By Emily Lupton Lupez,  Steffie Woolhandler, ; David U. Himmelstein

Growing old and dying inside: improving the experiences of older people serving long prison sentences Dr Jayne Price In partnership with the Building Futures Programme. This report is an uncomfortable read, shining a stark light on the difficulties faced by the increasing number of older people serving long sentences. For me, four issues stand out from the consultation that underpins this report. First, the experiences of the men and women who took part powerfully illustrate the mismatch between the diverse needs of this often-hidden group of people and the rigidity of many prison regimes. These needs cannot be met by the prison system alone but raise important challenges for health and social care commissioners and providers, as well as external partners involved in the provision of purposeful activities. Second, that this activity is critical for many older people serving long sentences. But many find that few opportunities are available to them. For the ageing population future employment is less of a concern, how their time, often decades, can be spent productively and meaningfully in activities suited to their age and length of sentence. The testimonies here suggest that governors should enhance the role that prisoners themselves can play in supporting others. This report suggests that when encouraged effectively, those serving long sentences can help to fill the gaps that currently exist in many parts of the estate. Third, like much of PRT’s Building Futures Programme, this report demonstrates the value of enabling people with lived experience to engage in issues of operational and policy improvement and provides ideas for positive change. It also includes very personal, honest, and desperate reflections about the experience of incarceration. This underlines what we see at Recoop: many older people inside feel they are punished not just through losing their liberty but also through a series of humiliations and deprivations throughout their sentence, which can get harder as they age. Finally, those who participated in this report provide a painful reminder of the need for a national strategy for older prisoners; something promised by the government in 2020 but yet to be published. The pressure on the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to provide decent, safe, and rehabilitative secure environments is probably as acute as it has ever been, particularly with the current and very real overcrowding challenges. This cannot be achieved without a comprehensive, integrated and estate-wide approach. The long-awaited older prisoner strategy must address the changes required, including ensuring funding and commissioning is in alignment. This requires joint working and commitment from the MoJ, Public Health and NHS England to fulfil their collective responsibilities to address the perfect storm of issues that is painfully illustrated in this report. Without this, it will not be able to deliver what is needed. 

London: Prison Reform Trust, 2024. 52p.

By Howard League for Penal Reform

Sentence inflation: a judicial critique “Overcrowding has had a mesmeric effect on the prison system and has absorbed energy which could have been used in improving prisons. In addition, prisons are expensive and have damaging effects on prisoners. It is therefore important… to reduce the prison population to an unavoidable minimum.” The Woolf Report, 1991 This paper, signed by the four surviving former Lords Chief Justice of England and Wales, and the only surviving President of the Queen’s Bench Division who was also Head of Criminal Justice, raises serious concerns about the state of sentencing law and practice in this country. It urges not merely the new government, but politicians of all parties, to reflect on Lord Woolf’s words above. In 1991 the prison population of England and Wales was just nudging 40,000. Today it stands at over 88,000 – of whom more than 80% are sentenced – and it has been rising steeply. We already have the highest rate of imprisonment per capita in Western Europe, and the Ministry of Justice’s own projections suggest that by March 2028 we face a ‘low’ scenario of 94,600, a ‘high’ scenario of 114,800, and a central estimate of 105,800. This forecast should be treated as unacceptable. There have been two main causes of the steady rise in prison numbers that has taken place since the Second World War. The first is a continuous escalation in the length of sentences imposed for more serious offences. The second is a lack of confidence in the efficacy of non-custodial sentences for less serious offences. These factors might have been offset if imprisonment had proved an occasion for effective rehabilitation, but it has not. Other causes include the increase in the requirement for many prisoners to serve twothirds of the sentence before release, and that licence conditions now apply for the entirety of the sentence. The number of prisoners recalled to prison during this period of supervision has soared. The construction of prison accommodation is unable to keep pace with the demand for prison spaces. The result is severely overcrowded prisons. As the new Prime Minister has made clear, we are close to breaking point. By the Ministry of Justice’s own measure, there are nearly 8,000 more people in prison than can be held in safety and decency. Reports of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP), including a recent spate of Urgent Notifications of unacceptable prisons, evidence the scope and severity of the challenge. HMIP reports, along with those of the statutory Independent Monitoring Boards report poor physical conditions in many jails, the absence of meaningful activity for prisoners and diminishing safety across the estate. Population and staffing pressures mean that access to a useful daily regime, one which gives any opportunity for rehabilitation, is severely curtailed for most people in prison. Last year, HMIP found that 42% of those surveyed spent more than 22 hours a day in their cell, and that access to purposeful activity in the library, gym, employment and education was limited. Lack of purposeful activity has been repeatedly highlighted as HMIP’s biggest area of concern. To address the current crisis, the last government pursued a series of emergency measures that included reversing an increase in the sentencing powers of magistrates, releasing prisoners days early and delaying court processes likely to result in imprisonment. The new government has reduced the proportion of a sentence that many prisoners must serve before release on licence. Recent Court of Appeal rulings and statements from the Sentencing Council indicate that judges may have regard to the effect of prison overcrowding when passing sentence. From the outset we should be clear in our understanding that prisons hold many people who have committed very serious offences and who present a real danger to the public. In these cases, a substantial custodial sentence will be necessary and inevitable. However, in England and Wales, sentences for such offending have grown significantly over our time as judges. And this growth has resulted in the inflation of sentences across the board 

