Thursday, March 23, 2023
"Carceral Deference: Courts and Their Pro-Prison Propensities"
The title of this post is the title of this new paper authored by Danielle Jefferis and available via SSRN. Here is its abstract:
Judicial deference to non-judicial state actors, as a general matter, is ubiquitous. But “carceral deference” — judicial deference to prison officials on issues concerning the legality of prison conditions — has received far less attention in legal literature, and the focus has been almost entirely on its jurisprudential legitimacy. This Article adds to the literature by contextualizing carceral deference historically, politically, and culturally. Drawing on primary and secondary historical sources, as well as trial and other court documents, this Article is an important step to bringing the origins of carceral deference out of the shadows, revealing a story of institutional wrestling for control and unbridled dominance that has not, until now, been fully told.
That full telling is more important now than ever, as society grapples with the scope, scale, and racist impacts of American punishment. Carceral deference plays an enormous role in the constitutional ordering of state power, as well as civil law’s regulation of punishment, a force that is often neglected within the criminal law paradigm. Moreover, the Supreme Court has demonstrated a recent skepticism of judicial deference in other areas of the law, suggesting an era in which traditional notions of deference are up for reconsideration. Understanding how the foremost judicial norm in the prison law space developed gives us a foundation from which to better examine and critique the distribution of power among prisons, courts, and incarcerated people and the propriety of deference to prison officials; further informs our understanding of the systemic and structural flaws of the criminal punishment system; and adds to a growing body of literature analyzing the role of expertise in constitutional analyses across dimensions, from qualified immunity to the administrative state.
March 23, 2023 in Prisons and prisoners, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)
Wednesday, March 22, 2023
New OIG report provides "Capstone Review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons' Response to the Coronavirus Disease"
A helpful reader made such I did not miss a new big document released this week by US Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General. Specifically, this 100+-page report is a review of how the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) did during the COVID pandemic, and here are excerpts from the report's executive summary:
Since April 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (Department, DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has conducted substantial oversight of the BOP’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The resulting body of work, which the OIG previously publicly released, includes remote inspections of 16 facilities housing BOP inmates completed during the early months of the pandemic, multiple surveys of BOP staff conducted at different times, and a collection of interactive data dashboards containing up-to-date information about COVID-19 within BOP facilities. The OIG is also completing analysis of its first survey of BOP inmates.
This capstone review summarizes our overall findings regarding the BOP’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the issues we identified through our pandemic oversight work, the topics that have emerged following that work, the challenges that the BOP will likely continue to face during and after the pandemic, and actions that the BOP should undertake to prepare for future potential healthcare emergencies.
We make 10 recommendations to assist the BOP in managing challenges during and after the COVID-19 pandemic and in mitigating the effects of future public health emergencies...
The BOP Should Improve and Retain Effective Practices for Protecting Staff and Inmate Health and Safety During Public Health Emergencies...
The BOP Should Provide Clear Guidance on the Use of Healthcare Protective Equipment and Compliance with Healthcare Safety Guidance...
The BOP Should Respond to Ongoing Pandemic Challenges and Prepare for Future Public Health Emergencies
The BOP Should Improve Its Communication of Essential Information to Stakeholders...
The BOP Should Take Appropriate Steps to Address Staffing Shortages and Staff Morale...
March 22, 2023 in Impact of the coronavirus on criminal justice, Prisons and prisoners, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, March 21, 2023
GAO releases big report concluding "Bureau of Prisons Should Improve Efforts to Implement its Risk and Needs Assessment System"
The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has released this big new Report to Congressional Committees fully titled "Federal Prisons: Bureau of Prisons Should Improve Efforts to Implement its Risk and Needs Assessment System." The full report runs over 100 pages, but it starts with "Highlights" that include this text:
Why GAO Did This Study
Approximately 45 percent of people released from a federal prison are rearrested or return within 3 years of their release. The First Step Act included certain requirements for DOJ and BOP aimed to reduce recidivism, including requiring the development of a system to assess the recidivism risk and needs of incarcerated people. It also required BOP to provide incarcerated people with programs and activities to address their needs and if eligible, earn time credits.
The First Step Act required GAO to assess the DOJ and BOP’s implementation of certain requirements. This report addresses the extent to which DOJ and BOP implemented certain First Step Act requirements related to the (1) risk and needs assessment system, (2) identification and evaluation of programs and activities, and (3) application of time credits.
GAO reviewed legislation and DOJ and BOP documents; analyzed 2022 BOP data; and interviewed DOJ and BOP headquarters officials and BOP’s employee union. GAO also conducted non-generalizable interviews with officials from four BOP regional offices facilities, selected to ensure a mix of different facility characteristics.
What GAO Found
Since the enactment of the First Step Act of 2018, the Department of Justice (DOJ) developed a risk assessment tool to measure an incarcerated person’s risk of recidivism. In addition, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) modified its existing needs assessment system to identify incarcerated people’s needs, that if addressed may reduce their recidivism risk. However, BOP does not have readily-available, complete, and accurate data to determine if assessments were conducted within required First Step Act and internal timeframes. As of October 2022, BOP plans to implement monitoring efforts to assess First Step Act requirements, but has not determined if these efforts will measure whether assessments are completed on time. Without such data and monitoring, BOP is not in a position to determine if staff complete assessments on time, which are necessary for earning First Step Act time credits. These time credits may allow incarcerated people to reduce the amount of time they spend in a BOP facility.
BOP created a plan to evaluate its evidence-based programs, as required by the First Step Act. However, the plan did not include quantifiable goals that align with certain First Step Act requirements, or have clear milestone dates. By including such elements in its plan, BOP will be better positioned to ensure its evaluations are conducted in a timely manner, and align with the First Step Act. BOP has some data on who participates in its programs and activities, but does not have a mechanism to monitor if it offers a sufficient amount. Without such a mechanism, BOP cannot ensure it is meeting the incarcerated population’s needs. Further, while BOP offers unstructured productive activities for which incarcerated people may earn time credits, BOP has not documented a complete list or monitored them. Without doing so, BOP cannot ensure it provides transparent information.
BOP’s procedure for applying time credits has evolved over time. Initially, BOP did not have data necessary to track time credits and developed an interim approach in January 2022. Subsequently, BOP implemented an automated-calculation application for time credits that took into account factors the interim procedure did not. As a result, some incarcerated people may have had their time credits reduced. In November 2022, BOP issued its First Step Act Time Credits program statement, with new procedures.
What GAO Recommends
GAO is making eight recommendations for BOP to improve its implementation of the First Step Act, including collecting data, ensuring its evaluation plan has goals and milestones, having monitoring mechanisms, and tracking unstructured productive activities. BOP concurred with six recommendations, but did not concur with two. GAO continues to believe these are valid.
March 21, 2023 in FIRST STEP Act and its implementation, Prisons and prisoners, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (2)
CCJ releases "How long is long enough?: Task force on long sentences final report"
I have repeatedly noted this post from last year discussing the Council of Criminal Justice's impressive Task Force on Long Sentences, in part because that Task Force for the better part of a year has been producing all sorts of important research and analysis concerning long sentences (see prior posts linked below). And today I am excited to see that the Task Force's main report, titled "How long is long enough?," has been released today with 14 thoughtful recommendations. Released along with this full report is this press release, which helps summarize the work of the Task Force and its report. Here is how the press release starts:
As cities across the nation grapple with effective responses to increases in violent crime, a task force co-chaired by former U.S. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and former U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy today released a report outlining a comprehensive approach for the use of lengthy prison sentences in the United States.
The report, How Long is Long Enough?, presents 14 recommendations to enhance judicial discretion in sentencing, promote individual and system accountability, reduce racial and ethnic disparities, better serve victims of crime, and increase public safety. Defining long sentences as prison terms of 10 years or longer, the panel’s proposals include:
- Shifting savings from reductions in the use of long prison sentences to programs that prevent violence and address the trauma it causes individuals, families, and communities (Recommendation 1).
- Allowing judges to consider all relevant facts and circumstances when imposing a long sentence, and requiring that sentencing enhancements based on criminal history are driven by individualized assessments of risk and other factors (Recommendations 6 and 8)
- Providing selective “second look” sentence review opportunities and expanding access to sentence-reduction credits (Recommendations 11 and 12)
- Focusing penalties in drug cases on a person’s role in a trafficking organization, rather than the amount of drug involved, (Recommendation 7)
- Reducing recidivism by providing behavioral health services and other rehabilitative living conditions and opportunities in prison (Recommendations 3 and 13)
- Strengthening services for all crime victims and survivors by enforcing victims’ rights, removing barriers to services, and creating restorative justice opportunities (Recommendations 2, 4, and 9)
Prior related posts on CCJ's Task Force on Long Sentences:
- Notable CCJ new task force examining long prison terms
- Council on Criminal Justice releases "Long Sentences by the Numbers"
- Council on Criminal Justice releases "Long Sentences: An International Perspective"
- Council on Criminal Justice releases Illinois analysis of "The Public Safety Impact of Shortening Lengthy Prison Terms"
- CCJ releases "Long sentences, better outcomes: Opportunities to improve prison programming"
- CCJ report explores "The Relationship Between Sentence Length, Time Served, and State Prison Population Levels"
March 21, 2023 in Prisons and prisoners, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (5)
Friday, March 17, 2023
"The Minimalist Alternative to Abolitionism: Focusing on the Non-dangerous Many"
The title of this post is the title of this new essay authored by Christopher Slobogin now available via SSRN. Here is its abstract:
In The Dangerous Few: Taking Prison Abolition and Its Skeptics Seriously, published in the Harvard Law Review, Thomas Frampton proffers four reasons why those who want to abolish prisons should not budge from their position even for offenders who are considered dangerous. This essay demonstrates why a criminal law minimalist approach to prisons and police is preferable to abolition, not just when dealing with the dangerous few but also as a means of protecting the nondangerous many. A minimalist regime can radically reduce reliance on both prisons and police, without the loss in crime prevention capacity and legitimacy that is likely to come with abolition.
Prior related post:
March 17, 2023 in Prisons and prisoners, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (1)
Wednesday, March 15, 2023
With pandemic legally winding down, should Congress build in CARES Act success to greatly expand BOP home confinement authority?
The question in the title of this post is prompted by this notable new Forbes piece by Walter Pavlo headlined "Bureau Of Prisons Sees End Of Cares Act Home Confinement, Some Prisoners Will Be Left Behind." I recommend the full piece, and here are excerpts (with links from the original):
The CARES Act provided funding for the United States to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic, but it provided the Federal Bureua of Prisons (BOP) a means to both reduce crowding in federal prisons and place some minimum security prisoners with underlying health conditions on home confinement to complete their sentences. Over 12,000 prisoners have successfully been transferred to home confinement under the CARES Act and few have violated the conditions that returned them to prison. The Office of Legal Counsel determined that BOP’s preexisting authorities did not require that prisoners in extended home confinement be returned en masse to correctional facilities when the emergency period ends. Now, the Biden Administration has called for the end of national emergency and public health emergency associated with the COVID-19 pandemic on May 11, 2023 and that will mean that some prisoners will not see the benefit of home confinement.
The Federal Register published a draft of the final rule to end CARES Act home confinement in June 2022. Comments and the final rule itself are now at the White House and will soon be published. In the draft proposal, the Department of Justice indicated that the BOP would stop home confinement placements of prisoners 30 days after the emergency period ends, so mid-June 2023.
As the program sunsets, one would think the BOP is slowing transfer of some prisoners to home confinement under CARES Act, but not so. Randilee Giamusso, who works at the BOP’s Office of Public Affairs gave a statement that, “The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has not made efforts to slow CARES Act home confinement placements as the end of the CARES Act approaches. We have issued no guidance regarding this matter.” That is welcome news to prisoners who meet the eligibility requirements for CARES Act placement.
Many are also hoping that the DOJ extends the 30 days after the end of CARES Act to something that takes into consideration the success of the program and the conditions of prison. Maureen Baird, retired BOP Warden, told me in an interview, “Prisons are communal settings where contagion is always a concern. I think the BOP has gone to great measures to try to avoid that contagion and one of the most successful measures has been CARES Act home confinement.”...
The CARES Act demonstrated that a select group of prisoners could be identified and successfully placed in community settings for an extended portion of their sentence. There are currently prisoners on CARES Act who still have over 5 years remaining on their prison term who are under strict terms of home confinement and subject to being returned to an institution in the event of failing to live up to those terms.
Though it makes sense to wind down the pandemic-driven authority to transfer certain persons from federal prison to home confinement, Congress and the US Sentencing Commission and the Justice Department should carefully study the the apparent success of this CARES Act program and consider ways to give BOP broader authority in non-pandemic times to move low-risk prisoners into home confinement. As highlighted by some posts below about the CARES Act, it seems that great use of home confinement might help reduce recidivism, save taxpayer money, facilitate greater reentry success for offenders and advance other important goals. Of course, home confinement needs to uses efficiently and effectively, though if we can do that during a pandemic, I would hope we can also do it at other times.
Some prior related posts:
- Spotlighting effectiveness of home confinement under CARES Act and concerns about OLC memo disruption
- Another encouraging report on those released under federal CARES Act
- Celebrating "real" recidivism is essentially nil, and even technical violations stunningly low, for CARES home confinement cohort
- More notable details on the remarkable success of those released from federal prison under CARES Act
- Spotlighting again the decarceral success of the CARES Act
March 15, 2023 in Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Impact of the coronavirus on criminal justice, Prisons and prisoners, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (5)
Tuesday, March 14, 2023
Prison Policy Initiative releases "Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2023"
Though not all pies taste the same on March 14, so-called "Pi Day," sentencing fans and criminal justice data fans should find today especially delicious because the amazing folks at the Prison Policy Initiative have now posted the latest, greatest version of PPI's amazing incarceration "pie" graphic and associated report. The latest report "Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2023" provides a spectacular accounting of the particulars of who and how people are incarcerated in the United States. As I have said in the past, the extraordinary "pies" produced by PPI impart more information in a couple of effective image than just about any other single resource I know about (and this PPI press release has the main visual and other highlights). Here is part of this latest pie report's introductory text and the concluding discussion:
Can it really be true that most people in jail are legally innocent? How much of mass incarceration is a result of the war on drugs, or the profit motives of private prisons? How has the COVID-19 pandemic changed decisions about how people are punished when they break the law? These essential questions are harder to answer than you might expect. The various government agencies involved in the criminal legal system collect a lot of data, but very little is designed to help policymakers or the public understand what’s going on. As public support for criminal justice reform continues to build — and as the pandemic raises the stakes higher — it’s more important than ever that we get the facts straight and understand the big picture.
