By Julian V. Johnsen, Laura Khoury:

Peer actions play a key role in the criminal sector due to its secrecy and lack of formal institutions. A significant part of criminal peer exposure that happens in prison, is directly influenced by policymakers. This paper provides a broader understanding of how peer effects shape criminal behavior among prison inmates, focusing on co-inmate impacts on recidivism and criminal network formation. Using Norwegian register data on over 140,000 prison spells, we causally identify peer effects through within-prison variation in peers over time. Our analysis reveals several new insights. First, exposure to more experienced co-inmates increases recidivism. Second, exposure to "top criminals" (i.e. those with extreme levels of criminal experience) plays a distinctive role in shaping these recidivism patterns. Third, inmates form lasting criminal networks, as proxied by post-incarceration co-offending. Fourth, homophily intensifies these peer effects. These findings contribute to the theoretical understanding of peer influences in criminal activities and offer practical insights for reducing recidivism through strategic inmate grouping and prison management policies.

Bonn: Institute of Labor Economics - IZA, 2024.

By Howard League for Penal Reform

The prison system in England and Wales is running out of space, reaching record highs of more than 88,000 in recent months. Not only that but the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has been flagging the likelihood of this happening in its prison population projections since 2021 (MoJ, 2021). Billions of pounds are being spent on new prison places but this will not be enough to match supply to demand. It is time for a new government to address the capacity problem head-on and determine a more positive future for the prison system. The problem is not going away, with the latest prison population projections estimating an increase by more than 30% within the next four years (MoJ, 2024c). The new Labour government has recognised that tackling the crisis must be an urgent priority, with the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, commenting at his first Downing Street press conference that “we have too many prisoners” (BBC, 2024). During the election campaign the Prison Governors’ Association (PGA) took the unprecedented step of writing to all the main party leaders, warning that “it is a matter of days before prisons run out of space, and that the entire Criminal Justice System stands on the precipice of failure. Within a matter of weeks, it will put the public at risk” (PGA, 2024). The Police Federation has also expressed concerns that police officers are being asked to hold people unlawfully in police custody because prison cells are not available (Police Federation, 2024). It has been suggested that Operation Brinker, a ‘one-in-one-out’ system, would be deployed as prisons approach zero capacity (iNews, 2024). The main driver behind population growth is an increase in the determinate sentenced population due to greater levels of prosecutorial activity, the court backlog, and changes in sentencing policy. Examples include changes to the timing of release for those serving certain determinate sentences (from release at halfway to two-thirds of the sentence) and the introduction of mandatory starting points or whole-life orders for certain offences. Such reforms mean that more people will spend longer in prison. Legislative reforms such as Schedule 21 (introduced in 2003) and responses to single-issue campaigns have introduced mandatory minimum terms for custodial sentences for certain types of offences (and in some cases have resulted in the creation of new offences). These political interventions have distorted proportionality in sentencing and driven up sentence lengths.   

