Search Results

Much of the increase in crime that hit the US in the 1980s and 1990s was blamed on habitual offenders. For many years, prison wardens and parole boards had decided when most inmates would be released. Legislators came to believe that this system was too lenient and enacted tougher penalties. When even these extended terms behind bars did not seem to work, activists came up with a new formulation, “three strikes and you’re out,” meaning that a third serious crime would bring a life term. Commentator John Carlson started a campaign for such a scheme in Washington State in the 1980s; it was enacted in 1993, the height of modern‐day crime totals. The concept quickly spread in California after the infamous kidnapping and killing of 12‐year‐old Polly Klaas that same year. President Bill Clinton embraced the idea for federal crimes, and at least two dozen states adopted some form of it. Experts disputed how much three strikes or any other tough sentencing laws affected the crime declines of the 1990s. Still, prison building continued at a high rate during the 1990s, with the combined population in prisons and jails approaching 2 million. Critics argued that three strikes and ‘mandatory minimum’ prison term laws were incarcerating far too many low‐level offenders who would end up back on the streets committing more crimes after years of imprisonment with little vocational or educational training. As the costs of running prisons mounted, some policymakers were seriously rethinking the punitive practices of the late 20^th century, but no dramatic turnaround was in sight.

This chapter looks at how prison populations have come to reflect a concentrated experience among certain subgroups in the U.S. population. It describes imprisonment both nationally and in Tallahassee, Florida. It suggests that there is nothing “equal opportunity” about prison and that accidents of birth play an enormous role in determining the possibility of imprisonment during a person's life. It also argues that the single most disturbing aspect of incarceration policy in the U.S. is its inequitable social consequences.

This chapter suggests that the prison population as a whole has to contend with multiple and severe disadvantages in terms of health, education, ageing, ethnicity, and disability compared with the rest of the population. It argues that consequently the needs of dying prisoners (and their families) for supportive and palliative care can be far greater than for other patients.

Chapter Three investigates Ottoman efforts to gain knowledge and power over prisons and the incarcerated by collecting statistical information through prison questionnaires and surveys. Not only did these efforts provide invaluable knowledge about prison conditions and the prison population, but they also yield important insights into the ideology and worldview of Ottoman prison reformers. The knowledge gained from these efforts greatly affected prison reform programmes in terms of the methods and styles of incarceration, such as prisoner classification, prison organization, prisoner separation, the removal of juvenile delinquents from prisons, and the creation of gendered incarceration. This chapter also includes a discussion of the prison population itself, in terms of its socio-economic and religious composition, criminality, and how individual prisoners were identified and categorized.

This chapter discusses the problems associated with concentrated incarceration. It discusses the increase in prison population and suggests that incarceration does more damage than good, including increases in crime. It also argues that incarceration has become part of its own dynamic and that it has grown to the point that it now produces the very social problems on which it feeds. It contends that it is not possible to reform sentencing procedures without reconceptualizing the correctional project itself.

This chapter describes the ways in which inmates adapted creatively to colonial prison conditions in French Indochina on a daily basis and how the experience of incarceration contributed to the modernization of the social and political consciousness of segments of the prison population. It examines the ways in which the experience of imprisonment encouraged the growth of characteristically modern forms of social and political consciousness among certain segments of the inmate population. It suggests that prisons seemed to have encouraged in certain inmates an unusual degree of confidence in their ability to understand the true nature of colonial society at large and, by implication, their capacity to transform it.

Over the last decade, the prison population has grown rapidly, and in the next decade, it is assumed that the demand for prison places in England and Wales will outstrip the number planned. This chapter discusses the role of prison in a utilitarian view. From this perspective, there are two solutions to the scenario in which demand exceeds supply: build faster or change the custodial sentences. Of the two options, the government chose the first option, as it seemed to avoid the two political elephant traps: being portrayed as soft on crime; and interfering with judicial independence. This approach has been the course of the government and the preceding Conservative administration since the increase in the prison population. It has been reassured by Lord Patrick Carter's report, which stated that it is feasible for the government to build a way out of the problem by confirming that the greater use of imprisonment has been associated with more offenders brought to justice and reduced conviction; and that this is what the public want. In the chapter it is argued that, contrary to Carter's report, the increased use of imprisonment did not stem from more offences being brought to justice; that prison reconviction rates escalated as the population increased; and that the public appetite for prison is more limited and more susceptible to reasonable argument. The chapter finally argues that the expanding prison estate will not satisfy demand, but rather will generate it.

