MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

By NORVAL MORRIS, MICHAEL TONRY

Across the country prisons are jammed to capacity and, in extreme cases, barges and mobile homes are used to stem the overflow. Probation officers in some cities have caseloads of 200 and more--hardly a manageable number of offenders to track and supervise. And with about one million people in prison and jail, and two and a half million on probation, it is clear we are experiencing a crisis in our penal system. In Between Prison and Probation, Norval Morris and Michael Tonry, two of the nation's leading criminologists, offer an important and timely strategy for alleviating these problems. They argue that our overwhelmed corrections system cannot cope with the flow of convicted offenders because the two extremes of punishment--imprisonment and probation--are both used excessively, with a near-vacuum of useful punishments in between. Morris and Tonry propose instead a comprehensive program that relies on a range of punishment including fines and other financial sanctions, community service, house arrest, intensive probation, closely supervised treatment programs for drugs, alcohol and mental illness, and electronic monitoring of movement. Used in rational combinations, these "intermediate" punishments would better serve the community than our present polarized choice. Serious consideration of these punishments has been hindered by the widespread perception that they are therapeutic rather than punitive. The reality, however, Morris and Tonry argue, "is that the American criminal justice system is both too severe and too lenient--almost randomly." Systematically implemented and rigorously enforced, intermediate punishments can "better and more economically serve the community, the victim, and the criminal than the prison terms and probation orders they supplant." Between Prison and Probation goes beyond mere advocacy of an increasing use of intermediate punishments; the book also addresses the difficult task of fitting these punishments into a comprehensive, fair and community-protective sentencing system.

Oxford University Press, Sep 12, 1991, 294 pages

Edited By Ugljesa Zvekic and Anna Alvazzi del Frate

Explore a comprehensive bibliography delving into the realm of alternatives to imprisonment from a comparative perspective. This curated collection of resources offers a diverse range of scholarly works, research papers, and case studies focusing on innovative practices and policies aimed at reducing reliance on incarceration. Dive into this bibliography to gain insights into the evolving landscape of criminal justice systems worldwide, as experts examine the effectiveness, challenges, and ethical considerations surrounding alternative approaches to traditional imprisonment. Whether you are a student, academic, policymaker, or practitioner, this bibliography serves as a valuable resource for understanding the multifaceted dimensions of modern penal systems and the quest for more humane and effective ways of addressing crime and social justice.

Nelson-Hall Publishers, 1994, 537 pages

By Michael F. TenEyck, Sarah A. El Sayed, Clay M. Driscoll and Krysta N. Knox

Racial inequality in arrest is a social problem that has challenged the United States for as long as police records have been kept. Prior work documents the extent of the disparity and observational studies have attempted to sort out the mechanisms that explain why the disparity exists. Building on the “constructivist” perspective of race, the current study draws on data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health) to assess the degree to which race and skin color explain the observed racial disparity in criminal justice contact and arrest. Results revealed that controlling for criminal behavior and a host of covariates, neither race nor skin color increased the likelihood of police contact. Race, however, was predictive of an increase in the odds of arrest—with Black respondents being 92% more likely to experience arrest than White respondents—and this relationship remained controlling for the effects of skin color, police contact, and prior criminal behavior. These findings suggest that the “race effect” may be due to unobserved biases not related to skin color.

Racial inequality in outcomes related to criminal justice contact and processing is a longstanding topic of concern. Recent evidence suggests that while White individuals are more likely to experience police contact, racial/ethnic minorities are disproportionately arrested when contacted (Beck, 2021; Harrell & Davis, 2020). Additionally, changes in policing techniques have led to increases in police contact and arrests. During the early to mid-2000s, nearly 90 percent of police stops did not result in arrests whereas recent data indicates that now only 65% of police stops do not result in arrests (Novak & Gilbreath, 2023). Findings like this have raised many questions among social scientists. One such question draws attention to the potential sources of the inequality. Is it that criminal justice professionals act discriminatorily? Is it that racial minorities are overinvolved in criminal behavior? Or is the answer more complicated?

In the present study, we build on recent developments from epidemiology and sociology which conceptualizes race in the “constructivist” framework (Barnes, 2018; Sen & Wasow, 2016), meaning the term “race” is defined by more than just skin color. In the constructivist tradition, race captures various aspects of one's life including culture, ancestry, and socioeconomic opportunities. This framework conceptualizes race as a composite measure, such that statistically adjusting for its constituent parts will help to unpack the race effect. In this way, race is examined with more depth and moves past simply categorizing race by groups.