Further complicating matters is the fact that the U.S. doesn’t have one “criminal justice system;” instead, we have thousands of federal, state, local, and tribal systems. Together, these systems hold almost 2 million people in 1,566 state prisons, 98 federal prisons, 3,116 local jails, 1,323 juvenile correctional facilities, 181 immigration detention facilities, and 80 Indian country jails, as well as in military prisons, civil commitment centers, state psychiatric hospitals, and prisons in the U.S. territories.
This report offers some much-needed clarity by piecing together the data about this country’s disparate systems of confinement. It provides a detailed look at where and why people are locked up in the U.S., and dispels some modern myths to focus attention on the real drivers of mass incarceration and overlooked issues that call for reform....
The United States has the dubious distinction of having the highest incarceration rate in the world. Looking at the big picture of the 1.9 million people locked up in the United States on any given day, we can see that something needs to change. Both policymakers and the public have the responsibility to carefully consider each individual slice of the carceral “pie” and ask whether legitimate social goals are served by putting each group behind bars, and whether any benefit really outweighs the social and fiscal costs.
Even narrow policy changes, like reforms to bail, can meaningfully reduce our society’s use of incarceration. At the same time, we should be wary of proposed reforms that seem promising but will have only minimal effect, because they simply transfer people from one slice of the correctional “pie” to another or needlessly exclude broad swaths of people. Keeping the big picture in mind is critical if we hope to develop strategies that actually shrink the “whole pie.”
March 14, 2023 in Prisons and prisoners, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (1)
Brennan Center publishes "A Proposal to Reduce Unnecessary Incarceration: Introducing the Public Safety and Prison Reduction Act"
The folks at the Brennan Center for Justice have a new report available here authored by Hernandez D. Stroud, Lauren-Brooke Eisen, and Ram Subramanian titled "A Proposal to Reduce Unnecessary Incarceration: Introducing the Public Safety and Prison Reduction Act." Here is part of the report's introduction:
According to a 2016 Brennan Center for Justice report, nearly 40 percent of the U.S. prison population is incarcerated without any compelling public safety justification. Incarceration degrades people’s humanity, disrupts their social networks, and causes lifelong social and financial disadvantage through restricted access to education, jobs, and housing. It also devastates families and communities, disproportionately affecting society’s most marginalized segments.
Reforms have reduced the population behind bars from its 2009 peak, yet an astonishing level of incarceration persists: today over 1.2 million people are confined to federal and state prisons, and just over 636,000 more are locked up in local jails. Few states have achieved significant reductions in their prison populations, and in some places these populations have begun to grow again.
For a half century, the federal government has harnessed its grant-making power to spur states to incarcerate more people and to impose longer sentences, making the United States the most punitive country in the world. It can now use that same funding power to reverse course. The idea of using federal funding to reduce incarceration is not new, but recent programs have had mixed results. For example, between 2010 and 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI) provided state and local governments with technical assistance and direct funding to reduce their prison populations. But this funding did not always produce the intended outcome....
Yet since assuming office in 2021, the Biden administration, while retaining JRI’s focus on recidivism reduction, now specifically allows grant money to support efforts to reduce incarceration for new crimes or technical violations of community supervision. And more recently, in August 2022, as part of his 2023 budget proposal to Congress, President Biden unveiled a grant program called Accelerating Justice System Reform, which would dedicate $15 billion over 10 years for jurisdictions to implement crime prevention and public health approaches to public safety.
Building on this momentum, the Brennan Center for Justice calls on Congress to enact a new, $1 billion federal funding program, called the Public Safety and Prison Reduction Act, to channel money to states with the goal of reducing unnecessary incarceration while promoting humane and fair criminal-justice policies that preserve public safety. The proposal, based on a previous Brennan Center policy solution — the Reverse Mass Incarceration Act — was crafted in consultation with a variety of stakeholders, including formerly incarcerated individuals.
March 14, 2023 in Prisons and prisoners, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Scope of Imprisonment, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (2)
Wednesday, March 08, 2023
Highlighting the continuing challenges of calculating FIRST STEP Act earned time credits
At Forbes, Walter Pavlo has this new piece, headlined "The Bureau Of Prisons Evolving Calculation Of First Step Act," on the continuing challenges of applying a key aspect of prison reform part of the big federal criminal justice reform bill passed back in 2018. I recommend the piece in full, and here are excerpts:
Since January 2022, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has been trying to determine how to calculate how the First Step Act (FSA), a law signed by President Donald Trump in December 2018. As we enter March 2023, there still is no clear direction on the calculation and the frustration has grown among prisoners and families who are anxiously waiting on a determination of when a federal prison term will end....
The premise of FSA is to reward federal prisoners’ participation in meaningful classes meant to return a better citizen to society and, hopefully, reduce the chances of them returning to prison.... The BOP initially calculated the FSA credits manually beginning in January 2022 when the Federal Register published the Final Rule on FSA. The initial BOP calculations for minimum level offenders with minimum chances of recidivism was that 15 days per month started from the beginning of the prison term, something more generous than what was even stated in the FSA law. Prisoners across the country were released based on this calculation. This initial and interim manual calculation was used through August 2022 when the BOP rolled out a new auto-calculator. That auto-calculator had a major interpretation that was not a part of FSA either, which stopped all credits from being earned once the prisoner was 18 months from release. This was particularly hard on those prisoners with shorter sentences.
As December 2022 came to a close, the BOP’s auto-calculator interpretation came under scrutiny from U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Chuck Grassley, the law’s biggest proponents. Suddenly, the BOP changed course and another calculation was promised and it landed with yet another interpretation that is limiting the amount of credits prisoners can earn.
The BOP is now in its third iteration of FSA calculation and this is just as confusing as its first. Now the BOP is stating that prisoners can only earn 10 credits per month for the first year of incarceration....
Prisoners across the country are taking their cases to federal court asking for relief and for federal judges to get involved in determining the duration of the prison sentence. In a case in the District of Maryland (Sreedhar Potarazu v BOP, Case No. 1:22-cv-01334) the case manager for the plaintiff gave his own interpretation of how credits were applied by the BOP, giving Mr. Potarazu 10 credits per month for nearly 3 years of his sentence. There was no basis for the calculation which did not cite specific policy on which the calculation was based, providing even more confusion among both prisoners and staff across the BOP. Previously, the BOP has used declarations, which were similarly not based on a specific policy, from executives at its Central Office.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that the FSA will be finally determined by a federal court decision and not by what should be a simple interpretation of the law by the BOP. However, many prisoners who await the outcome from court decisions will have spent weeks or months in prison unnecessarily.
March 8, 2023 in FIRST STEP Act and its implementation, Prisons and prisoners | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, March 02, 2023
CCJ's Veterans Justice Commission releases "Honoring Service, Advancing Safety: Supporting Veterans From Arrest Through Sentencing"
As highlighted in this prior post, the Council on Criminal Justice last summer launched a new national commission "to examine why so many military veterans land in jail and prison and produce recommendations for evidence-based policy changes that enhance safety, health, and justice." This CCJ Commission has released this major policy report today titled "Honoring Service, Advancing Safety: Supporting Veterans From Arrest Through Sentencing." This press release provides some highlights from the full report. Here are excerpts from the press release:
America’s civilian justice system fails to adequately identify veterans, steer them away from prosecution and incarceration, and coordinate or research the effectiveness of programs attempting to support them, the Council on Criminal Justice (CCJ) Veterans Justice Commission said in releasing its first set of recommendations today.
While data-based tools exist to verify a person’s veteran status, only 9 of the nation’s 18,000 law enforcement agencies and 11% of its 3,100 jails report using them, relying instead on veterans to self-identify, the Commission said. But many veterans fail to do so because of shame or fear of losing benefits. Hundreds of jurisdictions now operate specialized Veterans Treatment Courts (VTCs), but participation is often restricted to minor offenses, and just 36 of 2,300 prosecutors’ offices reported operating veteran-specific diversion programs. As a result of these and other holes in the system, veterans miss out on diversion opportunities or treatment targeting the service-related trauma and other conditions that often drive their criminal behavior.
The Commission, which is led by former Defense Secretary and U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel and includes former Defense Secretary and White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, issued three recommendations to address these and other challenges confronting veterans at the “front end” of the criminal justice system, from arrest through sentencing:
- To improve identification of veterans when they come in contact with the justice system, Congress should authorize a study to evaluate the effectiveness of databases that capture veteran status, order necessary improvements, and incentivize their use by local and state agencies....
- States and the federal government should pass laws expanding or creating opportunities for veterans to avoid arrest, conviction, or incarceration if they complete programs, including VTCs, requiring them to take responsibility for their actions and address issues underlying their criminal offending. The Commission also said courts should be permitted to consider combat exposure and other military experiences a mitigating factor at sentencing, including in cases involving violence.
- Noting that reliable data on justice-involved veterans is sorely lacking, the Commission recommended that the federal government establish a National Center on Veterans Justice to fund research and identify effective program interventions....
Prior related posts:
- New CCJ commission to examine factors driving veterans' involvement in criminal justice system
- Noting the notable challenge of defining "veteran" for various purposes connected to criminal justice systems
March 2, 2023 in Offender Characteristics, Prisons and prisoners, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing | Permalink | Comments (0)
Wednesday, March 01, 2023
Prison Policy Initiative reports on "Women’s Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2023"
The folks at Prison Policy Initiative has released its latest update in its incarceration pie series with this new report titled "Women’s Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2023" authored by By Aleks Kajstura and Wendy Sawyer. Everyone should click through to see all the great graphics that go with report, and here are parts of text toward the start and at the very end of the report:
With growing public attention to the problem of mass incarceration, people want to know about women’s experiences with incarceration. How many women are held in prisons, jails, and other correctional facilities in the United States? Why are they there? How are their experiences different from men’s? Further, how has the COVID-19 pandemic changed the number of women behind bars? These are important questions, but finding those answers requires not only disentangling the country’s decentralized and overlapping criminal legal systems, but also unearthing the frustratingly limited data that’s broken down by gender.
This report provides a detailed view of the 172,700 women and girls incarcerated in the United States, and how they fit into the even broader picture of correctional control. We pull together data from a number of government agencies and break down the number of women and girls held by each correctional system by specific offense. In this updated report, we’ve also gone beyond the numbers, using rare self-reported data from a national survey of people in prison, to offer new insights about incarcerated women’s backgrounds, families, health, and experiences in prison. This report, produced in collaboration with the ACLU’s Campaign for Smart Justice, answers the questions of why and where women are locked up....
Most notably, and in stark contrast to the total incarcerated population, where the state prison systems hold twice as many people as are held in jails, more incarcerated women are held in jails than in state prisons. As we will explain, the outsized role of jails has serious consequences for incarcerated women and their families.
Women’s incarceration has grown at twice the pace of men’s incarceration in recent decades, and has disproportionately been located in local jails. The data needed to explain exactly what happened, when, and why do not yet exist, not least because the data on women has long been obscured by the larger scale of men’s incarceration. Frustratingly, even as this report is updated using the same data sources from year to year, it is not a direct tool for tracking changes in women’s incarceration over time because we are forced to rely on the limited sources available, which are neither updated regularly nor always compatible across years....
The picture of women’s incarceration is far from complete, and many questions remain about mass incarceration’s unique impact on women. This report offers the critical estimate that a quarter of all incarcerated women are unconvicted. But — since the federal government hasn’t collected the key underlying data in almost 20 years — is that number growing? And how do the harms of that unnecessary incarceration intersect with women’s disproportionate caregiving to impact families? Beyond these big picture questions, there are a plethora of detailed data points that are not reported for women by any government agencies, such as the simple number of women incarcerated in U.S. territories or involuntarily committed to state psychiatric hospitals because of justice system involvement.
While more data is needed, the data in this report lends focus and perspective to the policy reforms needed to end mass incarceration without leaving women behind.
March 1, 2023 in Detailed sentencing data, Offender Characteristics, Prisons and prisoners, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (3)
Tuesday, February 28, 2023
BJS releases interesting data on "Employment of State and Federal Prisoners Prior to Incarceration, 2016"
The Bureau of Justice Statistics today released this new web report presenting data on employment of state and federal prisoners in the 30 days prior to arrest for the offense for which they were incarcerated. The findings are based on data collected in 2016, so are a bit dated. They are still interesting, and here are some of the listed "Key Findings."
-
More than 6 in 10 state (61%) and federal (63%) prisoners were employed in the 30 days prior to arrest for the offense for which they were incarcerated, with about half (49% state and 54% federal) having a full-time job.
-
About a quarter of persons in state (24%) and federal (25%) prison were unemployed and not looking for work in the 30 days prior to arrest.
-
Females in state (47%) and federal (55%) prison were less likely to be employed than males in state (62%) and federal (64%) prison.
-
Among state prisoners, whites and Hispanics (66% each) were more likely than blacks (54%) to be employed in the 30 days prior to arrest. Among persons sentenced to serve time in federal prison, whites (64%) were more likely than blacks (54%) and American Indians or Alaska Natives (52%) and less likely than Hispanics (71%) and Asians, Native Hawaiians, or other Pacific Islanders (77%) to be employed in the 30 days prior to arrest.
-
Non-U.S. citizens in state (81%) and federal (78%) prison were more likely than U.S. citizens in state (60%) and federal (58%) prison to be employed in the 30 days prior to arrest.
-
Almost two-thirds of persons in state prison being held for violent (63%) offenses were employed in the 30 days prior to arrest, compared to more than half of those being held for property (57%) or drug (53%) offenses. Among persons in federal prison, 80% of those serving time for property, 67% for public-order, 60% for drug, and 58% for violent offenses were employed in the 30 days prior to arrest.
-
Persons in state and federal prison (59% in each) with one or more prior incarcerations were less likely to be employed than those in state (69%) and federal (73%) prison with no prior incarcerations. More than half of state (54%) and federal (51%) prisoners whose age at first arrest was younger than 18 were employed in the 30 days prior to arrest, compared to more than two-thirds of those in state (69%) and federal (72%) prison whose age at first arrest was 18 or older. through face-to-face interviews with a national sample of state and federal prisoners.