London: Howard League for Penal Reform, 2024. 19p

By Dominique Moran, Jennifer Turner, Yvonne Jewkes and Matt Houlbrook

Over 20% of people in prison are currently housed in prisons with Victorian-era accommodation. This significant part of the prison estate is a legacy of Victorian policy and ambition, both in terms of construction, and in the creation of a new social institution, the modern prison. Both the physical infrastructure and the ideological foundations of the Victorian prison persist today. This once ‘visionary’ prison design has been widely regarded as an historical relic, a barrier to progress and innovation. These establishments can be characterised by poor-quality accommodation and a relative shortage of opportunities for purposeful activity. The Victorian estate can exhibit some of the worst conditions across the prison system, with HMIP frequently reporting dark, damp cells with poor ventilation and drainage. Despite these challenges, the Victorian prison remains a significant component of the urban prison estate, located close to courts and communities. Our research, conducted with those living and working in Victorian prisons, highlights some ways in which these challenging buildings may be reimagined and re-deployed. The persistence of the Victorian prison also has conceptual implications. This ‘modern’ prison was conceived in part to resolve a ‘penal crisis’ beginning in the 1770s, following the suspension of The challenges evident in the Victorian prison often bring it into the public eye. Today, the prison estate in England and Wales is experiencing acute pressure, with the population currently at its highest ever level, reaching a peak of 88,225 in October 2023 (and closely matched in March 2024). The Victorian prison estate arguably persists in part because these pressures prevent serious consideration of closure of establishments of any era. The prison system is already operating above the Ministry of Justice’s own measure of safe and decent accommodation and is set to reach capacity in summer 2024. Criminal justice stakeholders and oversight bodies have repeatedly raised concerns about the levels of crowding and the impact on safe, decent, and purposeful environments for those living and working in prisons. Prison population projections indicate that this is a long-term problem, with the prison population set to grow to up to 114,800 by March 2028. The Ministry of Justice have announced a raft of emergency measures aimed at increasing capacity, including the renting of police custody cells and cells abroad, and the construction of ‘rapid deployment cells’, prefabricated temporary accommodation with a 15-year lifespan. Draft legislation has proposed scrapping custodial sentences of 12 months or less, and the early release scheme continues to expand. Whilst efforts to reduce the prison population are welcome, short term measures are limited in their effectiveness in addressing longer-term challenges. These pressures tell us that the system requires a rethink, both in terms of its infrastructure and, more abstractly, its purpose. Tackling the challenges faced by the Victorian prison estate, and the system more broadly, will require ambition, a clear vision for the future of the whole prison system, and the foresight necessary to effectively deploy Victorian prisons to support rehabilitation and promote reintegration. 

London: Howard League for Prison Reform, 2024. 11p.

By Texas Defender Service

No one should be forced to serve a prison sentence—or face the death penalty and be executed—because they were convicted based on unreliable forensic evidence. But the reality is that scores of innocent people are serving prison terms, or even facing execution, simply because their juries trusted forensic evidence—from DNA to fingerprints to ballistics—that was later found to be untrustworthy. Yet for years, in both Texas and across the country, people who were convicted based on flawed forensic evidence had no legal recourse in the courts to be relieved of their convictions. Then, just over a decade ago, the Texas Legislature took a revolutionary step forward for people who were wrongfully convicted based on flawed forensics: it passed Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.073 (hereinafter 11.073). The first statute of its kind in the United States, 11.073 created a pathway for people whose convictions were based on false forensic evidence to show those faults and ultimately secure their freedom. Is Article 11.073 fulfilling its powerful initial vision: to grant relief to innocent people who are incarcerated on the basis of flawed scientific evidence? The answer is no. Texas Defender Service systematically examined the more than 70 cases raised under 11.073 between September 2013 and December 2023. We found that 11.073 is not working to provide relief to innocent people convicted based on false or unreliable forensic evidence. Due both to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’s (CCA) interpretation of the statute and lack of guidance in the statute itself, 11.073 is not operating as the Texas Legislature intended: #1—The Statute Does Not Go Far Enough to Protect Innocent People Who Were Convicted Based on Junk Science: At the heart of 11.073 is the Texas Legislature’s recognition that an innocent person convicted based on flawed forensic evidence should be able to overturn their conviction if they can show (1) that the evidence was flawed and (2) that without this flawed evidence, the jury would have found them “not guilty.” This is the standard written in the statute itself, and it is designed to provide a pathway for innocent people who are serving sentences based on unreliable forensic evidence. However, in practice, the CCA does not apply this standard. Instead, it usually only grants relief if a person can show evidence strong enough to eliminate any rational basis for their conviction, such as exonerating DNA evidence or an alternate perpetrator. This is the legal “actual innocence” standard, and it is higher than the standard written in the 11.073 statute. The legal “actual innocence” standard also places an impossibly high burden on innocent people convicted based on flawed forensic evidence. For the vast majority of people who are actually innocent, meeting the high evidentiary burden of the legal “actual innocence” standard years—or decades—after their conviction is out of the question. 1 Innocent incarcerated people are al almost never in a position to do the intensive police work required to reconstruct a crime scene, uncover previously unknown eyewitnesses, or track down an alternate perpetrator. Moreover, original evidence may have gone stale, and eyewitnesses can be missing, deceased, or are no longer able to recall specific details. #2—The CCA Largely Restricts Relief to Cases Involving New DNA Evidence, Even Though Most Wrongful Convictions Are Based on Other Types of Flawed Forensic Evidence: The CCA primarily grants relief in cases involving DNA evidence, ignoring many other cases involving false forensic evidence. This is concerning because nationwide data shows that false DNA evidence is only involved in a relatively small number of wrongful convictions. #3—The CCA is Not Granting Relief to Death-Sentenced People Under 11.073: The CCA has never granted 11.073 relief to a person sentenced to death, as compared to granting relief to 31% of people who seek relief and are serving non-death sentences. Given the historically high rates of exonerations in capital cases, the total failure of the CCA to grant 11.073 claims for death-sentenced people—compared to nearly a third of all other people—is especially concerning. #4—People Without Counsel are Functionally Barred from Meaningfully Seeking Relief Under 11.073: People who represent themselves in their 11.073 applications are effectively denied access to relief under 11.073 due to their lack of legal counsel. Of the 74 applications filed and adjudicated between September 2013 and December 2023, 19 were filed by people without lawyers. Of those 19 people without lawyers, only one has ever been granted relief, a stark drop-off from the 25% of people with counsel who receive relief. #5—Procedural Bars Prevent Large Numbers of 11.073 Applications from Being Considered on the Merits: Despite having valid claims, many people who seek relief under 11.073 never receive consideration of their claims on the merits because of procedural issues. These barriers especially impact people sentenced to death and people without lawyers. Texas took an extraordinary step in enacting 11.073, but more must be done to ensure that the statute operates as the Texas Legislature intended. In this report, we recommend steps the Texas Legislature can take to ensure that 11.073 serves its intended function: creating a pathway to relief for innocent people who were convicted on the basis of false or unreliable forensic evidence. 