This provided the motivation for analyzing the impact, if any, of skin color on initial contact by police and adulthood arrest. While only briefly touched upon within the criminological literature (Alcalá & Montoya, 2018; Finkeldey & Demuth, 2021; Kizer, 2017), colorism—or the differential treatment of individuals based on the color of their skin—has been shown to offer lighter-skinned citizens more advantages and privileges than darker-skinned citizens (Dixon & Telles, 2017; Monk, 2014; Ryabov, 2016). If skin color has an impact and statistically adjusting for skin color reduces the effect of racial classification on arrest, then we can begin to better understand the “race effect” on the arrest. This is an important endeavor for at least two reasons. First, if skin color, even after adjusting for race, is a predictor of criminal justice processing, then this finding would support arguments that racial biases play a role in criminal justice contact. Second, if skin color is not found to predict criminal justice processing after adjusting for race, it would suggest that other components of the race variable are the mechanisms of action causing racial inequalities.

We believe this is both a timely and broadly important research focus given the increasing scrutiny placed on American criminal justice professionals, especially police officers, and the racial inequality narratives that increasingly dominate colloquial conversation (Trinkner et al., 2019). The findings from this study could help shape the national narrative by identifying the potential sources in need of intervention to reduce the prevalence of inequalities in criminal justice outcomes and aid in criminal justice reforms. But first, the following section will review the available literature that speaks to the association between race and contact with the criminal justice system, the impact of race and skin color on police contact and arrest, and then end with a theoretical framework for the current study

Race and Justice Volume 0: Ahead of Print, 2024

By Bradley Read

This article suggests that the parole dossier may be working to damage prisoners’ sense of their identity through the creation of a carceral script which describes a person whom they do not recognise as themselves, and which leads to an increased narrative labour. Prisoners struggle, therefore, under that labour to form a post-offence identity with which to navigate a complex process such as parole. As identity, and its repair, appear instrumental to desistance, elements of the process, such as the dossier, could be putting hopes of rehabilitation at risk. Using the analysis of 15 prisoner interviews, this article explores a parole process described as undermining agency. A process where risk assessment is perceived poorly and where ultimately the experience can lead to negative impacts on an already fragile self-identity. In conclusion, this article attempts to offer some solutions, to mitigate the negative effects, with a view to maximising the potential impact of the dossier process on future desistance, through the more meaningful involvement of the prisoner at its centre.

Criminology & Criminal Justice Volume 0: Ahead of Print, 2024.

By Michelle Butler, Dominic Kelly, Catherine B. McNamee

Purpose: This study investigates whether men who engage in dual harm while imprisoned are disproportionately involved in committing misconduct during a 1-year follow-up period. It also examines whether dual harm is significantly associated with future involvement in misconduct, when other known risk factors for misconduct are considered, and whether this relationship varies depending on the type of misconduct examined.

Methods: Drawing on the administrative records of 430 men who were imprisoned during the 1-year follow-up period, a combination of descriptive statistics and negative binominal regressions was used to analyse the data.

Results: Roughly one-in-four men engaged in dual harm while imprisoned and were responsible for over half of all misconduct incidents recorded during the follow-up period. A significant relationship between dual harm, as well as violence-only harm compared to no harm, and future involvement in misconduct was also observed even when other known risk factors for misconduct were considered but only for violent and disorder-related misconduct, demonstrating this relationship varied by harm history and type of misconduct examined.

Conclusion: These findings address previous gaps in knowledge, advancing our understanding of the relationship between dual harm and misconduct. Possible explanations for why, compared to no-harm history, dual harm as well as violence-only harm was only related to violent and disorder-related misconduct are offered, alongside possible implications of this research for policy and practice.

Legal and Criminological Psychology Volume 29, Issue 1 Feb 2024

By Sara Wakefield, Lars Højsgaard Andersen

Using unique Danish register data that allow for comparisons across both conviction and incarceration status, this article analyzes the association between pretrial detention and work, family attachment, and recidivism. We find that pretrial detention may impose unique social costs, apart from conviction or additional punishments. Most notably, men who are detained pretrial experience poorer labor market trajectories than men who are convicted of a crime (but not incarcerated). Importantly, this result holds even for men who are detained pretrial but who are not convicted of the crime. Consistent with prior research, we also find that pretrial detention is unrelated to later family formation but might disrupt pre-existing household arrangements. Finally, the associations between pretrial detention and work and family life are not counterbalanced by reductions in recidivism.