London: Howard League for Penal Reform, 2024. 14p.

By Ariel White and Avery Nguyen 

Recent debates about enfranchising incarcerated people raise the question of how many additional votes such policies would generate. Existing research finds very low voter participation among people previously convicted of felonies, but it remains unclear how often people might vote from prison if given the opportunity. We use data from states that allow people to vote while incarcerated for felony crimes to address this question. We merge prison records with the voter file to estimate how many currently incarcerated people are registered and voted in recent elections. Estimates suggest very few (under one in ten) eligible incarcerated voters in Vermont and Maine voted in the most recent congressional election. Given the winning margins in other states’ recent elections, these estimates suggest that enfranchising currently-incarcerated people would likely not have changed these election outcomes. We conclude that debates about enfranchisement should focus on normative issues and not anticipated electoral effects.

Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2020.

By: Heather Harris and Sean Cremin

California’s prison population decreased dramatically during the pandemic. ⊲ The prison population fell sharply during the first year of the pandemic: between March 2020 and February 2021, it dropped 23%, from 123,100 to 94,600. ⊲ California’s prison population now stands at its lowest point in more than thirty years. After increasing nearly eightfold between 1977 and 2006 to peak at over 173,000, the prison population has since declined. In 2023, the population stood at nearly 94,200; it was just above 97,300 in 1990. ⊲ California’s imprisonment rate—the share of adults in state prisons—stood at 309 per 100K in 2023. Imprisonment rates vary by gender, race, and age in California. ⊲ In December 2023, men made up 96% of California’s prisoners—up 0.5 percentage points from 2019. The female population fell more sharply amid the pandemic than the male population—31% relative to 24%. As a result, the male-female disparity in imprisonment rates grew from 22:1 in 2019 to 25:1 in 2023. ⊲ At 46%, Latinos are the most prevalent racial/ethnic group in California prisons. Black, white, and people of other races are 28%, 20%, and 6%, respectively. ⊲ Black people and Latino men are overrepresented among prisoners. Black men and women are 28% and 23% of prisoners, while both make up just 6% of the state’s adults. Similarly, Latino men are 46% of prisoners, but just 38% of adult Californians. By contrast, Latino women account for about 37% of both populations. ⊲ While imprisonment rates for Californians of all ages fell amid the pandemic, younger adults saw the sharpest declines. In 2023, Californians aged 18 to 24 were imprisoned at less than half the 2019 rate (121 vs. 248 per 100K), and imprisonment rates for those age 25 to 34 fell 35%, from 746 per 100K in 2019 to 480 per 100K in 2023. The highest rate in 2023 rate was among 35- to 44-year-olds (545

