Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 20, 2024 Sat
Time: 9:34 am
Time: 9:34 am
Results for imprisonment
65 results foundAuthor: Gorvin, Ian Title: Targeting Blacks: Drug Law Enforcement and Race in the United States Summary: Using 2003 data from 34 states on those newly entering prison because of drug offense convictions, this report documents state by state the dramatically higher proportion and rate at which blacks are sent to prison for drug offenses, compared to whites. Details: New York: Human Rights Watch, 2008. 64p. Source: Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 117802 Keywords: African AmericansDrug Abuse and CrimeDrug ControlDrug OffendersImprisonment |
Author: Greene, Judith Title: Downscaling Prisons: Lessons from Four States Summary: This report summarizes reforms and policies that have helped reduce prison populations in New York, Michigan, New Jersey, and Kansas. Policies discussed include sentencing reforms, alternatives to prison, reducing time served, and evaluation of parole policies. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2010. 61p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 117707 Keywords: ImprisonmentPrison OvercrowdingPrison SentencesPrisonersPrisons |
Author: International Federation for Human rights Title: Burma/Myanmar: International crimes Committed in Burma: The Urgent Need for a Commission of Inquiry Summary: This briefing note presents an overview of existing documentation on serious human rights violations perpetrated by Burma's military regime, and demonstrates that international crimes are still being perpetrated in Burma. Details: Paris: Federation for Human Rights; Bangkok, Thailand: ALTSEAN Burma, 2009. 46p. Source: Year: 2009 Country: Burma URL: Shelf Number: 117342 Keywords: Human RightsImprisonmentRapeTorture |
Author: Petteruti, Amanda Title: Moving Target: A Decade of Resistance to the Prison Industrial Complex Summary: This report, written to commemorate the 10th aniversary of Critical Resistance, examines the progress of reform 10 years after Critical Resistance first launched its efforts to dismantle the Prison Industrial Complex(PIC). PIC refers to the relationship between government and private interests that use imprisonment, policing, and surveillance as a solution to social political, and economic problems. According to the report, the U.S. prison industrial complex continues to find ways to expand and adapt, despite the fact that a decade-long battle against imprisonment, surveillance, and policing has educated the public about the dangers of imprisonment and helped to slow prison growth. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2008. 40p. Source: Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 113071 Keywords: ImprisonmentPrisons |
Author: Lyons, Christopher J. Title: Compounded Disadvantage: Race, Incarceration, and Wage Growth Summary: A growing body of work implicates the prison system in contemporary accounts of racial inequality across a host of social, health, economic, and political domains. However, comparatively little work has examined the impact of the massive increase in the prison system - and growing inequality in exposure to the prison system - on racial inequality over the life course. Using a unique data set drawn from state administrative records, this project examines how spending time in prison affects wage trajectories for a cohort of men over a 14-year period. Details: Ann Arbor, MI: National Poverty Center, 2008. 24p. Source: National Poverty Center Working Paper Series; #08/16 Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118310 Keywords: Ex-Offenders (Employment)ImprisonmentRace/Ethnicity |
Author: Lulham, Rohan Title: The Recidivism of Offenders Given Suspended Sentences: A Comparison with Full-Time Imprisonment Summary: Between 2000 and 2007, the number of suspended sentences imposed by the New South Wales Local Court rose 300 percent, from 1,704 to 5,172. In 2000, suspended sentences accounted for about one percent of all penalties imposed by the Local Court. By 2007, this figure had risen to 4.6 percent. One issue of contention is whether suspended sentences have the same deterrent effect on re-offending as prison sentences. This study compares rates of re-offending among offenders who received suspended sentences with rates of re-offending among a matched control group who received a full-time prison sentence. For offenders with no prior prison sentence, there was no statistically significant difference in re-offending between offenders who received a suspended sentence and those who received a prison sentence. Among offenders who had previously been to prison, however, those who received a prison sentence re-offended substantially quicker than those who received a suspended sentence. The study concludes that there is no evidence full-time imprisonment exerts a greater deterrent effect than a suspended sentence of imprisonment. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2009. 16p. Source: Crime and Justice Bulletin; Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, No. 136 Year: 2009 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 118548 Keywords: ImprisonmentRecidivismSentencingSuspended Sentences (Australia) |
Author: Loffman, Matt Title: Investigating Alternatives to Imprisonment Within Council of Europe Member States Summary: Most people leaving prison re-enter society with a drug addction, few qualifications, and no money and return to the lives within which their crime(s) took place in the first instance. Others will have lost local connections to their family, their job, and their home. In situations such as these the likelihood of repeat offending is high. Acknowledging this, and the fact that the practice of sending individuals to prison frequently leaves the needs of the victims, the offenders themselves, and their respective communities unmet, the Quaker Council for European ffairs has undertaken research into the use of alternatives to imprisonment sentences in Council of Europe members states. This report is the result of this research. Information has been compiled on how frequently different alternatives are used, what their costs are, and how they impact on the offender. The study also analyzed the available information regarding recidivism for imprisonment and the alternatives. This information has been gathered systematically from the criminal justice systems of the members states. The report concludes with reommendations for improvements to the use and management of alternatives to imprisonment sentences. Details: Brussels: Quaker Council for European Affairs, 2010. 112p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: Europe URL: Shelf Number: 118700 Keywords: Alternative to IncarcerationImprisonmentRecidivism |
Author: Jacobson, Jessica Title: Unjust Deserts: Imprisonment for Public Protection Summary: The indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) was created by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (U.K.). The sentence enables the courts to imprison for an indefinite period those convicted of violent and sexual offenses who are deemed to be dangerous, but whose offending is not so serious that they quality for a life sentence. Around 6,000 people have received the sentence since it was implemented in april 2005; about 2,500 of those are currently being held in custody beyond expiry of their minimum term in custody, or tariff. This report reviews the implication of the implications of the IPP sentence for those serving it and for the courts, the Prison Service and the Parole Board. In so doing, it highlights what is perceived to be flaws inherent in the design of the sentence, and the injustices in its implementation. Details: London: Prison Reform Trust, 2010. 70p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 119267 Keywords: ImprisonmentIndeterminate Sentences (U.K.)SentencingSex OffendersViolent Offenders |
Author: Warren, Jenifer Title: One in 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections Summary: Explosive growth in the number of people on probation or parole has propelled the population of the American corrections system to more than 7.3 million, or 1 in every 31 U.S. adults. The vast majority of these offenders live in the community, yet new data in this report finds that nearly 90 percent of state corrections dollars are spent on prisons. The report examines the scale and cost of prison, jail, probation and parole in each of the 50 states, and provides a blueprint for states to cut both crime and spending by reallocating prison expenses to fund stronger supervision of the large number of offenders in the community. Details: Washington, DC: Pew Center on the States, 2009. 45p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 114731 Keywords: CorrectionsCosts of CorrectionsImprisonmentInmates |
Author: Mujuzi, Jamil Ddamulira Title: The Changing Face of Life Imprisonment in South Africa Summary: This report examines "the meaning and use of life imprisonment in South Africa in four major legal historical eras: life imprisonment at the time when the death penalty was still lawful in South Africa (including life imprisonment as early as 1906); life imprisonment in the immediate aftermath of the abolition of the death penalty (1994-1998); life imprisonment following the introduction of the minimum sentences legislation (1998-2007); and life imprisonment after December 2007, when the sentencing jurisdiction of the regional courts was extended to include life imprisonment." Details: Bellville, South Africa: Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative, 2008. 41p. Source: Internet Resource; CSPRI Research Paper No. 15 Year: 2008 Country: South Africa URL: Shelf Number: 119382 Keywords: ImprisonmentLife Imprisonment (South Africa)Sentencing |
Author: Muntingh, Lukas Title: Ex-Prisoners' Views on Imprisonment and Re-Entry Summary: "In the past 15 years much research has been conducted on the prison system in South Africa focusing on governance, law reform and human rights. It is, however, of particular concern that the voices of prisoners and ex-prisoners had not been heard in the current discourse, one that has been dominated by the Department of Correctional Services (DCS), Parliament, service delivery organisations, academics and human rights activists. In essence, there has been a lot of talk about prisoners and ex-prisoners but there has been little listening to prisoners and ex-prisoners taking place." Details: Bellville, South Africa: Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative, 2009. 27p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: South Africa URL: Shelf Number: 119385 Keywords: Ex-Prisoners (South Africa)ImprisonmentPrisoner ReentryPrisons |
Author: Poletti, Patrizia Title: The Impact of Standard Non-Parole Period Sentencing Scheme on Sentencing Patterns in New South Wales Summary: This study investigates whether, since the introduction of standard non-parole periods in February 2003, the use of full-time imprisonment has increased, the lengths of non-parole periods and head sentences have increased, and greater consistency in sentencing has been achieved. The study also examines appeal results for standard non-parole period offences. The findings of this study confirm that the statutory scheme has generally resulted in a greater uniformity of, and consistency in, sentencing outcomes. It also confirms claims that there would be an increase in the severity of penalties imposed and the duration of sentences of full-time imprisonment. Details: Sydney: Judicial Commission of NSW, 2010. 76p. Source: Internet Resource; Monograph 33 Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 119471 Keywords: Criminal Justice, Administration of (New South WalImprisonmentPrison SentencesSentencing (New South Wales) |
Author: Western, Bruce Title: Collateral Costs: Incarceration's Effect on Economic Mobility Summary: Over the past 30 years, the United States has experienced explosive growth in its incarcerated population. The Pew Center on the States reported in 2008 that more than 1 in 100 adults is now behind bars in America, by far the highest rate of any nation. The direct cost of this imprisonment boom, in dollars, has been staggering: state correctional costs quadrupled over the past two decades and now top $50 billion a year, consuming 1 in every 15 general fund dollars. Looking at the same period of time, Pew’s Economic Mobility Project’s research has revealed a decidedly mixed picture of economic mobility in America. On the one hand, two-thirds of families have higher inflation-adjusted incomes than their parents did at a similar age. Given these favorable odds for each generation to earn a better living than the last, it is no wonder that, even in the depths of the country’s economic slump last year, 8 out of 10 Americans believed it was still possible to “get ahead.” Less encouraging, however, are the findings that describe how individuals’ economic rank compares to their parents’ rank at the same age, as well as data showing that race and parental income significantly impact economic mobility. For example, 42 percent of Americans whose parents were in the bottom fifth of the income ladder remain there themselves as adults. As for race, blacks are significantly more downwardly mobile than whites: almost half of black children born to solidly middle-income parents tumble to the bottom of the income distribution in adulthood, while just 16 percent of whites experience such a fall. With this report, our inquiry focuses on the intersection of incarceration and mobility, fields that might at first seem unrelated. We ask two questions: To what extent does incarceration create lasting barriers to economic progress for formerly incarcerated people, their families and their children? What do these barriers mean for the American Dream, given the explosive growth of the prison population? The findings in this report should give policy makers reason to reflect. The price of prisons in state and federal budgets represents just a fraction of the overall cost of incarcerating such a large segment of our society. The collateral consequences are tremendous and far-reaching, and as this report illuminates with fresh data and analysis, they include substantial and lifelong damage to the ability of former inmates, their families and their children to earn a living wage, move up the income ladder and pursue the American Dream. Details: Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2010. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 6, 2010 at: http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP_Incarceration.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP_Incarceration.pdf Shelf Number: 119869 Keywords: Ex-Offenders, EmploymentImprisonmentSocioeconomic Status |
Author: Australia. Parliament. Senate. Select Committee on Regional and Remote Indigenous Communities Title: Indigenous Australians, Incarceration and the Criminal Justice System Summary: This discussion paper has been prepared by the committee secretariat to provide the committee with an overview of Indigenous contact with the criminal justice system in Australia, including the nature of Indigenous offending, and current developments in corrective services. The first section reviews current statistics to build a picture of Indigenous contact with the criminal justice system in Australia. Approximately 25 per cent of prisoners in Australia are Indigenous, and this share is increasing over time. The rate of imprisonment for Indigenous adults is 14 times higher than for non-Indigenous adults and the gap is continuing to widen. Indigenous prisoners are overwhelmingly male, with assault being the major offence. Indigenous prisoners generally receive shorter sentences and spend less time on remand, but recidivism is much higher. The figures for juvenile detention are worse. Fifty-nine per cent of the juvenile detention population in 2007 was Indigenous. The rate of detention was 28 times higher than for non-Indigenous juveniles. The second section considers some of the reasons for Indigenous overrepresentation. The first part analyses some of the factors that contribute to high rates of Indigenous offending such as violence, alcohol, mental health issues and social disadvantage. The second part examines the response to Indigenous offending by the criminal justice system and finds that increasing imprisonment rates are in part a result of stricter sentencing policies. The third section provides information on rehabilitation programs with the potential to reduce offending and recidivism over time. Some of the most promising programs include juvenile treatments such as multi-systemic therapy, adult drug and alcohol programs and post-release support programs. Evidence based principles for successful rehabilitation programs are also presented. This section also includes a discussion of the costs of the criminal justice system in Australia, and the potential for both social and economic benefits as result of innovation in criminal justice. Finally, the results of an audit of programs and innovations in the Australian criminal justice system are presented in section four. Each state and territory was asked to provide information on current criminal justice programs and policies in their jurisdiction. There have been a limited number of evaluations undertaken across Australia. Evaluations have been included where available. Details: Canberra: The Senate, 2010. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 19, 2010 at: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/indig_ctte/Final_RRIC.