Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:31 am
Time: 11:31 am
Results for incarceration
23 results foundAuthor: Schwartz-Soicher, Ofira Title: The Effect of Paternal Incarceration on Material Hardship Summary: This study utilizes Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing data to examine whether an incarceration of a father increases the extent to which their partners and children experience material hardship. Using various modeling strategies (negative binomial regressions, propensity scores, lagged dependent variable and individual fixed-effects models) the authors find that the incarceration of a father indeed does increase hardship for families. Further findings indicate that father's incarceration contributes to hardship not only by reducing income, but also by seriously disrupting household relationships and routines. Details: New York: Columbia University, 2009. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed April 25, 2018 at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259709694_The_Effect_of_Paternal_Incarceration_on_Material_Hardship Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259709694_The_Effect_of_Paternal_Incarceration_on_Material_Hardship Shelf Number: 117086 Keywords: Children of PrisonersFamilies of InmatesIncarceration |
Author: Vollaard, Ben Title: Preventing Crime Through Selective Incapacitation Summary: Making the length of a prison sentence conditional on an individual’s offense history is shown to be a powerful way of preventing crime. Under a law adopted in the Netherlands in 2001, prolific offenders could be sentenced to a prison term that was some ten times longer than usual. We exploit quasi-experimental variation in the moment of introduction and the frequency of application across 12 urban areas to identify the effect. We find the sentence enhancements to have dramatically reduced theft rates. The size of the crime-reducing effect is found to be subject to sharply diminishing returns. Details: Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg Law and Economics Center, Tilburg University, 2010. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Tilec Discussion Paper, No. 2011-001; CentER Discussion Paper, No. 2010-141: Accessed March 9, 2011 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1738900 Year: 2010 Country: International URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1738900 Shelf Number: 120959 Keywords: IncarcerationProlific OffendersRepeat OffendersSelective IncapacitationThree Strikes Laws |
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: Greene, Judith Title: Numbers Game: The Vicious Cycle of Incarceration in Mississippi’s Criminal Justice System Summary: The people of Mississippi deserve and demand crime policies that promote public safety, treat people fairly—regardless of the size of their pocketbook or the color of their skin—and use public resources wisely. Unfair, ineffective, financially unsustainable and counterproductive — all terms that, regrettably, apply to significant aspects of Mississippi’s criminal justice policy. Mississippi’s drug law enforcement infrastructure is fundamentally flawed and in dire need of reform. This report undertakes a review and analysis of some of the most troubling aspects of the state’s criminal justice system, with a particular focus on drug law enforcement, and offers recommendations for reform. Major findings in the NUMBERS GAME report include that: •Mississippi’s regional drug task force funding, contingent on the quantity of drug arrests, encourages the indiscriminate use of confidential informants to increase arrest numbers over the quality and public safety impact of the drug cases. •Poorly-structured drug laws, limiting the judicial discretion of judges, produce extremely harsh sentences for relatively minor street-level transactions involving small amounts of drugs, coupled with police enforcement strategies focused on producing high volume low-impact arrest numbers pressure defendants to work as informers, even when drug treatment might prove a better public safety option. •Black Mississippians are three times more likely than whites to go to prison on drug charges even as drug use rates are largely identical for both groups. •The secrecy that shrouds the unchecked use of confidential informants is a practice that invites abuse, undermines the fundamental legitimacy of the criminal justice system and basic social structures in targeted communities. ACLU's two year attempt to secure basic information on the practice, acknowledged by state officials as public files under Mississippi’s Public Record Act, has gone unfulfilled. Details: Brooklyn, NY: Justice Strategies; Jackson, MS: American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi, 2011. 78p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 7, 2011 at: http://www.justicestrategies.org/sites/default/files/publications/DLRP_MississipppiReport%20Final%20Mar%202011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicestrategies.org/sites/default/files/publications/DLRP_MississipppiReport%20Final%20Mar%202011.pdf Shelf Number: 121260 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice System (Mississippi)DiscriminationDrug EnforcementDrug OffendersIncarcerationMinoritiesSentencing |