February 28, 2023 in Data on sentencing, Offender Characteristics, Prisons and prisoners | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, February 23, 2023
BJS releases data on "Correctional Populations" and "Probation and Parole" at end of 2021
The Bureau of Justice Statistics today released its latest detailed accounting of national correctional populations and populations on probation and parole at the close of 2021. This BJS press release reports on some highlights and provides links to the full documents with lots and lots of data:
The total correctional population in the United States fell 1% from yearend 2020 to 2021, according to statistics in Correctional Populations in the United States, 2021 – Statistical Tables and Probation and Parole in the United States, 2021, two reports released today by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The number of persons held in prison or jail or supervised in the community on probation or parole decreased by 61,100, down to an estimated 5,444,900. Overall, an estimated 1 in 48 U.S. residents age 18 or older were under correctional supervision at yearend 2021, down from 1 in 47 in 2020.
“Although the COVID-19 pandemic caused significant short-term changes in correctional estimates, the overall correctional population continues to decline,” said Dr. Alexis Piquero, Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Over the 10-year period from 2011 to 2021, the U.S. correctional population declined 22%. A drop in the number of persons supervised in the community on probation accounted for 65% of this overall change, while decreases in the number of persons incarcerated in state and federal prison accounted for 26% of the change.
In 2021, the U.S. incarceration rate increased for the first time in 15 years. However, the rate was still lower than the pre-COVID-19 pandemic rate of 810 per 100,000 in 2019. The increase in the incarceration rate was driven by a 16% growth in the number of persons housed in local jails, which held an additional 87,200 persons from 2020 to 2021.
In 2021, the community supervision rate fell to a 21-year low of 1,440 persons on probation or parole per 100,000 adult U.S. residents, after declining each year since it peaked at 2,240 persons per 100,000 in 2007. At yearend 2021, an estimated 3,745,000 adults were under community supervision, down 136,600 persons from January 1, 2021. During 2021, the probation population decreased in 31 states and in the U.S. federal system and increased in 18 states and the District of Columbia. The rate of adults on probation in 2021 was at its lowest point in 36 years (1,143 per 100,000 adult U.S. residents)....
Changes in the demographic characteristics of the U.S. correctional population were small from 2020 to 2021 but were greater than 20% over the decade from 2011 to 2021. The number of males in the total correctional population declined less than 1% (down 28,300) from 2020 to 2021, while the number of females decreased 3% (down 32,800). Compared to 2011, the number of males under correctional supervision in 2021 declined by 21% and females decreased 25%. Over that same decade, the number of black persons under correctional supervision decreased more than 27%, while the number of Hispanic persons declined 21% and whites declined 20%.
“It is important to note that while blacks and Hispanics remain incarcerated at greater rates than whites, we are seeing long-term reductions in those differences,” said Director Piquero.
Correctional Populations in the United States, 2021 – Statistical Tables was written by BJS Statisticians E. Ann Carson, PhD, and Richard Kluckow, DSW. It provides statistics from several BJS data collections on persons living in the community while supervised by probation or parole agencies and those incarcerated under the jurisdiction of state or federal correctional authorities or in the custody of local jails.
Probation and Parole in the United States, 2021 was written by BJS Statistician Danielle Kaeble. Findings are from BJS’s Annual Probation Survey, Annual Parole Survey and Federal Justice Statistics Program, which are the only national data collections that cover community corrections in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. federal system.
February 23, 2023 in Data on sentencing, Prisons and prisoners, Reentry and community supervision, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (26)
Sunday, February 19, 2023
Reviewing pandemic-era increases in prison deaths
This new New York Times piece provides a review of the increase in prison deaths reasonably attributed to the COVID pandemic. The piece carries this full title: "As the Pandemic Swept America, Deaths in Prisons Rose Nearly 50 Percent: The first comprehensive data on prison fatalities in the Covid era sheds new light on where and why prisoners were especially vulnerable." Here is how the piece starts:
Deaths in state and federal prisons across America rose nearly 50 percent during the first year of the pandemic, and in six states they more than doubled, according to the first comprehensive data on prison fatalities in the era of Covid-19.
The tremendous jump in deaths in 2020 was more than twice the increase in the United States overall, and even exceeded estimates of the percentage increase at nursing homes, among the hardest-hit sectors nationwide. In many states, the data showed, high rates continued in 2021.
While there was ample evidence that prisons were Covid hot spots, an examination of the data by The New York Times underscored how quickly the virus rampaged through crowded facilities, and how an aging inmate population, a correctional staffing shortage and ill-equipped medical personnel combined to make prisoners especially vulnerable during the worst public health crisis in a century.
“There are so many who passed away due to not getting the medical care they needed,” said Teresa Bebeau, whose imprisoned friend died from complications of Covid and cancer in South Carolina. “Most of these people, they didn’t go in there with death sentences, but they’re dying.”
Covid infections drove the death totals, but inmates also succumbed to other illnesses, suicide and violence, according to the data, which was collected by law school researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, and provides a more detailed, accurate look at deaths in prison systems during the pandemic than earlier efforts.
Altogether, at least 6,182 people died in American prisons in 2020, compared with 4,240 the previous year, even as the country’s prison population declined to about 1.3 million from more than 1.4 million.
Several of the states with the highest mortality rates in 2020 had a history of elevated prison deaths, including Alabama, Arkansas, South Carolina and West Virginia. Researchers said the high numbers — 96 deaths per 10,000 prisoners in West Virginia, more than in any other state — stemmed from long sentences, harsh conditions and relatively poor public health overall.
February 19, 2023 in Impact of the coronavirus on criminal justice, Prisons and prisoners | Permalink | Comments (5)
Thursday, February 16, 2023
CCJ releases "Long sentences, better outcomes: Opportunities to improve prison programming"
I keep noting this post from earlier this year discussing the Council of Criminal Justice's impressive Task Force on Long Sentences, in part because that Task Force is continuing to produce all sorts of interesting documents about long sentences (see prior posts linked below). The latest report, available here, is authored by Roger Przybylski and is titled "Long sentences, better outcomes: Opportunities to improve prison programming." Here is the report's introduction:
People serving long prison sentences — defined as sentences of 10 years or more — make up a large and growing share of the prison population in the United States. In 2005, roughly 459,000 people were serving long sentences, accounting for 46% of the state prison population. By 2019, the number had grown to 524,000 and the proportion to 57%.
Policymakers, practitioners, and researchers have long been interested in prison-based programming that prepares people to engage productively in their communities post-release and reduces recidivism (i.e., re-arrest, reconviction, or reincarceration). Although a robust body of knowledge on the types of prison programs most strongly associated with reduced recidivism has been developed over the past 40 years, research on the effectiveness of these programs has not focused specifically on participants serving long sentences.
Fewer than 10 prison systems have implemented programs specifically for people serving long sentences in recent years; these programs are in their infancy and have not yet been rigorously evaluated for effectiveness. They focus on enhancing skills for adapting to prison life and/or mentoring younger incarcerated individuals serving shorter sentences — and are not designed to comprehensively meet the therapeutic, reentry, and other needs of people serving long sentences. As a result, relatively little is known about the development, implementation, and effectiveness of programming that targets the unique needs of those in prison for long periods of time.
This brief describes the specialized needs of individuals serving long sentences, explores how prison-based programming might address those needs, describes existing programs for people serving long sentences, examines common obstacles to program access and engagement for this population, and identifies opportunities to enhance positive outcomes, both during custody and after release.
Prior related posts on CCJ's Task Force on Long Sentences:
- Notable CCJ new task force examining long prison terms
- Council on Criminal Justice releases "Long Sentences by the Numbers"
- Council on Criminal Justice releases "Long Sentences: An International Perspective"
- Council on Criminal Justice releases Illinois analysis of "The Public Safety Impact of Shortening Lengthy Prison Terms"
February 16, 2023 in Data on sentencing, Prisons and prisoners, Reentry and community supervision, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (0)
Wednesday, February 15, 2023
New Sentencing Project report: "Counting Down: Paths to a 20-Year Maximum Prison Sentence"
The folks at the Sentencing Project have long advocated for an absolute limit on the length of prison terms, and this new 20-page report on the topic is titled "Counting Down: Paths to a 20-Year Maximum Prison Sentence." Here is part of the report's executive summary:
In the United States, over half of people in prison are serving a decade or longer and one in seven incarcerated people are serving a life sentence. To end mass incarceration, the United States must dramatically shorten sentences. Capping sentences for the most serious offenses at 20 years and shifting sentences for all other offenses proportionately downward, including by decriminalizing some acts, is a vital decarceration strategy to arrive at a system that values human dignity and prioritizes racial equity.
This report begins by examining the evidence in support of capping sentences at 20 years. Countries such as Germany and Norway illustrate that sentences can be far shorter without sacrificing public safety. A wealth of criminological evidence makes clear that unduly long sentences are unnecessary: people age out of crime, and even the general threat of long term imprisonment is an ineffective deterrent.
The Sentencing Project recommends the following seven legislative reforms to cap sentences at 20 years and right-size the sentencing structure:
1. Abolish death and life without parole (LWOP) sentences, limiting maximum sentences to 20 years.
2. Limit murder statutes to intentional killings, excluding offenses such as felony murder, and reduce homicide penalties.
3. Eliminate mandatory minimum sentences and reform sentencing guidelines to ensure that judges can use their discretion to consider mitigating circumstances.
4. Provide universal access to parole and ensure timely review.
5. Eliminate consecutive sentences and limit sentence enhancements, including repealing “truth-in-sentencing” and “habitual offender” laws.
6. Create an opportunity for judicial “second look” resentencing within a maximum of 10 years of imprisonment, regardless of an individual’s offense.
7. Shift all sentences downward, including by de-felonizing many offenses and decriminalizing many misdemeanors.
Finally, this report offers ideas for how stakeholders can take steps toward shrinking sentences today. Prosecuting attorneys can use their discretion to limit sentences to 20 years when charging and plea bargaining, as well as engage in sentence review. Judges can impose lower sentences where possible. And communities can invest in interventions that prevent long sentences by keeping people from entering or reentering the criminal legal system altogether. Limiting maximum terms to 20 years need not be the end goal of criminal legal reform — 20 years is still an extraordinary length of time in prison — but it is an essential step toward a fair and proportionate justice system.
February 15, 2023 in Prisons and prisoners, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (1)
Wednesday, February 08, 2023
Sentencing Project releases "Ending 50 Years of Mass Incarceration: Urgent Reform Needed to Protect Future Generations"
The folks at The Sentencing Project have a new website and a new "featured campaign" (with its own webpage) titled "50 Years and a Wake Up: Ending The Mass Incarceration Crisis In America." As explained on the webpage: "The campaign raises awareness about the dire state of the U.S. criminal legal system, the devastating impact of incarceration on communities and families, and proposes more effective crime prevention strategies for our country."
The most recent publication from the campaign is titled "Ending 50 Years of Mass Incarceration: Urgent Reform Needed to Protect Future Generations." This eight-page document has a number of graphics and charts; its text begins this way (footnotes removed):
By year end 2021, the U.S. prison population had declined 25% since reaching its peak in 2009. Still, the 1.2 million people imprisoned in 2021 were nearly six times the prison population 50 years ago, before the prison population began its dramatic growth. The United States remains a world leader in incarceration, locking up its citizens at a far higher rate than any other industrialized nation.
At the current pace of decarceration, averaging 2.3% annually since 2009, it would take 75 years — until 2098 — to return to 1972’s prison population.
It is unacceptable to wait more than seven decades to substantively alter a system that violates human rights and is out of step with the world, is racially biased, and diverts resources from effective public safety investments. To achieve meaningful decarceration, policymakers must reduce prison admissions and scale back sentence lengths — both for those entering prisons and those already there. The growing movement to take a “second look” at unjust and excessive prison terms is a necessary first step. As the country grapples with an uptick in certain crimes, ending mass incarceration requires accelerating recent reforms and making effective investments in public safety.
Another longer document in this campaign was released a few weeks ago and is called "Mass Incarceration Trends." Among other part of that document is a chart highlighting that an era of massively increased incarceration also brought massive increases in community supervision:
As depicted in Figure 3, probation and parole have expanded both in the absolute number and length of supervision for several decades now. Between 1980 and 2020, the number of people on probation nearly tripled and the number of people under parole supervision nearly quadrupled.
February 8, 2023 in Data on sentencing, Detailed sentencing data, Prisons and prisoners, Reentry and community supervision, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (3)
Wednesday, February 01, 2023
New Massachusetts bill provides sentence reductions for when "incarcerated individual has donated bone marrow or organ(s)"
The comments to this blog have been, as the kids like to say, "on fire" lately. And I suspect and hope lots of different folks will have lots of different opinions to share (respectfully) about a new bill introduced in The 193rd General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Specifically, as reported in this Insider article and detailed in the bill available at this link, some legislators in Massachusetts have introduced a proposal that provides a notable new way for incarcerated individual reduce a term of imprisonment. The headline of the press piece notes the essentials: "A proposed Massachusetts bill would give inmates up to a year off their sentence — if they donate their organs." Here are more of the particulars:
Forget sentence reductions for good behavior: With a proposed bill making its way through the Massachusetts legislature, inmates could receive up to a year off their jail sentence by donating their organs.
Bill HD.3822, called the "Act to establish the Massachusetts incarcerated individual bone marrow and organ donation program," would allow eligible incarcerated people to receive no fewer than 60 but no more than 365 days off their sentences for donating their marrow or organs. It has not passed through the Massachusetts House of Representatives.
The act, if passed, would create a five-person panel to oversee the implementation of the program, made up of two Department of Corrections officials, an organ donation specialist from a state hospital, and two advocates focusing on organ donation and prisoners' rights. The panel would determine eligibility standards and file reports of annual donations and "estimated life-savings associated with said donations." "There shall be no commissions or monetary payments to be made to the Department of Correction for bone marrow donated by incarcerated individuals," the proposed text reads....
State Rep. Judith Garcia, one of the co-sponsors, explained the proposal with an infographic on Twitter, saying the Massachusetts organ donation waiting list has nearly 5,000 people on it, disproportionately impacting Black and Hispanic residents, with no existing path to organ donation for incarcerated people, even if a relative were in need of a donation. The bill would "restore bodily autonomy to incarcerated folks by providing opportunity to donate organs and bone marrow," the graphic read.
"It seems like something out of a science fiction book or horror story," Kevin Ring, president of the nonprofit organization Families Against Mandatory Minimums, told Insider. "It's just this sort of idea that we have this class of subhumans whose body parts [we] will harvest because they're not like us or because they're so desperate for freedom that they'd be willing to do this."
