Prisons in England and Wales: Sentencing Theories, Challenges, and Reforms
Introduction
Prisons in Wales and England are critical elements of the criminal justice system and can be justified by the roles of deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, denunciation, and retribution. Such reasons for prisons’ existence have historically influenced penal policies and philosophies, helping guide the sentencing and punishments of offenders. Although each justification has its rationale and weight, the collective goal is to achieve the societal goals of offender rehabilitation, justice, and public safety.
The essay will explore the complex nature of prisons and critically assess whether they serve the sentencing purposes in Wales and England. The paper begins by discussing theoretical justifications of penitentiaries and the social, sentencing, political, historical, and legislative considerations that influence sentencing goals. Additionally, the essay scrutinizes the crises and challenges that hamper the achievement of the goals outlined in sentencing guidelines in England and Wales. A critical analysis of prisons’ role in England and Wales reveals significant systemic crises and problems that require well-balanced reforms to achieve the intended penological goals in the criminal justice system.
Theoretical Justifications for Prisons
Overview
Retribution
Retribution justifies the existence and necessity of prisons because punishment is deserved when individuals break the law. The view argues that lawbreakers should face consequences commensurate with the harshness of their wrongdoing. This reflects the principle of revenge or an “eye for an eye” [1]. The code emphasizes that criminals should suffer equally for the harm they have caused others, serving as an essential means of vengeance or moral retribution.
Retribution is a critical aspect of fairness and justice, striving to uphold societal customs and restore balance by imposing specific punishments [2]. The R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) case manifests an example of retribution, where a ship’s crew stuck at sea practiced cannibalism for survival [3]. Stephens and Dudley were prosecuted for murder because they killed and consumed a cabin boy [4]; [5]; [6]; [7]. As a result, the presiding judges sentenced the culprits to death, symbolizing the necessity of retribution and recognition of a human life’s sanctity.
Denunciation
Denunciation entails publicly condemning criminal activities through sentencing. It serves as a means of expressing societal disapproval and reasserting shared norms and values. By publicly denouncing criminal behavior, the justice ministry emphasizes that some acts are not accepted in society and will be met with consequences.
Denunciation is critical to preserving public confidence in the criminal justice system, as it highlights the seriousness of an offense and the crucial role of accountability for one’s decisions and actions [2]; [1]. The R v Rimmington and Goldstein (2005) case illustrates denunciation of certain behaviors. Rimmington had sent many letters with offensive and racist materials to different people [8]; [9].
In contrast, Goldstein sent a check and salt to repay a debt owed to a friend. He had included the salt as a joke, but the post employee identified it as anthrax. Both suspects were indicted due to public nuisance. The decision was that both individuals violated the common law and caused a public nuisance [10]. Although the House of Lords later overturned the convictions, the initial rulings denounced the specific behaviors of the suspects.
Deterrence
Deterrence, which operates on the basis that fearing punishment can prevent individuals from committing crimes, is another justification for penitentiaries’ existence. The theoretical justification encompasses specific and general deterrence, where specific deterrence focuses on discouraging individual members of society from reoffending. In contrast, general deterrence aims to dissuade the public from committing similar crimes.
The use of punitive measures, including imprisonment, enables the justice system to catalyze crime prevention [2]. The Criminal Justice Act of 2003 plays a significant role as it has extended sentence terms for offenses considered dangerous and reckless to prevent others from committing similar acts. The wrongdoings may include aggravations related to race, sexual orientation, disability, drugs, firearms use, and irresponsible driving [11]. The deterrence concept prevents potential wrongdoers from engaging in criminal behavior due to the perceived fear of the consequences.
Deterrence exploits humans’ rational calculation and their ability to weigh the possible benefits and costs of criminal acts before action. The R v Bentley (1998) case illustrates the deterrent effect of prisons. Derek Bentley received the death penalty for murder because he was involved in a burglary where the killing of a police officer simultaneously happened [12]. Although Bentley did not possess or fire the gun that ended Sidney Miles’ life, he aided the crime by encouraging the main culprit to commit murder [13]; [14]. Bentley’s conviction serves as a deterrent for individuals who may consider aiding crimes, as their minimal participation in activities leading to wrongdoing can result in equal liability for all parties involved.