Author: Mauer, Marc Title: To Build a Better Criminal Justice System: 25 Experts Envision the Next 25 Years of Reform Summary: In a new publication of The Sentencing Project 25 leading scholars and practitioners have contributed essays on their strategic vision for the next 25 years of criminal justice reform. Issues addressed in the collection include racial justice strategies, linking public health and criminal justice reform, challenging the war on drugs, and the viability of fiscal pressures as a focus for reform. Details: Washington, D.C.: The Sentencing Project, 2012. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 21, 2012 at http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/sen_25_eassys.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/sen_25_eassys.pdf Shelf Number: 124637 Keywords: Administration of JusticeCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsDrug PolicyIncarcerationJuvenile JusticeRacial DisparitySentencing ReformVoting Rights |
Author: Appleman, Laura I. Title: Justice in the Shadowlands: Pretrial Detention, Punishment, & the Sixth Amendment Summary: In a criminal system that tips heavily to the side of wealth and power, we routinely detain the accused in often horrifying conditions, confined in jails while still maintaining the presumption of innocence. Here, in the rotting jail cells of impoverished defendants, are the Shadowlands of Justice, where the lack of criminal procedure has produced a darkness unrelieved by much scrutiny or concern on the part of the law. This article contends that our current system of pretrial detention lies in shambles, routinely incarcerating the accused in horrifying conditions often far worse than those convicted offenders existing in prisons. Due to these punitive conditions of incarceration, pretrial detainees appear to have a cognizable claim for the denial of their Sixth Amendment jury trial right, which, at its broadest, forbids punishment for any crime unless a cross-section of the offender’s community adjudicates his crime and finds him guilty. This article argues that the spirit of the Sixth Amendment jury trial right might apply to many pretrial detainees, due to both the punishment-like conditions of their incarceration and the unfair procedures surrounding bail grants, denials and revocations. In so arguing, I expose some of the worst abuses of current procedures surrounding bail and jail in both federal and state systems. Additionally, I also propose some much needed reforms in the pretrial release world, including better oversight of the surety bond system, reducing prison overcrowding by increasing electronic bail surveillance and revising the bail hearing procedure to permit a community “bail jury” to help decide the defendant’s danger to the community. Details: Unpublished paper, 2012. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 5, 2012 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2031196 Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2031196 Shelf Number: 124819 Keywords: IncarcerationJailsPretrial DetentionPunishmentSixth Amendment |
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: Sentencing Project Title: Ending Mass Incarceration: Charting a New Justice Reinvestment Summary: Justice Reinvestment was conceived as part of the solution to mass incarceration. The intent was to reduce corrections populations and budgets, thereby generating savings for reinvestment in high incarceration communities to make them safer, stronger, more prosperous, and equitable. While efforts to date have played a significant role in opening space for criminal justice reform, they have not produced significant reductions in the correctional populations. This report contains an analysis of why this has been the case, and how the original mission of Justice Reinvestment can be achieved moving forward by focusing on reducing incarceration and targeting investments in high incarceration communities. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2013. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 17, 2013 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/sen_Charting%20a%20New%20Justice%20Reinvestment.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/sen_Charting%20a%20New%20Justice%20Reinvestment.pdf Shelf Number: 128396 Keywords: Drug PolicyIncarcerationJuvenile JusticeRacial DisparitySentencing Policy |
Author: Disley, Emma Title: Lessons learned from the planning and early implementation of the Social Impact Bond at HMP Peterborough Summary: At a time when government finances are stretched there is growing interest in finding new ways to fund public services which improve social outcomes. One new funding model currently being tested is a Social Impact Bond (SIB). A SIB is a form of payment by results (PBR) in which funding is obtained from private investors to pay for interventions to improve social outcomes. If these interventions succeed in improving outcomes, this should result in savings to government and wider benefits to society. As part of a SIB, the government agrees to pay a proportion of these savings back to the investors. If outcomes do not improve, investors do not receive a return on their investment. In September 2010 the first ever SIB was launched in the UK. Approximately £5 million of investment funding from private individuals and charities is being used to pay for interventions for offenders serving short prison sentences (less than 12 months) at HMP Peterborough, a prison in eastern England. RAND Europe has been commissioned to evaluate the development, implementation and operation of this first ever SIB. This report is the first output from the evaluation. It identifies early lessons from the development and implementation of SIB at HMP Peterborough. Such lessons may inform future SIBs or wider payment-by-results (PBR) pilots under consideration by the Ministry of Justice and other government departments. Details: Cambridge, UK: RAND Europe, 2011. 91p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 10, 2013 at: http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR1166.html Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR1166.html Shelf Number: 129617 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeIncarcerationInterventionsOffender RehabilitationPrisonsSentencingSocial Impact Bonds (U.K.) |