Most people in California prisons have been convicted of violent crimes that can carry long sentences. ⊲ Half of people in California prisons in 2023 were convicted of homicide or assault—up from 45% in 2019. Another 17% were convicted of sex crimes. About 18% were convicted of robbery or burglary—down 4 percentage points from 2019. Just 3% were imprisoned for drug crimes. ⊲ More than 3 in 10 people in California prisons are serving sentences of life or life without parole—a 5 percentage point increase since before the pandemic. The average sentence for people serving non-life terms is five years; on average, people are released after they have served 60% of their sentences. ⊲ California prisons currently house 20 women and 616 men who have been sentenced to death. Though Californians continue to receive death sentences, the state has not executed anyone since 2006, and the governor suspended executions in 2019. Prisons across the state are less overcrowded now than they were before the pandemic. ⊲ Most California prisons operate within the systemwide limit of 137.5% of design capacity that was mandated by the United States Supreme Court in 2010. At the end of 2023, the overall population stood at 117.6% of design capacity and 23 of the 32 currently operating prisons were below the systemwide limit. ⊲ The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has closed three prisons since 2021 and will close another in 2025. The legislature abolished for-profit prisons in 2020; as of 2023, the state no longer leases any prison facility from a private company. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the state could close five more prisons. The CDCR’s budget has been rising while its share of the state budget has declined. ⊲ The average cost of imprisoning a person for one year has risen almost 50% since the onset of the pandemic, from $91,000 in 2019 to $133,000 in 2024. Security, operations, and administration account for about 60% of that cost. ⊲ The prison system is funded by a substantial—but decreasing—portion of the state budget. From 2019 to 2023, CDCR’s share of the state General Fund declined from 8.6% to 6.5%, even as its budget grew from $12.8 to $14.8 billion. This year, CDCR faces its first projected budget decrease (of $600 million) in 12 years. ⊲ More than half of the CDCR budget—54%—goes to operations and prisoner health care consumes 28%. Only 4% supports rehabilitative programs.

San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 2024. 2p.

By Matt Ford and Roger Grimshaw

This report presents the raw data from a set questions asked to representatives from institutions in a selection of European countries about how the COVID-19 pandemic in prisons in their respective jurisdictions was being managed. The questions were based on a checklist developed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) to help support policy-makers and prison administrators implement the WHO’s interim guidance on preparedness, prevention and control of COVID-19 in prisons and other places of detention. The interim guidance contained measures recommended to prevent the virus entering prisons, to limit its spread in prisons, and to prevent transmission from within prisons to the outside community. It was published on 15 March 2020, and is based on the evidence about COVID-19 available at that time. Whilst prison services will use a variety of sources of guidance to develop their strategies to deal with COVID-19, we have assumed that the WHO guidance is the international standard and therefore is appropriate for international research such as this. The WHO do make clear that their checklist is not exhaustive. The WHO questions formed one module of a larger survey that the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (from here on in referred to as 'the Centre') circulated to members of the European Prison Observatory, an international coalition of non-governmental organisations and educational institutes, to complete. The survey also contained questions about the prison populations, prison healthcare arrangements, incidence and prevalence of COVID-19 infection in prisons, and emerging problems and responses in prisons as a result of COVID-19.

London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, 2020/ 39p.