Incapacitation
Incapacitation represents a critical justification for prisons’ existence because it focuses on removing wrongdoers from society. It prevents offenders from engaging in further criminal acts, emphasizing the need to protect the public by depriving people of their liberty and hampering their ability and opportunity to inflict harm on others. Through the incarceration of lawbreakers, the criminal justice system incapacitates delinquents, making them unable to commit crimes during their confinement [2]; [15]. In essence, incapacitation is based on the notion that the incarceration of dangerous individuals promotes public safety, maintains order, and averts future victimization.
The Michael Sams case shows why incapacitation is needed for criminals who lack remorse for their actions. Sams is a psychopathic murderer, kidnapper, and rapist who is one of the longest-serving inmates in Wales and England. He was incarcerated for kidnapping, raping, and blackmailing Julie Dart and Stephanie Slater.
Even after imprisonment, Sams continued engaging in unlawful acts, such as attacking a female officer in Wakefield Prison. For this criminal act, Sams’ prison sentence was increased by an additional eight years [16]; [17]. Sams’ prolonged confinement indicates the need for the prosecution to protect the public from dangerous individuals capable of repeated and serious wrongdoings.
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation offers another reason for justifying the necessity of prisons in Wales and England. The concept of rehabilitation emphasizes reforming wrongdoers and limiting recidivism. In addition, its effectiveness depends on the possibility of personal transformation through counseling, vocational training, education, as well as other rehabilitative initiatives, such as restorative justice [18]; [19]; [20]. Instead of a sole focus on punishment, reintegration seeks to address the primary factors that contribute to criminal behaviors. Furthermore, it provides offenders with the support and skills necessary for successful reintroduction into society [21].
Rehabilitation recognizes that individuals can change and adopt positive behaviors to eliminate the offending cycles [22]. Court-ordered rehabilitation programs may last 10 to 15 weeks, and dismissal of charges is often the reward for offenders upon successful completion of the required initiative. It enables criminal offenders to minimize relapse through continuous monitoring, supervision, and incentives after committing drug-related offenses [19]. Court-ordered rehabilitation occurs if judges believe a person will benefit more from long-term recovery than imprisonment.
The benefits of court-ordered rehabilitation for first-time, non-violent wrongdoers are numerous. First, it provides criminals with a safe place that supports them to avoid drug abuse during the recovery process, which entails addressing an addiction’s psychological aspects and coexisting disorders, such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression. In addition, court-ordered rehabilitation provides individuals with the tools and peer support needed to prevent relapse. Second, court-ordered recovery challenges conventional criminal thinking by challenging harmful beliefs and attitudes that enable criminal activity [23]. Individuals are often trained in cognitive development to help identify and alter dangerous beliefs, improving decision-making, judgment, and behavior skills.
Historical, Political, Legislative, Sentencing, and Social Considerations
The contemporary prison system is shaped by continuously shifting historical ideals on the role and necessity of punishment. Before the 19th century, punishment involved cruel corporal penalties and incarceration. However, 19th-century reformists sought to replace the previous movement’s philosophies with rehabilitation and the moral reform of wrongdoers. The retributive principles of ‘just deserts’ remained deeply ingrained in the current criminal justice system, contributing to some punitive turns and expansion of mass confinement rates [24]. The resurgent use of punitive measures was exacerbated by the ‘nothing works’ era that prioritized incapacitation and limited rehabilitation.
Political positioning and rhetoric have resulted in significant influence on sentencing and prisons’ use since ‘tough on crime’ proponents demand retributive and harsh sentences. Crime and Disorder Act 1998, through the definition of antisocial behaviors broadly introduced punishable actions that cause stress to community members unrelated to aggressors, including drug abuse, public indecency, and noise [25]. Such stances are resolute and rampant despite the use of punitive methods that lack evidence of effectively reducing crimes. Conservative governments tend to prioritize retributive punishment, whereas liberal administrations are more inclined to support rehabilitation [26]. However, budgeting problems and prison privatization may catalyze effective rehabilitative programming.
Legislative frameworks shape how prisons achieve sentencing goals. Statutes and laws define the guidelines of punishment and outline offenders’ rights within the justice system. Different rationales for punishment affect how prisons realize their sentencing goals.