Author: Kearney, Melissa S. Title: Ten Economic Facts about Crime and Incarceration in the United States Summary: Crime and high rates of incarceration impose tremendous costs on society, with lasting negative effects on individuals, families, and communities. Rates of crime in the United States have been falling steadily, but still constitute a serious economic and social challenge. At the same time, the incarceration rate in the United States is so high-more than 700 out of every 100,000 people are incarcerated-that both crime scholars and policymakers alike question whether, for nonviolent criminals in particular, the social costs of incarceration exceed the social benefits. While there is significant focus on America's incarceration policies, it is important to consider that crime continues to be a concern for policymakers, particularly at the state and local levels. Public spending on fighting crime-including the costs of incarceration, policing, and judicial and legal services-as well as private spending by households and businesses is substantial. There are also tremendous costs to the victims of crime, such as medical costs, lost earnings, and an overall loss in quality of life. Crime also stymies economic growth. For example, exposure to violence can inhibit effective schooling and other developmental outcomes (Burdick-Will 2013; Sharkey et al. 2012). Crime can induce citizens to migrate; economists estimate that each nonfatal violent crime reduces a city's population by approximately one person, and each homicide reduces a city's population by seventy persons (Cullen and Levitt 1999; Ludwig and Cook 2000). To the extent that migration diminishes a locality's tax and consumer base, departures threaten a city's ability to effectively educate children, provide social services, and maintain a vibrant economy. The good news is that crime rates in the United States have been falling steadily since the 1990s, reversing an upward trend from the 1960s through the 1980s. There does not appear to be a consensus among scholars about how to account for the overall sharp decline, but contributing factors may include increased policing, rising incarceration rates, and the waning of the crack epidemic that was prevalent in the 1980s and early 1990s. Despite the ongoing decline in crime, the incarceration rate in the United States remains at a historically unprecedented level. This high incarceration rate can have profound effects on society; research has shown that incarceration may impede employment and marriage prospects among former inmates, increase poverty depth and behavioral problems among their children, and amplify the spread of communicable diseases among disproportionately impacted communities (Raphael 2007). These effects are especially prevalent within disadvantaged communities and among those demographic groups that are more likely to face incarceration, namely young minority males. In addition, this high rate of incarceration is expensive for both federal and state governments. On average, in 2012, it cost more than $29,000 to house an inmate in federal prison (Congressional Research Service 2013). In total, the United States spent over $80 billion on corrections expenditures in 2010, with more than 90 percent of these expenditures occurring at the state and local levels (Kyckelhahn and Martin 2013). A founding principle of The Hamilton Project's economic strategy is that long-term prosperity is best achieved by fostering economic growth and broad participation in that growth. Elevated rates of crime and incarceration directly work against these principles, marginalizing individuals, devastating affected communities, and perpetuating inequality. In this spirit, we offer "Ten Economic Facts about Crime and Incarceration in the United States" to bring attention to recent trends in crime and incarceration, the characteristics of those who commit crimes and those who are incarcerated, and the social and economic costs of current policy. Chapter 1 describes recent crime trends in the United States and the characteristics of criminal offenders and victims. Chapter 2 focuses on the growth of mass incarceration in America. Chapter 3 presents evidence on the economic and social costs of current crime and incarceration policy. Details: Washington, DC: The Hamilton Project, Brookings, Institute, 2014. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Memo: Accessed May 10, 2014 at: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/05/01%20crime%20facts/v8_thp_10crimefacts.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/05/01%20crime%20facts/v8_thp_10crimefacts.pdf Shelf Number: 132316 Keywords: Costs of CrimeCosts of Criminal JusticeCrime RatesCriminal Justice ExpendituresEconomics of CrimeIncarcerationPrisoners |