Sociological Science 7: 342-366. 2020.

By Hilde Tubex and Natalie Gately

This paper contributes to the growing body of scholarship related to the impact of imprisonment on families, from the particular perspective of parents, siblings and other close relatives of people serving a life sentence. We argue that those family members are often overlooked in research and service provision, while bearing the burden of the association with the offender. This is particularly problematic for relatives of life sentenced prisoners, having to cope with the seriousness of the offence, and the uncertainty of the perspectives of release. Based on 17 interviews conducted in Western Australia, we discuss family members’ confrontation with and experiences throughout the criminal justice system. We report on how they manage to “live with life” and which coping mechanisms they developed. Our findings call for more investment into the matter, to generate a scholarship for a better understanding of and supporting initiatives for those close relatives.

Journal of Criminology, 2023. Online first

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

HERBERT L. PACKER

FROM THE INTRODUCTION: THIS Is A BOOk about law and some related subjects; but it is not a specialized book, and I hope that it will be read by people who are not specialists. It is a book about a social problem that has an important legal dimension: the problem of trying to control antisocial behavior by imposing punishment on people found guilty of violating rules of conduct called criminal statutes. This device I shall call the criminal sanction. The rhetorical question that this book poses is: how can we tell what the criminal sanction is good for? Let us hypothesize the existence of a rational lawmaker-a man who stops, looks, and listens before he legislates. What kinds of questions should he ask before deciding that a certain kind of conduct (bank robbery, income tax evasion, marijuana use) ought to be subjected to the criminal sanction?

STANFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, STANFORD, CALIFORNIA. 1968. 389p.

By Nicole Renehan and David Gadd

  As the Ministry of Justice looks to develop a ‘new generation’ of programmes to reduce reoffending, we reflect on what can be learnt from the only accredited domestic abuse programme in England and Wales, Building Better Relationships (BBR). Findings from an ethnographic study of BBR are situated within the Probation Inspectorate’s recent inspection of domestic abuse work within the newly unified Probation Service which revealed a fractured and overstretched workforce. Our central argument is that if we are to avoid making matters worse, practitioners must be equipped with the time, supervision and skill needed to maintain something akin to a ‘therapeutic alliance’, that will endure in moments of crisis in their own lives as well as those of their clients.

The British Journal of Criminology, 2024, XX, 1–18 

By U.S. Government Accountability Office; Gretta L. Goodwin

Why GAO Did This Study - DOJ’s BOP is responsible for confining individuals in safe, humane, and appropriately secure conditions. In certain circumstances, such as alleged or substantiated violence, BOP can move individuals to restrictive housing, and generally isolate them in cells for up to 23 hours per day. As of October 2023, BOP continued to house about 8 percent of its population (about 12,000 individuals) in these settings. Strengthening management of federal prisons was added to GAO’s high-risk list earlier this year. Among its objectives, GAO was asked to examine the extent to which BOP (1) addressed recommendations from two prior restrictive housing studies; and (2) leveraged facility information to ensure restrictive housing policy compliance and enhance operations. GAO analyzed BOP policies and data; interviewed BOP officials; and conducted non-generalizable interviews with staff and incarcerated individuals at five BOP facilities— selected to cover a range of restrictive housing unit types. What GAO Recommends - GAO is making eight recommendations to BOP, including that it assign responsibility and establish time frames for recommendation implementation and identify the cause of racial disparity in SMU placements. BOP concurred with the eight recommendations but raised related concerns; GAO discusses these in the report.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2024. 79p.

By Ryan Cotter

This study, the seventh in the recidivism series, examines the relationship between length of incarceration and recidivism. In 2020, the Commission published its initial comprehensive study on length of incarceration and recidivism. In that study, which examined offenders released in 2005, the Commission found that federal offenders receiving sentences of more than 60 months were less likely to recidivate compared to a similar group of offenders receiving shorter sentences. This study replicates the prior analysis, however, it examines a more current cohort of federal offenders released in 2010. This study examines the relationship between length of incarceration and recidivism, specifically exploring three potential relationships that may exist: incarceration as having a deterrent effect, a criminogenic effect, or no effect on recidivism.

Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission, 2022. 56p.