By The Howard League for Penal Reform

Over the half-century that we have been involved in the law, custodial sentence lengths have approximately doubled and the same is true of prison numbers. The connection between the two is obvious. Over time, the growing prison population has outstripped safe and decent accommodation. As a consequence, prison overcrowding prevents the rehabilitation that should take place to reduce reoffending. There is nothing that justifies this doubling of sentence lengths. Government legislation relating to sentencing has consistently provided that imprisonment should only be imposed if there is no suitable alternative punishment, and that imprisonment should be for the minimum period commensurate with the crime. The law dictates this. The problem is that there is no objective measure for deciding what term of imprisonment is commensurate with a particular offence. Nor have governments always been content to leave it to the judges to decide the appropriate sentence. Instead they have intervened piecemeal, by securing legislation to impose minimum sentences where crimes, typically murder, are committed in specified circumstances that are seen as aggravating the offence. The result of such interventions has been to raise the level of sentences imposed across the board, as judges, with guidance from the Sentencing Council, seek to maintain a consistent scale of punishment. The only purposes of sentencing which are served by longer sentences are punishment and, in some instances, the protection of the public. But punishment does not stop reoffending and is expensive. It currently costs about £50,000 to imprison an adult for a year.

London: The Howard League for Penal Reform, 2024. 14p.

By Darrel Thompson and Ashley Burnside

Individuals with prior felony convictions, incarcerated or not, often face “collateral consequences,” which are significant barriers imposed in addition to their sentences that can range from being denied employment to losing voting rights. Some states subject people with a drug-related felony conviction to restrictions or complete bans on food assistance under SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly food stamps), cash assistance through TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), or both. This practice began in 1996 under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). The act imposes a lifetime ban on SNAP and TANF for those with a previous drug felony conviction, whether they have completed their time in jail or prison or received a lighter sentence due to the nonviolent and/or low-level nature of the offense. States, however, can opt to remove or modify the ban. And all states and the District of Columbia except for one, South Carolina, have either modified or removed the ban for at least one program, recognizing that it is not an effective crime deterrent, fails to address substance use disorders, and impedes reconnecting formerly incarcerated people to their families and communities. Successful reentry into society from the criminal justice system requires being able to meet basic needs such as food, health care, and housing as well as access to employment and training services. Some individuals may also need child care and/or mental health and substance use disorder treatment. Denying access to basic needs programs makes it harder for people with convictions to get back on their feet. Such exclusions are racist: they are grounded in stereotypes about who receives public assistance, and they are especially punitive for Black and Latinx communities due to the War on Drugs’ uneven enforcement of drug laws and targeting of communities of color with low incomes. This has resulted in the conviction and incarceration of disproportionate numbers of Black and Latinx people, especially Black men.1 According to the Sentencing Project, one in three Black males born in 2001 will be imprisoned at some point in their lives, compared to one in six Latinx men and one in 17 white men.2 When considering educational attainment, young men of color without a high school diploma, especially Black men, are most at risk of incarceration. In 2010, for instance, nearly one-third of Black males ages 25 to 29 who dropped out of high school were incarcerated or institutionalized.3 For women, incarceration rates have risen exponentially in recent years. While fewer women than men are incarcerated, the total number of women who have been arrested has increased by 25 percent over the past 35 years, while decreasing by 33 percent for men.4 Women, moreover, are more likely than men to be convicted of a drug offense: 26 percent of incarcerated women were convicted of a drug offense in 2018, compared to 13 percent of men, according to the Sentencing Project.5

Washington DC: CLASP, 2022. 9p.

By Melissa Young, Clarence Okoh, and Jason Whyte

Now more than ever, Congress has a national imperative to advance comprehensive policy reforms that seek to remedy the harms caused by the criminal legal system, heal communities, and restore rights and access to opportunity. The federal Reentry Employment Opportunities (REO) Program has the potential to be a critical programmatic element of a comprehensive effort.

In this brief, the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) and the National Reentry Workforce Collaborative (NRWC) offer a set of recommendations to strengthen and modernize the REO program to ensure that a greater number of people impacted by the criminal legal system have access to quality jobs through effective, equitable, and culturally responsive practices.

Our recommendations are grounded in the perspectives of current REO programs, partners, and intermediaries across the country. Additionally, our recommendations build from two recent proposals to codify the REO program from Senator Gary Peters (D-MI) through the Reentry Employment Opportunities Act of 2020 (Senate Bill 4387) and the House-passed Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2022 (House Bill 7309).

Washington, DC: CLASP, 2022. 6p.