Three-strikes laws and obligatory minimum sentences constrain judicial discretion and force judges to consider incapacitation and retribution as the main justifications [24]. Although rehabilitation has been integrated into the criminal justice system by the introduction of the Offender Rehabilitation Act of 2014, its impact is likely limited due to operational challenges, such as staff shortages and lack of funding [27]; [28]. These factors indicate the current prison system is not working efficiently, as inmates lack the support needed for reducing reoffending.
In addition, sentencing practices influence the theoretical justifications that are considered by the prosecution. The nature and gravity of the crime committed by a wrongdoer dictate which theoretical goals take precedence. For the most violent crimes, such as critical bodily harm and murder, societal denunciation and retribution through cruel and just punishment are critical justifications. In contrast, lower-level property offenses often prioritize the principles of rehabilitation and deterrence [24]. In addition, for high-risk and serial offenders, incapacitation is considered since public protection supersedes other theoretical goals in such cases.
Social factors also impact how sentencing and prisons achieve their goals. The broad systemic disparities and social forces inherently affect the application of imprisonment justifications. Racial discrimination and socioeconomic inequality cause disproportionate confinement rates of minorities. In addition, public perceptions of prisons’ ability to deter crime often shape whether society accepts certain penological rationales. Furthermore, it is critical to consider whether reducing criminality should be addressed through root societal causes rather than overemphasizing removing individuals from society.
Challenges and Problems in the Contemporary Context
Retribution
The retribution principle, which focuses on administering punishment that is equal to the committed crimes as a form of societal redress, is substantially undermined by the state of Welsh and English prisons. The conditions in many penitentiaries are dehumanizing and degrading, which casts doubts on how confinement can indicate true punitive justice. With rampant violence, inadequate healthcare, staffing shortages, and overcrowding, inmates experience cruel deprivations that exceed the scope of the legal sentences.
The failure of the prisons to offer humane and safe environments that meet the primary human needs and rights of inmates makes it hard to prove that incarceration realizes retributive value. This suggests that imprisonment fails to align with the legal and moral standards for punishment [29]. Instances of suicide, self-harm, and declining mental health show that prisons may perpetuate extra harm instead of seeking justified retribution.
Denunciation
Prisons are meant to achieve public denunciation and condemn criminal activities; however, this function is profoundly compromised since penitentiaries often fail to control illegal activities that occur within the prison walls. Although prisons in England and Wales are locations of forcible constraint, they face endemic challenges with the infiltration of contraband and drugs, as well as the expansion of prison gangs. Such situations enable offenders to continue practicing unlawful behaviors, allowing them to develop deeper criminal connections and possibly recruit others to commit crimes during incarceration.
Such systematic security breaches and criminal subgroups directly erode and contradict the intended denunciation of the prisons. When criminality succeeds in prisons rather than being fully condemned, it amplifies the conduct that should be renounced [29]. As a result, public moral messaging and individual deterrence achieved through denunciation are undermined.
Deterrence
The threat of incarceration serves as a deterrent against future crime; however, it depends on the ability of the imprisonment experience to instill sufficient fear of repercussions. Some critics argue that instead of preventing crime by inducing fear, prisons have turned into schools of crime [30]. Prisons enable offenders to learn more sophisticated criminal techniques because of established criminal associations and mindsets. Silence codes, violence normalization, rules trivialization, predatory environments, and access to hardened career criminals characterize most prisons. Such factors hamper prisons’ ability to act as effective crime deterrents [31]. In addition, ineffective prison conditions, such as the absence of programming, poor staffing, and overcrowding, can push individuals to develop increased anger and antisocial behavior [29]. Such situations promote high recidivism rates by failing to eliminate the underlying factor that enables criminal behaviors, undermining the envisioned general and specific effects of dissuasion.
Incapacitation
Incapacitation focuses on the physical containment of dangerous individuals to prevent further perpetuation of crimes in society. It depends on prisons’ ability to fully restrict and control inmate behavior. Nevertheless, illegal drug trade, gang activity consolidation, appalling security lapses, and unchecked violence undercut prisons’ ability to achieve the goals of incapacitation.