Austin: Texas Defender Service, 2024. 36p.

By Alexandra Gannoni and Samantha Bricknell

“The purpose of this paper is to provide a picture of trends and characteristics of Indigenous deaths in prison and police custody in the 25 years since the RCIADIC. A key focus is to describe the circumstances of Indigenous deaths in custody and how these compare with those reported by the RCIADIC and over time."The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCIADIC) was established in 1987 in response to growing concern over the deaths of Indigenous people in custody. The RCIADIC (1991) found Indigenous people in custody did not die at a greater rate than non-Indigenous people in custody, but were considerably more likely to be arrested and imprisoned. The RCIADIC (1991) recommended an ongoing program be established by the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) to monitor Indigenous and non-Indigenous deaths in prison, police custody and youth detention. In response, the National Deaths in Custody Program (NDICP) commenced in 1992. Since then, the NDICP has collected comprehensive data on the extent and nature of all deaths in custody in Australia.”

Australian Institute of Criminology. Statistical Bulletin. No. 17. Feb. 2019. 15p.

By Tony Parker

Recidivism and Rehabilitation: The document explores the challenges of rehabilitating repeat offenders, highlighting the cycle of crime and punishment.

Humanity and Understanding: It emphasizes the importance of treating criminals as human beings and understanding their circumstances.

Systemic Failures: The text discusses the inadequacies of the judicial and penal systems in addressing the root causes of criminal behavior.

Personal Struggles: The narrative of Charlie Smith illustrates the personal difficulties and societal rejection faced by habitual offenders.

Faber & Faber, 2013, 176 pages

By The Civil Commitment Working Group

This report is a summary of the responses that people incarcerated at Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility shared in a 2019 survey. It highlights the concerns, safety risks, and abuses that people who are locked up in Rushville shared with us and connects these self-reports with supporting data collected by professionals who study civil commitment. Rushville residents were clear about the following: 1. Civil commitment at Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility is punishment, not treatment. 2. Civil commitment at Rushville disproportionately harms people from marginalized groups, particularly LGBTQ+, Black, multiracial, and Indigenous people. 3. Rushville is a violent place with poor living conditions. 4. Civil commitment at Rushville is a life sentence. Our Recommendations United by our opposition to sexual violence and our commitment to building a world where no one experiences sexual harm, we do not believe it is possible to build that world so long as civil commitment continues to exist. We know that ending sexual harm and closing Rushville will not happen overnight. To that end, we have provided both immediate and long-term proposals directly informed by feedback from people detained at Rushville. End civil commitment • Reallocate resources that are earmarked for expanding Rushville’s capacity or bolstering its punitive and surveilling practices. • Make Rushville voluntary. Fewer people in • Provide education about civil commitment for people serving criminal sentences. • Eliminate the STATIC 99R. • Invest in voluntary, community-based treatment options. More people out • Release people at higher rates. • Create transparent and accessible pathways for accessing conditional release. • Instate therapist-patient confidentiality.