Ring, a former lobbyist who served 20 months in federal prison on public corruption charges as part of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, said he would have considered doing anything to reduce his sentence while he was incarcerated, making the whole thing feel like a coercive idea that "preys on that desperation." "In most state systems, you earn good time credits from participating in programming that is intended to reduce your risk of reoffending, so those things make sense," Ring said, listing examples like drug treatment programs and job training to show initiative and work toward rehabilitation. "Those are things that are at least connected, relevant, to releasing them early. This one seems like it's not, though and it just begs the question, like, how about two years off for a limb, for an amputee? What's going on here? It's dark."
In an email sent to Families Against Mandatory Minimums and reviewed by Insider, a cosponsor of the bill, State Rep. Carlos Gonzalez, told Ring the legislation would "only establish support to those incarcerated and provide guidelines, clarity, and transparency for a potential life-saving voluntary deed."...
Prisoners' Legal Services of Massachusetts, a legal aid group, said in a statement to Insider that the intent behind the bill made sense to try to address issues of racial inequity and the need for organ donation, but didn't appear to be a comprehensive solution due to the risk of coercion....
Ring told Insider he doesn't think it's likely the bill will become law, given an especially negative response to it on social media. "We're in the criminal justice movement, we appreciate that people make mistakes," Ring told Insider. "I can't believe these people are some sort of Frankenstein monsters, I think they just goofed. They're probably well-intentioned, but it's just a disastrous idea."
I am eager to hear all sorts of comments any aspects of this bill, but my first question is whether anyone thinks this proposal would be unconstitutional. I suspect lots of folks may have strong thoughts about whether this bill is good or bad policy, but I would be interested to hear if anyone have a strong constitutional take as well.
February 1, 2023 in Offender Characteristics, Prisons and prisoners, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (4)
Monday, January 30, 2023
"Suffering Before Execution"
The title of this post is the title of this new article authored by Lee Kovarsky now available via SSRN. Here is its abstract:
When condemned people suffer before their executions, does that suffering represent punishment? I argue that it does not — at least not the suffering on American-style death rows. American institutions instead administer pre-execution confinement as something closer to non-punitive detention, and I make several normative claims about what should follow from that status. Among other things, a non-punitive paradigm entails thicker constitutional constraints on solitary confinement and unsafe living conditions. It also represents a novel solution to a challenging doctrinal puzzle involving confinement, execution, and the Eighth Amendment.
To understand why pre-execution confinement is nonpunitive, readers need a basic understanding of the experience itself. Most death-sentenced people will lead lives marked by some substantial combination of inadequate nutrition, deficient health care, substandard sanitation and ventilation, restricted movement, and excessive isolation. On average, those whom the state kills will have spent about twenty years in such conditions — up from two years in 1960. The distribution of this suffering across the death-sentenced prisoner cohort bears little relationship to criminal blameworthiness. Almost without exception, however, scholarship and decisional law continue to treat confinement before execution as punishment.
That assumption is unjustified as a matter of penal theory, for two reasons. First, confinement before execution does not meet consensus criteria for punishment. It is instead suffering that is collateral to an incapacitation interest. Second, if pre-execution confinement were to be taken seriously as a punitive practice, then it would be normatively unjustified. More specifically, punitive confinement would represent punishment beyond the legally specified maximum (an execution), and it would distribute that punishment across the death-sentenced prisoner cohort arbitrarily.
There is a reasonably well-developed body of constitutional law capable of absorbing a shift in the status of pre-execution confinement. On that constitutional law, when the state detains people primarily to incapacitate them, that detention is preventative, not punitive. Due process, rather than the Eighth Amendment, constrains such preventative detention. A nonpunitive approach would reduce suffering because the constitutional rules contain different, more stringent constraints on pre-execution confinement. Such an approach would also give the Supreme Court satisfactory answers to difficult Eighth Amendment questions that have eluded it for quite some time.
January 30, 2023 in Death Penalty Reforms, Prisons and prisoners | Permalink | Comments (1)
Thursday, January 26, 2023
VERA Institute provides first-person accounts of "The Human Toll of Jail"
Via email today I learned that the Vera Institute of Justice has launched another round of first-person essays about jail experienced under the titled "The Human Toll of Jail." Here is how the project is introduced on the site's main webpage (with links from the original):
Every year, people cycle through the revolving doors of the more than 3,000 jails operating in the United States — too often invisible to the public. But the truth of this hidden population is that the roughly 10.3 million annual U.S. jail admissions cause immense harm and disruption to people’s lives, families, and communities.
In 2016, the Vera Institute of Justice launched the Human Toll of Jail project to humanize the costs of incarceration and uplift true stories about people whose lives are affected by jail, in their own words. The project featured essays by people who had spent time in jail, their families and communities, and people who work in the system.
In 2023, mass incarceration continues to be the default setting of the U.S. “justice” system, and the conversation about the misuse of jails isn’t over. Vera has now partnered with PEN America’s Prison and Justice Writing program to embark on a second round of stories from people living the harsh realities of life behind bars.
Together, Vera and PEN invited submissions from currently incarcerated people, who give an up-close and honest view of life within U.S. jails today. From a wide-ranging pool of submissions, a selection committee chose eight winners, whose work appears here with custom illustrations inspired by each essay. With these personal and eye-opening essays, Vera and PEN America seek to amplify the voices of incarcerated writers, further conversations about the horrors and trauma of jail, and ultimately, ensure that people in the system are treated with dignity.
January 26, 2023 in Prisons and prisoners, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (39)
Wednesday, January 25, 2023
"Where people in prison come from: The geography of mass incarceration"
The title of this post is the title of this new report from the Prison Policy Initiative authored by Emily Widra. Here is how the data-heavy report gets started:
One of the most important criminal legal system disparities in the United States has long been difficult to decipher: Which communities and neighborhoods throughout the state do incarcerated people come from? Anyone who lives in or works within heavily policed and incarcerated communities intuitively knows that certain neighborhoods disproportionately experience incarceration. But data have rarely been available to quantify how many people from each community are imprisoned with any real precision.
But now, thanks to redistricting reforms that ensure incarcerated people are counted correctly in the legislative districts they come from, we can understand the geography of incarceration in twelve states with up-to-date data. These twelve states — California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington — are among the states that have ended prison gerrymandering, and now count incarcerated people where they legally reside — at their home address — rather than in remote prison cells. This type of reform, as we often discuss, is crucial for ending the siphoning of political power from disproportionately Black and Latino communities to pad out the mostly rural, predominantly white regions where prisons are located. And when reforms like these are implemented, they bring along a convenient side effect: In order to correctly represent each community’s population counts, states must collect detailed state-wide data on where imprisoned people call home, which is otherwise impossible to access.
These data also allow us to better understand how incarceration rates correlate with other community problems related to poverty, employment, education, and health. While the data is not comparable between states, it does show us meaningful patterns in incarceration and researchers, scholars, advocates, and politicians can use the data in this report to advocate for programs and services housed outside the criminal legal system in the communities that need them most.
January 25, 2023 in Prisons and prisoners, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (11)
Tuesday, January 17, 2023
California working to clear condemned inmates from death row
This recent NPR piece, headlined "California says it will dismantle death row. The move brings cheers and anger," provides an interesting overview of the state of California's death penalty as it seeks to clear the nation's largest (and largely dormant) death row. I recommend the full piece, and here are excerpts:
California this week pushed ahead with controversial efforts to dismantle the largest death row system in America.
Under Gov. Gavin Newsom, the state is moving to make the transfer of condemned inmates permanent and mandatory after what the state's Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) calls a successful pilot program that voluntarily moved 101 inmates off death row into general population prisons across the state....
After a 45-day public comment period and a public hearing in March, the state hopes to start moving all 671 death row inmates – 650 men and 21 women — into several other prisons across the state with high-security units. Some prisoners will be able to get jobs or cellmates if they are mainstreamed into the general prison population.
The CDCR says the move allows the state "to phase out the practice of segregating people on death row based solely on their sentence." No inmates will be re-sentenced and no death row commutations offered, officials say.
Technically, the death penalty still exists in California. Prosecutors can still seek it. But no one has been put to death in the state in 17 years. And in 2019, Newsom imposed a moratorium on executions and he closed the death chamber at San Quentin, the decrepit and still heavily used 19th century prison overlooking San Francisco Bay.
Those who get prison jobs — as clerks, laundry or kitchen helpers – will see 70 percent of their pay go to victims' families, as required under Proposition 66. That 2016 voter-passed initiative amended California's Penal Code to require death-sentenced inmates to work and pay restitution....
But death penalty proponents and victims' rights advocates are frustrated and angry. "To hear this news is devastating," says Sandra Friend. She described feeling victimized all over again. Her 8-year-old son Michael Lyons was making his way home from school in Yuba City, Calif., in 1996 when he was abducted and sodomized by serial killer Robert Boyd Rhoades, who dumped the child's body in a riverbed....
In part, California's death penalty reforms grew out of 2016's Prop. 66, which promised to speed up the time between a death sentence and an execution. The successful ballot measure also required condemned prisoners to work and pay restitution. Now death penalty proponents accuse Newsom of exploiting a lesser-known section of Prop. 66 for his own ideological and political purposes.
"The governor has taken loopholes and nuances in the law and used them to give criminals — the worst criminals — a break," says Michael Rushford, president of the conservative Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. "To start mainstreaming people like Tiequon Cox, who killed an entire family in Los Angeles after going to the wrong address to do a gang hit, is an abandonment of justice. Injecting politics into criminal justice and public safety is insane. It's unjust, unfair and it's stupid."...
In California, Sandra Friend says it's outrageous that killers like Rhoades may "get rewarded," as she puts it, with expanded work options, even a cellmate. "For him to be able to leave death row and go into a cushier prison, having maybe possibly a cellie, having a job, is terrifying because he is the worst of the worst. He is a monster," she says.
State officials underscore that inmate transfers and their housing will depend on the specific facts of each inmate. "Their housing would depend on their individual case factors, and it's what the multidisciplinary teams will be evaluating," says CDCR spokeswoman Vicky Waters.... The state hopes to permanently empty California's death row by this fall, a CDCR official says.
Friend vows to fight the effort. A public hearing on the issue is scheduled in Sacramento for March 8. "I'm definitely going to make Michael's voice heard," she says, "because he's the one that is getting lost in all of this."
January 17, 2023 in Death Penalty Reforms, Prisons and prisoners, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (9)
Wednesday, January 11, 2023
Prison Journalism Project taking a deep dive into "The Graying of America’s Prisons"
The Prison Journalism Project, which aspires to bring "transparency to the world of mass incarceration from the inside and training incarcerated writers to be journalists," this week is debuting a new "special project on America’s graying prison system." This introductory article is fully titled "The Graying of America’s Prisons: In a first-of-its-kind project, PJP contributors chronicle the now ubiquitous experience of growing old behind bars." This article starts, and sets the tone for the special project, in this way (links from the original):
Prison makes an awful elderly care facility, yet more prisons are rapidly becoming just that.
Thanks in large part to longer prison sentences and decreasing rates of parole, the number of incarcerated people 55 and older has climbed from 48,000 to 160,000 over the last two decades.
In 2019, this age cohort made up 63% of state prison deaths for the first time since figures were tracked, according to the most recent data available.
That’s why Prison Journalism Project is debuting a special project on America’s graying prison system. Over the coming weeks, we’ll publish stories every Tuesday and Thursday from incarcerated writers that chronicle different facets of growing old behind bars. We will collect the stories below as they appear on the website. Eric Finley brings us the first essay in the series, in which he explains the explosion of older people inside the Florida Department of Corrections.
In the weeks to come, writers Mithrellas Curtis and Chanell Burnette will share stories on the legal battle for adequate senior health care inside their Virginia prison.
January 11, 2023 in Offender Characteristics, Prisons and prisoners, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (1)
"Just for Kids? How the Youth Decarceration Discourse Endorses Adult Incarceration"
The title of this post is the title of this new paper authored by Hedi Viterbo now available via SSRN. Here is its abstract:
This article lays bare three interrelated and previously overlooked pitfalls of calls to reduce or abolish youth incarceration. First, despite their anti-carceral semblance, such calls persistently portray the overwhelming majority of people in trouble with the law — namely, adults — as incorrigible, blameworthy, and therefore as deserving of punishment and imprisonment. Second, this ageist rhetoric often disregards adult vulnerability. Thus, despite adults’ greater medical vulnerability to the COVID-19 disease, it is youth whom some organizations singled out or even called to prioritize for release from prisons during the coronavirus pandemic. Third, at the heart of the youth decarceration discourse are essentialist assumptions about youth, which rest on questionable science and downplay the socially constructed dimension of age differences. All three pitfalls epitomize a dual fault of the child rights discourse more broadly, as evidenced in other contexts: repeatedly lending legitimacy to punitiveness and apathy toward adults while also working to the detriment of children. Doubtless, there are compelling arguments against penal confinement, but it is only decarceration across the age spectrum that can truly challenge carceral thinking — and ageism.
January 11, 2023 in Offender Characteristics, Prisons and prisoners, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (1)
Tuesday, January 10, 2023
"Are Schools in Prison Worth It? The Effects of and Economic Returns to Prison Education"
The title of this post is the title of this paper available via SSRN and authored by Steven Sprick Schuster and Ben Stickle. Here is its abstract:
We estimate the effects of various forms of prison education on recidivism, post-release employment, and post-release wages. Using a sample of 148 estimates drawn from 78 papers, we conduct a meta-analyses to estimate the effect of four forms of prison education (adult basic education, secondary, vocational, and college). We find that prison education leads to decreases in recidivism and increases in post-release employment and wages. The largest effects are experienced by prisoners who participated in vocational or college education programs.
We also calculate the economic returns on educational investment for both prisons and prisoners. We find that each form of education yields large, positive returns, due primarily to the high costs of incarceration, and therefore high benefits to crime avoidance. The returns vary across education types, with vocational education featuring the highest return to each dollar spent ($3.10) and college seeing the highest positive impact for each student participating ($16,863).
January 10, 2023 in Prisons and prisoners, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (1)
Friday, January 06, 2023
Some highlights from Ohio's sweeping new criminal justice reform bill
From sentencing to prison reform to marijuana policy to record relief, Ohio has long been a state with all sort of dynamics developments across a range of criminal law and policy issues of great interest to me. And, as this local article details, these dynamic realities continued in the Buckeye State at the end of 2022 and into 2023 as the Ohio General Assebly finally completed a long-in-development major criminal reform bill known as Senate Bill 288. There is so much in the massive SB 288, I am still looking for an effective and complete summary. But the press piece reviews some of the parts I wish to highlight here:
Gov. Mike DeWine on Tuesday signed into law an enormous criminal justice reform bill making it easier for Ohioans to adjust to life after their release, giving state officials wider latitude to release inmates early, reducing the consequences of minor marijuana offenses, and reducing underage drinking penalties, among dozens of other provisions.