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: Nellis, Ashley Title: Life Goes On: The Historic Rise in Life Sentences in America Summary: n recent years, states around the country have been reconsidering the value of using incarceration as the primary tool for responding to criminal behavior. After a decades-long surge, modest declines in prison populations are now occurring nationally and various state legislatures have reformed sentencing laws that reduce the incarceration of people convicted of certain offenses. In 2011 and 2012, this led to 17 states closing some of their prisons. Despite these developments, the number of prisoners serving life sentences continues to grow even while serious, violent crime has been declining for the past 20 to correlate with increasingly lengthy sentences. This report details the rise of the lifer population in America's prisons, now standing at nearly 160,000, with almost 50,000 people serving life sentences without parole (LWOP). In order to comprehensively assess trends in the use of life imprisonment we undertook a survey of persons serving life sentences in the corrections systems in all 50 states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons during 2012. We sought to obtain data on the number of persons serving such sentences, demographic characteristics, type of offense, and trends in the use of life sentences over time. The lifer population has more than quadrupled in size since 1984. One in nine people in prison is now serving While release could be attained through a successful application for executive clemency, this mechanism for release is rarely utilized. In our 2009 report, No Exit: The Expanding Use of Life Sentences in America, we noted that there were 41,095 people serving LWOP sentences and a total of 140,610 people serving life sentences nationally. Some state departments of corrections have revised these numbers slightly since our last report. The updated numbers are provided.a life sentence and nearly a third of lifers will never have a chance at a parole hearing; they are certain to die in prison. This analysis documents long-term trends in the use of life imprisonment as well as providing empirical details for the offenses that comprise the life-sentenced population. KEY FINDINGS - As of 2012, there were 159,520 people serving life sentences, an 11.8% rise since 2008. - One of every nine individuals in prison is serving a life sentence. - The population of prisoners serving life without parole (LWOP) has risen more sharply than those with the possibility of parole: there has been a 22.2% increase in LWOP since just 2008, an increase from 40,1745 individuals to 49,081. - Approximately 10,000 lifers have been convicted of nonviolent offenses. - Nearly half of lifers are African American and 1 in 6 are Latino. - More than 10,000 life-sentenced inmates have been convicted of crimes that occurred before they turned 18 and nearly 1 in 4 of them were sentenced to LWOP. - More than 5,300 (3.4%) of the life-sentenced inmates are female. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2013. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 7, 2014 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_Life%20Goes%20On%202013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_Life%20Goes%20On%202013.pdf Shelf Number: 130017 Keywords: IncarcerationLife ImprisonmentLife SentencePrisonersPunishmentRacial Disparities |
Author: Pettigrew, Mark N. Title: Incarceration on Death Row: A Microcosm of Communication? Summary: Death row is a space across the United States that continues to expand, not only in numbers, but in the length of time inmates spend confined there. Fewer and fewer inmates are executed and death row is now increasingly the only punishment of capital convicts. This thesis examines the retributive and punitive treatment of death-sentenced offenders within that space and, by viewing that form of imprisonment as part of a communication process, it assesses the contribution it makes to the death penalty more generally in the USA to argue that death row imprisonment is crucial in sustaining the distinction of capital offenders, and the death penalty itself.Just as death row receives images from wider culture, it simultaneously generates images that complement and validate those it receives, of death sentenced offenders as dangerous monsters. These images, of offenders who require punitive detention, align with the dominant supportive rationale of capital punishment, retribution, and provide a basis for continued death penalty support in an era of declining executions.In the "hidden world" of death row, prisoners are left to be abused, mistreated, and denied privileges and opportunities available to other prisoners. The capital offender is presented by his death row incarceration as different from all other offenders serving other sentences, even life without parole. Death row incarceration communicates the worth and status of the condemned, presenting him as a dangerous, and dehumanised other, who needs to be securely detained, and restricted. Thus death row validates and justifies the cultural needs of capital punishment. Just as wider culture, including, specifically, the legal community, dictates a requirement for punitive detention, death row corroborates that image with its own in a self-affirming loop. Death row is therefore functional beyond the mere holding of offenders, it affirms cultural descriptions of the condemned and thus justifies, and provides support for, the very continuation of capital punishment itself. Details: Manchester, UK: University of Manchester, 2013. 215p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed February 29, 2016 at: https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/uk-ac-man-scw:201596 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/uk-ac-man-scw:201596 Shelf Number: 137987 Keywords: Capital PunishmentDeath PenaltyDeath RowIncarceration |