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/indig_ctte/Final_RRIC.pdf Shelf Number: 120013 Keywords: Criminal Justice SystemImprisonmentIndigenous OffendersIndigenous PeoplesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Armstrong, Sarah Title: What Do the Punished Think of Punishment? The Comparative Experience of Short Prison Sentences and Community-Based Punishments Summary: Scotland is currently engaged in one of the biggest penal reform projects in a generation, seeking to fundamentally change its approach to punishment, which is characterised by high use of imprisonment compared to other parts of Europe, and the use of very short prison sentences. In Scotland around three quarters of prison sentences handed down by the courts are for six months or less. But because short sentences are seen as minimally intrusive compared to long-term or life sentences, there has been, until now, little research on their effects. This study sought to fill this gap in knowledge by speaking with those serving short prison sentences or a community-based sentence (the main proposed alternative on the reform agenda). The researchers spoke with 35 men and women ranging in age from 19 to 55 about their experiences of punishment. The aim was to accurately describe the experience for offenders of doing a short sentence, in prison or the community. In summary, the key findings of the report are the following: •Short prison sentences in Scotland are a form of ‘doing life by instalments’. Most of the people interviewed counted the times they had been in prison not in terms of numbers but as frequencies, that is, by how many times per year they are in prison. •It is the cumulative effect of doing many short sentences, more than the experience of any single sentence, which carries the largely negative impacts of short-term imprisonment. For many people short prison sentences have become a regular life activity, and the constant coming and going between community and prison interrupts the ability to deal with drug and alcohol issues, strengthen family relationships, and become employable. •The extensive use of short sentences is a function mainly of drug and alcohol dependency. For nearly everyone interviewed, the offending which led to their imprisonment was motivated by drug and alcohol use. Common offences were shoplifting (to pay for drugs) and minor assaults (while under the influence of drugs or alcohol). This finding suggests that prison and the criminalisation of addiction have become primary strategies of dealing with drug and alcohol problems, particularly for those in the most marginalised socio-economic groups. •Prison has produced positive life changes for some but in a way that is almost impossible to predict. Some people reported that it was during their short prison sentence they had achieved the resolution to abstain from drugs. In one case this resolution came after only serving two brief sentences in prison, while for another it took nearly twenty years of serving short sentences to make this step towards recovery. The finding suggests prison is an expensive and unpredictable technique of getting people to change. •Contrary to prior research, nearly everyone would prefer a community-based sentence to a prison sentence. Past research showed many people would choose a short period in prison over a longer period on probation. Armstrong and Weaver found the opposite: most people would prefer serving their time in the community, largely to preserve links to family and work. However, the preference was affected by the state of an addiction problem, suggesting reforms to community-based sentences need to develop effective means of addressing drug and alcohol dependency. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research, 2010. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: SCCJR Research Report, No.4: Accessed December 16, 2010 at: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/documents/Report%202010%2004%20-%20User%20Views%20of%20Punishment.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/documents/Report%202010%2004%20-%20User%20Views%20of%20Punishment.pdf Shelf Number: 120525 Keywords: Alternative to IncarcerationCommunity Based CorrectionsImprisonmentPunishment (U.K.)Sentencing |
Author: Weatherburn, Don Title: Why Does NSW Have a Higher Imprisonment Rate Than Victoria? Summary: This study examines the influence of sentencing practice and other factors on the difference between NSW and Victoria in their imprisonment rates. The report includes a descriptive analysis of national crime, court and prison data. Findings show that the NSW court appearance rate is 26 per cent higher than that in Victoria. The overall conviction rate in NSW is 85.7 per cent, compared with 79.0 per cent in Victoria. The overall percentage imprisoned is significantly higher in NSW (7.5%) than in Victoria (5.4%). The mean expected time to serve among prisoners dealt with by Victorian courts is slightly longer than the mean expected time to serve among prisoners dealt with by NSW courts. The NSW remand rate is approximately 2.5 times the Victorian remand rate. The study concludes that the higher NSW imprisonment rate is attributable to a higher rate of court appearance, a slightly higher conviction rate, a higher likelihood of imprisonment and a higher likelihood of remand in custody. Details: Brisbane: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2010. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Crime and Justice Bulletin, No. 145: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_mr_cjb145 Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_mr_cjb145 Shelf Number: 120696 Keywords: Bail (New South Wales)Conviction RatesImprisonmentPrisonersSentencing |
Author: Equal Justice Initiative Title: Cruel and Unusual: Sentencing 13- and 14-Year-Old Children to Die in Prison Summary: In the United States, dozens of 13- and 14-year-old children have been sentenced to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole after being prosecuted as adults. While the United States Supreme Court recently declared in Roper v. Simmons that death by execution is unconstitutional for juveniles, young children continue to be sentenced to imprisonment until death with very little scrutiny or review. A study by the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI) has documented 73 cases where children 13 and 14 years of age have been condemned to death in prison. Almost all of these kids currently lack legal representation and in most of these cases the propriety and constitutionality of their extreme sentences have never been reviewed. Most of the sentences imposed on these children were mandatory: the court could not give any consideration to the child’s age or life history. Some of the children were charged with crimes that do not involve homicide or even injury; many were convicted for offenses where older teenagers or adults were involved and primarily responsible for the crime; nearly two-thirds are children of color. Over 2225 juveniles (age 17 or younger) in the United States have been sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. All of these cases raise important legal, penological, and moral issues. However, EJI believes that such a harsh sentence for the youngest offenders – children who are 13 and 14 – is cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. These children should be re-sentenced to parole-eligible sentences as soon as possible. Sentences of life imprisonment with no parole also violate international law and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has been ratified by every country in the world except the United States and Somalia. EJI has launched a litigation campaign to challenge death in prison sentences imposed on young children. This report is intended to illuminate this cruel and unusual punishment inflicted on children, particularly for those who have been without legal help for so long that the procedural obstacles to winning relief in court will be formidable. Increased public awareness, coupled with informed activity by advocacy groups, will be necessary to reform policies that reflect a lack of perspective and hope for young children. Details: Montgomery, AL: Equality Justice Initiative, 2007. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2011 at: http://www.eji.org/eji/files/20071017cruelandunusual.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.eji.org/eji/files/20071017cruelandunusual.pdf Shelf Number: 107666 Keywords: ImprisonmentJuvenile OffendersLife SentenceSentencing, Juveniles |
Author: Braude, Lisa Title: No Entry: Improving Public Safety through Cost-Effective Alternatives to Incarceration in Illinois Summary: The United States has a rate of criminal justice involvement far higher than any in the world, with more than seven million individuals under some form of justice supervision at any given time. Illicit drug use has played a fundamental role in the population explosion within the American justice system. The three decade-long experiment of increasingly harsh penalties for drug crimes has proven ineffective at curbing either drug use or attendant criminal activity. In Illinois, both the numbers and the percentages of individuals imprisoned for non-violent, drug-related offenses have continued to rise. The consequences of this situation include enormous social and personal costs to communities— with a disproportionate impact on communities of color—as well as a significant fiscal burden to taxpayers. Illinois historically has offered progressive approaches to dealing with drug-involved offenders. However, the state has not maintained its commitment to provide treatment alternatives to incarceration for non-violent, drug-involved individuals, and therefore has been unable to mitigate the impact of drugs on our communities, and the burden that drug-related crime poses to our public systems. The fundamental problem is that we send non-violent, drug-involved offenders to prison when there are more effective and cost-effcient alternatives available. The Center for Health and Justice at TASC proposes a public policy strategy of No Entry, which is designed to reverse the flow of drug-involved individuals going into and through the criminal justice system. No Entry involves structured, clinical interventions at every phase of justice involvement to address offender drug use and related criminal behavior, promoting public safety and ensuring fiscal responsibility. Details: Chicago: Center for Health and Justice at TASC, 2007. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2011 at: http://www.centerforhealthandjustice.org/IllinoisNoEntry_Final.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.centerforhealthandjustice.org/IllinoisNoEntry_Final.pdf Shelf Number: 120859 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration (Illinois)Imprisonment |
Author: Fagan, Jeffrey Title: Incarceration and the Economic Fortunes of Urban Neighborhoods Summary: New research has identified the consequences of high rates of incarceration on neighborhood crime rates, but few studies have looked beyond crime to examine the collateral effects of incarceration on the social and economic well being of the neighborhoods themselves and their residents. We assess two specific indicia of neighborhood economic well-being, household income and human capital, dimensions that are robust predictors of elevated crime, enforcement and incarceration rates. We decompose incarceration effects by neighborhood racial composition and socio-economic conditions to account for structural disadvantages in labor force and access to wealth that flow from persistent patterns of residential segregation. We use panel methods to examine the effects on incarceration on New York City census tracts over an 11 year period from 1985-1996, a period which saw crime rates rise and fall sharply, and when incarceration rates increased and remained high in concentrated areas throughout the city. We examine whether persistently high incarceration rates erode human capital and depress median household incomes, further intensifying incarceration risks and threatening to create conditions where incarceration and economic disadvantage become endogenous features of certain neighborhoods. We find distinct but overlapping effects for prisons and jails, suggesting that these are parallel processes produced by loosely coupled law enforcement priorities. Incarceration effects are greater for household income than human capital, suggesting a complex relationship between persistent poverty, residential segregation, and incarceration that reinforces a classic poverty trap. Household incomes are lower over time in neighborhoods with higher proportions of African American population, even after controlling for the effects of race on incarceration, but we find no similar effects for Hispanic populations. Spatially targeted policies such as microinvestment and housing development may be needed offset the local embeddedness of poverty and disrupt its connections to incarceration and crime, while education policy and transitional labor market networking can strengthen local human capital. Details: New York: Columbia Law School, 2010. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Columbia Public Law Research Paper No. 11-266: Accessed March 11, 2011 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1772190 Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1772190 Shelf Number: 120971 Keywords: Crime RatesEconomics of CrimeImprisonmentIncarcerationNeighborhoods and CrimeSocioeconomic StatusUrban Areas |
Author: Jonson, Cheryl Lero Title: The Impact of Imprisonment on Reoffending: A Meta-Analysis Summary: In the early 1970s, state and federal prison populations were under 200,000, with incarceration rates having remained relatively stable for a half century. For a variety of reasons (e.g., increased crime rates, changed political context, the "get tough" movement), the United States entered a period mass incarceration. The number of inmates in state and federal prisons increased 600 percent to over 1.5 million. Counting jail populations, the daily count of Americans behind bars currently stands at over 2.4 million;or about 1 in every 100 adults. However, despite the large number of people placed behind bars, little research has been conducted to determine the impact of imprisonment on the reoffending behavior of individuals placed behind bars. Within this context, this dissertation focus on a three central empirical questions that stand at the heart of the mass imprisonment movement: 1) When an offender is imprisoned as opposed to being given an alternative sanction (e.g., probation), is the person less likely to reoffend?, 2) Does incarcerating offenders for longer periods of time result in a greater reduction in recidivism?, and 3) Does placement in facilities with harsher conditions (e.g., fewer visitations, more restrictions) have a larger deterrent effect when compared to placement in facilities with less harsh conditions? To address the three research questions, this dissertation used meta-analytic techniques to complete a quantitative synthesis of 85 research studies. The overall mean effect size and weighted mean effect size of the three independent variables in question (i.e., non-custodial versus custodial sanctions; sentence length; harshness of conditions) were calculated to determine its impact on recidivism. Additionally, the impact of various moderators was also assessed. The results indicate that the specific deterrence argument for the use of prison is not empirically supported. When examining the impact of non-custodial and custodial sanctions on post-release reoffending, a 14 percent increase in recidivism was found for those sentenced to custodial sanctions as opposed to non-custodial sanctions. Thus, imprisonment was associated with an increase, rather than a decrease, in recidivism contradicting the predictions of specific deterrence theory. Similarly, placement in harsher prison conditions was associated with a 15 percent increase in post-release criminal behavior, failing to provide support for the specific deterrent argument. Only the analyses examining the impact of sentence length showed a deterrent effect, with longer sentences associated with a five percent decrease in recidivism. In light of these findings, the continued reliance on mass incarceration as a main response to crime is questioned. If the goal of imprisonment is to reduce the recidivism of those who are placed behind bars, this study has shown that this is not an empirically sound argument. In fact, placing individuals in prison and increasing the harshness of those prisons are contributing to the very problem it is attempting to solve. Consequently, the results suggest that an alternative crime control strategy to mass imprisonment needs to be employed if the ultimate goal is to reduce the post-release criminal behavior of those who enter the criminal justice system. Details: Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, Division of Criminal Justice, 2010. 237p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed March 14, 2011 at: http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi?acc_num=ucin1285687754 Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi?acc_num=ucin1285687754 Shelf Number: 121001 Keywords: ImprisonmentMeta-AnalysisRecidivism |
Author: McIvor, Gill Title: Understanding the Drivers of Female Imprisonment in Scotland Summary: Across jurisdictions, offending by women differs in a number of important ways from offending by men: it is less common, less frequent and less serious. Women are typically convicted of relatively minor crimes that pose little public risk and, because they are usually convicted of offences that are less serious than those committed by men, the sentences they receive are also different: for example, women are less likely than men to receive sentences of imprisonment. However, female imprisonment has increased dramatically in most western jurisdictions, including Scotland, over the last 15-20 years as evidenced by increases in the numbers of women given sentences of imprisonment, in daily female prison populations and in the rate of imprisonment of women. Moreover, because the rise in women’s imprisonment has outstripped parallel increases in the imprisonment of men, women now make up a greater proportion of prisoners. While the growth in female imprisonment is undisputed, what is less clear is what has fuelled it, particularly since it does not appear to have been solely – if at all - a reaction to increases in female crime. The analyses presented in this report aim to explore the factors driving the increase in female imprisonment in Scotland, where the number of women imprisoned has reached unprecedented levels. The growth in female imprisonment is of particular policy concern given the well documented impact of imprisonment on vulnerable women and their children and in light of recent policy initiatives to reduce the use of short custodial sentences in Scotland. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research, 2011. 80p. Source: Internet Resource:Report No. 02/21ii: Accessed March 18, 2011 at: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/documents/Report%202011%2001%20-%20Female%20imprisonment.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/documents/Report%202011%2001%20-%20Female%20imprisonment.pdf Shelf Number: 121067 Keywords: Female CrimeFemale InmatesFemale Offenders (Scotland)Imprisonment |