The most high-profile part of the new law, added shortly before it passed the legislature, toughens Ohio’s distracted-driving laws. But the 1,000-page bill, which passed the legislature with overwhelming support, also makes the greatest changes to Ohio’s criminal code in years.
The new law, which takes effect in early April, was the product of nearly two years of work by state lawmakers and various agencies and groups. DeWine, before signing Senate Bill 288 during a Statehouse signing ceremony, said that while Ohioans might not agree with every part of the legislation, “everybody was heard” about their opinions. “I think legislators should be complimented on the fact that they reached out to prosecutors, that they reached out to defenders, that they reached out to law-enforcement agencies,” the governor said....
Two of the most important parts of SB288 will expand when people convicted of crimes can seek to have their criminal records sealed – in other words, kept private with limited exceptions – or expunged, meaning their record is destroyed altogether. Proponents argue that sealing and expunging helps to address widespread problems with former inmates getting housing, being offered a job, or securing a loan because of their criminal record.
Other parts of the new law will:
Allow prosecutors or city law directors to expunge thousands of low-level marijuana possession offenses, as well as ensure that arrests or convictions for possessing marijuana paraphernalia won’t appear on Ohioans’ criminal records.
Give the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, the state’s prison agency, more power to decide when inmates should be granted an early release.
Set up a process for inmates to ask a judge for early release when the Ohio governor declares a state of emergency due to a pandemic or other public health crisis.
Allow inmates to shave more time off their sentences for participating in educational, job training, or drug treatment programs.
Expand Ohio’s “Good Samaritan” law that provides immunity from arrest or prosecution for people who seek medical assistance for an overdose – either on their own behalf or for someone else – as long as the person receiving that legal protection is referred to addiction treatment within 30 days....
Create the new offense of “strangulation,” which would range from a fifth-degree felony to a second-degree felony. Domestic-abuse advocates have worked for years to pass such a law, pointing to research indicating that victims who are strangled by their partner are more than seven times as likely to end up being murdered by their abuser....
Require a minimum five-year prison sentence for anyone convicted of “aggravated vehicular homicide” in cases where the victim is a firefighter or an emergency medical worker. The change was brought in response to the death of Cleveland firefighter Johnny Tetrick, who was killed during a hit-and-run along Interstate 90 last month.
Decriminalize fentanyl test strips, used to test substances for the opioid. Test strips are currently classified by Ohio law as “drug paraphernalia,” and people found to possess them can face up to 30 days in jail. Supporters of the move argue it will help reduce fatal overdoses in the state; critics say the strips can help drug users look for fentanyl, which was involved in 81% of Ohio overdose deaths in 2020, according to the Ohio Department of Health.
January 6, 2023 in Offense Characteristics, Prisons and prisoners, Reentry and community supervision, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (2)
Thursday, January 05, 2023
Council on Criminal Justice releases "Reflections on Long Prison Sentences: A Conversation with Crime Survivors, Formerly Incarcerated People, and Family Members"
In this post last year, I noted the formation of the Council of Criminal Justice's impressive Task Force on Long Sentences. Today, CCJ released its latest publication from the Task Force, titled "Reflections on Long Prison Sentences: A Conversation with Crime Survivors, Formerly Incarcerated People, and Family Members." This full 20-page report is worth a full read, and here are the document's "Key Takeaways":
While participants shared their experiences with long sentences from different perspectives, the views expressed reflected numerous common themes. These included:
+ Prison sentences-including long sentences-should serve the purpose of rehabilitation, a goal that many participants said was often impeded by a lack of programming in prisons.
+ Long sentences are not synonymous with accountability; rather, accountability comes from taking responsibility for the harm caused and making amends through personal changes.
+ People serving long sentences should have the opportunity to seek reconsideration of that sentence after a period of time through a process that bases release decisions, in part, on the cognitive, behavioral, and/or emotional growth individuals make while incarcerated.
+ Victims and survivors of crime should have a role in any sentencing reconsideration.
Participants made several specific recommendations in line with these themes. These included:
+ Provide programming and counseling to all individuals serving long sentences
+ Permit crime victims and survivors to request specific programming for the defendant in their case to complete while incarcerated, as part of pre-sentencing investigation reports
+ Provide victims and survivors, upon request, with information regarding expressions of remorse, educational or skills training, and other personal changes made by incarcerated individuals in their cases
+ In cases of sentencing reconsideration, provide victims and survivors general information about supports available to the incarcerated person post-release
+ Provide more opportunities for victim-offender dialogue throughout long prison sentences
+ Enhance transparency and communication during criminal justice processes and create mechanisms for quickly referring victims and survivors to community-based counseling and other therapeutic services
+ Give judges more complete contextual information about the background of the person being sentenced or resentenced, including facts about the impact of the crime(s) on victims and survivors
+ Provide earlier intervention and healing to at-risk children to prevent future crime, sparing individuals, families, and communities from the pain of violence and from the loss of young persons to long prison sentences
January 5, 2023 in Prisons and prisoners, Scope of Imprisonment, Victims' Rights At Sentencing | Permalink | Comments (6)
Sunday, January 01, 2023
Gearing up for a new federal sentencing year that might finally bring some new guideline amendments
Branch by branch, there are a lot of federal sentencing stories to watch as we start a new year. The last Congress made (halting) progress on some statutory sentencing reforms, but nothing major made it all the way to the President's desk. With the House of Representatives in GOP control in the new Congress, legislative dynamics have changed in ways that might diminish the prospects for any big reforms in 2023. But with murder rates ticking down a bit in 2022 and crime narratives seemingly not having a huge midterm poitical impact, perhaps some modest consgressional reform could still happen in the coming year.
On the executive front, I will be watching closely for early impacts of Attorney General Garland's new charging and sentencing memos (basics here). It will be particular interesting to see the effect of AG Garland's instructions to federal prosecutors to "promote the equivalent treatment of crack and powder cocaine offenses." And, with Prez Biden having used his clemency powers a few times in 2022 (with grants in April, October and December), maybe executive grace as well as prosecutorial discretion will continue to impact federal sentencing realities in the coming year.
The judicial branch is the arena in which I am expecting the most action in this new year. Focusing the courts, we may see in the coming weeks if the Supreme Court is finally ready to address acquitted conduct sentencing enhancments (details here). Other notable sentencing issues may also make their way to the SCOTUS docket because circuits are split on important topics like deference to the guidelines and application of a key part of the FIRST STEP Act. Other notable sentencing issues are sure to keep gurgling in district and circuit courts in the year ahead.
But I can most confidently predict judicial branch sentencing action in 2023 because the US Sentencing Commission, which is located in that branch, is finally now fully loaded and is hard at work on potential guidelines reforms. The Commission has now officially announced that it will have a public meeting on January 12, 2023 with an agenda to include "Possible Vote to Publish Proposed Guideline Amendments and Issues for Comment." Though we should not expect the USSC to advance amendments on all the topics mentioned in its ambitious list of priorities, we are sure to get some notable and impactful proposals to start the year from the Commission.
Notably, though the USSC's work is primarily focused on the sentencing guidelines, the agency can have real impact on other aspects of the justice system. This new Forbes article by Walter Palvo, headlined "A Federal Public Defender Challenges U.S. Sentencing Commission To Help Fix The Bureau Of Prisons," highlights Steve Sady's new article in the Federal Sentencing Reporter urging the USSC to "make recommendations regarding the Bureau of Prisons’ execution of Guidelines sentences." Here is an excerpt from the Forbes piece:
Interesting times as we start a new year.I recently spoke to Stephen Sady, Chief Deputy Federal Public Defender for the District of Oregon about a paper he wrote that was critical of the BOP but stated that the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) could encourage the BOP to balance long guideline sentences by implementing ameliorative statutes that reduce actual prison time. As Sady told me, “The BOP has failed to adequately implement critical legislation to improve the conditions of people in prison.”
As Sady points out, even as Congress has repeatedly provided options and directives that would reduce the time defendants spend in prison, the BOP has failed to implement the full scope of the available authority, resulting in expensive and pointless over-incarceration. The most important of these can be put into six categories, 1) Increase the availability of community corrections commensurate with repeated statutory directives for greater use of residential reentry centers and home confinement (18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)), 2) Expand eligibility and availability of sentence reductions under Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP), 3) Eliminate computation rules that create longer sentences, 4) Implement broader statutory and guideline standards to file compassionate release motions any time extraordinary and compelling reasons exist, 5) Revive the boot camp program to provide nonviolent offenders sentence reductions and expanded community corrections and 6) Fully implement the First Step Act’s earned time credit program (18 U.S.C. §§ 3632(d) and 3624(g)). No new legislation would be required for any of these reforms. “It’s a pragmatic approach,” Sady said, “that uses the laws already in place to do what the BOP should already be doing. This is not a stretch.”
January 1, 2023 in FIRST STEP Act and its implementation, Prisons and prisoners, Scope of Imprisonment, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (2)
Thursday, December 29, 2022
"Remorse, Relational Legal Consciousness, and the Reproduction of Carceral Logic"
The title of this post is the title of this paper authored by Kathryne M. Young and Hannah Chimowitz now available via SSRN. Here is its abstract:
One in seven people in prison in the US is serving a life sentence, and most of these “lifers” will someday be eligible for discretionary parole. But little is known about a key aspect of parole decision-making: remorse assessments. Because remorse is a complex emotion that arises from past wrongdoing and unfolds over time, assessing the sincerity of another person’s remorse is neither a simple task of lie detection, nor of determining emotional authenticity. Instead, remorse involves numerous elements, including the relationship between a person’s past and present motivations, beliefs, and affective states.
To understand how parole board members make sense of remorse, we draw on in-depth interviews with parole commissioners in California, the state with the largest proportion of parole-eligible lifers. We find that commissioners’ remorse assessments hinge on their perceptions of lifers’ relationships to law and carceral logic. In this way, relational legal consciousness — specifically, second-order legal consciousness — functions as a stand-in for the impossible task of knowing another person’s heart or mind. We distinguish relational from second-order legal consciousness and argue that understanding how they operate at parole hearings reveals the larger import of relational legal consciousness as a mechanism via which existing power relations are produced and reproduced, bridging the legal consciousness and law and emotion literatures.
December 29, 2022 in Prisons and prisoners, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (12)
Friday, December 23, 2022
A notable call for next steps on federal sentencing reform (with a too modest accounting of FIRST STEP's impact)
Doug Collins has this notable new commentary at Fox News under the headline "First Step Act showed Republicans and Democrats can work together to make justice system more just." I would recommend the full piece, and here are excerpts:
Four years ago this week, just before Christmas, both parties came together for a holiday miracle: passing the First Step Act, the most significant change to our justice system in decades. It was a win for Republicans and Democrats in Congress; a win for then-President Donald Trump; and, more importantly, a win for thousands of American families whose lives were changed for the better through a series of prison and sentencing reforms that were fair, safe, and spoke to American values.
To date, over 7,500 folks have been able to regain their lives after the passage of the First Step Act. These are Americans who made mistakes years ago, received unduly harsh penalties that sent them to prison for decades, and have now regained their freedom. This year, they get to spend Christmas at home with their families thanks to this legislation.
It goes to show that when it comes to criminal justice reform, major progress is more than possible; I’ve witnessed it firsthand. One of my proudest moments in Congress was seeing that bipartisan bill, which I worked across the aisle to put together with now-Minority Leader-elect Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, get signed into law at Trump’s desk. It was a reminder of how much we can get done, regardless of party, on the biggest issues of the day....
As a Christian, I firmly believe that we must support redemption for those who have atoned. The incredible, redemptive effect that passing bills like the First Step Act have across our country cannot be ignored. And as a conservative, I believe in cutting unnecessary government waste and trimming out-of-control spending, including within our justice system. It all comes down to what I call "M&M" — money and morals — and smart criminal justice legislation speaks to both....
As its name suggested, the First Step Act was just the first step, and there are many more steps that be taken to make our federal justice system fairer and more effective. Even while there is so much we are divided on as a country, when it comes to reforming our broken criminal justice system, there are plenty of promising paths forward. One of those next steps is ending one of the most unjust laws we have on the books: the cocaine and crack sentencing disparity....
Unfortunately, Congress missed its chance to build on the First Step Act. This week, the EQUAL Act — the bipartisan bill to eliminate the sentencing disparity — was left out of end-of-year Senate negotiations. And while the Department of Justice did recently issue sentencing guidance to fix the disparity for future cases, it is still not a permanent solution and will not retroactively help the thousands of folks still in prison serving long sentences that don’t fit the crime....
Yet despite not making it over the finish line this year, I am extremely hopeful for the future: both for this legislation, and for more paradigm-shifting criminal justice reform. Before its untimely demise in the Senate, the EQUAL Act was approved with massive support from both the most conservative and liberal wings of the House, proving that bipartisan agreement on effective criminal justice policy is ripe for consideration in the coming Congress.... Let’s hope and pray that this time next year, our country will have taken the next step forward on criminal justice reform, and continue the great work we started with the First Step Act.
I am quite pleased to see former Rep Collins continue to advocate for the EQUAL Act both "as a Christian" and "as a conservative." But I think he undersells the achievements of the FIRST STEP Act when he speaks only of "over 7,500 folks have been able to regain their lives after the passage of the First Step Act." This (somewhat unclear) BOP page, indicates as of this writing that there have been 11,421 "First Step Act releases," and I suspect that number reflects only those who have gotten out a bit earlier thanks to the "earned time" credits of the FSA.
In addition, the BOP page reports nearly 4000 persons have benefitted from retroactive crack sentence reductions and andother nearly 4400 have benefitted from compassionate release thanks to new FSA processes. And these BOP numbers would seem to be undercounts, as the US Sentencing Commission has reported here over 4200 retroactive sentence reductions and has reported here over 4500 grants of compassionte release. (Of course, not everyone getting sentence reductions is getting immediately released from prison, but likely most are.) The BOP page also reports that over 1200 persons have benefitted from expanded elderly home confinement provided by the FSA.
Though a precise accounting the the exact number of federal prisonsers who have been released somewhat earlier thanks to the First Step Act is hard to pin down, I do think it is probably twice and maybe three times as large as the 7,500 number stated by Collins. And, assuming the newly filled US Sentencing Commission makes a variety of guideline amendments consistent with the FSA, the impacts of the First Step Act will continue to echo through the federal prison population.