By Deanie Anyangwe & Alycia Hardy

According to a 2010 Pew Charitable Trust report, more than 1.1 million men and 120,000 women incarcerated in jails and prisons in the United States have children under the age of 17, and 2.7 million children nationwide have one or both parents incarcerated. As more attention has been paid to the negative consequences of incarceration on families in recent years, different localities have undertaken new efforts to mitigate the impact of the criminal legal systems. Most recently, there have been federal efforts to offer alternatives to incarceration to parents and caregivers. In 2021, the OJJDP began a new grant program titled the Family-Based Alternative Sentencing Program.

In this report, we analyze the landscape for family-based alternative sentencing programs to assess the effectiveness of these programs in meeting their program goals. We specifically focused our analysis on two programs funded by OJJDP’s Families Based Alternative Sentencing Program: Lehigh County, PA and Washtenaw County, MI. Additionally, we conducted an in-depth analysis of a state-funded program in Washington County, Oregon with more longevity to get a better sense of how these programs function over time. As we outline what we have learned from the field, we will be drawing particular attention to the challenges and barriers in planning and implementation, the equity and justice-related implications of these programs, and the nuances in how these programs are functioning. In highlighting the challenges with facilitating these programs, we hope to demonstrate the need for alternatives to incarceration that address immediate needs for caregivers and children, minimize the power of the police state, and support program improvements that increase accessibility and utilization by those targeted for criminalization, all while pushing for a shift away from incarceration altogether and working toward keeping families and communities unified, safe, and well. We offer policymakers, practitioners, and advocates considerations and recommendations for non-coercive alternatives to incarceration that support the autonomy, well-being, and safety of children and families.

Washington DC: CLASP: 2023. 43p.

By Lulit Shewan

An exploitative labor economy exists within the confines of this nation’s prisons. This is a fundamental pillar of the criminal justice system, yet it is largely concealed from public view. In the United States, all state and federal prisons allow some form of involuntary labor as part of various correctional work programs. Even when prison labor is ostensibly voluntary, the combination of meager pay (often less than $1/hour) and the presence of harsh alternatives creates an inherently exploitative system that depends on the labor of those behind bars and perpetuates a cycle of exploitation and marginalization. Prison labor amplifies deep-seated issues within the criminal justice system and casts a stark light on the intersection of labor rights, social justice, and the ethics of incarceration

The Exploitative Prison Labor Economy

Incarcerated men and women toil in workshops, kitchens, and fields, producing goods and services that reach far beyond their confinement. From manufacturing furniture and processing food to fighting fires and working in call centers, their labor fuels supply chains, corporate profits, and consumer markets. Yet these workers remain invisible, their contributions often overlooked or dismissed. The commodification of their labor perpetuates a cycle of vulnerability, where meager wages and limited rights prevail. In the intricate tapestry of the prison industrial complex, we confront a profound challenge that transcends temporary reforms. The only holistic and ethical approach calls for a paradigm shift, a reimagining of justice itself. Within this context, we fiercely advocate for granting incarcerated individuals fundamental rights: the right to choose voluntary work and earn fair wages, and the freedom to join unions. These rights are not concessions; they are affirmations of human dignity and agency, and are necessary to improving the material conditions of incarcerated people.

Washington, DC: CLASP, 2024. 6p.

By Scartascini, Carlos; Cafferata, Fernando Gabriel; Gingerich, Daniel

Punitive anti-crime policies in the Americas have contributed to steadily increasing rates of incarceration. This creates prison overcrowding and can lead to recidivism. Harsh penalties are often demanded by citizens, making them politically attractive for politicians. Yet the contextual determinants of participation in crime are rarely understood by the public. In this paper, we employ a survey experiment conducted in Chile in order to examine how the provision of information about the prison population shapes tastes for punitive anti-crime policies. Respondents in the treatment group received information about the low educational attainment of prisoners. This information led to substantial changes in policy preferences. Tasked with allocating resources to anti-crime policies using a fixed budget, treated respondents assigned between 20% to 50% more to socially oriented anti-crime policies (relative to punitive policies) than respondents in the control group, and they reduced their support for “iron fist” policing. This indicates that providing information to citizens might change the policy equilibrium in the Americas.