Author: Bartlett, Tess Title: The Power of Penal Populism: Public Influences on Penal and Sentencing Policy from 1999 to 2008 Summary: This thesis explains the rise and power of penal populism in contemporary New Zealand society. It argues that the rise of penal populism can be attributed to social, economic and political changes that have taken place in New Zealand since the postwar years. These changes undermined the prevailing penal-welfare logic that had dominated policymaking in this area since 1945. It examines the way in which ‘the public’ became more involved in the administration of penal policy from 1999 to 2008. The credibility given to a law and order referendum in 1999, which drew attention to crime victims and ‘tough on crime’ discourse, exemplified their new role. In its aftermath, greater influence was given to the public and groups speaking on its behalf. The referendum also influenced political discourse in New Zealand, with politicians increasingly using ‘tough on crime’ policies in election campaigns as it was believed that this was what ‘the public’ wanted when it came to criminal justice issues. As part of these developments, the thesis examines the rise of the Sensible Sentencing Trust, a unique law and order pressure group that advocates for victims’ rights and the harsh treatment of offenders. The Trust became an increasingly authoritative voice in both the public and political arena, as public sentiments came to overrule expert knowledge in the administration of penal policy. Ultimately, it argues that the power of penal populism is so strong in New Zealand that attempts to resist it are likely to come to little, unless these forces that brought it to prominence can be addressed and negated. To date, this has not happened. Details: Wellington, NZ: School of Social and Cultural Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, 2009. 136p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 5, 2011 at: http://www.rethinking.org.nz/assets/Newsletter_PDF/Issue_84/T%20Bartlett%20Thesis%202009.pdf Year: 2009 Country: New Zealand URL: http://www.rethinking.org.nz/assets/Newsletter_PDF/Issue_84/T%20Bartlett%20Thesis%202009.pdf Shelf Number: 121249 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyImprisonmentPrisonsPublic AttitudesPunishmentSentencing (New Zealand) |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Title: Reform Cannot Wait: A Comprehensive Examination of the Cost of Incarceration in Ohio from 1991-2010 Summary: Over the last twenty years, numerous experts have studied Ohio’s criminal justice system and made recommendations for reform. Unfortunately, many of those recommendations have been ignored. The result is that our criminal justice system is riddled with inefficient policies that increase cost, reduce safety, and contribute to racial disparities. Our criminal justice system is functioning well over capacity and over budget. • We are funneling a significant number of low-level, low-risk offenders into the most costly placements and away from alternatives that cost less and are more effective. • We waste resources on those who are least likely to pose some future risk to society, rather than focusing scarce resources on ensuring the most dangerous are adequately supervised. • We are sacrificing safety to continue funding costly, inefficient policies with failed results. • Communities of color around the state carry the burden of an unbalanced criminal justice system. • We fail to document how various programs function, rendering them impossible to audit for cost efficiency or success. What follows is a survey of the many studies that have analyzed Ohio’s criminal justice system, identified inefficiencies across program areas, and made recommendations to improve efficiency and fairness. For the last twenty years, these inefficiencies have been allowed to continue and grow. Recommendations were not acted upon, with officials often claiming that more study is needed and putting the problem off for another day. That day is here. In light of the current budget crisis, these inefficiencies can no longer be ignored. Details: Cleveland, OH: American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, 2011. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 21, 2011 at: http://www.acluohio.org/issues/CriminalJustice/ReformCannotWait2010_08.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.acluohio.org/issues/CriminalJustice/ReformCannotWait2010_08.pdf Shelf Number: 121467 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice SystemsImprisonmentPrisons (Ohio) |
Author: Barbarino, Alessandro Title: The Incapacitation Effect of Incarceration: Evidence From Several Italian Collective Pardons Summary: We estimate the “incapacitation effect” on crime using variation in Italian prison population driven by eight collective pardons passed between 1962 and 1995. The prison releases are sudden — within one day —, very large — up to 35 percent of the entire prison population — and happen nationwide. Exploiting this quasi-natural experiment we break the simultaneity of crime and prisoners as in Levitt (1996) and, in addition, use the national character of the pardons to separately identify incapacitation from changes in deterrence. The elasticity of total crime with respect to incapacitation is -15 percent. A cost-benefit analysis suggests that Italy’s prison population is below its optimal level: the estimated marginal social cost of crime is more than two times the cost of incarceration. Details: Unpublished Paper, 2011. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 5, 2011 at: http://www.carloalberto.org/people/mastrobuoni/doc/ReducedPardonJan2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Italy URL: http://www.carloalberto.org/people/mastrobuoni/doc/ReducedPardonJan2011.pdf Shelf Number: 121647 Keywords: AmnestyCost-Benefit AnalysisDeterrenceImprisonmentPardons |
Author: Victoria. Sentencing Advisory Council Title: Does Imprisonment Deter? A Review of the Evidence Summary: Deterrence can be described as the prevention of crime through the fear of a threatened – or the experience of an actual – criminal sanction. General deterrence is aimed at reducing crime by directing the threat of that sanction at all potential offenders. Specific deterrence is aimed at reducing crime by applying a criminal sanction to a specific offender, in order to dissuade him or her from reoffending. Deterrence is only one of the purposes of sentencing in Victoria, determined by section 5(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). The other purposes are: punishment, denunciation, rehabilitation and community protection (incapacitation). The scope of this paper is limited to examining the sentencing purpose of deterrence only – it does not present an analysis of the evidence of imprisonment’s effectiveness in regard to other sentencing purposes. There is an overlap in some studies when measuring deterrence and incapacitation; however, the paper does not draw conclusions on the effectiveness of imprisonment as a means of reducing crime through incapacitation. Deterrence theory is based upon the classical economic theory of rational choice, which assumes that people weigh up the costs and benefits of a particular course of action whenever they make a decision. Deterrence theory relies on the assumption that offenders have knowledge of the threat of a criminal sanction and then make a rational choice whether or not to offend based upon consideration of that knowledge. Rational choice theory, however, does not adequately account for a large number of offenders who may be considered ‘irrational’. Examples of such irrationality can vary in severity – there are those who are not criminally responsible due to mental impairment, those who are drug affected or intoxicated and those who simply act in a way that is contrary to their own best interests. Research shows that the majority of offenders entering the Victorian criminal justice system have a history of substance use that is directly related to their offending. That people are not perfectly rational and do not always make decisions that are in their own best interests is supported by studies in behavioural economics. Behavioural economic theory proposes that individuals make decisions on the basis of mperfect knowledge by employing ‘rules of thumb’, rather than strict logic, and are subject to limits on their willpower. People are also subject to a great number of patterns of deviation in judgment that occur in particular situations (known as ‘cognitive biases’), which influence decision-making in predictable – but often irrational – ways. The evidence from empirical studies of deterrence suggests that the threat of imprisonment generates a small general deterrent effect. However, the research also indicates that increases in the severity of penalties, such as increasing the length of terms of imprisonment, do not produce a corresponding increase in deterrence. It has been suggested that harsher penalties do not deter because many crimes are committed in circumstances where it is difficult to identify when, or if, offenders have considered the consequences of their criminal behaviour. In addition, otherwise rational individuals are more strongly influenced by the perceived immediate benefits of committing crime and individuals ‘discount’ the cost of future penalties. A consistent finding in deterrence research is that increases in the certainty of apprehension and punishment demonstrate a significant deterrent effect. Perceptions about the certainty of apprehension, for example, may counter the ‘present bias’ and reinforce the potential cost of committing crime. This result is qualified by the need for further research that separates deterrable from non-deterrable populations. Research into specific deterrence shows that imprisonment has, at best, no effect on the rate of reoffending and often results in a greater rate of recidivism. Possible explanations for this include that: prison is a learning environment for crime, prison reinforces criminal identity and may diminish or sever social ties that encourage lawful behaviour and imprisonment is not the appropriate response to many offenders who require treatment for the underlying causes of their criminality (such as drug, alcohol and mental health issues). Harsh prison conditions do not generate a greater deterrent effect, and the evidence shows that such conditions may lead to more violent reoffending. The empirical evidence on the effectiveness of imprisonment as a deterrent to crime suggests that the purposes of sentencing should be considered independently – according to their own merits – and that caution should be exercised if imprisonment is to be justified as a means of deterring all crimes and all kinds of offenders. Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2011. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Sentencing Matters: Accessed July 5, 2011 at: http://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/does_imprisonment_deter_a_review_of_the_evidence.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/does_imprisonment_deter_a_review_of_the_evidence.pdf Shelf Number: 121964 Keywords: DeterrenceDrug Abuse and CrimeImprisonmentPunishmentRational Choice TheorySentencing (Australia)Substance Abuse |
Author: Wan, Wai-Yin Title: The Relationship Between Police Arrests and Correctional Workload Summary: The aim of this study was to estimate the impact of a 10 per cent increase in arrests on (a) the number of male and female offenders sentenced to full-time prison terms (FTP) and (b) the number of offenders given community-based supervised orders (SO). Three pairs of time series (arrests and SO, male arrests and male FTP, female arrests and female FTP) were constructed from counts of male and female arrests, male and female FTP and SO over the 153 months from January 1998 to September 2010. Autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) models were used to examine the impact of changes in the number of arrests on the outcome (SO, male FTP and female FTP). The study found that a 10 per cent increase in police arrests results in a 2.3 per cent increase in the number of SOs one month later. If the 10 per cent change persists, the increase in SO is estimated to be 4.1 per cent in the long term. A 10 per cent increase in the number of male arrests produces an immediate (same month) 3.3 per cent increase in the number of male FTP. If the 10 per cent change persists, the increase in male FTP over the long term is estimated to be 4.0 per cent. A 10 per cent increase in female arrests produces a 4.6 per cent increase in female FTP one month later. If the increase in female arrests persists, the increase in female FTP over the long term is estimated to reduce to 3.7 per cent. The short-run costs of a 10 per cent increase in police arrests are $2.6 million (supervised orders), $18.7 million (male FTP) and $2.2 million (female FTP), spread over 11 months for supervised orders and male full-time imprisonment and over 8 months for female full-time imprisonment. Changes in arrest rates have significant and rapid impacts on demand for correctional services. Central agencies need to pay close attention to the downstream impact of policies that are likely to result in an increased arrest rate. Correctional agencies need to closely monitor arrest rate trends. Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2011. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice Number 150; Accessed July 5, 2011 at: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/cjb150.pdf/$file/cjb150.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/cjb150.pdf/$file/cjb150.pdf Shelf Number: 121965 Keywords: Arrest and Apprehension (Australia)CorrectionsImprisonmentWorkload |
Author: McHutchison, Judy Title: Outcomes for NSW Periodic Detention Orders Commenced 2003 - 2004 Summary: A periodic detention order is a sentencing option available to NSW courts which authorises the sentencing of offenders to a two day a week detention period for terms up to three years. The aim of this study was to use electronically available data to measure outcomes (i.e., successful completion or revocation) for periodic detention orders commenced in 2003-4. Periodic detention orders can be revoked if an offender is convicted on another matter and sentenced to a period of full-time custody greater than a month. Orders can also be revoked if offenders otherwise fail to comply with their obligations under an order including: non-attendance on three or more occasions offences in custody. The majority of data analysed in this study was extracted from the NSW Department of Corrective Service’s (NSWDCS) Offender Integrated Management System (OIMS) on the 30th May 2006. At this date 925 orders had been completed (13 orders remained unfinalised and these were not included in this study). Details: Sydney: New South Wales Department of Corrective Services, 2006. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Publication No. 48: Accessed August 26, 2011 at: http://www.correctiveservices.nsw.gov.au/_media/dcs/information/research-and-statistics/research-publication/RP048.pdf Year: 2006 Country: Australia URL: http://www.correctiveservices.nsw.gov.au/_media/dcs/information/research-and-statistics/research-publication/RP048.pdf Shelf Number: 122555 Keywords: ImprisonmentPeriodic Detention (Australia)PrisonersSentencing |
Author: Fortner, Michael Javen Title: The Carceral State and the Crucible of Black Politics: An Urban History of the Rockefeller Drug Laws Summary: The expansion of the carceral state and the mass incarceration of African American males have been of great concern to academics and activists. The dominant explanations for these outcomes emphasize white supremacy and the Republican law and order rhetoric that developed during the late 1960s. This paper complicates this narrative: it examines the role that African-American activists played in the development of local and national drug policy. Tracing the discourse around crime and law enforcement within New York City’s African American community from 1950s until the 1970s, this papers finds that the “urban crisis” narrative did not develop in spite of black politics: it developed, in great measure, because of black politics. The law and order rhetoric of the post-60s GOP might have been employed at the expense of racial minorities living in urban ghettos, but black politics played a preparatory role for this new Republican discourse. This paper concludes that the carceral state and the mass incarceration of African American males is as much a result of black fears as it is a result of white racism. Details: Unpublished paper, 2011. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper: Accessed October 22, 2011 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1944608 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1944608 Shelf Number: 123081 Keywords: African AmericansDrug OffendersDrug PolicyImprisonmentMinoritiesRockefeller Drug Laws (New York State) |