December 23, 2022 in Criminal justice in the Trump Administration, FIRST STEP Act and its implementation, Prisons and prisoners, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, December 20, 2022
The Bureau of Justice Statistics releases data on "Jail Inmates in 2021" and "Prisoners in 2021"
Just in time to ring in 2023, the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the US Department of Justice has a lot of great new data about incarceration levels and rates as of the end of 2021. This press release, titled "U.S. Jail Population Increased While Prison Population Decreased in 2021," provides these highlights (and links) to the lastest data:
The Bureau of Justice Statistics is announcing the release of statistical tables on Jail Inmates in 2021 and Prisoners in 2021. Of note, the two incarcerated populations diverged in 2021, with the number of persons held in local jails increasing by 16% from 2020, while the number of persons in prison decreased 1%. Both populations decreased from 2019 to 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Regarding the jail population, local jails held 636,300 persons on the last weekday in June 2021, up from 549,100 at midyear 2020. The number of males confined in local jails increased 15% from 2020 to 2021, while females increased 22%.
The racial and ethnic composition of people held in local jails remained stable from 2020 to 2021. At midyear 2021, about 49% of people in local jails were white, 35% were black, and 14% were Hispanic. American Indians or Alaska Natives; Asians, Native Hawaiians, or Other Pacific Islanders; and persons of two or more races together accounted for 2% of the total jail population.
At midyear 2021, 29% of persons held in jail (185,000) were convicted, either serving a sentence or awaiting sentencing on a conviction, while 71% (451,400) were unconvicted, awaiting court action on a current charge or held in jail for other reasons. Unconvicted people in jail accounted for 81% of the increase in the jail population from midyear 2020 to midyear 2021. Three-quarters (76%) of all persons incarcerated in local jails at midyear 2021 were held for felony offenses (485,700 persons) compared to 18% (114,000) for misdemeanors and 6% (36,600) for other types of offenses.
Based on the occupancy rate, jails are still less crowded than about a decade ago. At midyear 2021, about 70% of jail beds were occupied, which is higher than the occupancy rate of 60% at midyear 2020 but lower than the rates from 2011 to 2019, which ranged from 81% to 85%.
The number of persons supervised by local jails outside of a jail facility increased by 12,100 (31%) from midyear 2020 to midyear 2021. At midyear 2021, local jails supervised 50,800 persons in various programs, such as electronic monitoring, home detention, day reporting, community service, alcohol or drug treatment programs, and other pretrial supervision and work programs outside of a jail facility.
Regarding the U.S. prison population, for the eighth consecutive year, the number of persons held in U.S. prisons declined, dropping from 1,221,200 at yearend 2020 to 1,204,300 at yearend 2021. The overall decline reflected a decrease in prison populations in 32 states that was offset by an increase in 17 states and the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). This one-year change is vastly different from 2019 to 2020, when 49 states (data for Idaho are not comparable) and the BOP had a decrease in the number of persons in prison, largely due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The imprisonment rate for adult U.S. residents in state or federal prison serving a sentence of more than one year also declined (down 2%) from yearend 2020 to 2021, from 460 to 449 sentenced prisoners per 100,000 adult U.S. residents. Over the 10-year period from 2011 to 2021, the adult imprisonment rate declined 30%.
Among racial and ethnic groups, black persons had the highest imprisonment rate in 2021 (1,186 per 100,000 adult black residents), followed by American Indian/Alaska Natives (1,004 per 100,000), Hispanics (619 per 100,00), whites (222 per 100,000) and Asians (90 per 100,000). Compared to 2011, adult imprisonment rates declined for all racial and ethnic groups in 2021, including a 40% decrease for black persons, 37% for Hispanics, 34% for Asians, 27% for whites, and 26% for American Indian/Alaska Natives.
Regarding the offense for which people were imprisoned, more than 651,800 persons (62% of all state prisoners) were serving sentences in state prison for a violent offense at yearend 2020, the most recent year for which offense data were available. Forty-seven percent (66,500) of all persons in federal prison were serving time for a drug offense on September 30, 2021 (the most recent date for which federal prison offense data were available), and an additional 20% (28,500) of persons sentenced to federal prison were serving a sentence for a weapons offense.
At yearend 2021, private facilities contracted to state departments of corrections or the BOP held 96,700 persons, a 3% decrease from yearend 2020. Local jail facilities held an additional 65,400 state or federal prisoners, down 11% from yearend 2020. Together, private and local facilities housed more than 13% of the total U.S. prison population in 2021.
The findings in the Jail Inmates in 2021 – Statistical Tables report are based on data from BJS’s Annual Survey of Jails, which BJS has conducted annually since 1982, and Census of Jails, which BJS has conducted periodically since 1970. It is the 35th report in a series that began in 1982. Findings in the Prisoners in 2021 – Statistical Tables report, the 96th report in the series, are based on data from BJS’s National Prisoner Statistics program, which has collected data on the U.S. prison population annually since 1926.
Jail Inmates in 2021 – Statistical Tables (NCJ 304888) was written by BJS Statistician Zhen Zeng, PhD. Prisoners in 2021 – Statistical Tables (NCJ 305125) was written by BJS Statistician E. Ann Carson, PhD.
December 20, 2022 in Data on sentencing, Detailed sentencing data, Prisons and prisoners, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (3)
Saturday, December 17, 2022
Highlighting still more notable new Inquest essays
I continue to struggle to find time to keep up with the steady stream of great pieces regularly posted at Inquest. As regular readers know from my regular postings, Inquest, "a decarceral brainstorm," keeps churning out must-read essays, and I try to keep up just by flagging here some of the recent sentencing/prison pieces folks may want to be sure check out:
By Katharine Blake, "A New Clarity: In search of an abolitionist language"
By Marcus Kondkar, "Face to Face: The Visiting Room offers an intimate glimpse into the stories of Louisianians serving life without parole"
By Abbe Smith, "Bars and Barriers: Far from a decarceral plan, 'Barred' is nonetheless a trenchant look at how the criminal system fails the innocent and guilty alike"
By Candice Delmas, "A Weapon of Last Resort: It's time to reconsider the power and promise of hunger strikes — without denying the tactic’s radical, disruptive, and violent character"
December 17, 2022 in Prisons and prisoners, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, December 15, 2022
District Court finds sexual assault by guard and assistance prosecuting perpetrator provide basis for sentence reduction under 3582(c)(1)(A)
A helpful reader alerted me to a notable new opinion from a federal district court in US v. Brice, No. 13-cr-206-2 (ED Pa. Dec. 15, 2022) (available fore download below), which finds “extraordinary and compelling” reasons warranting a sentence reduction in the defendant's sexual assault by a federal corrections officer and her assistance to prosecutors in bringing that officer to justice. Here is hope the Brice opinion gets started as a key passage:
This case presents a difficult question under the First Step Act for compassionate release and involves balancing the disturbing conduct underlying Defendant Rashidah Brice’s conviction with the extraordinary and compelling events that occurred after sentence was imposed. For reasons explained below, I will partially grant Brice’s motion and reduce her sentence by 30 months but will not order her release as she has requested. Although Brice’s circumstances are extraordinary and compelling and warrant a reduction from her original sentence, due to the serious and violent nature of her crimes and their effect on the victims, I find that releasing Brice now would not be consistent with the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)....
It is entirely appropriate for me to consider how Brice responded to suffering abuse at the hands of her prison guards. The “broad discretion” federal courts have “to consider all relevant information” at a “proceeding[] that may modify an original sentence” is “bounded only when Congress or the Constitution expressly limits the type of information a district court may consider in modifying a sentence.” Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2398 (2022). That Brice reacted to her trauma by agreeing to assist in the prosecution of her assailant supports a finding that Brice’s disproportionate suffering while in custody “warrant[s] . . . a reduction” in her sentence and that these circumstances are extraordinary and compelling. Despite facing tremendous adversity both in her personal life before prison and at the hands of a prison guard, Brice responded by preventing more inmates from being abused, including cooperating in an investigation regarding individuals who had authority over her and could have retaliated against her. I also note that Congress and the Department of Justice have determined that “[p]rison rape often goes unreported,” 34 U.S.C. § 30301(6), and “retaliation for reporting instances of sexual abuse and for cooperating with sexual abuse investigations is a serious concern in correctional facilities.” Department of Justice, National Standards To Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape, 77 F.R. 37106-01 (June 20, 2012).
The helpful reader who brought this ruling to my attention indicated this may be "the first time a federal court has concluded that either of these circumstances warrants compassionate release." The reader also rightly stated that this decision "is particularly timely, as Congress and Department of Justice leadership have been pressing the Bureau of Prisons to seek compassionate release for women abused behind bars."
December 15, 2022 in FIRST STEP Act and its implementation, Prisons and prisoners, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Sentences Reconsidered | Permalink | Comments (3)
"Do Prison Conditions Change How Much Punishment A Sentence Carries Out? Lessons From Federal Sentence Reduction Rulings During the COVID-19 Pandemic"
The title of this post is the title of this new paper now available via SSRN authored by Skylar Albertson. Here is its abstract:
A set of motions filed during the COVID-19 pandemic challenged federal judges to consider whether they should always view the duration of imprisonment — as contrasted with prison conditions — as the sole determinant of how much punishment a sentence carries out. Under 18 U.S.C § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), federal judges may “reduce” already imposed terms of imprisonment upon finding that “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant reductions. Prior to 2019, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) effectively controlled the scope of a catch-all subcategory of “Other Reasons” justifying sentence reductions. The BOP used this authority almost exclusively for people who were in the final stages of terminal illness. The First Step Act of 2018 (FSA) amended § 3582(c) in a manner that freed federal judges to decide for themselves what types of circumstances meet the “extraordinary and compelling reasons” standard. The FSA also authorized people in federal custody to file motions on their own behalf, instead of permitting only the Director of the BOP to do so.
Roughly a year later, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted the increased use of lockdowns and other restrictions inside U.S. prisons. Among the many thousands of people who moved for sentence reductions, several hundred argued that imprisonment with these new restrictions amounted to a greater punishment than pre-pandemic imprisonment. This Article explores the lessons that the decisions adjudicating these motions offer for the design of sentencing laws — including second looks — as well as efforts to increase transparency surrounding life inside prisons.
December 15, 2022 in FIRST STEP Act and its implementation, Prisons and prisoners, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (1)
Wednesday, December 14, 2022
Another ugly report about some ugly realities involving prison rape by guards in federal prisons
This new Reason article discusses a new disconcerting report emerging from the US Senate. The piece is fully headlined, "Senate Investigation Finds Federal Prisons Fail to Prevent or Investigate Rapes; Long delays and management failures 'allowed serious, repeated sexual abuse in at least four facilities to go undetected'." Here is how it gets started:
The federal Bureau of Prison's deeply flawed, backlogged system for investigating sexual assault fails to protect female inmates from rape while protecting employees who commit sexual assault, according to a bipartisan report issued today by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI).
The PSI investigation found that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has failed to implement a federal law to prevent prison rapes, and that long delays in investigating complaints have led to a backlog of more than 8,000 internal affairs cases, leading to failures to hold employees accountable. The report says that these management failures "allowed serious, repeated sexual abuse in at least four facilities to go undetected."
"BOP's internal affairs practices have failed to hold employees accountable, and multiple admitted sexual abusers were not criminally prosecuted as a result," the report concludes. "Further, for a decade, BOP failed to respond to this abuse or implement agency-wide reforms."
Overall, the PSI investigation found that BOP employees sexually abused female inmates in at least two-thirds of federal women's prisons over the last decade. However, the report focused on four prisons — MCC New York, MDC Brooklyn, FCC Coleman, and FCI Dublin — where it says multiple BOP employees abused multiple women.
The 68-page report from the Senate PSI is available at this link. It makes for hard, but important, reading.
December 14, 2022 in Prisons and prisoners | Permalink | Comments (7)
Monday, December 12, 2022
Rounding up some particularly recent ugly prison stories
Following incarceration news and commentary leads me to see, all too often, all sorts of discouraging reports about life in prison. I will sometimes post some of these reports, but they are really too frequent to cover fully in this space. Just in the last week, for example, I have seen so many of these kinds of pieces from so many sources that I thought a round up was in order:
From the AP, "AP Investigation: Prison boss beat inmates, climbed ranks"
From The Intercept, "Incarcerated People Forced To Do Dangerous Work For “Slave” Wages At Height Of Pandemic"
From The Mashall Project, "Federal Prisons Were Told to Provide Addiction Medications. Instead, They Punish People Who Use Them."
From NBC News, "No food in 9 days for 19 Nevada prisoners on hunger strike"
From the New York Times, "Some Prisoners Remain Behind Bars in Louisiana Despite Being Deemed Free"
From Salon, "Your child's glasses may have been made with forced prison labor"
December 12, 2022 in Prisons and prisoners | Permalink | Comments (1)
Thursday, December 08, 2022
New Sentencing Project report covers "Why Youth Incarceration Fails: An Updated Review of the Evidence"
Via email, I learned of this lengthy new report from The Sentencing Project titled "Why Youth Incarceration Fails: An Updated Review of the Evidence." Here is the start of the report's executive summary:
Though the number of youth confined nationwide has declined significantly over the past two decades, our country still incarcerates far too many young people.
It does so despite overwhelming evidence showing that incarceration is an ineffective strategy for steering youth away from delinquent behavior and that high rates of youth incarceration do not improve public safety. Incarceration harms young people’s physical and mental health, impedes their educational and career success, and often exposes them to abuse. And the use of confinement is plagued by severe racial and ethnic disparities.
This publication summarizes the evidence documenting the serious problems associated with the youth justice system’s continuing heavy reliance on incarceration and makes recommendations for reducing the use of confinement. It begins by describing recent incarceration trends in the youth justice system. This assessment finds that the sizable drop in juvenile facility populations since 2000 is due largely to a substantial decline in youth arrests nationwide, not to any shift toward other approaches by juvenile courts or corrections agencies once youth enter the justice system. Most youth who are incarcerated in juvenile facilities are not charged with serious violent offenses, yet the United States continues to confine youth at many times the rates of other nations. And it continues to inflict the harms of incarceration disproportionately on Black youth and other youth of color -- despite well-established alternatives that produce better outcomes for youth and community safety.