By Matthew J. Iaconetti, Tracey Kyckelhahn, and Amanda Kerbel,

This report provides in-depth information on federal firearms offenders sentenced under the primary firearms guideline, §2K2.1. The Commission has published reports on various aspects of firearms offenses, including reports on armed career criminals, mandatory minimum penalties, and firearms offenders’ recidivism rates. The Commission’s prior research shows that firearms offenders are generally younger, have more extensive criminal history, and are more likely to commit a new crime than other offenders. The Commission’s previous research also shows that firearms offenders are more likely than other offenders to engage in violent criminal behavior. This publication continues the Commission’s work and provides detailed information about offenders sentenced under §2K2.1.

Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission, 2022. 46p.

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

The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is responsible for developing sound correctional practices and adhering to its policies that ensure the safety and security of federal inmates in its care. High-profile inmate deaths at BOP institutions, such as the homicide of James “Whitey” Bulger in 2018 and the suicide of Jeffrey Epstein in 2019, brought national focus to the BOP’s operational and management challenges, and U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) investigations of these deaths identified serious BOP job performance and management failures. Additionally, Congress and prisoner advocacy groups have expressed concerns about the BOP’s efforts to prevent inmate deaths, particularly following several inmate homicides at U.S. Penitentiary (USP) Hazelton and USP Thomson. The OIG initiated this evaluation to assess the circumstances surrounding deaths among inmates at BOP institutions that occurred from fiscal year (FY) 2014 through FY 2021 and to evaluate how the BOP seeks to prevent future deaths. We analyzed the frequency and pattern of deaths among BOP inmates in four categories: (1) suicide, (2) homicide, (3) accident, and (4) those resulting from unknown factors. We also identified potential management deficiencies and systemic issues related to those deaths, including the prevalence of long-standing operational challenges highlighted in prior OIG work. Recommendations We make 12 recommendations to assist the BOP in addressing risk factors that contribute to inmate deaths

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, 2024. 111p.

By Kelly Lyn Mitchell  

  This report is one in a series of reports for the Aligning Supervision Conditions with Risk and Needs (ASCRN) project, the goal of which is to reduce probation and parole revocations and reorient community supervision toward promoting success by changing the way probation and parole conditions are imposed. Conditions are requirements that a person on probation or parole must adhere to while serving a period of community supervision. For people on parole, this occurs after the person has served time in prison and is released into the community for a post-prison period of supervision. For people on probation, this period of supervision occurs in the community in lieu of incarceration. The hypothesis for this project was that if probation and parole conditions targeted individuals’ criminogenic needs and were based upon risk level, individuals on supervision would be more successful.1 However, to move to this form of condition setting, we first needed to understand how conditions were being determined and what role, if any, risk and needs assessments played in the condition-setting process. This report sets forth our findings on the parole condition-setting process utilized by the Iowa Parole Board and what role, if any, risk and needs assessments play in the condition-setting process. The findings in this report are based primarily on a legal and policy review and interviews conducted in 2020 with relevant stakeholders who we presumed would have a hand in recommending or imposing supervision conditions, including parole board members, staff, administrative law judges, and parole officers. From this study, we make the following conclusions. Conclusions Parole conditions in Iowa are not tailored to the risk and needs of the individual. Parole conditions in Iowa take a one-size-fits all approach. As explained in this section, several factors converge to create a system where every person on parole receives a lengthy set of conditions within which less than a handful are tailored to the individual needs of the person. ƒ There is a heavy reliance on standard conditions. There is a perception within the state that there are very few standard conditions because they fall into just eight paragraphs. But when the text in each of the eight paragraphs is parsed into individual conditions, there are thirty-five distinct requirements. This extensive set of standard conditions sets what parole board members and parole officers refer to as “standards for behavior,” but the sheer number of conditions is more than any one person could reasonably comply with at one time. ƒ The Parole Board only adds a few special conditions to each case, but it has lost sight of the total number of parole conditions imposed  on individuals. The Parole Board is parsimonious when adding special conditions to each case. Parole board members are concerned about overloading individuals on parole and typically only consider or discuss adding one or two special conditions as each person is paroled. However, because the Parole Board only focuses on setting special conditions, it has lost sight of the total number of standard conditions already imposed on those who are on parole. Several parole board members we spoke to did not know how many standard conditions there were, and some mistakenly thought that conditions they used to impose were no longer available to them when in fact they were already part of the standard conditions. By failing to take the standard conditions into account, the Parole Board undermines its own concern about not overloading people on parole. ƒ Risk assessments are not used to inform condition setting. Iowa utilizes risk and needs assessment throughout the criminal justice process. It informs programming for a person serving time in prison, and case planning for a person once they are released on parole. But risk and needs assessments are not really used in setting the conditions of work release or parole. Staff who prepare the docket for the Parole Board focus on the release decision rather than which conditions to impose, but when they do recommend conditions, they tend to use professional judgment based on past interactions with the person while in prison. Parole board members have access to risk and needs information, but do not really understand it. Instead, they use their best judgment about what conditions to impose. In this way, conditions are not tailored to address the criminogenic needs of the individual. ƒ The Parole Board lacks a feedback mechanism to understand what works in condition setting. Finally, parole board members do not handle parole violations—violations are instead handled by an administrative law judge—so parole board members do not have any way of knowing whether the conditions they impose help or hinder people on parole. Because the Parole Board does not receive any feedback about which conditions work, there is nothing to challenge or inform their professional judgment about which conditions to impose in different situations. Though parole officers are empowered to remove conditions, they do not exercise this power. Instead, parole officers add conditions and selectively enforce the conditions they think aren’t as relevant. Throughout this project, we heard that parole officers remove conditions that aren’t necessary or applicable. However, when asked about this directly, most parole officers indicated that they do not remove conditions. Instead, most talked about adding local conditions such as curfew. Though some parole officers indicated that a few standard conditions are outdated or unnecessary, for the most part, they did not support changing the standard conditions, preferring instead to selectively enforce the conditions they deem most important. Thus, parole officers seek maximum flexibility regarding whether and how to enforce supervision conditions. From the perspective of the person on parole, who has no choice but to conform to all the listed conditions, this way of doing business can be confusing. More crucially, it dilutes the importance of conditions because it becomes unclear for them which conditions must be complied with. 