Author: Hutcherson, Donald T. Title: Street Dreams: The Effect of Incarceration on Illegal Earnings Summary: Theory and research on the employment lives of the ex-incarcerated suggests that imprisonment can decrease earnings in the conventional labor market for young adults (e.g., Sampson and Laub, 1993; Sampson and Laub, 2003; Western, 2002; Western, 2006). However, little is known about the influence of imprisonment on criminal earnings. To fill this gap, the research reported below addresses the following question: How does incarceration influence criminal earnings for adolescents and young adults? Drawing on theories regarding stigma, social and human capital, and opportunity structure, I develop an argument to explain how incarceration can yield returns in the form of greater illegal earnings. Briefly, the case is made that due to failures in the conventional labor market, the ex-incarcerated are forced to rely on criminal earnings from illegal opportunity structures during the life course. Thus, illegal earnings will be greater for this group than for their counterparts who have not been incarcerated. To assess the role of prior incarceration on illegal earnings, this study estimates random-effects models for adolescents and young adult male ex-offenders and non-offenders using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY97) for 1997-2005. Consistent with the theoretical arguments, the findings reveal that individuals with an incarceration history earn significantly higher annual illegal earnings than those who do not have such a history. This is true net of a variety of predictors of illegal income, including factors related to ‘persistent heterogeneity’. The analyses also reveal an interaction effect of prior incarceration and African-American racial status on illegal earnings, whereby formerly incarcerated African-American males earn much higher predicted illegal income than former incarcerees from other race/ethnic backgrounds. To assess the role of different sources of illegal earnings, I also investigated the influence of prior incarceration on illegal earnings from drug trafficking. These analyses demonstrated a strong positive relationship between incarceration history and annual illegal income from this source. Further, interaction models revealed that ex-incarcerated African-American males earn significantly higher predicted logged income from drug trafficking than Hispanic and White ex-offenders and those never incarcerated. There is also an interaction between prior incarceration and hardcore drug use for this outcome. Formerly incarcerated individuals who use hardcore drugs earn much higher predicted logged annual illegal income from drug sales than ex-incarcerated non-drug users, non-incarcerated drug users and non-incarcerated individuals that do not use drugs. Details: Ohio: Ohio State University, 2008. Source: Dissertation: Ohio State University. Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 123503 Keywords: Illegal EarningsImprisonment |
Author: Yeh, Brian T. Title: Drug Offenses: Maximum Fines and Terms of Imprisonment for Violation of the Federal Controlled Substances Act and Related Laws Summary: This is a chart of the maximum fines and terms of imprisonment that may be imposed as a consequence of conviction for violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and other drug supply and drug demand related laws. It lists the penalties for: heroin, cocaine, crack, PCP, LSD, marihuana (marijuana), amphetamine, methamphetamine, listed (precursor) chemicals, paraphernalia, date rape drugs, rave drugs, designer drugs, ecstasy, drug kingpins, as well as the other substances including narcotics and opiates assigned to Schedule I, Schedule II, Schedule III, Schedule IV, and Schedule V of the Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (Title II and Title III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Control Act). Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2011. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: RL30722: Accessed January 12, 2012 at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30722.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30722.pdf Shelf Number: 123561 Keywords: Drug OffendersDrug OffensesDrug SmugglingDrug TraffickingFinesImprisonmentPunishment |
Author: Office of the Sentencing Council Title: Drug 'mules': twelve case studies Summary: This document describes the key features emerging from case study interviews undertaken by the Office of the Sentencing Council with a small number of women imprisoned for unlawful importation of drugs: many acting as drug ‘mules’. This work focused on women in response to documented concerns over the circumstances that may lead to the offending, the roles they tend to play in these types of offences and the impact of imprisonment on women and their families, particularly those with caring responsibilities. These issues have been raised specifically in relation to foreign national prisoners, with stories of women living in poverty who either need the money generated through carrying drugs, or are coerced into it, and for whom imprisonment may be particularly difficult, given their location in a different country and language and cultural differences. The aim of the interviews with the women involved in this exercise was therefore to discuss the background and circumstances leading up to their offence, their reactions to the sentence they received and the impact this has had on their lives and that of their families: essentially we wanted the women to ‘tell their story’ (seeAppendix A for these accounts) - to provide a greater insight and understanding into some of the potential reasons for involvement in these offences and to highlight the type of roles they may play. The information generated through this work has helped inform the Sentencing Council’s development of a draft sideline on sentencing drug offences and has complemented a larger research study recently undertaken, examining public attitudes to the sentencing of drug offences more generally. Details: United Kingdom: Office of the Sentencing Council, 2011. 23p. Source: Analysis and Research Bulletin. Internet Resource: Accessed on January 23, 2012 at http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/Drug_mules_bulletin.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/Drug_mules_bulletin.pdf Shelf Number: 123758 Keywords: Case StudiesDrug Trafficking (U.K.)Female OffendersImprisonment |
Author: Rawnsley, Terry Title: Dynamics in Repeat Imprisonment: Utilising Prison Census Data Summary: One of the goals of any correctional system is to reduce the number of prisoners who are repeatedly imprisoned. A period of imprisonment may reduce an individual’s willingness to consider re-offending and therefore being imprisoned again. However, due to a number of underlying variables, a period of imprisonment may in fact increase the probability of future imprisonment. In this context, prisoners with multiple imprisonment episodes pose a problem worth investigating. This paper reports analysis of aspects of prisoners with multiple prison spells based on the Prison Census. The Prison Census extracts selected information from administrative data maintained by corrective services agencies in each state in Australia. The Prison Census collects social and sentencing information. Time series of micro data exist from 1993 to 2001. By combining the Prison Censuses across this period, a longitudinal dataset can be constructed. Analysis of this dataset can help explain the dynamics affecting individuals who are repeatedly imprisoned. This work is the result of a joint project between the Australian Bureau of Statistics Analysis Branch and the National Centre for Crime and Justice Statistics. Details: Canberra, Australia: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2003. 24p. Source: ABS/AIC Conference Presentation, Evaluation in Crime & Justice: Trends & Methods: Internet Resource: Accessed February 12, 2012 at http://www.aic.gov.au/events/aic%20upcoming%20events/2003/~/media/conferences/evaluation/rawnsley.pdf Year: 2003 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aic.gov.au/events/aic%20upcoming%20events/2003/~/media/conferences/evaluation/rawnsley.pdf Shelf Number: 124095 Keywords: Criminal StatisticsImprisonmentRecidivism (Australia) |
Author: Office of Criminal Justice Research, Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles Title: Special Report: Lifetime Likelihood of Going to a Georgia State Prison Summary: The current study relies on life tables techniques to estimate the lifetime likelihood of going to prison in the State of Georgia. The “lifetime likelihood of incarceration” measurement reflects the percentage of Georgia residents who should be expected to be incarcerated in a State prison at some point during their lifetime. These lifetime estimates are based on established life table techniques frequently used by demographers and actuaries to summarize today’s first-time admission prison rate and age-specific mortality rates (referred to as double decrement life table), as well as the techniques used by the Department of Justice in estimating U.S. rates in the 1997 report, Lifetime Likelihood of Going to State or Federal Prison. Georgia men (17.8%) are over seven times more likely than women to be incarcerated in prison at least once during their lifetime. Among Georgia women, black females (4.6%) are three times more likely to enter prison at least once during their life compared to white females (1.5%). Among Georgia men, four out of every ten black males (38.5%) will likely go to a Georgia state prison sometime over the course of their lives. The likelihood of a Georgia man going to prison (17.8%) is nearly double that of the national average (9.0%). The likelihood of incarceration for Georgia females (2.5%) was over two times that of the national average (1.1%). The likelihood of black Georgia men being incarcerated (38.5%) is ten points higher than that of the rest of the nation (28.5%). White males in Georgia are more than twice as likely (9.3%) to be incarcerated than white males elsewhere in the U.S. (4.4%). Details: Atlanta, Georgia: Office of Criminal Justice Research, Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles, 1999. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 14, 2012 at http://ars-corp.com/_view/PDF_Files/LifetimeLikelihoodofGoingtoaGeorgiaStatePrison1999.pdf Year: 1999 Country: United States URL: http://ars-corp.com/_view/PDF_Files/LifetimeLikelihoodofGoingtoaGeorgiaStatePrison1999.pdf Shelf Number: 124140 Keywords: Adult Corrections (Georgia)CorrectionsImprisonmentRace/EthnicitySentencing |
Author: The Howard League for Penal Reform Title: Life inside 2010: A unique insight into the day to day experiences of 15-17 year old males in prison Summary: This report was developed in conjunction with young people currently in custody and released into the community. Through a series of workshops and one to one work, young people identified the topic of this report, the issues they wanted discussed and key lessons for policy makers and practitioners. Through the process we have developed Life Inside 2010 – a unique insight into the day-to-day experiences of 15-17 year old males in prison. Despite the 22% reduction in the total number of young people in custody over the last three years, the same proportion of 15-17 year old males are still incarcerated in prisons that do not work: the reduction in custody numbers has not been used as an opportunity to lower the percentage placed in the most basic form of custody. 75% of these young people reoffend within a year of their release. Children in custody come in the main from the most disadvantaged families and communities, whose lives are frequently characterised by social and economic deprivation, neglect and abuse. It is clear that children in custody are extremely vulnerable, yet they are locked away in prisons that, as is evidenced by the high reoffending rates, do not work. This report explains young men’s experiences and opinions of key areas of prison life. Details: London: The Howard League for Penal Reform, 2010. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 2, 2012 at http://www.urboss.org.uk/downloads/publications/Life_Inside_2010.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.urboss.org.uk/downloads/publications/Life_Inside_2010.pdf Shelf Number: 124358 Keywords: Adolescent Males (U.K.)ImprisonmentJuvenile Corrections (U.K.)Juvenile Offenders |
Author: Lin, Jeffrey Title: The Scope of Correctional Control in California Summary: How many people are under correctional control in California? That is, on any given day, how many adults (18 and older) are held in adult county jails and state prisons, or supervised in the community on adult probation or parole? How many young people (ages 12-25) are held in county juvenile detention and state juvenile placement facilities, or supervised in the community on juvenile probation and parole? According to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), in 2004, California had the largest adult parolee population in the United States, the second largest probationer population after Texas (Glaze and Palla 2005), and the third largest prisoner population after the federal system and Texas (Harrison and Beck 2005a).1,2 However, California is also the most populous state in the country. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that in 2004, there were 35.8 million California residents, with 26 million Californians ages 18 or older, and 7.2 million Californians between the ages of 12 and 25 (the ages of jurisdiction for the state juvenile justice system). Given differences in state populations, a more appropriate question to ask is: How do California’s rates of correctional control compare to national averages? This research bulletin presents one-day standing counts of Californians under correctional control on December 31, 2004,3 and where possible, compares rates of control to those found in other states. The bulletin considers adult correctional control (consisting of adult prison, adult parole, jail and adult probation populations) and juvenile correctional control (consisting of state Division of Juvenile Justice institution and parole, county juvenile detention and juvenile probation populations) separately, and also notes gender, racial and ethnic differences in correctional control rates. The purpose of this bulletin is to provide a descriptive overview of the California population over which some form of control is exercised by a state or local criminal justice agency, and situate this information in a national context. It serves as an extension to data reported annually by the Bureau of Justice Statistics on the prevalence of forms of correctional control, providing additional detail for California. Policymakers will be interested in this bulletin as background in crafting criminal justice policies. It will also be useful to researchers seeking to inform their work around issues of crime, justice and punishment. Details: Irvine, CA: Center for Evidence-Based Correction, UC Irvine, 2006. 8p. Source: Bulletin Vol. 2, Issue 1: Internet Resource: Accessed May 8, 2012 at http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/pdf/Bulletin706Da.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/pdf/Bulletin706Da.pdf Shelf Number: 125199 Keywords: Adult Corrections (California)Correctional AdministrationCriminal Justice PolicyImprisonmentJuvenile Corrections (California) |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union Title: At America's Expense: The Mass Incarceration of the Elderly Summary: At America’s Expense compiles extensive data detailing epidemic of aging prisoners in the United States. It provides a comprehensive 50-state and federal analysis of the unnecessary incarceration of aging prisoners and provides a fiscal analysis showing the actual amount states would save, on average, by releasing aging prisoners: over $66,000 per year per released prisoner. The report also includes new data showing that the elderly population is growing because of harsh sentencing laws and not because of new crimes, as well as data highlighting the low public safety risks posed by elderly prisoners. At America’s Expense supplies detailed and practical legislative solutions that states and the federal government can implement to address the dramatic and costly growth in the number of elderly prisoners without putting communities at risk. Details: New York: American Civil Liberties Union, 2012. 98p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 20, 2012 at https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/elderlyprisonreport_20120613_1.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/elderlyprisonreport_20120613_1.pdf Shelf Number: 125389 Keywords: Corrections AdministrationCorrections ReformElderly InmatesImprisonment |
Author: Pew Center on the States Title: Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms Summary: Over the past four decades, criminal justice policy in the United States was guided largely by a central premise: the best way to protect the public was to put more people in prison. A corollary was that offenders should spend longer and longer time behind bars. The logic of the strategy seemed inescapable—more inmates serving more time surely equals less crime—and policy makers were stunningly effective at putting the approach into action. As the Pew Center on the States has documented, the state prison population spiked more than 700 percent between 1972 and 2011, and in 2008 the combined federal-statelocal inmate count reached 2.3 million, or one in 100 adults. Annual state spending on corrections now tops $51 billion and prisons account for the vast majority of the cost, even though offenders on parole and probation dramatically outnumber those behind bars. Indeed, prison expansion has delivered some public safety payoff. Serious crime has been declining for the past two decades, and imprisonment deserves some of the credit. Experts differ on precise figures, but they generally conclude that the increased use of incarceration accounted for one-quarter to one-third of the crime drop in the 1990s. Beyond the crime control benefit, most Americans support long prison terms for serious, chronic, and violent offenders as a means of exacting retribution for reprehensible behavior. But criminologists and policy makers increasingly agree that we have reached a “tipping point” with incarceration, where additional imprisonment will have little if any effect on crime. Research also has identified new offender supervision strategies and technologies that can help break the cycle of recidivism. Across the nation, these developments, combined with tight state budgets, have prompted a significant shift toward alternatives to prison for lower-level offenders. Policy makers in several states have worked across party lines to reform sentencing and release laws, including reducing prison time served by nonviolent offenders. The analysis in this study shows that longer prison terms have been a key driver of prison populations and costs, and the study highlights new opportunities for state leaders to generate greater public safety with fewer taxpayer dollars. Details: Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2012. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 26, 2012 at: http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2012/Prison_Time_Served.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2012/Prison_Time_Served.pdf Shelf Number: 125400 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ExpendituresCriminal Justice PolicyImprisonmentInmatesPrison PopulationSentencing |