December 8, 2022 in Offender Characteristics, Prisons and prisoners, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (1)
Wednesday, December 07, 2022
"Freedom Denied: How the Culture of Detention Created a Federal Jailing Crisis"
The title of this post is the title of a remarkable 280-page report produced by Alison Siegler and the Federal Criminal Justice Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. Here is the start of its executive summary:
Over thirty years ago, the Supreme Court held that people charged with federal crimes should only rarely be locked in jail while awaiting trial: “In our society, liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception.” Given that everyone charged with a crime is presumed innocent under the law, federal judges should endeavor to uphold the Court’s commitment to pretrial liberty.
This Report reveals a fractured and freewheeling federal pretrial detention system that has strayed far from the norm of pretrial liberty. This Report is the first broad national investigation of federal pretrial detention, an often overlooked, yet highly consequential, stage of the federal criminal process. Our Clinic undertook an in-depth study of federal bond practices, in which courtwatchers gathered data from hundreds of pretrial hearings. Based on our empirical courtwatching data and interviews with nearly 50 stakeholders, we conclude that a “culture of detention” pervades the federal courts, with habit and courtroom custom overriding the written law. As one federal judge told us, “nobody’s . . . looking at what’s happening [in these pretrial hearings], where the Constitution is playing out day to day for people.”
Our Report aims to identify why the federal system has abandoned the norm of liberty, to illuminate the resulting federal jailing crisis, and to address how the federal judiciary can rectify that crisis. This Report also fills a gaping hole in the available public data about the federal pretrial detention process and identifies troubling racial disparities in both pretrial detention practices and outcomes.
Federal pretrial jailing rates have been skyrocketing for decades. Jailing is now the norm rather than the exception, despite data demonstrating that releasing more people pretrial does not endanger society or undermine the administration of justice. Federal bond practices should be unitary and consistent, since the federal bail statute — the Bail Reform Act of 1984 (the BRA) — is the law of the land and governs nationwide. Yet this study exposes a very different reality than that envisioned by the Supreme Court, one in which federal judges regularly deviate from and even violate the law, and on-the-ground practices vary widely from district to district.
December 7, 2022 in Prisons and prisoners, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing | Permalink | Comments (0)
"Dying Inside: To End Deaths of Despair, Address the Crisis in Local Jails"
The title of this post is the title of this notable new issue brief that was produced by folks with the Addiction & Public Policy Initiative of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law (and, full disclosure, that was supported by funding from the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center). Here is the starting text of the interesting eight-page document:
U.S. life expectancy has declined in recent years, primarily due to a series of converging public health crises that resulted in deaths from overdoses, suicides, and alcohol-related liver disease, sometimes referred to as “deaths of despair.” More recently, COVID-19 has accelerated this trend. These bleak numbers shine a spotlight on the historic challenges of treating medical conditions, mental health conditions, and substance use disorder (SUD), particularly in settings like local jails, which are traditionally separate from the general health care system.
Individuals entering jails and other correctional settings are more likely to have a chronic health condition or infectious disease, resulting in an increased risk to their physical health and well-being while incarcerated. A close look at statistics from local jails demonstrates that, far from being a safe haven from these converging crises, a failure to prioritize implementation of adequate policies and protocols addressing these issues in many local jails are fueling these crises for the individuals inside and everyone in our communities.
According to the latest data available from 2018-2019, deaths in jail custody have increased. Each and every one of these lost lives is a tragedy. In addition to the human cost, deaths in jail custody also account for hundreds of millions of dollars in financial costs and legal liability for governments and jail personnel.
Efforts at the local, state, and federal levels have begun a shift toward adopting more public healthoriented approaches in correctional settings, largely driven by an acknowledgement that addressing the health care and treatment needs of incarcerated people can positively impact both these individuals and the overall health of communities. However, government leaders and advocates at every level must undertake significant policy and practice changes to reduce deaths in jail custody and accelerate reform.
This brief outlines the legal framework on the right to adequate care and treatment for medical, mental health, and substance-related conditions in jails. The brief also highlights the findings of original research on litigation related to deaths in jail custody and provides recommendations for reform.
Two of the authors of this report, Regina LaBelle and Shelly Weizman, authored this related commentary in The Hill titled "We can’t ignore the ties binding US deaths of despair and incarceration."
December 7, 2022 in Prisons and prisoners | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, December 06, 2022
New Justice Department memo calls for "Prioritizing Restitution for Victims"
As detailed in this Washington Post piece, headlined "Prosecutors urged to more aggressively seize funds owed to crime victims," there is a notable new memo from the US Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco. Here are details and context from the press piece:
A new Justice Department memo issued Monday seeks to address criticism that the agency has shielded inmates’ money meant to go to the victims of their crimes, urging prosecutors to more aggressively pursue court cases to seize those funds....
The Washington Post has previously reported that a number of high-profile inmates, including former USA Gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar, singer R. Kelly and Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev have kept and spent thousands of dollars with their prison accounts, while paying only small amounts of court-ordered restitution to their victims. In each of those cases, prosecutors went to court to force the Bureau of Prisons to turn over the money — a process that has been criticized as unfair to victims and counterproductive since it requires one arm of the Justice Department to go to court against another arm of the same department.
Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco wrote the memo Monday to “encourage prosecutors to file restitution pleadings or to include restitution calculations in sentencing” documents. “Prosecutors should request that sentencing courts order that restitution be due and payable immediately, but if courts order otherwise, prosecutors should propose that payment plans be set at ‘the shortest time in which full payment can reasonably be made,’” the memo says.
Jason Wojdylo, who spent years at the U.S. Marshals trying to get the Bureau of Prisons to change its policy on inmates’ accounts and has since retired from government, called Monaco’s new memo “maddening” because “it does nothing to address the problem.” For years, Wojdylo said, federal prosecutors “have been doing everything they can to collect court-imposed debt inmates owe to victims,” and without any help from the Bureau of Prisons. Wojdylo said that’s apparently because the inmates often use that money to buy things from the prison commissary system, and that system ultimately pays for tens of millions of dollars in prison worker salaries every year.
In response to Wojdylo’s criticism, a Justice Department official said: “Ensuring victims can recover restitution from inmate trust accounts has been a priority for the Deputy Attorney General and the entire Justice Department. This directive to prosecutors is just one piece of an ongoing effort across the Department to accomplish this goal. We look forward to continuing progress in the near term.”
Under the current system, there are no limits on how much money inmates can keep in their prison accounts, and last year The Post reported that roughly 20 inmates kept at least $100,000 apiece in their prison accounts. The agency only requires inmates to pay a minimum of about $9 a month toward whatever restitution they owe, though officials say they encourage inmates to pay more.
The two-page memo from the DAG is dated December 2, 2022 and has the subject line of "Prioritizing Restitution for Victims." Here are the first two paragraphs of the six-paragraph memo:
On October 1, 2022, the Attorney General published revised Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance. Those Guidelines make clear that the Department is responsible not only for ensuring that those who commit crimes are prosecuted vigorously but also for achieving justice for victims. Because crimes can have a devastating financial effect on victims, the Department is responsible for ensuring that "victims receive full and timely restitution." Guidelines art. V, § H. That obligation extends throughout the life ofa case, including after judgment is entered.
Under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, a crime victim has the right to "full and timely restitution as provided by law." 18 U.S.C. § 377l(a)(6). The Department's prosecutors should therefore be proactive in enforcing court-ordered restitution obligations, including where funds are held in accounts maintained by the Federal Bureau ofPrisons (BOP) in trust during an inmate's period of incarceration. Last year, I instructed BOP to strengthen monitoring and reporting related to these accounts, consistent with applicable law. Pursuant to that directive, BOP has since enhanced guidance on monitoring inmate accounts; improved coordination with law enforcement partners, including the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), on investigating and taking appropriate action against suspicious activity; and identified funds that should be encumbered to meet financial obligations. BOP is also strengthening the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program to apply additional funds towards restitution and has partnered with other Department ofJustice components and federal agencies to ensure that funds are used to help meet those obligations.
December 6, 2022 in Fines, Restitution and Other Economic Sanctions, Prisons and prisoners, Victims' Rights At Sentencing, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)
Bureau of Justice Statistics releases "Federal Prisoner Statistics Collected Under the First Step Act, 2022"
Via email this morning, I learned of this 25-page report produced by DOJ's Bureau of Justice Statistics. This BJS webpage provides this discriptive overview and these "highlights":
This is the fourth report as required under the First Step Act of 2018 (FSA; P.L. 115-391). It includes data on federal prisoners provided to BJS by the Federal Bureau of Prisons for calendar year 2021. Under the FSA, BJS is required to report on selected characteristics of persons in prison, including marital, veteran, citizenship, and English-speaking status; education levels; medical conditions; and participation in treatment programs. Also, BJS is required to report facility-level statistics, such as the number of assaults on staff by prisoners, prisoners’ violations of rules that resulted in time credit reductions, and selected facility characteristics related to accreditation, on-site healthcare, remote learning, video conferencing, and costs of prisoners’ phone calls.
Highlights
- The federal prison population increased more than 3%, from 151,283 at yearend 2020 to 156,542 at yearend 2021.
- In 2021, a total of 74 pregnant females were held in BOP-operated prison facilities, a 19% decrease from 2020 (91).
- During 2021, a total of 378 prisoners were receiving medication-assisted treatment (MAT) approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat a substance use disorder prior to their admission to federal prison, and 1,127 prisoners received MAT while in custody.
- In 2021, a total of 17,252 federal prisoners participated in a nonresidential substance use disorder treatment program, while 10,919 participated in a residential program.
December 6, 2022 in Data on sentencing, FIRST STEP Act and its implementation, Prisons and prisoners | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, December 01, 2022
BOP reports that all federal inmates have been moved out of private prisons
As this ABC News piece reports, all "federal inmates housed in private prisons have been moved to Bureau of Prisons facilities and the agency has ended all contracts with private facilities, officials said." Here is more:
Last year, in one of his first actions in office, President Joe Biden signed an executive order directing BOP to move all inmates to federal facilities, rather than have them housed in private facilities. "We have never fully lived up to the founding principles of this nation, to state the obvious, that all people are created equal and have a right to be treated equally throughout their lives," Biden said just before signing the actions in January 2021. "And it's time to act now, not only because it’s the right thing to do. Because if we do, we'll all be better off."...
Advocates, including the ACLU, have said that private prisons reap lucrative financial rewards while taking advantage of people who are behind bars.
On Nov. 30, the McRae Correctional Facility in McRae, Georgia, was closed, making it the final facility to shutter its doors. Biden signed an order directing the attorney general to not renew contracts the Department of Justice has with privately-operated criminal detention facilities. As expected it took about a year to complete the transition.
"BOP and privately managed facilities remained positive, while maintaining transparency and accountability," a release from BOP said. "BOP inmates housed in these private prisons have been transferred to BOP facilities. In the mid-1980s, the BOP began designating low security inmates with specialized needs, such as sentenced criminal aliens, to privately managed facilities to better manage the increasing population. Over time, the BOP maintained contracts for 15 facilities, housing approximately 29,164 inmates. The overall BOP population peaked in 2013, with over 219,000 inmates."
The head of the Bureau of Prisons union told ABC News that the prison population has declined to a point where private prisons aren't needed, and has said previously the agency supports the president's decision to shutter private prisons. "The fact remains that our population has declined to the point where we can safely return offenders who were temporarily housed in private prisons to vacant BOP facilities," Shane Fausey, president of the Council of Prison told ABC News through a text message. "The reality is additional beds are no longer needed and the most cost effective measure is not to renew or further private prison contracts at this time."
December 1, 2022 in Prisons and prisoners, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (3)
Wednesday, November 23, 2022
Sentencing judge recommended prison camp for Elizabeth Holmes to serve her sentence
As reported in this new press piece, "District Judge Edward Davila has proposed sentencing Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes to a federal prison camp in Texas, according to court filings." Here is more:
“The Court finds that family visitation enhances rehabilitation,” Davila wrote in the filing, according to Bloomberg, which summarized the terms of Holmes’ sentencing.
The prison camp is located in Bryan, Texas, and was proposed as an alternative to Holmes serving her 11-year 3-month sentence at a California prison. There’s a few prison camps like this one across the country that typically have a low security-to-inmate ratio, dormitory housing, and a work program. “...compared to other places in the prison system, this place is heaven. If you have to go it’s a good place to go.” Alan Ellis, a criminal defense lawyer, told Bloomberg.
Keri Axel, a criminal defense attorney told Yahoo! Finance that it is common for non-violent offenders like Holmes to serve out their time at minimum security facilities. “Sometimes they’re called ‘Camp Fed’ because they have a little bit more amenities, and they’re a little nicer places,” she said, adding the caveat, “they’re not great places. No one wants to be there.”
Although the judge has recommended the prison camp for Holmes’ incarceration, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons will make the final decision. Holmes was sentenced to 11 years and three months in prison on November 18 after she was found guilty of defrauding Theranos investors out of millions of dollars as part of her failed blood-testing startup. She was also sentenced to three years of supervision after her release.
Prior related posts:
- Elizabeth Holmes convicted on 4 of 11 fraud charges ... but now can be sentenced on all and more
- Making the case, because "upper-class offenders ... might be even more reprehensible," for a severe sentence for Elizabeth Holmes
- Might any victims of Theranos fraud urge leniency at sentencing for Elizabeth Holmes?
- Elizabeth Holmes' federal sentencing ready to go forward after her new trial motion is denied
- Sentencing memos paint very different pictures of Elizabeth Holmes
- Any final thoughts on today's federal sentencing of Elizabeth Holmes?
- Federal judge imposes (within guideline) sentence of 135 months on Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes
November 23, 2022 in Celebrity sentencings, Prisons and prisoners, White-collar sentencing, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (7)
Monday, November 21, 2022
"Punishment Externalities and the Prison Tax"
The title of this post is the title of this new paper authored by Sheldon Evans now available via SSRN. Here is its abstract:
Punishment as a social institution has failed to live up to the quixotic ideals of theory and has descended into the practice of mass incarceration, which is one of the defining failures of this generation. Scholars have traditionally studied punishment and incarceration as parts of a social transaction between the criminal offender, whose crime imposes a cost to society, and the state that ensures the offender repays this debt by correcting past harms and preventing future offenses. But if crime has a cost that must be repaid by the offender, punishment also has a cost that must be repaid by the state. These social costs of punishment start by impacting the offender, but inevitably ripple out into the community.