• Invest in voluntary community-based treatment options. Help those inside now • Allow external monitors to survey the facility. • Expand access to the outside world. • Reallocate resources to offer more one-on-one, confidential therapy. What people on the outside can do right now • Send in care packages of food, gender-affirming products, toiletries, and other necessities. • Educate yourself and others about civil commitment. • Challenge stigma surrounding people who have caused sexual harm. • Support or launch transformative justice initiatives in your community.      

Chicago; Rushville, Civil Commitment Working Group Illinois, 2022. 2022. 32p.

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. 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 judges when sentencing a person to probation in Johnson County, Kansas. The report also explores 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 2021 with relevant stakeholders who we presumed would have a hand in recommending or imposing probation conditions, including judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, court services probation officers, and community corrections probation officers. From this study, we make the following conclusions. Conclusions 1 Prosecutors appear to be the most influential party in setting probation conditions. The condition-setting process appears to revolve primarily around the plea agreement. Prosecutors seem to have the largest role in determining the conditions of probation because conditions are often included in the plea agreement offer. Defense attorneys bargain to temper the conditions to set their clients up for the best chance for success, or to minimize their chances for failure or future incarceration, but they are already working from the baseline established by prosecutors in the plea offer. Probation officers said they had no role in recommending conditions to the court, and judges indicated that they often accept the terms of the plea agreement when sentencing. 2 1 Probation conditions are not tailored to the risk and needs of the individual. Because prosecutors drive the plea agreement it is fair to say that the information they consider to be most important for setting probation conditions is paramount, and as prosecutors explain, that includes information about the offense as described in police reports, the person’s criminal history, and input   from the victim. Prosecutors do not utilize risk and needs information because 3-4 risk assessments are completed too late in the process, after the plea agreement process has already unfolded. Mechanisms are in place to individualize probation conditions, but conditions appear instead to be fairly standardized based on the conviction offense. The law sets forth required and optional conditions for probation, but judges have full authority to modify conditions. As a result, the standard probation forms used in Johnson County, Kansas, do not mirror the requirements in statute, and people across the system have lost sight of which conditions are required by statute and which are not. Rather than viewing “standard” conditions as the ones that are required to be ordered in every case, system actors understand standard conditions to be conditions that are routinely ordered for specific case types (e.g., the conditions typically ordered in a driving under the influence case). The court’s ability to modify any condition opens the door for conditions to be individualized in each case, and respondents indicated this does happen on occasion (e.g., when the no alcohol condition is modified to allow a person to enter restaurants that serve alcohol). Additionally, the probation order includes a standard probation condition requiring people on probation to comply with the probation case plan and any further written conditions by the probation officer. This also opens the door for individualizing conditions because it gives probation officers discretion to offer services or impose requirements that address a person’s criminogenic needs. But more research would be needed to determine how this condition is used in practice. Thus, the legal framework currently in place allows for individualization of probation conditions, but our interviews indicated that probation conditions tend to be fairly standardized based on the conviction offense rather than the needs of the individual. Judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys lack a feedback mechanism to understand what works in condition setting. Judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys all admitted that they do not know how to judge whether probation is successful because after a person has been sentenced, they primarily only see the failures – that is,  who return to court on a violation. They also stated that they lack specific feedback about whether the probation conditions they recommend or impose relate to success or failure. Thus, probation condition setting in M County, Kansas is a fairly rote process based on the offense rather than the individual needs of the person.

Minneapolis: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 2024. 42p.