Author: Bhuller, Manudeep Title: Incarceration, Recidivism and Employment Summary: Understanding whether, and in what situations, time spent in prison is criminogenic or preventive has proven challenging due to data availability and correlated unobservables. This paper overcomes these challenges in the context of Norway's criminal justice system, offering new insights into how incarceration affects subsequent crime and employment. We construct a panel dataset containing the criminal behavior and labor market outcomes of the entire population, and exploit the random assignment of criminal cases to judges who differ systematically in their stringency in sentencing defendants to prison. Using judge stringency as an instrumental variable, we find that imprisonment discourages further criminal behavior, and that the reduction extends beyond incapacitation. Incarceration decreases the probability an individual will reoffend within 5 years by 27 percentage points, and reduces the number of offenses over this same period by 10 criminal charges. In comparison, OLS shows positive associations between incarceration and subsequent criminal behavior. This sharp contrast suggests the high rates of recidivism among ex-convicts is due to selection, and not a consequence of the experience of being in prison. Exploring factors that may explain the preventive effect of incarceration, we find the decline in crime is driven by individuals who were not working prior to incarceration. Among these individuals, imprisonment increases participation in programs directed at improving employability and reducing recidivism, and ultimately, raises employment and earnings while discouraging further criminal behavior. Contrary to the widely embraced 'nothing works' doctrine, these findings demonstrate that time spent in prison with a focus on rehabilitation can indeed be preventive. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2016. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper Series: Working Paper 22648: Accessed September 19, 2016 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w22648.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w22648.pdf Shelf Number: 147955 Keywords: EmploymentEx-offender EmploymentIncarcerationJobsRecidivism |
Author: Schlanger, Margo Title: The Constitutional Law of Incarceration, Reconfigured Summary: As American incarcerated populations grew starting in the 1970s, so too did court oversight of prisons. In the late 1980s, however, as incarceration continued to boom, federal court oversight shrank. This Article addresses the most central doctrinal limit on oversight of jails and prisons, the Supreme Court's restrictive reading of the constitutional provisions governing treatment of prisoners - the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause and the Due Process Clause, which regulate, respectively, post-conviction imprisonment and pretrial detention. The Court's interpretation of the Eighth Amendment's ban of cruel and unusual punishment, in particular, radically undermined prison officials' accountability for tragedies behind bars - allowing, even encouraging, them to avoid constitutional accountability. And lower courts compounded the error by importing that reading into Due Process doctrine as well. In 2015, in Kingsley v. Hendrickson, a jail use of force case, the Court relied on 1970s precedent, not subsequent case-law that had placed undue emphasis on the subjective culpability of prison and jail officials as the crucial source of constitutional concern. The Kingsley Court returned to a more appropriate objective analysis. In finding for the plaintiff, the Supreme Court unsettled the law far past Kingsley's direct factual setting of pretrial detention, expressly inviting post-conviction challenges to restrictive - and incoherent - Eighth Amendment caselaw. The Court rejected not only the defendants' position, but the logic that underlies 25 years of pro-government outcomes in prisoners' rights cases. But commentary and developing caselaw since Kingsley has not fully recognized its implications. I argue that both doctrinal logic and justice dictate that constitutional litigation should center on the experience of incarcerated prisoners, rather than the culpability of their keepers. The takeaway of my analysis is that the Constitution is best read to impose governmental liability for harm caused to prisoners - whether pretrial or post-conviction - by unreasonably dangerous conditions of confinement and unjustified uses of force. In this era of mass incarceration, our jails and prisons should not be shielded from accountability by legal standards that lack both doctrinal and normative warrant. Details: Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Law School, 2017. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: U of Michigan Public Law Research Paper No. 535: Accessed February 8, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=2920283 Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: University of Michigan Law School Shelf Number: 149037 Keywords: IncarcerationPrisonersPrisonsRights |