Minneapolis:  Robina Institute, University of Minnesota, 2023. 48p.

By Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation (UK)

A thematic inspection led by HM Inspectorate of Probation has found that most recalls to prison of those serving imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentences were taken in line with the policy. The inspection also found that better support needs to be in place, both before IPP prisoners are released from prison and during their time back in the community. 

The thematic inspection – A thematic inspection of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) recall decisions includes an analysis of recall events between 01 January 2019 and 21 March 2023 and an in-depth review of 26 recalled IPP prisoners. For the vast majority of these cases, we found the recall to be appropriate as the individual had been exhibiting behaviour similar to that surrounding the original offence or there were concerns that their behaviour could give rise to a serious offence.  

This inspection found: 

• There was a lack of support for those with substance misuse and/or mental health issues. This was often the cause for a deterioration in behaviour leading to recall. 

• Staffing issues meant prisoners experienced a lack of continuity during both custody and the period spent on licence, with some being supervised by several different probation officers (POs). This has led to a lack of trust and an unwillingness to communicate concerns with their POs. 

• People were not prepared well for their release into the community. Many felt overwhelmed with life in the community and struggled to cope.  

This report makes 11 recommendations. Two of these are for the MoJ including to work with other government departments to ensure those serving IPP sentences are able to access appropriate help. Nine recommendations are for HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), including to improve the continuity of case management and ensure those serving IPP sentences are actively managed through multi-agency forums.

Manchester, UK: HMIC, 2023. 69p.

By Kristen Bell

The majority of carceral sentences in the United States include the possibility of discretionary release on parole. Most such sentences, however, are unconstitutionally vague. Their unconstitutionality has gone unnoticed because contemporary scholarship and litigation about vague laws have focused on the U.S. Constitution in lieu of state constitutions. This Article unearths historic state court decisions holding that sentences that end through the discretionary judgment of a parole board are “void for uncertainty.” Although state void for uncertainty doctrines share some similarity with the federal vagueness doctrine, they are far more demanding as applied to criminal punishment. By urging revival of the void for uncertainty doctrine, this Article outlines a novel path for state constitutional litigation and proposes how state legislatures can reform parole statutes to put them on sound constitutional footing.
Cardozo Law Review, 

Volume 44 Issue 5, 2023.