Author: Ritchie, Donald Title: How Much Does Imprisonment Protect the Community Through Incapacitation? Summary: Sentences in Victoria may be imposed for one or more of the following purposes (Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 5(1)): 1. punishment; 2. denunciation; 3. rehabilitation; 4. deterrence; and 5. community protection. As part of the Council’s statutory function of conducting research and disseminating information on sentencing matters, this paper examines the effectiveness of imprisonment in achieving community protection through incapacitative methods. While deterrence and rehabilitation also seek to protect the community from further offending, incapacitation is a means of protecting the community by removing or reducing the physical capacity of an offender to offend. The most obvious form of incapacitation is a sentence of imprisonment. However, there are other forms of limited or partial incapacitation, including curfews and restrictions on movement (such as home detention), monitoring and reporting requirements as well as forms of drug therapy. This paper focuses on imprisonment, as it is the most severe, iconic and resource-intensive form of incapacitation. It is the form most commonly assumed to be effective and is the focus of most empirical research into this subject. The incapacitative effect of imprisonment presents a compelling logic: while in prison, an offender cannot offend in the community. Consequently, the incapacitation of an offender may be expected to prevent crime that an offender would commit were he or she at liberty in the community. Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, Victoria, 2012, 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Sentencing Matters: Accessed August 8, 2012 at: https://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/how_much_does_imprisonment_protect_the_community_through_incapacitation_0.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: https://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/how_much_does_imprisonment_protect_the_community_through_incapacitation_0.pdf Shelf Number: 125908 Keywords: ImprisonmentIncapacitationPunishmentSentencing (Australia) |
Author: Mallik-Kane, Kamala Title: Examining Growth in the Federal Prison Population, 1998 to 2010 Summary: The size of the yearend Federal prison population grew by 77% over the 1998-2010 period, from 104,413 offenders who were convicted of federal crimes to an all-time high of 184,809. Drug offenders made up the largest portion of the increase in Federal prisoners, followed by weapon, immigration, and non-regulatory public-order offenders. An increase in the length of time to be served by prisoners was the leading contributor to growth, accounting for 58% of the total prison population growth between 1998 and 2010. Longer expected lengths of stay for drug offenders, alone, accounted for one-third of total growth in the prison population. Changes in federal conviction, investigation, and sentencing practices, respectively, also added to the prison population—notably, a higher conviction rate in drug cases and heightened enforcement of immigration and weapon offenses. By contrast, prison population growth during this period was moderated by changes in the rate at which sentenced offenders were admitted to prison and modest declines in the federal prosecution rate. Report findings were based on a statistical decomposition analysis using data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ Federal Justice Statistics Program. Details: Washington, D.C.: Justice Policy Center, Urban Institute, 2012. 35p. Source: Research Report, September 2012: Internet REsource: Accessed October 13, 2012 at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239785.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239785.pdf Shelf Number: 126686 Keywords: Demographic TrendsImprisonmentPrison Population |
Author: Abrams, David S. Title: The Imprisoner's Dilemma: A Cost Benefit Approach to Incarceration Summary: Depriving an individual of life or liberty is one of the most intrusive powers that governments wield. Decisions about imprisonment capture the public imagination. The stories are told daily in newspapers and on TV, dramatized in literature and on film, and debated by scholars. The United States has created an ever-increasing amount of material for discussion as the state incarceration rate quadrupled between 1980 and 2000. While the decision to incarcerate an individual is given focused attention by a judge, prosecutor, and (occasionally) a jury, the overall incarceration rate is not. In this article, I apply a cost-benefit approach to incarceration with the goal of informing public policy. An excessive rate of incarceration not only deprives individuals of freedom, but also costs the taxpayers large amounts of money. Too little imprisonment harms society in a different way – through costs to victims and even non-victims who must increase precautions to avoid crime. Striking the right balance of costs and benefits is what good law and public policy strive for. Changes to the inmate population may be made in several different ways. One insight that I stress in this article is that the precise form of a proposed incarceration policy change is crucial to properly evaluating the impact of the change. Therefore, I analyze several potential policy changes and their implications for sentencing and imprisonment. The calculations are informed by recent empirical work on the various ways in which imprisonment impacts overall welfare. I find that the benefits of limited one-time prisoner releases, as well as the reclassification of some crimes exceed the costs. Details: Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Law School, 2012. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 16, 2012 at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2109703 Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2109703 Shelf Number: 127227 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectionsCost Benefit AnalysisCosts of Criminal JusticeImprisonment |
Author: Hutcherson, Donald T., II Title: Street Dreams: The Effect of Incarceration on Illegal Earnings Summary: Theory and research on the employment lives of the ex-incarcerated suggests that imprisonment can decrease earnings in the conventional labor market for young adults (e.g., Sampson and Laub, 1993; Sampson and Laub, 2003; Western, 2002; Western, 2006). However, little is known about the influence of imprisonment on criminal earnings. To fill this gap, the research reported below addresses the following question: How does incarceration influence criminal earnings for adolescents and young adults? Drawing on theories regarding stigma, social and human capital, and opportunity structure, I develop an argument to explain how incarceration can yield returns in the form of greater illegal earnings. Briefly, the case is made that due to failures in the conventional labor market, the ex-incarcerated are forced to rely on criminal earnings from illegal opportunity structures during the life course. Thus, illegal earnings will be greater for this group than for their counterparts who have not been incarcerated. To assess the role of prior incarceration on illegal earnings, this study estimates random-effects models for adolescents and young adult male ex-offenders and non-offenders using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY97) for 1997-2005. Consistent with the theoretical arguments, the findings reveal that individuals with an incarceration history earn significantly higher annual illegal earnings than those who do not have such a history. This is true net of a variety of predictors of illegal income, including factors related to 'persistent heterogeneity'. The analyses also reveal an interaction effect of prior incarceration and African-American racial status on illegal earnings, whereby formerly incarcerated African-American males earn much higher predicted illegal income than former incarcerees from other race/ethnic backgrounds. To assess the role of different sources of illegal earnings, I also investigated the influence of prior incarceration on illegal earnings from drug trafficking. These analyses demonstrated a strong positive relationship between incarceration history and annual illegal income from this source. Further, interaction models revealed that ex-incarcerated African-American males earn significantly higher predicted logged income from drug trafficking than Hispanic and White ex-offenders and those never incarcerated. There is also an interaction between prior incarceration and hardcore drug use for this outcome. Formerly incarcerated individuals who use hardcore drugs earn much higher predicted logged annual illegal income from drug sales than ex-incarcerated non-drug users, non-incarcerated drug users and non-incarcerated individuals that do not use drugs. Details: Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, 2008. 138p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed February 5, 2013 at: http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi?acc_num=osu1218205841 Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi?acc_num=osu1218205841 Shelf Number: 127513 Keywords: Drug TraffickingDrugs and CrimeIllegal IncomeImprisonmentIncarceration |
Author: Brugård, Kaja Høiseth Title: Student Performance and Imprisonment Summary: This paper studies the relationship between education and crime. We exploit Norwegian register data on skills at the end of compulsory education at age 16, high school attainment, and detailed imprisonment data. We find that skills, as measured by GPA, have a strong diminishing effect on imprisonment. The result is robust to a range of model specifications, including school and neighborhood fixed effects and IV-estimations using the result from the external exit examination as an instrument for skills. The relationship is nonlinear and driven by individuals with skills below average. Even though there is a strong relationship between GPA and high school attainment, this does not seem to be the main mechanism for the effect of GPA on imprisonment. This result is also robust to a range of model specifications. Details: Trondheim, Norway: Department of Economics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2012. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper Series, No. 9/2012: Accessed February 13, 2013 at: http://www.svt.ntnu.no/iso/wp/2012/9_studentperformance_KHB_TF.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Norway URL: http://www.svt.ntnu.no/iso/wp/2012/9_studentperformance_KHB_TF.pdf Shelf Number: 127599 Keywords: Education and CrimeImprisonmentStudent Achievement |
Author: Johnston, E. Lea Title: Humane Punishment for Seriously Disordered Offenders: Sentencing Departures and Judicial Control Over Conditions of Confinement Summary: At sentencing, a judge may foresee that an individual with a major mental disorder will experience serious psychological or physical harm in prison. In light of this reality and offenders’ other potential vulnerabilities, a number of jurisdictions currently allow judges to treat undue offender hardship as a mitigating factor at sentencing. In these jurisdictions, vulnerability to harm may militate toward an order of probation or a reduced term of confinement. Since these measures do not affect offenders’ day-to-day experience in confinement, these expressions of mitigation fail to protect adequately those vulnerable offenders who must serve time in prison. This article argues that judges should possess the authority to tailor the conditions of vulnerable, disordered offenders’ carceral sentences to ensure that sentences are humane, proportionate, and appropriate for serving the intended aims of punishment. To equalize, at least in part, conditions of confinement for this population, judges should consider ordering timely and periodic mental health evaluations by qualified professionals, disqualifying facilities with insufficient mental health or protective resources, specifying the facility or unit where an offender will serve or begin his sentence, and mandating certain treatment in prison. Allowing judges to exercise power over correctional conditions in this way will allow judges to fulfill better their institutional function of meting out appropriate, humane, and proportionate punishments, subject prison conditions to public scrutiny and debate, and help reform the image and reality of the criminal justice system for some of society’s most vulnerable individuals. Details: University of Florida, Levin College of Law, 2013. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Draft: Accessed May 29, 2013 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2267612 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2267612 Shelf Number: 128844 Keywords: ImprisonmentMentally Ill OffendersProportional PunishmentPunishment (U.S.)Sentencing |
Author: Chettiar, Inimai M. Title: Reforming Funding to Reduce Mass Incarceration Summary: The criminal justice system in the United States is vast. It touches every state and locality, creating a web of law enforcement and legal agencies. As with all complex enterprises, this system is honeycombed with incentives that steer or deter behavior, for good or ill. Changes to criminal law can only do so much in a justice system that relies heavily on the discretion of individual actors. One key factor affects individual behavior and agency policies: money. Funding structures of criminal justice agencies - direct budgets and grant awards - can create powerful incentives. This is true at all levels - federal, state, and local. Federal spending is one focal point. Washington spends billions of dollars each year to subsidize state and local criminal justice systems. Specifically, the Justice Department administers dozens of criminal justice grants. In 2012, just some of the largest programs, including the Community Oriented Policing Services and Violence Against Women Act grants, received more than $1.47 billion. The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program is the largest nationwide criminal justice grant program. Although JAG represents a small percentage of nationwide dollars spent on criminal justice, it retains an outsize influence on activities and policy. Because it funds a wide array of areas, rather than funding one kind of activity, JAG extends its reach across the entire system. Its dollars flow to local police departments, prosecutor and public defender offices, courts, and others. State and local actors rely on JAG funds year in and year out. JAG, in its original form, was created almost 30 years ago. Not surprisingly, it provides funding driven by criteria developed at a time of rising and seemingly out-of-control crime. JAG has not faced substantial overhaul since then. Today, the country faces very different criminal justice challenges. On the one hand, crime and violence have fallen sharply across the country. Fears for safety, and crises such as the crack epidemic, have receded into history. The murder rate is almost at its lowest rate in a century. At the same time, however, a far more disturbing trend has emerged: the growth of mass incarceration in the United States. With less than 5 percent of the world's population, we have almost 25 percent of its prisoners. More than 68 million Americans - a quarter of the nation's population - have criminal records. Over half the people in prison are there for drug or nonviolent crimes. One in three new prison admissions are for parole violations. The cost to taxpayers has soared: Today, the nation spends more than $80 billion annually to sustain mass incarceration. True social costs, such as the harms to families, communities, and the economy, are far higher. Fortunately, in recent years policymakers and the public have begun to advance a new approach to criminal justice, one that fights crime and violence but turns away from thoughtless criminalization and over-incarceration. A wave of innovative reforms, pioneered in cities and states, is starting to reshape criminal justice policy. These new approaches, grounded in data, seek to align public policies to target major public safety goals while reducing unintended consequences. They focus on major, violent crime without mindlessly punishing people. Significantly, these changes are uniting activists and leaders of all political ideologies. Details: New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, 2013. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 26, 2013 at: http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/REFORM_FUND_MASS_INCARC_web_0.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/REFORM_FUND_MASS_INCARC_web_0.pdf Shelf Number: 131705 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice PolicyImprisonmentIncarceration (U.S.) |
Author: McDaniel, Marla Title: Imprisonment and Disenfranchisement of Disconnected Low-Income Men Summary: This brief, part of a series on disconnected low-income men, summarizes selected data from published reports on incarceration in the United States. Low-income men are defined as those age 18 to 44 who live in families with incomes below twice the federal poverty level (FPL)1 and do not have four-year college degrees. Other briefs in the series examine low-income men's demographic profiles, education, employment, and health. We present data on imprisonment, one component of criminal justice system involvement, highlighting stark disparities by race, education, and place. The statistics on criminal offenses and incarceration cited reflect changes in federal and state crime policies over the past few decades, especially those related to drug offenses. These policies have led to mass incarceration - that is, the imprisonment of comparatively and historically high proportions of the population that cannot be accounted for by changes in crime rates. The US Department of Justice is reviewing laws and agency enforcement policies that may have had a disparate impact on African Americans and Hispanics, both in terms of incarceration and the collateral damage to their families and communities. Some of these impacts are summarized in this brief. Young men of color are a particular focus because of their high rates of incarceration. While they are highly concentrated in poor neighborhoods, especially in urban areas, most available data are at the state and national level. Therefore, we mainly focus on state and national data that provide the most extensive documentation of the racial and ethnic aspects of incarceration. Since the criminal justice data generally do not include income of the prisoners' families, we are unable to identify the proportion of incarcerated men who are low income. To the extent that prisoners are separated from mainstream society, however, the men in focus are disconnected and afterward face challenges reconnecting to the mainstream. In addition to incarceration rates, we include state data on voting restrictions related to incarceration, a form of disconnection through civil disenfranchisement. We highlight examples of the economic impact of incarceration on individual communities and society as a whole. We consider both the costs of incarceration and the related family and community costs generated by that incarceration. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2013. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue Brief 4: Accessed March 13, 2014 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412986-Imprisonment-and-Disenfranchisement-of-Disconnected-Low-Income-Men.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412986-Imprisonment-and-Disenfranchisement-of-Disconnected-Low-Income-Men.pdf Shelf Number: 131897 Keywords: ImprisonmentPovertyRace and CrimeRacial DisparitiesSocioeconomic Status and Crime |