Author: National Lawyers Guild. Parole Preparation Project Title: New York State Parole Board: Failures in Staffing and Performance Summary: There are nearly 22,000 people serving indeterminate sentences in New York State prisons. Every year, 12,000 of these individuals appear before the Board of Parole in an attempt to secure their freedom. Due to the Board's punitive policies and practices, and their susceptibility to political influence, the large majority of parole-eligible people are denied release. However, thanks to the tireless work of advocates and formerly incarcerated leaders, preliminary statistical evidence shows a marginal improvement in release rates since September 2017, when new parole regulations were implemented and new Commissioners joined the Board. While we are encouraged by these developments and what they may bring, the Board of Parole is now facing staffing issues of catastrophic proportions, and continues to engage in unlawful, unethical and harmful behavior, despite repeated admonishments by the New York State judiciary and legislature. Although the Executive Law that governs parole permits 19 Commissioners to serve on the Board, as of May 2018, only 12 Commissioners were seated. Such severe understaffing has led to myriad procedural problems, over-worked Commissioners, higher caseloads, shorter parole interviews, and less time for individualized evaluations of parole applicant files. These realities have led to devastating consequences for people in prison and their loved ones. Understaffing has also led to a significant increase in two-person parole panels, a practice that in August 2017 Parole Board Chairperson Stanford relayed would no longer be used. Additionally, parole interviews are being postponed for no discernible or statutorily authorized reason. Compounding these issues of understaffing, two long-serving Commissioners, W. William Smith and Marc Coppola who frequently engage in racist, unlawful and repugnant behavior, remain on the Board. The Governor can and should dismiss these Commissioners immediately and replace them with qualified candidates who better reflect the identities and experiences of people in prison. Commissioner Smith, in violation of the Executive Law, almost unilaterally denies parole to people convicted of violent crimes despite their demonstrated rehabilitation and low risk to public safety. Additionally, people in prison have reported numerous instances where Commissioner Smith lost his temper, slammed his hands down on the table or mocked the interviewee. Commissioner Smith also has deep political ties to the New York State Senate. He has donated nearly $20,000 to the very Senators responsible for confirming his appointments to the Board. Commissioner Coppola's record is equally abhorrent. During interviews, Commissioner Coppola is often unprepared and absent, asking questions that have already been answered or referencing facts from case files of other parole applicants. He also fails to consider the achievements of applicants, their advancing age, or their youth at the time of conviction, all factors required by the law. We are calling on Governor Cuomo to dismiss Commissioners Smith and Coppola, end two-person panels and needless postponements, and fill the vacancies on the Board with candidates from a broad range of professional backgrounds who believe strongly in the principles of rehabilitation, mercy, and redemption. The lives of thousands of incarcerated people depend on it Details: New York: Parole Preparation Project; Release Aging People in Prison Campaign, 2018. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 24, 2018 at: http://rappcampaign.com/wp-content/uploads/NYS-Parole-Board-August-2018.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://rappcampaign.com/wp-content/uploads/NYS-Parole-Board-August-2018.pdf Shelf Number: 151253 Keywords: IncarcerationParole Parole Boards |
Author: Howard, Flora Fitzalan Title: Understanding the Process and Experience of Recall to Prison Summary: This research was conducted to develop an evidence-based and systematic approach for the management of determinate sentenced prisoners on standard recall. The number of recalled prisoners in custody has steadily increased over time, with the largest proportion at any one time being on 'standard' recall, and many remaining in custody until the end of their sentences. Thus, the focus was on standard recalled prisoners and the re-release process. The work had four strands: a Risk, Need and Responsivity profile of recalled prisoners; two qualitative investigations of the experience of recall for men and for women; and a survey of Offender Managers (OMs) and recalled prisoners. The aim was to identify the obstacles and opportunities in the current re-release process, and identify ways for recall to become more rehabilitative. Key findings - Recalled prisoners had high levels of risk and need, and complex responsivity issues. Many of them would be suitable for, and might benefit from, cognitive skills and