By Ebony Ruhland and Kelly L. Mitchell

  Connecticut is an indeterminate sentencing state, which means that at the time of conviction, the court imposes a maximum sentence, but the parole board makes the determination as to when the person can be released from prison. In Connecticut, anyone who is not statutorily excluded from eligibility3 and who is imprisoned for a definite sentence or total effective sentence of more than two years may be considered for parole. A “definite sentence” simply refers to the maximum sentence imposed by the court. ``Total effective sentence” refers to the total maximum time to be served after adding together the sentences imposed for multiple convictions, taking into account whether the sentences are to be served consecutively (one after the other) or concurrently (at the same time). The Board of Pardons and Parole (BOPP) is responsible for deciding when a person will be released on parole, which is defined as the “conditional release of an individual from confinement . . . prior to expiration of the maximum term or terms of imprisonment” or “the court-ordered period of community supervision following expiration of the maximum term or terms of imprisonment.” The BOPP comprises ten full-time and up to five part-time members. These individuals are appointed by the Governor and can serve for as long as the appointing Governor remains in office. The BOPP has independent decision-making authority over whether to grant or deny parole of individuals who are incarcerated, what conditions of parole should be placed upon individuals who are granted parole, and whether and when to rescind or revoke parole. The Parole Board works in panels of three members. When empaneled for any type of parole hearing, members make decisions based on a majority vote. In deciding whether a person may be released on parole, the BOPP must determine if “there is a reasonable probability that such inmate will live and remain at liberty without violating the law, and . . . [that] such release is not incompatible with the welfare of society.” To frame their decision making process, BOPP members use the Structured Parole Decision Making (SPDM) framework, which allows BOPP members to systematically consider  risk and need factors across seven domains—criminal/parole history; institutional/community behavior; disinhibitors; responsivity; offender change; release plan; and case-specific factors. There are three parole approval processes: traditional parole, parole without a hearing, and special parole.     

Minneapolis: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 2024. 41p.

By Louise Durand, Eamon Keenan, Deirdre O’Reilly, Kathleen Bennett, Andy O’Hara & Gráinne Cousins 

Background- Pharmacotherapy is essential for the delivery of an equivalent standard of care in prison. Prescribing can be challenging due to the complex health needs of prisoners and the risk of misuse of prescription drugs. This study examines prescribing trends for drugs with potential for misuse (opioids, benzodiazepines, Z-drugs, and gabapentinoids) in Irish prisons and whether trends vary by gender and history of opioid use disorder (OUD). Methods- A repeated cross-sectional study between 2012 and 2020 using electronic prescribing records from the Irish Prison Services, covering all prisons in the Republic of Ireland was carried out. Prescribing rates per 1,000 prison population were calculated. Negative binomial (presenting adjusted rate ratios (ARR) per year and 95% confidence intervals) and joinpoint regressions were used to estimate time trends adjusting for gender, and for gender specific analyses of prescribing trends over time by history of OUD. Results - A total of 10,371 individuals were prescribed opioid agonist treatment (OAT), opioids, benzodiazepines, Z-drugs or gabapentinoids during study period. History of OUD was higher in women, with a median rate of 597 per 1,000 female prisoners, compared to 161 per 1,000 male prisoners. Prescribing time trends, adjusted for gender, showed prescribing rates decreased over time for prescription opioids (ARR 0.82, 95% CI 0.80–0.85), benzodiazepines (ARR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98–0.999), Z-drugs (ARR 0.90, 95% CI 0.88–0.92), but increased for gabapentinoids (ARR 1.07, 95% CI 1.05–1.08). However, prescribing rates declined for each drug class between 2019 and 2020. Women were significantly more likely to be prescribed benzodiazepines, Z-drugs and gabapentinoids relative to men. Gender-specific analyses found that men with OUD, relative to men without, were more likely to be prescribed benzodiazepines (ARR 1.49, 95% CI 1.41–1.58), Z-drugs (ARR 10.09, 95% CI 9.0-11.31), gabapentinoids (ARR 2.81, 95% CI 2.66–2.97). For women, history of OUD was associated with reduced gabapentinoid prescribing (ARR 0.33, 95% CI 0.28–0.39). Conclusions - While the observed reductions in prescription opioid, benzodiazepine and Z-drug prescribing is consistent with guidance for safe prescribing in prisons, the increase in gabapentinoid (primarily pregabalin) prescribing and the high level of prescribing to women is concerning. Our findings suggest targeted interventions may be needed to address prescribing in women, and men with a history of OUD.

BMC Psychiatry, 2023. 12p.