Author: Weatherburn, Don Title: Why is the NSW Prison Population Growing? Summary: Aim: To provide a preliminary analysis of the rapid rise in the NSW prison population from January 2013 to March 2014. Method: Descriptive analysis of court, crime, arrest and correctional data, and ARIMA modelling of prison trends. Results: The key factors responsible for the recent rise in the NSW prison population appear to be a higher rate of arrest for serious crime and an increase in the proportion of convicted offenders given a prison sentence. There is no evidence that prisoners during 2013 are spending longer in custody but there is evidence the length of stay in custody may increase over the coming year. If the current trend in inmate numbers continues, the NSW prison population will rise by another 17 per cent (i.e., to about 12,500 inmates) by March 2015. Conclusion: Early consideration should be given to measures that reduce the demand for prison accommodation and/or expand prison capacity. Keywords: prison, Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2014. 7p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue Paper No. 95: Accessed May 15, 2014 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/_assets/bocsar/m716854l4/bb95.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/_assets/bocsar/m716854l4/bb95.pdf Shelf Number: 132355 Keywords: ImprisonmentIncarcerationInmatesPrisoners (Australia)Prisons Sentencing |
Author: Spamann, Holger Title: The US Crime Puzzle: A Comparative Large-N Perspective on US Crime & Punishment Summary: I generate out-of-sample predictions of US crime and incarceration rates from cross-country regressions. Predictors suggested in the literature explain a large part of the international variation, but fail to explain the US. The US incarceration rate is four times higher than predicted, while US crime rates are at best slightly below the prediction. An explanation of this US crime puzzle requires a low crime-punishment elasticity at US levels of punishment, and/or an extraordinarily high US latent crime rate. I derive joint bounds for the two. Drawing on additional country-specific information, I argue that the most plausible explanation combines both elements. Details: Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, John M. Olin Center for Law, Economics, and Business, 2014. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: John M. Olin Discussion Paper No.788: Accessed August 28, 2014 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2463720 Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2463720 Shelf Number: 133158 Keywords: Crime Rates ImprisonmentMass Incarceration Prisoners Punishment |
Author: Lee, David S. Title: The Deterrence Effect of Prison: Dynamic Theory and Evidence Summary: Using administrative, longitudinal data on felony arrests in Florida, we exploit the discontinuous increase in the punitiveness of criminal sanctions at 18 to estimate the deterrence effect of incarceration. Our analysis suggests a 2 percent decline in the log-odds of offending at 18, with standard errors ruling out declines of 11 percent or more. We interpret these magnitudes using a stochastic dynamic extension of Beckers (1968) model of criminal behavior. Calibrating the model to match key empirical moments, we conclude that deterrence elasticities with respect to sentence lengths are no more negative than -0.13 for young offenders. Details: Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 2009. 66p. Source: Internet Resource: CEPS Working Paper No. 189: Accessed October 22, 2014 at: http://www.princeton.edu/ceps/workingpapers/189lee.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.princeton.edu/ceps/workingpapers/189lee.pdf Shelf Number: 133791 Keywords: Deterrence ImprisonmentPunishment (Florida) Sentencing |
Author: Shavell, Steven Title: A Simple Model of Optimal Deterrence and Incapacitation Summary: The deterrence of crime and its reduction through incapacitation are studied in a simple multi-period model of crime and law enforcement. Optimal imprisonment sanctions and the optimal probability of sanctions are determined. A point of emphasis is that the incapacitation of individuals is often socially desirable even when they are potentially deterrable. The reason is that successful deterrence may require a relatively high probability of sanctions and thus a relatively high enforcement expense. In contrast, incapacitation may yield benefits no matter how low the probability of sanctions is - implying that incapacitation may be superior to deterrence. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2014. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper No. 20747: Accessed April 1, 2015 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w20747.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w20747.pdf Shelf Number: 135111 Keywords: Criminal DeterrenceImprisonmentIncapacitationPunishment |
Author: Brignell, Georgia Title: Sentencing in NSW: A cross-jurisdictional comparison of full-time imprisonment Summary: It is common for participants in debates about sentencing in NSW (and elsewhere) to assert that sentencing by the courts is either too lenient or too harsh. Severity and leniency are, however, relative concepts. This study examines how sentences of imprisonment imposed in NSW for offences dealt with on indictment compare with interstate jurisdictions. The sentences imposed in jurisdictions such as Queensland and Victoria serve as a yardstick against which sentences in NSW can be judged. The study also compares NSW prison statistics against interstate and international (common law) jurisdictions. The analysis shows that, comparatively speaking, NSW is one of the harshest jurisdictions in Australia. Sentencing is an area of law largely regulated by State and Territory governments. The respective Parliaments of each jurisdiction define the ingredients of offences and set maximum penalties. Sentencing law is the same across Australian jurisdictions in two important respects: first, in determining a sentence the court must apply the principle of proportionality - the sentence imposed should neither exceed nor be less than the gravity of the crime having regard to the objective circumstances; and secondly, full-time imprisonment is a sanction of last resort - a court must not sentence an offender to imprisonment unless it is satisfied, having considered all possible alternatives, that no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate. The study overcomes differences between jurisdictions by carefully aligning offences and further coding sentencing data. The analysis also takes into account custodial options which require an offender to serve part of his or her sentence in a prison, such as partially suspended sentences. The latter sentencing option is available in Queensland and until very recently in Victoria. The head sentence (that is, the non-parole period and parole period of a term of imprisonment) imposed for the principal offence has been used for the purposes of comparing the length of sentences in each jurisdiction. The sentence for the principal offence does not, however, reflect how long an offender actually spends in prison in cases where more than one offence has been committed. Nevertheless, it is the best measure of sentencing levels for a given offence. The study focuses on serious cases dealt with on indictment in NSW, Queensland and Victoria. Five categories of offence are examined: sexual assault, child sexual assault, dangerous/culpable driving causing death, robbery, and break and enter/burglary. Statutory maximum penalties, full-time imprisonment rates and median head sentences are reported for these five categories of offence. The study also compares the imprisonment rate per 100,000 in the adult population in NSW with a number of Australian and international jurisdictions. Details: Sydney: Judicial Commission of NSW, 2015. 82p. Source: Internet Resource: Research monograph 39: Accessed April 15, 2015 at: http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/research-monographs-1/research-monograph-39/Monograph_39_complete.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/research-monographs-1/research-monograph-39/Monograph_39_complete.pdf Shelf Number: 135214 Keywords: Determinate SentencesImprisonmentSentencing (New South Wales) |
Author: Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Title: Unequal Justice: Mobilizing the Private Bar to Fight Mass Incarceration Summary: This report marks the beginning of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law's Criminal Justice Initiative, created to mobilize the private bar in the fight against mass incarceration. Mass incarceration - a term that refers to the cluster of issues associated with the historic scale of present-day American incarceration - presents the greatest contemporary threat to civil and human rights in the United States today. Two key facts about this phenomenon gird its importance to the Lawyers' Committee's mission: (1) mass incarceration is a racially, spatially, and socioeconomically targeted phenomenon that disproportionately affects lower-class African-American and Hispanic residents of degraded urban spaces, and (2) mass incarceration results in large part from aggregate policy choices, rather than from poor personal decisions or increases in overall levels of crime, meaning solutions too will be legal and policy in nature. There is no single solution to the problem of mass incarceration. This is because there is no single cause. Many issues are subsumed under the heading of "mass incarceration," some with deep historical roots. It is the combination of various factors working in tandem that produces the result. There is consensus that the criminal justice system is broken. Or in the words of one participant at a listening session, the criminal justice system does exactly what it is designed to do: to punitively punish large swaths of society's most disadvantaged individuals. Experts, academics, practitioners, and formerly incarcerated individuals alike agreed that the criminal justice system is unnecessarily punitive, fails wholesale to rehabilitate through its method of incarceration, destroys any opportunity for success after release from incarceration due to the thousands of collateral consequences, decreases public safety, and undermines public trust in the ability of the system to deliver justice. A key fact will guide the Lawyers' Committee's work in this area: nationally, 95% of criminal cases end in guilty pleas; of cases in the federal court system, that figure is 97%. In considering how best to harness the resources of the private bar, the importance of the criminal justice system's negotiated nature cannot be overstated. Glaring racial disparities are often absent from reform discourse. There is no question that the criminal justice system treats individuals differently based on the color of their skin. This is especially true when combined with other disadvantage factors like income, education, geography, and access to healthcare. However, this fact is often absent in public discourse and almost never formally addressed in reform efforts. This is particularly troubling since racial disparities in incarceration are often the result of implicit racial bias and structural or institutionalized racial discrimination, deep-rooted species of dysfunction which can only begin to be addressed by the acknowledgement and recognition that it exists. Details: Washington, DC: The Committee, 2015. 87p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 9, 2015 at: http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/admin/site/documents/files/0553.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/admin/site/documents/files/0553.pdf Shelf Number: 135537 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformImprisonmentMass IncarcerationRacial BiasRacial Disparities |
Author: Victoria. Sentencing Advisory Council Title: Parole and Sentencing Research Report Summary: Parole is the conditional release of a prisoner serving a sentence of imprisonment. Parole allows prisoners to serve a portion of their sentence in the community for the period during which they are still under sentence. A court determines the portion of a sentence that an offender may be allowed to serve on parole by fixing a non-parole period. A non-parole period is a component of some imprisonment sentences that represents the minimum term that an offender must serve before becoming eligible for release on parole. An offender's eligibility for a non-parole period is determined by both the length of the sentence imposed on the offender and the discretion of the sentencing court. An offender sentenced to imprisonment for under one year cannot have a non-parole period. An offender sentenced to imprisonment for one year to less than two years may have a non-parole period imposed by the court, at the court's discretion. An offender sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more must have a non-parole period imposed by the court, unless the circumstances of the offender or the case are such that it is inappropriate (for example, when, for the most serious offending, the court imposes a life sentence without fixing a non-parole period). Over the last five years, there has been considerable analysis and review of the parole system in Victoria and the introduction of substantial reforms regarding the way in which the parole system is administered. However, there have been no substantive changes to the law regarding how a court imposes a non-parole period at the time of sentencing. Nevertheless, the reforms to parole administration have taken place during a period of significant changes to the sentencing landscape in Victoria, including the introduction of new sentencing orders such as community correction orders (CCOs), and the abolition of others such as suspended sentences. Further, the length of the imprisonment term that a court may combine with a CCO has been extended, with the maximum term of imprisonment for such an order increasing from three months to two years. In light of these changes, this report seeks to answer the following questions: - How did the courts' use of non-parole periods change between 2010-11 and 2014-15? - What factors influenced the length of non-parole periods imposed by the courts between 2010-11 and 2014-15? Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2016. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 23, 2016 at: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Parole%20and%20Sentencing%20Research%20Report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Parole%20and%20Sentencing%20Research%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 138795 Keywords: ImprisonmentParoleSentencing |
Author: Long, Wei Title: Does Longer Incarceration Deter or Incapacitate Crimes? New Evidence from Truth-in-Sentencing Reform Summary: This paper estimates how violent crimes respond to a policy change which requires violent offenders to serve a substantial propertion of their sentenced terms before being eligible to release to community supervision. Focusing on states with effective TIS laws which meet the federal 85 percent rule, we utilize the differences-in-differences design to investigate both deterrent and incapacitative effect of TIS on crimes. We observe statistically significant -7 percent deterrent effect of TIS on growth of violent crime two years after its passage. A series of placebo tests confirm the robustness of the estimates and inferences. In the long-run, additional incapacitative effect also becomes significant, making the treatment effect of TIS even greater in magnitude. Even though insignificant in the first two years after TIS was passed, growth of non-violent property crime rates decreases by 7 percent in the long-run in TIS states, indicating relative greater importance of incapacitative effect which locks up offenders who commit both types of crimes. A rough approximation shows that TIS is an economically efficient method to decrease crimes. Details: New Orleans, LA: Tulane University, 2016. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Tulane Economics Working Paper Series 1607: Accessed September 23, 2016 at: http://econ.tulane.edu/RePEc/pdf/tul1607.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://econ.tulane.edu/RePEc/pdf/tul1607.pdf Shelf Number: 146112 Keywords: DeterrenceImprisonmentIncapacitationPunishmentSentencingTruth-in-SentencingViolent Crime |