violence interventions to enable them to address their needs and progress to re-release. - Prisoners and OMs had different perceptions of how much prisoners understood recall, how much they communicated with each other, and the impact of recall on their relationship. - In interviews and surveys, recalled prisoners described their recall as unjust, finding it hard to trust the process or those involved. They could feel stranded, confused about what was expected of them, or felt they were not supported, communicated with or included enough in decisions. - Interview and survey findings showed that prisoners found recall distressing and associated with loss. They found recall to be solely punitive, not rehabilitative. Prisoners' meaningful engagement and relationships with OMs could be negatively affected when recalled. - Recalled prisoners continued to show motivation to change, determination to have a different future, and some wanted more opportunities to achieve this. - For women, the period immediately before and after their initial release emerged as the time of particular vulnerability. - OMs appeared to generally have good understanding and confidence in using the recall and re-release processes. They worked to keep in touch with the prisoners they managed. - OMs experienced barriers to progressing cases. These included external factors (e.g. a lack of access to interventions and accommodation) and internal barriers (e.g. poor prisoner motivation to engage with their OM following recall). Delays in helping prisoners progress to re-release were reportedly due to difficulties establishing frequent contact, heavy workloads and insufficient time. - If recall is to become more rehabilitative, engage prisoners and help them achieve earlier re-release, the findings of this research emphasise the need to refine recall and re-release processes to include better communication and relationships between those involved. - Small sample sizes, particularly of OMs surveyed, may reduce the generalisability of the research findings. Details: United Kingdom: HM Prison and Probation Service, 2018. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 8, 2018 at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/723265/Understanding_the_process_and_experience_of_recall_to_prison.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/723265/Understanding_the_process_and_experience_of_recall_to_prison.pdf Shelf Number: 151444 Keywords: Determinate SentencingIncarcerationPrisonPrisonersRecallRehabilitation |
Author: Santos, Thandara Title: Levantamento Nacional de Informacoes Penitenciarias Infopen Mulheres (National Survey of Penitentiary Information Infopen Women) Summary: Introduction This report, which seeks to systematize the information available on the women incarcerated in Brazil, was carried out from the survey data National Penitentiary Information System - Infopen, whose reference period was the month of June 2014, and accessed records provided by 1,424 prison units in every state and federal penitentiary system. The statistical information system of the Brazilian penitentiary system, created in 2004, passed in 2014 for important reformulations in their methodology and collection mechanisms, in order to qualify the information provided to society. However, despite the continued efforts of the National Penitentiary improvement of procedures for collecting information at the units the gaps in the information provided by units and thus to base our analyzes and inferences on the available data, always pointing to the caveats of its scope. In the survey carried out for the period of June 2014, the last data available, the information regarding the state of Sao Paulo could not be obtained through the collection system developed by DEPEN and were collected directly from the Secretariat of Administration State Penitentiary in April 2015. In this effort, general information about the state for the types of establishments, number of places and total prison population. All other profile information about people deprived of their liberty and the infrastructure of the prison system for the state of Sao Paulo were excluded from the present survey. In the general summary of the prison population in June 2014, published by The National Penitentiary Department also includes information on persons custodians of police stations or similar establishments managed by by the Secretariats of Public Security. Information on this population was collected from the National Secretariat of Public Security, the Ministry of Justice and a total of 27,950 people in custody. Added to the data collected together to Infopen, we have a total prison population of 607,731 people deprived of throughout the country in June 2014. When analyzing the characteristics of this population with a gender cut, In this report's focus, it is necessary to highlight the gaps in the information collected different sources. If we analyze the historical series from 2000 to 2014, it is identify the absence of gender-disaggregated data for persons in custody in precincts and precincts in the years 2003 and 2014, as summarized in Figure 1 below. With regard to information on women in custody in managed units Security Secretariats, it is necessary to consider the data gaps for the years of 2003 and 2014, which prevent us from using the information for the analysis of the series historical. In this sense, for the purposes of this report, only the information from Infopen, informed by prisons through online surveys and disaggregated by gender. For analysis of the historical series, information from all states of the Federation shall be considered. In order to analyze the profile of the female population incarcerated in 2014, however, disregarded the information of the state of Sao Paulo, since the state did not participated in the survey. Details: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: DEPEN, 2014. 