While the costs of crime remain a predominant theme in criminal justice, scholars have also recorded the economic, political, and social costs of punishment. This Article contributes to this literature by proposing a paradigm shift in punishment theory that reconceptualizes punishment as an industry that produces negative externalities. The externality framework recognizes punishment and its practice of mass incarceration as an institution that purports certain benefits, but also must be balanced with the overwhelming social costs it produces in the community.
Viewing punishment and the carceral state as an externality problem that accounts for community costs creates a unique synergy between law & economics and communitarianism that deepens punishment theory while carrying the practical value of exploring externality-based solutions. This Article argues for a Pigouvian prison tax, among other externality solutions, that will gradually lower the prison population while reinvesting revenue in the most impacted communities to mitigate punishment’s social costs in future generations.
November 21, 2022 in Prisons and prisoners, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (1)
Friday, November 11, 2022
Wouldn't pardons and commutations for those who served be a great way for Prez Biden to honor Veterans Day?
The question in the title of this post is inspired by today's national holiday, Veterans Day. Based on the latest data from Bureau of Justice Statistics, from this March 2021 report "Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016: Veterans in Prison," veterans make up over 5% of the federal prison population (and nearly 8% of state prison populations). Moreover, as an important new initiative from the Council for Criminal Justice has highlighted, roughly "one third of veterans report having been arrested and booked into jail at least once in their lives, compared to fewer than one fifth of non-veterans." In other words, at both the federal and state level, there are surely no shortage of justice-involved veterans who could and should be a focus of concern and attention on this important day and for whom clemency consideration would be justified.
Though I am not expecting that Prez Biden will celebrate this Veterans Day by making a special effort to grant commutations or pardons to a special list of veterans, I have long thought criminal justice reform advocates ought to lean into this day by urging the President and all Governors to make a tradition of using clemency powers in this kind of special and distinctive way on this special and distinctive day. As I have noted before, a key slogan for this day is "honoring ALL who served," not just those who stayed out of trouble after serving.
Some (or many) prior related posts:
- Thinking about sentenced troops on Veterans Day
- How many vets, after serving to secure liberty, are now serving LWOP sentences?
- My amicus effort to support our troops
- Should prior military service reduce a sentence?
- How about a few clemency grants, Prez Obama, to really honor vets in need on Veterans Day?
- "Roughly one in 12 people in America’s prisons and jails is a veteran"
- Eager to honor our veterans caught up in our nation's massive criminal justice systems
- Making the case for criminal justice reform as a way to honor those who served on Veterans Day
- New CCJ commission to examine factors driving veterans' involvement in criminal justice system
November 11, 2022 in Clemency and Pardons, Offender Characteristics, Prisons and prisoners, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (1)
Saturday, November 05, 2022
Rounding up recent disheartening stories in incarceration nation
In recent days, I have seen a number of notable stories and commentaries focused on various discouraging incarceration realities in US prisons and jails:
From The Marshall Project, "Why So Many Jails Are in a ‘State of Complete Meltdown’"
From NBC News, "Tech glitch botches federal prisons' rollout of update to Trump-era First Step Act"
From the New York Post, "Rikers Island detainee is 18th person to die in NYC’s prison system in 2022"
From the New York Times, "‘Dying Inside’: Chaos and Cruelty In Louisiana Juvenile Detention"
From the Omaha World Herald, "‘Waiting on death’: Nebraska prisoners are getting older, and it’s costing taxpayers"
From PennLive, "Sick people in Pa. jails are suffering, dying: ‘The Constitution allows for medical neglect’"
From the Reno Gazette-Journal, "Inmate deaths, drug overdoses on rise at Washoe County Jail"
From Washington Monthly, "Do Prisons Need to Be Hellholes?"
From WSB-TV, "Reality star Joe Exotic says zoo has better living conditions than Atlanta Federal Penitentiary"
November 5, 2022 in Prisons and prisoners, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (1)
Thursday, October 27, 2022
"Taking stock of incarcerated military veterans: a review of (and guide for) research"
The title of this post is the title of this interesting new research published in Criminal Justice Studies and authored by Matthew W. Logan, Erika J. Brooke, Mark A. Morgan & Andrea R. Hazelwood. Here is its abstract:
The sociodemographic backgrounds of inmates are essential for understanding their prison experiences and the extent to which they cope with incarceration and recidivate upon release. The notion that military veterans might fare differently from other groups in the correctional system has existed for decades; yet scholars have only recently begun to focus on the effects that prior service has on metrics of prison adjustment and beyond. Increased emphasis on the prison experiences of military veterans necessitates a review of the studies published to date.
In the current study, we take stock of the empirical research conducted on incarcerated veterans by systematically reviewing all articles published online between 2000 and 2022 . Overall, we find little evidence to support the view that veteran status confers any specific benefits or vulnerabilities during incarceration or following release. However, given the limitations of the studies reviewed, we address several methodological concerns regarding the study of former service members and provide directions for future research.
October 27, 2022 in Offender Characteristics, Prisons and prisoners | Permalink | Comments (0)
Wednesday, October 26, 2022
"The Efficiency Mindset and Mass Incarceration"
The title of this post is the title of this new paper now available via SSRN authored by Thea Johnson. Here is its abstract:
Efficiency often carries a positive connotation. To be efficient, especially in a job, is to get things done quickly and with little wasted effort. As such, it makes sense that lawyers and judges see efficiency, especially in the form of plea bargaining, as a normative good, particularly since it can be used in individual cases to achieve fair results in an often unfair system. But this view of efficiency masks the darker side of the efficient administration of justice, which has contributed to some of the underlying causes of mass incarceration.
To combat mass incarceration, reformers must think seriously about how to break lawyers and judges of their efficiency mindset. Legal culture change in criminal courts is unlikely to be driven by legislation, court action, or lawyers and judges themselves. Instead, this Essay suggests other sources of power that may break the efficiency mindset. By examining these sources of power — both inside and outside of the legal culture — the Essay hopes to offer some ideas for how legal actors might start to, or be forced to, re-envision their role in mass incarceration.
October 26, 2022 in Prisons and prisoners, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Just why is it "not in the public’s best interest" for the feds to refuse to transfer to Oklahoma a prisoner scheduled for execution?
I recall a notable case from just over a decade ago in which Rhode Island was refusing to turn a suspected murderer in state custody to the federal government because of concern that he would be subject to the federal death penalty (see story blogged here and here). As noted here, the en banc First Circuit ultimately ruled that Rhode Island had to surrender custody of Pleau for trial on pending federal charges. Pleau thereafter pleaded guilty to federal murder charges and avoided being sentenced to death, but not before engendering lots of interesting and notable discussion of federal and state criminal justice authority and power (see, e.g., this commentary explaining why "the decision about appropriate criminal sentencing, and particularly about the application of the death penalty, [should be placed] back into the hands of individual states [in order] to reverse the trend toward the federalization of criminal law").
This bit of capital history, and the question in the title of this post, all came to mind when I focused on this notable recent news piece out of Oklahoma. The story is headlined "Federal inmate set for state execution denied transfer to Oklahoma custody," and here are excerpts:
The Oklahoma attorney general is asking the U.S. Bureau of Prisons to reconsider a decision his office says could amount to unprecedented federal interference in the state’s execution process.
Federal officials have denied the state’s request to transfer federal inmate George John Hanson, known as John Fitzgerald Hanson in his Oklahoma death-sentence case. A Tulsa County jury found Hanson guilty of murdering retired Tulsa banker Mary Bowles and Owasso trucking company owner Jerald Thurman in 1999 and sentenced him to death.
Hanson, 58, is currently housed in the U.S. Penitentiary in Pollock, Louisiana, serving a life sentence plus 107 years for a series of armed robberies he committed after the murders but was convicted of and sentenced for while the state case was ongoing. He has since exhausted his appeal opportunities in Oklahoma and is slated for execution by lethal injection on Dec. 15, pending a clemency hearing Nov. 9 where Gov. Kevin Stitt could grant him mercy.
Tulsa County District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler requested the AG’s assistance after receiving a formal notice in late September of the denial that cited a reason set forward in the U.S. Code. The DA’s Office provided the Tulsa World a copy of the letter from the Bureau of Prisons.
“(The law) authorizes the Bureau of Prisons to transfer a prisoner who is wanted by a State authority to that State authority’s custody if it is appropriate, suitable, and in the public’s best interest,” the letter reads in part. “The Designation and Sentence Computation Center … has denied the request for transfer, as it is not in the public’s best interest.”
Kunzweiler balked at the vague term and said in a news release that the decision reeked of politics. In the release last week, the DA said he was “outraged” and has demanded a greater explanation. “The crimes for which Hanson is serving time in federal custody were committed after his involvement in the murders of Mary Bowles and Jerald Thurman,” he wrote. “Of what reasonable purpose is there for him to remain in federal custody — at taxpayers’ expense — when he can and should be delivered to Oklahoma authorities for the rendition of the punishment he received here?”
Kunzweiler listed several state and federal agencies from which he has sought assistance in the matter, and a spokeswoman for Oklahoma Attorney General John O’Connor said O’Connor has reached out to a Bureau of Prisons regional director “to see if he will reconsider his refusal to transfer Hanson to Oklahoma.”
The bureau’s Office of Public Affairs declined to comment for this story, stating that “based on privacy, safety, and security reasons, we do not comment on inmate’s conditions of confinement, to include transfers or reasons for transfers.”
The Tulsa World has submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the bureau seeking an internal document that could clarify the conditions under which the decision was made.
Like the folks at the Tulsa World, I would like to hear more from the U.S. Bureau of Prisons about just why is has decided that it is "not in the public’s best interest" to allow a state to complete a seemingly lawful capital sentence. I am not an expert on prisoner transfer protocol, but I certainly think at least some greater transparency is wholly justified here.
UPDATE: I failed to see that Chris Geidner has been writing about this case on his Substack, Law Dork, including a new post with the latest breaking legal developments:
"Oklahoma wants the feds to transfer a man in federal prison to their custody so they can kill him"
"Breaking: Oklahoma sues the Biden administration in the state's quest to kill John Hanson"
October 25, 2022 in Death Penalty Reforms, Prisons and prisoners, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (9)
Monday, October 24, 2022
Prez Biden suggests disinterest in broader marijuana clemency as activists protest on behalf of pot prisoners
This new Marijuana Moment piece, headlined "Biden Has No Intention Of Extending Marijuana Pardons To Help People Jailed For Selling It, He Suggests," reports on new comments from the President about his recent clemency activity. Here is how it starts:
President Joe Biden on Friday again touted his recent marijuana pardons proclamation, but indicated that he has no intention of granting relief to people who are in prison for selling cannabis. “I’m keeping my promise that no one should be in jail for merely using or possessing marijuana,” he said. “None. And the records, which hold up people from being able to get jobs and the like, should be totally expunged. Totally expunged.”
“You can’t sell it,” the president added. “But if it’s just use, you’re completely free.”
The comments come as activists are planning a protest including civil disobedience at the White House for Monday aimed at calling attention to those who are left behind by Biden’s existing cannabis clemency action.
It’s not clear if the president’s latest remarks simply describe the scope of his current marijuana pardons, which came alongside a separate move to review the drug’s current scheduling status under federal law, or if they are an indication he is ruling out broadening the scope of clemency relief in the future.
The latter scenario would be a great disappointment to the advocates behind the planned White House protest. Those groups, including Students for Sensible Drug Policy, Last Prisoner Project, DCMJ and others, sent a letter to Biden this month, calling his moves to date “a great first step” but saying they “did nothing to address the thousands of federal cannabis prisoners currently incarcerated.”
This extended Washington Post piece, headlined "Sentenced to 40 years, Biden’s marijuana pardons left him behind," discusses the planned protest and the prisoners who are the focal point for additional clemency advocacy:
Protesters are expected to gather outside the White House on Monday to advocate for people ... incarcerated for what they would consider nonviolent offenses that involve marijuana, especially as public perception of the substance has shifted. Cannabis is now legal for recreational adult use in Washington, D.C., two territories and 19 states. It is on the ballot in five more states next month.
For those hoping to see marijuana law and policy reforms untangle the legacy of the country’s war on drugs, Biden’s announcement this month that he’d pardon people convicted of federal simple possession did not go far enough. And meaningful post-conviction reform still remains largely elusive in an America that echoed with promises to scrutinize criminal justice following the murder of George Floyd.
The Last Prisoner Project, a nonprofit working on cannabis criminal justice reform that lobbied the White House on this issue, has estimated that there are roughly 2,800 people in federal prison due to marijuana-related convictions, a statistic the organization said stems from a 2021 report from Recidiviz, a nonprofit that uses technology and data to build tools for criminal justice reform....
The first step in ending the war on drugs — which has disproportionally affected Black and Brown communities — is releasing people who have been incarcerated for nonviolent marijuana offenses, said Jason Ortiz, executive director of Students for Sensible Drug Policy.
Offenses like cultivation, distribution and conspiracy, Ortiz said, are the same actions major companies are able to commercialize and profit from today. “There are multibillion dollar companies that sell thousands and thousands of pounds of cannabis a year and operate in multiple states. So if we’re going to allow for that type of commerce to happen, everyone in prison who did anything even remotely close to that should be immediately let out.”
I think it notable and worth noting that we actually have no clear accounting of how many persons may still be serving federal prison terms for "nonviolent marijuana offenses." This recent analysis of federal prison data from January 2022 by the US Sentencing Commission suggests the number of imprisoned marijuana trafficking offenders was "only" around 2200 as of the start of this year. Notably, the federal marijuana prisoner number was around 7500 based on USSC data from just five years ago, but sharp declines in federal marijuana prosecutions (discussed in this article) and COVID-era prison population reductions have had a huge impact on the total number now incarcerated for federal marijuana offenses.
Prior recent related posts:
- October surprise: Prez Biden announces he is "pardoning all prior federal offenses of simple marijuana possession"! Wow!
- A few more details about President Biden's mass pardon of federal offenses of simple possession of marijuana
- Rounding up a few (of many) reactions to Prez Biden's marijuana possession pardons
- Prez Biden's one miss in his marijuana moves: failing to urge Congress to move on federal record relief mechanisms
- US Sentencing Commission produces "additional analyses" of those receiving federal marijuana possession pardons
- Might the recent marijuana pardons by Prez Biden "make things worse for criminal legal reform"?
UPDATE: Here is a new Washington Post piece about the protest headlined "With speeches, stars and a blow-up joint, protesters press Biden on pot."
October 24, 2022 in Clemency and Pardons, Drug Offense Sentencing, Pot Prohibition Issues, Prisons and prisoners, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)