Constraining the rising prison population remains a challenge to most western countries. It has been 20 years since the United Nations Standard Rules for Non-Custodial Measure or the ‘Tokyo Rules’ were adopted. However, despite the Tokyo Rules' aim of reducing traditional reliance on imprisonment as a legal punishment, the prison population throughout the 1990s saw an unprecedented rise in many law jurisdictions. This chapter reviews and evaluates other strategies that have been implemented or proposed to control, regulate, and reduce the size of the prison population. It begins by summarising the trends with respect to the relative use of custody across jurisdictions. Then the chapter proceeds to discuss the disadvantages and advantages of the different strategies adopted over the years. It specifically looks into the remedial efforts that exist within the criminal-justice system. Most of the strategies examined in the chapter involve legislative intervention in the sphere of sentencing, wherein it is found that most of the legislature failed to embrace the responsibility of intervening in the sentencing process. The chapter concludes by summarising the steps that may comprise a successful integrated strategy.

This chapter discusses the process of prison recall for discretionary life-sentenced offenders. First, it describes the size of lifer prison population in England and Wales and highlights the increasing number of life sentence prisoners who have been recalled to prison after a period of life licence. It then describes the process of recall in practice for lifers, and depicts the release and recall status for the current cohort of discretionary life-sentenced offenders. Finally, it present lifers' ‘stories of recall’, integrating qualitative analysis of indepth interviews with those lifers in the sub-sample who were interviewed in prison.

This chapter discusses the result of the seminar at King's College. This seminar tackled Lord Carter' dominant views in his Securing the future: i) the establishment of a permanent sentencing commission to provide a more structured sentencing framework; and ii) the creation of Titans, multi-functional prisons that can provide additional 2,500 prison places. In the seminar, the participants were divided into three groups: the Sentencing Guidelines Council, the Sentencing Advisory Panel, and the policy outsiders. While the knowledge of the policy developments on sentencing and prison population varied, two dominant opinions began to emerge: first, that the idea of a sentencing commission should receive serious consideration; and second, that the construction of Titan prisons should be removed. In addition to these dominant opinions, the seminar also pinpointed that the prison-population crisis was a predictable and predicted dilemma wherein the government had failed to heed the warnings or plan accordingly.

This chapter discusses how public attitudes help shape penal policy. It argues that law enforcement and the public have ambivalently embraced an instrumental approach, that is, the threat of or actual punishment as a mechanism through which to shape the behavior of both wrongdoers and people in general. This is not to say that other approaches do not exist, or that people do not disagree; however, the dominant model clearly follows instrumental approaches. Not only does empirical research show that this approach is not particularly effective in determining behavior, but it also is very costly in terms of both resources and negative side effects. Hence, there is a widespread disconnection between policy and empiricism. This has led to a dramatic growth in the American prison population and has soured the relationship between the law, legal authorities, and members of society. It has had a particularly negative impact on the minority community.

This chapter focuses on the small number of marriage workshops directed both at poor single mothers in conjunction with receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) benefits and at the prison population. While marriage advocates seek to redraw a definitive boundary to compel marriage as a moral and social good, some are more willing to recognize the obstacles to marriage for low-income individuals and prioritize a number of relationship- and work-related services. To disseminate these services to a low-income population, the marriage initiative trains employees of the Department of Health, the Cooperative Extension Service at OSU, and Oklahoma Department of Human Services (OKDHS) to conduct workshops and make referrals to their clients. In the first two years of the program, the Department of Health agreed to meet a quota of workshops offered by staff members trained in the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP), with each conducting at least four workshops.

The chapter explores the evolution of early release policy and practice between 1987 and 1992—a transitional period sometimes described as an ‘Indian Summer’ for liberal criminal justice policy. It begins with a brief overview of the challenges facing the criminal justice system on the eve of the 1987 General Election. It goes on to consider the piecemeal modification of remission arrangements in July 1987, a measure to relieve pressure on the prison system that ultimately came at a high cost for the Home Office. It provides a detailed overview of the proceedings of the Carlisle Committee and the compromises that laid the ground for their final report ‘The Parole System in England and Wales’. The chapter concludes by reflecting upon the initial reaction to the Carlisle Report and the considerable uncertainty within the Home Office about how best to respond to these challenging proposals.

The wars and counter-insurgency actions at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries fostered new campaigns to raise the public’s awareness of post-traumatic stress among veterans and of the number of veterans among the expanding prison population. Soldiers continued to offend while in uniform, and while some such behaviour—notably gang rape—caused outrage, there appears also to have been a growing understanding of the poor and disturbed origins of many of the young men who served in the army.

This chapter looks at Patterson's imprisonment in Danbury, Connecticut. He estimated that “30 percent of the prison population is Negro” in Danbury, and they, along with those who were Jewish, were segregated. What particularly agitated him was the overrepresentation of Negroes behind bars. The plight of his fellow inmates presented Patterson with an immediate dilemma. The high-court ruling had yet to trickle down to this federal facility, so Jim Crow reigned. If he spoke out, “especially against segregation,” then that “would surely be un-American-subversive. I am not afraid to speak out,” he assured, “but I don't seek further victimization.” During his time of imprisonment, his mail was censored, then he was barred from writing anyone other than his spouse and his daughter. He was also subjected to “quarantine,” shielded from others, though not in solitary confinement. This meant no visitors and seven letters per week.