Author: Fair Trials International Title: A Measure of Last Resort? The practice of pre-trial detention decision making in the EU Summary: 1. Pre-trial detention (depriving suspects and accused people of their liberty before the conclusion of a criminal case) is intended to be an exceptional measure, only to be used as necessary and proportionate and in compliance with the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty. Its use is only acceptable as a measure of last resort, in very limited circumstances. Unfortunately, in the EU as around the world, these strict limitations are not always respected. 2. The EU is facing a long-standing crisis in prison overcrowding that threatens to undermine mutual trust and the functioning and legality of mutual recognition instruments like the European Arrest Warrant. Overcrowding, and the rights violations it causes, is driven in part by excessive use of pre-trial detention, in contravention of regional and international standards. The European Commission and Parliament have, for the past five years, repeatedly recognised the need for improved standards of pre-trial detention. Recent decisions from the Court of Justice of the European Union have again pushed the need for regional legislation to the fore. 3. Given the concern expressed about excessive use of pre-trial detention in the EU, there is a surprising lack of information on the practical operation of procedural rules designed to ensure that detention is only used when strictly legal and necessary. In order to gain a realistic view of problems in practice on which to develop targeted national and regional solutions, Fair Trials has coordinated research in ten EU Member States (England and Wales, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Ireland, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, and Spain) to analyse the practice of pre-trial detention decision-making and the use of alternatives to detention. The research consisted of legal and statistical analysis, hearing monitoring, case-file reviews, a survey of defence lawyers, and qualitative interviews with prosecutors and judges, resulting in detailed reports. This report provides a high-level overview of the research and analysis from an EU regional perspective..." Details: London: Fair Trials, 2016. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 23, 2016 at: https://www.fairtrials.org/wp-content/uploads/A-Measure-of-Last-Resort-Full-Version.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Europe URL: https://www.fairtrials.org/wp-content/uploads/A-Measure-of-Last-Resort-Full-Version.pdf Shelf Number: 144813 Keywords: Detention Human Rights Abuses Imprisonment Pretrial Detention |
Author: Arment, Christian Title: Is Incarceration Still the Answer: The Impact of Current Policies & Possible Alternatives Summary: The criminal justice system is tasked with protecting the public from crime but Americans are conflicted about the best way to deter criminal behavior, protect the public and provide justice for victims. There are two different intellectual strands which are the foundation of the criminal justice system: one focuses on rehabilitation while the other emphasizes punishment as a means of deterring criminal behavior. The deterrence model has been the most popular in the US. This brief reviews current research which assesses, and generally finds deficient, present criminal justice policies. It also examines the unintended consequences – both budgetary and social – of contemporary incarceration policies. It concludes with a discussion of policy options that could enhance the effectiveness of the criminal justice system, including alternative sentencing for nonviolent offenders and the expanded use of evidence-based community reentry programs. Details: Columbia, MO: University of Missouri, Institute of Public Policy, Harry S. Truman School of Public Affairs, 2011. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Report 01-2011: Accessed February 20, 2017 at: https://ipp.missouri.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/06/is_incarceration_still_the_answer.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://ipp.missouri.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/06/is_incarceration_still_the_answer.pdf Shelf Number: 146690 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCriminal Justice PolicyImprisonment |
Author: Loi, Valerio Title: Tendencies in World Imprisonment for Drug Related Crime Summary: The latest estimates on the world prison population indicate that 10.35 million people are incarcerated worldwide, according to calculations presented in February 2016. The assertion this figure can be correlated to the effects and outcomes of the global drug prohibition regime is the starting point of this chapter, which will try to give an overview of to what extent the use of criminal law has contributed to this figure on a global scale. Drug control policies with a strong emphasis on criminal law became a global reality particularly after the adoption of the 1988 UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychoactive Substances, which requires countries to suppress the illicit production, supply and consumption of drugs through criminal law. As an indirect result, it can be one of the main causes of imprisonments worldwide, as many countries have adopted legislation with prison sentences for all drugs related offences after signing this treaty. This emphasis on criminal law to deal with the drugs market has provoked thirty three countries to prescribe the death penalty for drug offences. And last but certainly not least, hundreds of thousands of people are locked up without any trial for lengthy periods of time in the name of drug treatment. The 2014 UNODC "World crime trends and emerging issues and responses in the field of crime prevention and criminal justice", of April 2014, shows the global trend on drug offences remains on the increase: drug trafficking grew by 11%, while offences related to drug possession increased over 18%, in the period 2003-2012. It is of high relevance to stress that most legislations do not distinguish between possessions of and traffic in drugs, possibly altering these figures even more towards the latter. Although exact figures lack, the 2014 World Drug Report indicates that, "worldwide, the large majority of drug use offences are associated with cannabis"; an indication that a large share of penal prosecutions globally is geared towards the cannabis market. Meanwhile, policy debates in different parts of the world reflect certain recognition of both the ineffectiveness of the current penal focus, especially for non-violent offences, such as possession for personal use and use, but sometimes including small scale traffic; and the degree of injustice being done to certain vulnerable population groups, such as single mothers, and people imprisoned abroad. This has lead in some countries to legislative reform and changing practice in the criminal justice system. Questioning the exclusive penal model is no longer taboo, and the need to restore the balance between punishment and care is long overdue. The following chapter will basically focus on the impact of the present drug laws enforcement in the world's prison systems. It won't be a mere recount of the share of detainees for drug crimes within the overall inmates' population, as far as data for that is available, according to geographical macro-regions. While assessing the main trends, we want to highlight the challenges and possible reform proposals of the present prison systems. Details: El Colectivo de Estudios Drogas y Derecho (CEDD), 2016. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 2, 2017 at: http://www.drogasyderecho.org/pses/restoi.pdf Year: 2016 Country: International URL: http://www.drogasyderecho.org/pses/restoi.pdf Shelf Number: 145234 Keywords: Drug Control Drug EnforcementDrug OffendersDrug TraffickingDrugs and CrimeImprisonmentPrison PopulationPrisoners |
Author: Polinsky, A. Mitchell Title: Deterrence and the Optimal Use of Prison, Parole, and Probation Summary: In this article we derive the sentence - choosing among the sanctions of prison, parole, and probation - that achieves a target level of deterrence at least cost. Potential offenders discount the future disutility of sanctions and the state discounts the future costs of sanctions. Prison has higher disutility and higher cost per unit time than parole and probation, but the cost of prison per unit of disutility can be lower or higher than the cost of parole and probation per unit of disutility. The optimal order of sanctions depends on the relative discount rates of potential offenders and the state, and the optimal duration of sanctions depends on the relative costs per unit of disutility among the sanctions and on the target level of deterrence. We focus on the case in which potential offenders discount the disutility of sanctions at a higher rate than the state discounts the costs of sanctions. In this case, if prison is more cost-effective than parole and probation - that is, has a lower cost per unit of disutility - prison should be used exclusively. If prison is less cost-effective than parole and probation, probation should be used if the deterrence target is low enough, and prison followed by parole should be used if the deterrence target is relatively high. Notably, it may be optimal to employ a prison term even if prison is less cost-effective than parole and probation and even if prison is not needed to achieve the target level of deterrence, because of what we refer to as the front-loading advantage of imprisonment. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2017. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working paper No. 23436: Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 507: Accessed May 22, 2017 at: Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 145662 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsDeterrenceImprisonmentParolePrisonProbationPunishmentSentencing |
Author: Ketelaar-Jones, Taya Title: A Comparative Review of National Legislation for the Indefinite Detention of 'Dangerous Criminals' Summary: Courts in Tasmania have long had the power to detain prisoners indefinitely. The Tasmanian dangerous prisoner regime, contained in the Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas), has never been reviewed. This is despite it receiving criticism from various quarters, including the Supreme Court bench. There are several differences between the Tasmanian indefinite detention provisions and those of other Australian jurisdictions. The implications of these legislative anomalies have not been explored. This paper examines the operation of the Tasmanian scheme by undertaking a cross-jurisdictional analysis of dangerous prisoner legislation in Australia. Problematic aspects of the current provisions are examined, and potential areas for reform are identified. This is done so with a view to the modernisation of the law and a shift towards uniformity with other Australian jurisdictions. This paper first provides a brief history of indefinite detention regimes and outlines the nature of the exercise of the discretion to impose an indefinite sentence. The paper proceeds with an assessment of the various problematic aspects of the Tasmanian indefinite detention regime contained in the Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas). The first section considers the issues associated with the making of a dangerous criminal declaration, including the test and standard of proof for imposition of a declaration and whether separate indefinite detention provisions applying specifically to sex offenders should be introduced. The paper recommends that the test for the imposition of a declaration in the Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas) be amended to reflect the common law test. In addition, it recommends that the Act should explicitly provide for the standard of proof and provide a comprehensive and mandatory list of factors to be considered when determining whether to make a dangerous criminal declaration. Further, the Act should be amended to clarify that it is intended to operate as a post-sentence preventative detention regime, as well as an indefinite (at the time of sentencing) regime. Finally, the introduction of separate indefinite detention provisions for sex offenders is not recommended. The second section considers the issues associated with the discharge of a dangerous criminal declaration. Key issues discussed in this section are the test for the discharge of a dangerous criminal declaration, the inability of the court to impose conditions upon discharge, and the absence of provisions for periodic review of a declaration. The key recommendations are that the Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas) be amended to mandate a system of periodic review of a dangerous criminal declaration. On a review of a declaration, or on an application for discharge of a declaration, the prosecution (rather than the offender) should retain the onus of proof. The assessment should be guided by the same principles applicable to the exercise of the discretion to impose the declaration at first instance. Finally, the court should be empowered to impose conditions upon the discharge of a dangerous criminal declaration. Details: Hobart: Tasmania Law Reform Institute, 2017. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Paper No. 4: Accessed September 7, 2017 at: http://apo.org.au/system/files/97951/apo-nid97951-353691.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: http://apo.org.au/system/files/97951/apo-nid97951-353691.pdf Shelf Number: 147144 Keywords: Dangerous PersonsImprisonmentPunishmentSentencing |
Author: Cornell Law School’s Avon Global Center for Women and Justice and International Human Rights Clinic Title: Judged for More Than Her Crime: A Global Overview of Women Facing the Death Penalty Summary: We estimate that at least 500 women are currently on death rows around the world. While exact figures are impossible to obtain, we further estimate that over 100 women have been executed in the last ten years - and potentially hundreds more. The number of women facing execution is not dramatically different from the number of juveniles currently on death row, but the latter have received a great deal more attention from international human rights bodies, national courts, scholars, and advocates. This report aims to shed light on this much-neglected population. Few researchers have sought to obtain information about the crimes for which women have been sentenced to death, the circumstances of their lives before their convictions, and the conditions under which they are detained on death row. As a result, there is little empirical data about women on death row, which impedes advocates from understanding patterns in capital sentencing and the operation of gender bias in the criminal legal system. To the extent that scholars have focused on women on death row, they have concluded that they are beneficiaries of gender bias that operates in their favor. While it is undeniable that women are protected from execution under certain circumstances (particularly mothers of infants and young children) and that women sometimes benefit from more lenient sentencing, those that are sentenced to death are subjected to multiple forms of gender bias. Most women have been sentenced to death for the crime of murder, often in relation to the killing of family members in a context of gender-based violence. Others have been sentenced to death for drug offenses, terrorism, adultery, witchcraft, and blasphemy, among other offenses. Although they represent a tiny minority of all prisoners sentenced to death, their cases are emblematic of systemic failings in the application of capital punishment. Women in conflict with the law are particularly vulnerable to abuse and other rights violations, either at the police station, during trial, or while incarcerated. Women are more likely than men to be illiterate, which affects their ability to understand and participate in their own defense. For example, of the 12 women on India's death row in 2015, six have never attended school. Illiteracy also increases their vulnerability to coercion, heightening the risk of false confessions. In certain countries, particularly in the Gulf states, most death-sentenced women are foreign migrant workers who are subject to discriminatory treatment. Mental illness and intellectual disability are common among women facing the death penalty. In Pakistan, Kanizan Bibi has been on death row since 1989, when she was only 16-years-old. Diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, she cannot care for herself in the most basic ways and has lost all awareness of her surroundings. Although she is now confined in a psychiatric hospital, she remains under sentence of death. Many women enter prison as long-term survivors of gender-based violence and harsh socioeconomic deprivation. We have documented several cases of women convicted of crimes committed while they were minors, often in the context of child marriage. These factors receive little attention from lawyers and courts. In many death penalty jurisdictions, gender-based violence is not considered at sentencing. Few lawyers present such evidence, and even where they do, the courts often discount it. In mandatory death penalty jurisdictions, a woman's prior history as a survivor of physical or sexual abuse is simply irrelevant, since the death penalty is automatically imposed for death-eligible offenses without consideration of the offender's background or the circumstances of the crime. Our research also indicates that women who are seen as violating entrenched norms of gender behavior are more likely to receive the death penalty. In several cases documented in this report, women facing the death penalty have been cast as the "femme fatale," the "child murderer," or the "witch." The case of Brenda Andrew in the United States is illustrative. In her capital trial, the prosecution aired details of her sexual history under the guise of establishing her motive to kill her husband. The jury was allowed to hear about Brenda's alleged extramarital affairs from years before the murder, as well as details about outfits she wore. The trial court also permitted the prosecutor to show the underwear found in the suitcase in her possession after she fled to Mexico, because it showed that she was not behaving as "a grieving widow, but as a free fugitive living large on a Mexico beach." As one Justice of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma noted, Brenda was put on trial not only for the murder of her husband but for being "a bad wife, a bad mother, and a bad woman." Death row conditions around the world are harsh and at times life-threatening for both men and women. In China, for example, all death row inmates, including women, are shackled at all times by their hands and feet. Women face certain deprivations, however, that do not affect the male population to the same extent. Some death sentenced women must also care for infants or young children who are incarcerated alongside them. Meriam Ibrahim, sentenced to death in Sudan for apostasy in 2014, was shackled to heavy chains in prison while eight months pregnant and caring for a young child. In Thailand and Myanmar, inmates have reportedly given birth alone in prison. In many countries, it is challenging or impossible for women to access sanitary pads or other menstruation products. In Zambia, for example, women must make do with rags that they struggle to clean without soap. The social stigma associated with women who are convicted and imprisoned, paired in some cases with restrictive family and child visitation rules, means that many female death row inmates around the world suffer an enduring lack of family contact, contributing to the high levels of depression suffered by women prisoners. Women on death row may also be denied access to occupational training and educational programs. For instance, the general female prison population in Thailand has access to work programs, but death row inmates do not. One woman in Ghana explained, after being denied educational opportunities while on death row: "I don't do anything. I sweep and I wait." Our country profiles aim to provide a snapshot of women facing the death penalty in several major regions of the world. The stories of women on death row provide anecdotal evidence of the particular forms of oppression and inhumane treatment documented in this report. It is our hope that this initial publication, the first of its kind, will inspire the international community to pay greater attention to the troubling plight of women on death row worldwide. Details: Ithaca, NY: Cornell Law School, 2018. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 23, 2018 at: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/7202 Year: 2018 Country: International URL: http://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/pdf/judged-for-more-than-her-crime.pdf Shelf Number: 153113 Keywords: Capital PunishmentDeath PenaltyDeath RowExecutionsFemales Gender Based PunishmentGender Based ViolenceGender BiasGender IssuesImprisonmentIntellectual DisabilityMental Health IssuesPrisonPrisoners |
