing in an Allen County, Indiana, jail filed a class-action lawsuit against their local sheriff. The lawsuit alleged that the sheriff had denied the men and others their fundamental right to vote during the 2016 general election while they were being held in jail awaiting trial. According to court filings, jail administrators failed to provide them with information about their voting eligibility. Administrators allegedly also failed to assist them in obtaining absentee ballots and did not provide access to the voting booth on Election Day. Many Americans held in jail while awaiting trial are legally eligible to vote. Each election cycle, however, countless numbers of them are excluded from participating in the democratic process because of structural barriers to voter registration and voting. These individuals—many of whom come from low-income communities and are people of color—are systematically prevented from having their voices heard due to lack of access to voter registration forms, absentee ballots or voting booths, or critical information on voting eligibility. In other words, voting-eligible Americans are routinely being excluded from participating in U.S. democracy due to avoidable obstacles in the voting process.

Center for American Progress, 2018. 9p.

By Nicole Kief

The right to vote is the cornerstone of American democracy. For many Americans, the primary source of information about voter eligibility is the voter registration form. Consequently, the availability of clear, accurate registration forms is critical to ensuring this fundamental right. For the 47 million Americans with criminal records,1 however, it may be risky to rely on voter registration forms to determine whether they may register to vote.The findings that follow reveal that the vast majority of U.S. states—33 plus the District of Columbia—currently use registration forms that provide inaccurate, incomplete or misleading information about whether individuals with criminal records are eligible to vote. The back-story to this problem is the patchwork of state disfranchisement laws that prevent over 5.3 million Americans with criminal records from voting. In 48 states (all but Maine and Vermont) and in the District of Columbia, citizens lose the right to vote upon conviction of a felony; in at least a handful of states, the right is also lost upon conviction of a misdemeanor. All 48 states (and the District of Columbia) also provide mechanisms by which these citizens may seek to regain their voting rights, though some processes are much more viable than others. These mechanisms range from automatic restoration (upon completion of incarceration or sentence) to restoration only after satisfaction of an extensive, onerous and sometimes costly individual application process.

New York: American Civil Liberties Union, 2008. 22p,.

Edited byAmanda Perry, Cynthia McDougall and David P. Farrington

Based on extensive research initiated by the UK Home Office, Reducing Crime offers an objective look at the effectiveness of criminal justice interventions in the reduction of crime. Bringing together information about where, for whom and at what cost these interventions are effective, the book examines alcohol prevention and drug treatment studies; courts, sentencing and police interventions; probation and prison interventions; and situational burglary and housing interventions. In addition to a cost/benefits analysis of each intervention, the book also discusses future research and policy directions.

Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley, 2006. 253p.

By Ben Jarman and Claudia Vince

This report presents the findings of a prisoner consultation carried out by PRT’s Building Futures programme. Around 100 responses were received from people in prison to four questions relating to their progression. The report looks at what is meant by risk reduction and assessment, and progression both in terms of offending behaviour courses and the personal progression of prisoners. It also examines the relationship between risk and progression, and the lack of clarity felt by prisoners. The report identifies missed opportunities for the progression and development of long-term prisoners but makes recommendations to improve the system.

London: Prison Reform Trust, 2022. 76p.