By JUSTICE - Chair of the Committee Professor Nicola Padfield QC (Hon)

  Through the parole system, the State exercises one of its most important functions – the protection of the public from serious criminal offending – and also its most coercive power – the deprivation of an individual’s liberty. It is therefore vital that the process operates effectively and that the decision-making body responsible for determining continued detention can carry out its role fairly and independently. The report recognises the range of positive developments and hard work that have gone into improving the parole system over recent years. However, backlogs and delays remain problematic, in part due to changes in sentencing policy which have resulted in lengthier periods in custody and more complex sentencing regimes. As a result, the parole process continues to be difficult for prisoners and victims to understand and to navigate. This raises a multitude of human rights concerns around effective participation and procedural fairness. The report looks both at the Parole Board itself and the roles and responsibilities of the organisations upon which it depends to receive information and make decisions including prisons, the Public Protection Casework Section, which is responsible for ensuring parole timeframes are complied with as well as building the parole dossier, and the Probation Service, which supervises an individual in the community and has the power to initiate the recall of people for breach of licence conditions. Crucially, the report also questions the purpose of the parole system. For too long and for too many people, public protection has been regarded as synonymous with keeping individuals in prison. Yet rehabilitation and the reduction of crime are vital (and statutory) purposes of the penal system. Viewed in this light, outcomes that result in someone’s continued detention or recall should be seen as a possible failure of the system– for the individual prisoner, their victim, and the general public. This report is intended to offer a comprehensive review by a group of experts in the field, who propose a number of practical, achievable, and well-evidenced recommendations to build a parole system that is truly fit for purpose. 

London: JUSTICE, 2022. 154p.

By Ashley Nellis

Louisiana’s share of people serving life without parole (LWOP) ranks highest per capita nationally and in the world. More than 4,000 Louisianans are serving sentences of life without the possibility of parole, amounting to 15% of this state’s prison population. Between 1995 and 2020, the state added an average of 110 people each year to its total count of life-sentenced individuals.  

A major driver behind the large share of people serving LWOP is the state’s automatic imposition of this sentence after conviction for second degree murder, making it one of only two states to impose LWOP in such instances. Louisiana’s second degree murder statute includes felony murder and drug induced homicide offenses; these cases often include instances where the charged individual was not the direct perpetrator of the killing, nor intended to commit it, though they participated in an underlying felony related to the victim’s death. It is important to note that felony murder laws such as that in Louisiana are not associated with a significant reduction in felonies nor have they lowered the number of felonies that become deadly. These crime types are infrequently subject to LWOP sentences elsewhere, much less mandatorily imposed. But in Louisiana, LWOP in response to second degree murder is both authorized and mandatory.  

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2024. 3p.  

Rachel E. Bennett

Should pregnant women be sent to prison? Is prison a place for the birth and care of babies? Can it ever be? This book is the first extensive historical examination of how the modern prison system sought to answer these perennial questions. The book takes the reader through the prison gates to demonstrate that, although a common feature of everyday life in women’s prisons, pregnancy, birth and motherhood were rarely fully considered at policy level. Instead, the experiences of mothers and children were shaped by a myriad of factors including debates about reconciling the management of institutional discipline with the maintenance of health and issues of gender and class. Lamented as an inalienable heritage of woe but also as an opportunity for the closer supervision of mothers, prison births evoked intense debate and required the negotiation of obdurate regimes. The book reveals how oscillating debates about the purpose of prisons shaped the punitive, reformatory and medical treatment of confined mothers. It also challenges scholarly debates about institutional discipline by delving further into the role of prisoners and prison staff in shaping the terms of their incarceration.

Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2024. 217p.

By Olivia K. Ha , Evan C. McCuish, Martin A. Andresen, & Raymond R. Corrado

To examine individual perceptions of the consequences of crime, the role of criminogenic models, and whether rational choice and criminal social capital are informative of desistance during emerging adulthood. Data from the Incarcerated Serious and Violent Young Offender Study were used to examine the relationship between different aspects of rational choice theories of desistance, criminogenic environment, and offending trajectories measured between ages 12 and 30, calculated using semi-parametric group-based modeling. Offending trajectories were then modeled using multinomial logistic regression. Trajectory analyses identified three desistance trajectories and three non-desistance trajectories. The strongest predictors of desistance trajectories included variables that relate to rational choices that considered the consequences of crime. Rational choice and life course perspectives on desistance as complementary, with sources of informal social control operating in a manner that, along with other factors, helps structure an individual’s consideration of, and importance placed on, the consequences of crime

Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology  2019,