Author: Hewson, Alex Title: Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile: Autumn 2018 Summary: Over the past few years the Bromley Briefings have charted a depressing decline in standards of safety and decency in our prisons. This year's edition draws heavily on the shocking evidence of both the government's own data on safety - or the lack of it - and on the Chief Inspector's increasingly strident denunciation of the conditions in which many prisoners are required to live. Everyone who cares about prisons - whether they live or work in them, or are close to someone who does - wants to believe that they are close to turning a corner. Anecdotally, both staff and prisoners welcome the introduction of key working in around half of prisons in England and Wales so far. Essentially, that means some protected time for staff to do what most of them joined for - helping prisoners cope with imprisonment and prepare for a better life when they leave. But it is too soon to make the call that the system as a whole is on the path to recovery - the damage done by the savage cuts of recent years is profound, and none of the key indicators are showing improvement as yet. In innovations this year, this edition of the Bromley Briefings includes a short section about what prisoners say. In line with PRT-s core aim to give prisoners greater influence in strategic policy making about prisons, we intend to develop this aspect in future, reflecting both the insight of prisoners and their ability to provide solutions. There is also a section setting out the current and historic performance of the "ten prisons" selected by the Prisons Minister for investment and a time limited drive to show tangible improvements, especially in safety. As last year, however, we begin with a slightly longer analysis of a particular issue, drawing on evidence from a longer period, and this year from a broad geographical perspective. Professors Dirk van Zyl Smit and Catherine Appleton from the University of Nottingham will shortly publish a seminal book on life imprisonment worldwide, and we are delighted that they have authored "The long view" for us, comparing the use of indeterminate sentences in this country with jurisdictions overseas. What their analysis demonstrates is that the UK's use of indeterminate sentences is out of kilter with the majority of international comparators. But it is also at odds with our own domestic historical approach to sentencing. Draconian legislation passed by Parliament in 2003 inflated the punishment tariffs for formal life sentences and created the catastrophic growth in informal life sentences - the IPP - which was only partially reversed by legislation in 2012. The inevitable consequence of decisions made on the sentencing and release framework for indeterminate sentences is a very long-term impact on the lives of the individuals affected and the make-up of the prison population as a whole. A substantial minority of that population is serving sentences characterised by an absence of hope and in many cases a sense that punishment, though deserved, has ceased to be proportionate or just in its administration. This has profound implications for the way of life prisons provide, if the treatment of those serving the longest sentences is to be both humane and purposeful. There is an urgent need for Parliament to revisit the framework it has created for our response as a society to the most serious crime, and our treatment of those who commit it. Decisions made in the aftermath of particularly shocking individual cases have created a system which, on the long view, looks more like a cause of national shame than pride. Details: London, UK: Prison Reform Trust, 2018. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 18, 2019 at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/publications/factfile Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Bromley%20Briefings/Autumn%202018%20Factfile.pdf Shelf Number: 154266 Keywords: ImprisonmentIncarcerationIndeterminate SentencingLong-Term SentencingPrison ReformPrisonersPrisonsSafetySentencing |
Author: National Research Council Title: Figures from the NRC Report: The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences Summary: Powerpoint presentation outlining the Growth of Incarceration in the United States - Exploring Causes and Consequences Details: Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2014. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 21, 2019 at: http://www.nationalacademies.org/nasem/ Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.nationalacademies.org/nasem/ Shelf Number: 154328 Keywords: Federal PrisonImprisonmentIncarcerationIncarceration RatesPrisonPrison TrendsState Prison |
Author: Drenkhahn, Kirstin Title: Long-term Imprisonment and Human Rights: Findings of an International Study Summary: Due to their nature, the execution of long prison sentences and similar sanctions raise numerous human rights concerns and this results in a particularly precarious area of imprisonment. Most prisoners are incarcerated for very serious offences and are often deemed to be dangerous. Therefore, they are facing increased negative labelling compared to prisoners in general. For instance, these prisoners might only be allowed to participate in rehabilitative measures in the widest sense at the end of their sentence or not at all because those efforts are thought to be futile due to their dangerousness and the length of their sentence in an early stage of the execution of the sentence anyway. Added to this are the negative effects of imprisonment in the form of deprivations, inherent in every detention, that are experienced more intensely by prisoners serving very long sentences. As a result of this structural disadvantage, persons released after long-term imprisonment encounter greater barriers to re-integration in the community than other released prisoners. Where rehabilitative measures are open to long-term prisoners, additional problems arise in terms of providing continuity for their provision both throughout the life of the sentence and for any after-care, once the prisoner is released. Details: Greifswald, Germany: Universitat Greifswald, Department of Criminology: 2009. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed March 5, 2019 at: http://www.jura.fu-berlin.de/fachbereich/einrichtungen/strafrecht/lehrende/drenkhahnk/_ressourcen/LTI_shortreport_en.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Europe URL: http://www.jura.fu-berlin.de/fachbereich/einrichtungen/strafrecht/lehrende/drenkhahnk/_ressourcen/LTI_shortreport_en.pdf Shelf Number: 154804 Keywords: Human Rights Abuses ImprisonmentLong-term Imprisonment Prisoners Sentencing |
Author: O'Donnell, Ian Title: Penal culture in Ireland Summary: The imprisonment rate in Ireland is low relative to the rest of the common law world and compares favourably with other EU countries. In recent years it has declined. However, it would be misleading to interpret these trends as evidence of a national commitment to leniency or a coherent strategy of penal parsimony. Before we turn our attention to contemporary arrangements a brief historical digression is required. Punishment is about more than imprisonment and, especially during the first half-century after its foundation in 1922, the Irish state made extensive use of institutions outside the criminal justice system to deal with the deviant and the difficult. 'Coercive confinement' is the term coined by OSullivan and ODonnell (2007) to embrace the range of sites where men, women and children were held against their will. These included prisons, Borstal, reformatory and industrial schools, mother and baby homes, psychiatric hospitals, and Magdalen homes. While some of these places were supposedly oriented towards treatment or training rather than punishment, they were felt by their inmates to be austere, degrading, and stigmatising. Details: Dublin: University College Dublin, Sutherland School of Law, 2019. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: UCD Working Papers in Law, Criminology & Socio-Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2/2019: Accessed April 18, 2019 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3339893 Year: 2019 Country: Ireland URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3339893 Shelf Number: 155452 Keywords: Imprisonment Prisons Punishment |
Author: Southern Poverty Law Center Title: Solitary Confinement: Inhumane, Ineffective, and Wasteful Summary: Around the world and increasingly in the United States, there's a growing consensus that solitary confinement of incarcerated persons is, at best, an ineffective and inhumane practice with little or no carceral benefit and, at worst, outright torture. Yet, on any given day, the Florida Department of Corrections (FDC) holds approximately 10,000 people - more than 10 percent of its population - in solitary. The nationwide average was 4.5 percent in 2018. Numerous studies have shown that solitary confinement harms a person's mental and physical health, as well as the community to which the person eventually returns. People in solitary, in fact, attempt suicide at a much higher rate than those in the general population. What's more, solitary is disproportionately used for people with mental illnesses, people of color, and people with disabilities. In the late 1990s, the FDC was sued by a statewide class of incarcerated people because of its dangerous and inhumane solitary confinement practices. That lawsuit, Osterback v. Moore, resulted in limited reforms. Unfortunately, after the Osterback settlement, solitary confinement in Florida's prisons did not end, it merely evolved. The FDC's failure is compounded by the fact that Florida keeps far too many people in prison in the first place. With one of the highest incarceration rates in the country the state spends more than $2.4 billion a year to imprison more than 96,000 people. That's the third-largest state prison population in the United States. Although the number of people admitted to Florida prisons has trended downward over the last decade, the overall prison population has not decreased at a proportionate rate because of increases in sentence length and rules restricting early release. In addition, the state cut substance abuse and mental health programs for incarcerated people in 2018. The prison system also has experienced chronic staffing shortages. This environment only heightens the prospect that an incarcerated person will be placed in solitary; because the system is strained, prison officials too readily resort to solitary for discipline - or in the case of overcrowded facilities - for housing. Solitary confinement does not improve public safety. Studies show that when people who have been in solitary return to their communities, they are more likely to commit crimes than those who were not subjected to it. Other states have recognized the wasteful and destructive nature of solitary confinement and have adopted more humane and less costly alternatives. It's time for Florida to recognize that solitary confinement is not the answer; rather, it is part of the problem. Details: Montgomery, AL: Author, 2019. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 23, 2019 at: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/com_solitary_confinement_0.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/com_solitary_confinement_0.pdf Shelf Number: 155497 Keywords: Human Rights Imprisonment Isolation Restricted Housing Solitary Confinement |
Author: Solitary Watch Title: Louisiana on Lockdown: A Report on the Use of Solitary Confinement in Louisiana State Prisons, With Testimony From the People Who Live It Summary: Te use of solitary confinement in the state of Louisiana has penetrated the broader public consciousness largely through the story of the Angola 3. Over the past decade, the harrowing saga of three African American men-all likely innocent of the prison murders that were used to justify confining them in solitary for up to 43 years-sparked media attention and public outcry as the ultimate expression of harsh, racist, Southern injustice. But there is another story to be told about solitary confinement in Louisiana. Like the story of the Angola 3, it is deeply rooted in the history of racial subjugation and captivity in the South, which begins with slavery and stretches through convict leasing and Jim Crow to the modern era of mass incarceration. However, it extends far beyond the lives of just three men. This is the story of a prison system where, on any given day, nearly one in five people is being held in isolation, placed there by prison staff, often for minor rule violations or "administrative" reasons. When it conducted a full count in the fall of 2017, the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (LADOC) reported that 19 percent of the men in its state prisons - 2,709 in all - had been in solitary confinement for more than two weeks. Many had been there for years or even decades. The Vera Institute of Justice, which released its own report on solitary confinement in Louisiana earlier this year, similarly found over 17 percent of the state's prison population in solitary in 2016. These rates of solitary confinement use were more than double the next highest state's, and approximately four times the national average. Given that Louisiana also has the second highest incarceration rate in the United States, which leads the world in both incarceration and solitary confinement use, it is clear that Louisiana holds the title of solitary confinement capital of the world. Te state has this dishonorable distinction at a time when a growing body of evidence offers proof of the devastating psychological and social harms caused by prolonged solitary confinement, as well as its ineffectiveness as a tool to reduce prison violence. In 2015, when it revised its Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (known as the Mandela Rules), the United Nations acknowledged that solitary confinement of 15 days or more is cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment that often rises to the level of torture. Taken together, these facts indicate that the state of Louisiana is abusing and at times torturing thousands of its citizens for no legitimate purpose whatsoever. Te numbers, however, still tell only part of the story. Just as Albert Woodfox's memoir "Solitary" powerfully conveys what it is like to live for decades in conditions that are designed "to break people," the words of individuals living in solitary confinement are vital to understanding the reality of what is happening today in Louisiana's prisons. For this report, we collected information directly from those men and women. The bulk of the report is based on detailed responses from more than 700 lengthy surveys completed by individuals in solitary, whose names and identifying information have been changed to protect their safety and privacy. Their descriptions paint a grim picture of long stretches of time spent in small cells that are often windowless, filthy, and/or subject to extreme temperatures, where they are denied basic human needs such as adequate food and daily exercise, and subject to many forms of abuse as well as to unending idleness and loneliness, resulting in physical and mental deterioration. Since surveys were returned voluntarily, the results cannot be viewed as a comprehensive or representative sampling. Yet with more than 700 responses from all nine of the state's prisons, which provided personal narratives as well as quantitative data, we believe our report complements, builds upon, and adds an even greater sense of urgency to previous recommendations for reform of solitary confinement in Louisiana, including those included in the recent report by the Vera Institute of Justice. At a moment when LADOC has, for the first time, shown willingness to reconsider and reduce its use of solitary confinement, the findings in this report offer vital insights-and illuminate a path toward the sweeping changes that must be made if Louisiana is to create a prison system that succeeds in both advancing public safety and preserving the human rights of incarcerated people. Details: New York: Authors, 2019. 135p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 26, 2019 at: https://solitarywatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Louisiana-on-Lockdown-Report-June-2019.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://solitarywatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Louisiana-on-Lockdown-Report-June-2019.pdf Shelf Number: 156632 Keywords: Administrative SegregationHuman Rights Imprisonment Isolation Restricted Housing Solitary Confinement |