By Trevor L. Brown,  Carter M. Stewart

  The murder of George Floyd, a Black man, by Derek Chauvin, a White Minneapolis, Minnesota, police officer on May 25, 2020, sparked months-long protests about racism and policing across the country and around the globe, including Columbus, Ohio. Captured on video and spread quickly through social media, Floyd’s death galvanized Americans to take to the streets in the midst of a global health pandemic to voice their anger and frustration about the many Black Americans who had been killed by police. The fairness of policing practice as applied to communities of color, particularly Black communities, and more fundamentally, the existence of the police as a legally sanctioned public institution were the clear motivations for the protests. Law enforcement agencies across the country, including the Columbus Police Department, also mobilized to the streets. Their job was to create a space for citizens to peacefully exercise their right to free speech, while simultaneously ensuring the safety of the community. In many protests, police are neutral actors managing the boundaries of the demonstration. In the protests of 2020, protestors saw the police as antagonists, and systematically racist; they were the object of the protest. When police are the focus of the protest, there is a significant increase in the likelihood of direct conflict between protesters and law enforcement personnel. Adhering to best practice in protest management and adapting to evolving protest dynamics become even more important to ensure free speech rights and community safety. This report provides the results of an eight-month research study evaluating how the City of Columbus, Ohio, inclusive of elected officials and the Columbus Division of Police (CPD), managed the protests in Columbus from May 28 through July 19, 2020. The purpose of the research study was three-fold: • document interactions between community members and law enforcement personnel as a part of the protests; • evaluate the City of Columbus’s preparation for and response to the pro tests; and • generate research-informed recommendations about how to improve the performance of the City of Columbus in preparing for and responding to future protests. The study was conducted by an independent research team organized by the John Glenn College of Public Affairs at The Ohio State University. The research team was composed of a lead investigative unit that gathered information, a diverse research advisory board. that provided subject-matter and technical expertise, and a core research group that assembled and synthesized the data, generated findings, and produced recommendations   

Columbus, OH: John Glenn College of Public Affairs, The Ohio State University, 2024. 111p.   

By  The Council for Court Excellence (“CCE”)

  Across the United States, jurisdictions as diverse as New York City and the states of Colorado and Nebraska are eliminating or severely restricting the use of solitary confinement – often referred to as “restrictive housing” or “segregated housing” – in correctional facilities. These changes are being driven by evidence showing both that solitary confinement is ineffective as a correctional management practice, and that it is harmful to the individuals placed in segregation. Here in Washington, D.C. (“D.C.” or “the District”), there is a growing call for the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) to end the use of solitary confinement in the D.C. Jail. Additionally, D.C. is in the process of designing a new correctional facility, creating an urgency to the question of whether it will or should include units designed for solitary confinement. To inform these conversations, the Council for Court Excellence (“CCE”) sought information on the use of the various forms of solitary confinement by DOC through D.C. Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests. This brief provides relevant background and context for these incarceration related issues and summaries of the information that DOC did and did not provide in response to the DC-FOIA requests. After more than two years of negotiation related to the DC-FOIA requests, DOC ultimately provided very limited information regarding its use of disciplinary or administrative segregation of people in the D.C. Jail. The data that was provided was incomplete and raised a number of concerns. For example, the average length of stay in segregated housing in Fiscal Year 2021 was 49 days – over three times longer than the United Nations considers the maximum time a person should be held in solitary confinement. And 29 people that year were released directly to the community from segregation; this has been shown to have detrimental impacts, such as homelessness, joblessness, and a greater likelihood of recidivism, as those released may not have had access to programming to help them get the housing, treatment and other services they need. Additionally, many of our requests remained unanswered, leaving much still unknown. For example, CCE was not provided responses related to the use of restraints on people in the jail; the races and ages of people in solitary – both disciplinary and administrative restrictive housing/segregation; the number of pregnant people in segregation; or the number of people in segregation who tried to or succeeded in hurting themselves or completing suicide. In the limited places where DOC did provide relevant numbers for Fiscal Year 2021, they did not provide the comparable data for 2019 and 2020 that was also requested. The findings are detailed in a later section of this brief.  

Washington, DC:  The Council for Court Excellence (“CCE”), 2024. 13p,

By Michael Balfour

The book discusses the use of drama in the rehabilitation of violent male offenders. Itexplores the theoretical territory of criminology and the rehabilitation perspective, aswell as the application of drama with offenders. The document also includes information on the outcomes and evaluation of drama-based rehabilitation programs.