Washington DC: IDB, 2020. 31p.

By Stella Botchway and Seena Fazel

In England and Wales, there has been considerable work over recent years to reduce the numbers of deaths in custody. Currently, there is no standard,internationally agreed definition of a death in custody, which limits compar-isons. In addition, rates of death in custody are often reported per country or region inhabitants, but it would be more useful to report per number of detainees. In this short communication, we present data on deaths in indivi-duals who have been detained in England and Wales between 2016 to 2019. Wealso present a method to calculate rates of death per custodial population in key settings using routine data, allowing for more consistent comparisons across time and different settings. Most deaths in custody between 2016–2019 occurred in prisons (56% of all deaths in custody over 2016–19; Table 1). However, when rates are considered, those detained under the Mental HealthAct had the highest rate of deaths, which ranged from 1103–1334/100,000 per-sons detained. Around one in five deaths were self-inflicted. The data presented highlights the need to maintain focus on improving the physical health and mental health of all those detained in custody, both whilst in detention and after release

THE JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY & PSYCHOLOGY2022, VOL. 33, NO. 1, 1–13

By  Benjamin W. Fisher; Catalina Valdez; Abigail J. Beneke

This document presents the research methodology, findings, and discusses implications of a research project that examined the potential impacts of removing school-based law enforcement (SLBE), and how that might shape outcomes related to criminal justice system contact or other racial and ethnic disparities. The research study drew on two secondary data sources: The School Survey on Crime Safety (SSOCS), which is a biennial nationally representative sample of school administrators; and the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), a biennial census of American public schools. Both data sources were used to construct a two-wave longitudinal dataset that identified schools that did or did not remove SBLE. The researchers used a difference-in-differences approach. The researchers compared changes between schools that did remove versus those that did not remove SBLE, in three measures of criminal justice contact: arrests; referrals to law enforcement; and crimes reported to police. The report presents the research findings, and notes that they were mostly consistent across school racial and ethnic composition. Results indicated that for schools to improve racial and ethnic equity in their use of law enforcement, they should use strategies beyond simply removing police from schools.

Madison, WI: Department of Civil Society and Community Studies School of Human Ecology University of Wisconsin-Madison 2024. 82p.

By Maxim Ananyev, Mikhail Poyker:

Inmates' informal code regulates their behavior and attitudes. We investigate whether prisons contribute to the spread of these norms to the general population using an exogenous shock of the Soviet amnesty of 1953, which released 1.2 million prisoners. We document the spread of prison norms in localities exposed to the released ex-prisoners. As inmates' code also ascribes low status to persons perceived as passive homosexuals, in the long run, we find effects on anti-LGBTQ+ hate crimes, homophobic slurs on social media, and discriminatory attitudes.

ZA DP No. 17138\ Bonn: Institute of Labor Economics, 2024. 

By Denis Ward

Purpose of the Study: The study evaluates theReconvictionPrediction Score (RPS), which predicts the likelihood of conviction within two years of a prisoner's discharge.

Findings: The RPS is generally accurate but can be improved by including factors like sentence length.

Recommendations: The RPS should continue in its present form but with potential future adjustments for better accuracy.

Data Sources: The study used data from the Parole Index and Offenders Index For males discharged between 1977-1979.

London:: Her Majesty’s stationery Office, 1987, 46 pages

By Maxim Ananyev, Mikhail Poyker:

Inmates' informal code often ascribes low status to persons perceived as passive homosexuals. We use longitudinal data to investigate whether prison experience contributes to anti-gay beliefs. We find that prison experience prompts a higher level of anti-gay sentiments among males and their families, while no discernible difference exists before incarceration. We find no effect for female ex-prisoners. We confirm that the results are not driven by pre-incarceration trends, changes in trust and social capital, socioeconomic status, mental health, masculinity norms, and other potential alternative explanations. Our study sheds light on the overlooked role of prisons as a significant contributor to the propagation of anti-gay attitudes.