42p. Source: Internet Resource (in Portuguese): Accessed January 16, 2019 at: http://www.justica.gov.br/news/estudo-traca-perfil-da-populacao-penitenciaria-feminina-no-brasil/relatorio-infopen-mulheres.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Brazil URL: http://depen.gov.br/DEPEN/depen/sisdepen/infopen-mulheres Shelf Number: 154201 Keywords: BrazilFemale Prison PopulationGenderIncarcerated WomenIncarcerationNational Penitentiary DepartmentNational Penitentiary Information SystemPrisonPrison PopulationWomen Offenders |
Author: Rabuy, Bernadette Title: Prisons of Poverty: Uncovering the Pre-Incarceration Incomes of the Imprisoned Summary: Correctional experts of all political persuasions have long understood that releasing incarcerated people to the streets without job training, an education, or money is the perfect formula for recidivism and re-incarceration. While the fact that people released from prison have difficulties finding employment is well-documented, there is much less information on the role that poverty and opportunity play in who ends up behind bars in the first place. Using an underutilized data set from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, this report provides hard numbers on the low incomes of incarcerated men and women from before they were locked up. Details: Northampton, MA: Prison Policy Initiative, 2015. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 16, 2019 at: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/income.html Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://csgjusticecenter.org/corrections/publications/uncovering-the-pre-incarceration-incomes-of-individuals-in-the-justice-system/ Shelf Number: 154223 Keywords: IncarcerationInmatesPovertyPrisonersPrisonsRecidivismSocioeconomic Status and Crime |
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: Prisoners' Education Trust Title: Greenhouses not Warehouses: Commissioning Education to Plant Seeds of Hope and Opportunity Summary: Prisons are being given increasing flexibility and control over education budgets and the ability to commission a wide range of provision. Governor-led commissioning is an exciting opportunity to increase engagement of prisoners in education to achieve a whole-prison learning culture. The PLA has produced this workbook aimed at helping governors and managers plan and commission education. It includes a self-assessment tool and provides advice, case studies and additional resources around ten key aspects of commissioning. This timely resource sets out the crucial questions to be thinking about and suggestions for how to bring together the right people to answer them for your prison and population. Details: London, United Kingdom: Prisoner Learning Alliance and Prisoners' Education Trust, 2017. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 31, 2019 at: https://www.prisonerseducation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/PLA-Greenhouses-not-warehouses-Workbook-web-version-1.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://ec.europa.eu/epale/mt/node/72547 Shelf Number: 156115 Keywords: Correctional Programs DesistanceEducation Program Incarceration Offender Rehabilitation Prison Programming PrisonersReoffending |
Author: Knoth, L. Title: Washington State Adult and Juvenile Recidivism Trends: FY 1995 - FY 2014 Summary: Previous reports published by WSIPP have shown a gradual decline in recidivism for adults released from prison through the 1990s and early 2000s. This report updates our review of recidivism trends for adults released from prison and expands the scope of our report to include youth populations and additional adult populations. This report provides a high-level overview of general changes in Washington State recidivism trends from FY 1995-FY 2014. The report analyzes recidivism for four samples of criminal justice-involved populations: adults convicted of a criminal offense, adults released from incarceration in prison, youth convicted of a criminal offense, and youth released from a commitment in a Juvenile Rehabilitation (JR) facility. Consistent with our prior reports, our analyses found gradual declines in overall recidivism for all four populations from FY 1995-FY 2014. However, examination of recidivism trends by type of recidivism, type of initial offense, and demographic characteristics indicates that the magnitude of the decline in recidivism varied among different sub-populations. Details: Olympia, Washington: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2019. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 4, 2019 at: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1703/Wsipp_Washington-State-Adult-and-Juvenile-Recidivism-Trends-FY-1995-FY-2014_Report.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.wsipp.wa.gov/Publications Shelf Number: 156166 Keywords: IncarcerationJuvenile RehabilitationOffender RehabilitationPrisonRecidivism |