ResearchGate, 2003, 302 pages

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

By Sheldon Glueck And Eleanor T. Glueck

The book provides a comprehensive analysis of the after-conduct of discharged offenders, focusing on the implications for reforming criminal justice:

● Causal Relations: It emphasizes the importance of understanding the multiple causal factors, both biological and environmental, that influence criminal behavior.

● Predictive Techniques: The document discusses the feasibility of using predictive tables to aid in sentencing and parole decisions.

● Reform Proposals: It suggests reforms for criminal justice based on scientific insights, such as re-designing correctional equipment to address causes rather than symptoms.

● Scientific Insights: Follow-up studies are highlighted as a means to gain scientific insights into the effectiveness of sentencing, treatment, and parole practices.

These key insights aim to shift the focus from punitive measures to a more rehabilitative approach that considers the complex interplay of factors contributing to criminal behavior.

Cambridge University. London 1945. Kraus Reprint Corporation New York 1966. 129p.

By Lela Bond Phillips

"The Lena Baker Story" by Lela Bond Phillips is a compelling account of the life of Lena Baker, a Black woman wrongfully convicted of murder in Georgia in the 1940s. This book delves into the injustices Lena faced as she navigated a racially charged legal system and tells the story of her fight for justice in the face of insurmountable odds. Through meticulous research and poignant storytelling, Lela Bond Phillips sheds light on a forgotten chapter of American history and brings Lena Baker's courageous struggle for truth and dignity to the forefront."

Wings Publishers, 2001, 103 pages

By Curtis Prout and Robert N. Ross

Care and Punishment: The Dilemmas of Prison Medicine delves into the ethical and practical challenges faced by healthcare providers in correctional facilities. Authors Curtis Prout and Robert N. Ross examine the complex intersection of healthcare, criminal justice, and human rights within the confines of prison walls. Through a series of compelling case studies and rigorous analysis, this book sheds light on the dilemmas that arise when medical care interacts with the punitive nature of incarceration. A crucial read for anyone interested in the intersection of medicine and justice, Care and Punishment offers valuable insights into the complexities of providing healthcare in carceral settings.

University of Pittsburgh Press, 1988, 276 pages

Gruesome Spectacles : Botched Executions and America's Death Penalty By Auston Sarat

In "Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America's Death Penalty," author Auston Sarat meticulously examines the dark history of flawed executions in the United States. Through detailed analysis and compelling narratives, Sarat sheds light on the often overlooked human errors and systemic failures that have plagued the American justice system. This thought-provoking book challenges readers to confront the ethical complexities of capital punishment and its impact on society. Sarat's compelling exploration of botched executions raises crucial questions about the efficacy and morality of the death penalty in contemporary America.

Stanford University Press, 2014 - 273 pages

MICHAEL L. RADELET

"The History of the Death Penalty in Colorado" delves into the complex and controversial practice of capital punishment within the state. Revealing the evolution of laws, cases, and sentiments surrounding the death penalty, this book provides a comprehensive examination of its impact on Colorado's justice system and society. From landmark legal battles to public opinion shifts, this thorough exploration offers valuable insights into a contentious aspect of Colorado's history."

UNIVERSITY PRESS OF COLORADO. Boulder. 2017. 300p.

Victor L. Streib

"The Fairer Death: Executing Women in Ohio" delves into the overlooked history of female executions in the state of Ohio. Through meticulous research and compelling storytelling, this book sheds light on the lives and crimes of these women, exploring the societal attitudes and legal systems that led to their ultimate fate. A thought-provoking examination of gender, justice, and the death penalty, "The Fairer Death" challenges readers to confront uncomfortable truths about our criminal justice system's treatment of women offenders.

Ohio University Press Series. Athens. 2005. 202p.

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

DANIEL GEROULD

Guillotine: It's Legend and Lore delves into the history, cultural impact, and myths surrounding the infamous device that became the symbol of the French Revolution. This comprehensive book examines the origins of the guillotine, its evolution, and the significant historical events it was associated with. Through meticulous research and captivating storytelling, the author explores the diverse perspectives on the guillotine, shedding light on its enduring legacy in both history and popular culture. Whether you are a history enthusiast or simply curious about this macabre yet fascinating subject, Guillotine: It's Legend and Lore is a compelling read that offers a fresh look at one of history's most notorious inventions.

BLAST BOOKS • NEW YORK. 1992. 332p.