IZA DP No. 17137 Bonn: Institute of Labor Economics, 2024. 

By Jacob Schuman

Community supervision is a major form of criminal punishment and a major driver of mass incarceration.  Over 3.5 million people in the United States are serving terms of probation, parole, or supervised release, and revocations account for nearly half of all prison admissions.  Although supervision is intended to prevent crime and promote reentry, it can also interfere with the defendant’s reintegration by imposing onerous restrictions as well as punishment for non-criminal technical violations.  Probation officers also carry heavy caseloads, which forces them to spend more time on enforcing conditions and less on providing support.

Fortunately, the criminal justice system also includes a mechanism to solve these problems: early termination of community supervision.  From the beginning, the law has always provided a way for the government to cut short a defendant’s term of supervision if they could demonstrate that they had reformed themselves.  Recently, judges, correctional officials, and activists have called to increase rates of early termination in order to save resources, ease the reentry process, and encourage rehabilitation.  Yet despite all this attention from the field, there are no law-review articles on terminating supervision early.

In this Article, I provide the first comprehensive analysis of early termination of community supervision.  First, I recount the long history of early termination, from the invention of probation and parole in the 1800s to the Safer Supervision Act of 2023.  Next, I identify and critique recent legal changes that have made it harder for federal criminal defendants to win early termination of supervised release.  Finally, I propose the first empirically based sentencing guideline on terminating supervision early, which I recommend in most cases after 18 to 36 months.  If community supervision drives mass incarceration, then early termination offers a potential tool for criminal justice reform. American Criminal Law Review, Forthcoming,  2024.

By  Wendy Betts

This is a policy brief that outlines recommendations for how to hold perpetrators accountable for sexual violence in Ukraine. The recommendations include:

• Legal pathways: Outlining legal pathways for accountability

• Documentation: Best practices for documenting conflict-related sexual violence

• Coordination: How to coordinate cooperation between documenters, support services, and the Ukrainian government

• Qualified professionals: Expanding the number of qualified professionals who can conduct forensic medical evaluations

• Legislative reforms: Legislative reforms to empower survivors in the justice process

• Medico-legal documentation: Developing standardized medico-legal documentation tools

• Capacity-building: Implementing capacity-building initiatives to ensure trauma-informed, survivor-centered approaches 

• The brief also calls on Ukrainian officials to build on their progress and reform systems so that survivors can access care, support, and justice. 

  The international community must react swiftly and respond in a survivor-oriented way toward justice

Global Initiative for Justice, Truth and Reconciliations (GIJTR) 2024. 37p.

By Maxim Ananyev, Mikhail Poyker:

Inmates' informal code regulates their behavior and attitudes. We investigate whether prisons contribute to the spread of these norms to the general population using an exogenous shock of the Soviet amnesty of 1953, which released 1.2 million prisoners. We document the spread of prison norms in localities exposed to the released ex-prisoners. As inmates' code also ascribes low status to persons perceived as passive homosexuals, in the long run, we find effects on anti-LGBTQ+ hate crimes, homophobic slurs on social media, and discriminatory attitudes.

IZA DP No. 17138\ Bonn: Institute of Labor Economics, 2024. 

By Maxim Ananyev, Mikhail Poyker:

Inmates' informal code often ascribes low status to persons perceived as passive homosexuals. We use longitudinal data to investigate whether prison experience contributes to anti-gay beliefs. We find that prison experience prompts a higher level of anti-gay sentiments among males and their families, while no discernible difference exists before incarceration. We find no effect for female ex-prisoners. We confirm that the results are not driven by pre-incarceration trends, changes in trust and social capital, socioeconomic status, mental health, masculinity norms, and other potential alternative explanations. Our study sheds light on the overlooked role of prisons as a significant contributor to the propagation of anti-gay attitudes.

IZA DP No. 17137 Bonn: Institute of Labor Economics, 2024.