Some prisons enable offenders to continue participating in serious violence and crimes, acquire banned items, and create dysfunctional social networks. Such situations depict a surprising loss of authority and control over the environment that is supposed to contain wrongdoers and protect the public. Gang-perpetrated assaults, escapes, murders, and criminal operations that extend to neighboring communities outside of the prisons compromise the mandate of incapacitation [29]. The challenge shows the inability of prisons to fully neutralize the imprisoned.
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation, which focuses on providing education, treatment, and programs for reforming offenders into law-abiding individuals, is hampered by under-resourcing, delivery deficiencies, and the absence of reintegration assistance. Although rehabilitative programming is available in most prisons in Wales and England, they struggle with limited facilities, overwhelming caseloads, staffing shortages, and lockdown disruptions. Thus, many inmates experience long waiting lists, inconsistent participation in rehabilitative programs, and failure to receive the concentration and time required for successful behavioral change.
Increased staff turnover encourages discontinuity, whereas an emphasis on security rather than rehabilitation further limits prosocial opportunities [32]. In addition, scarce employment, community support, and transitional housing indicate that even the motivated ex-prisoners fail to record any rehabilitation gains after release. As a result, the cycle of going back from prison to reoffending continues to spin endlessly [33]; [34]. The systemic challenges facing penitentiaries in Wales and England, as outlined under each of the primary theoretical justifications, depict a criminal justice system incapable of effectively upholding the core purposes in an ethical, consistent, and meaningful manner.
Potential Reforms and Solutions
Increasing Reintegration Support and Rehabilitative Services
The existing offerings in reintegration assistance and rehabilitative programming are inconsistent, of poor quality, and of limited scope. Vocational and educational programs are affected by challenges, such as facility lockdowns and staffing shortages. Substance abuse and mental health treatment options are uncommon despite many prisoners experiencing such issues [35]. Training in life skills, emphasizing interpersonal communication, patterns of criminal thinking, and anger management, is minimal [36]. Thus, strong and evidence-based initiatives in all these areas must be provided throughout the sentence.
A successful transition back into the community can be achieved through detailed reentry services, including care coordination and continuity, community mentorship, job placement support, and transitional accommodation support. Additionally, prisons should implement cognitive-behavioral interventions that enhance change motivation, problem-solving abilities, and relapse avoidance skills [37]; [38]. In addition, offering mental health support and educational programs for inmates can promote their well-being and give them a chance to earn income after completing learning objectives [39].
Since the adoption of the Offender Rehabilitation Act (ORA) of 2014, England and Wales can utilize expert short-sentence teams to support reintegration and avoid revolving prison cycles [40]. The teams can increase ORA’s effectiveness by amplifying the familiarity and connection that departing inmates have with rehabilitative services and statutory supervision for criminals released from short-term sentences [41]. These programs ensure rehabilitation gains are not quickly reversed by preventing ex-prisoners from returning to high-risk environments and offering them positive scaffolding systems [42]. The comprehensive and continuous rehabilitation program should start at the incarceration point and stop after reintegration.
Improving Prison Oversight and Conditions
Realizing that morally legitimate and proportional retributive punishment requires prison conditions that meet humane and constitutional standards. The process requires reducing overcrowding by amending sentencing reforms that maximize prison sentences, increasing security and staffing to maintain order, improving tactics to minimize the flow of contraband, and implementing strong external oversight. Substantial investments must be made to upgrade old infrastructure, providing adequate healthcare, nutrition, access to programming, and clean living spaces [29]. By developing an environment that focuses on purposeful punishment rather than gratuitous indignities, prisons can satisfy society’s retributive justice sensibilities, neither lenient nor draconian.
Incarceration Alternatives and Sentencing Reforms
A key problem hindering the achievement of sentencing purposes is overcrowding, since it results in unsustainable populations. Amending sentencing policies can help reduce unsustainable levels of the prison population. This may include eliminating the compulsory minimum period for low-level misdemeanors, expanding judicial discretion for alternate sanctions, and increasing the accessibility of community-based programs [43]; [44]. Furthermore, using Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring for supervision and instituting restorative justice methods can help reduce incarceration costs [45]; [46]; [47]. Such initiatives reserve confinement for the gravest offenses and divert others to ease the burden on the current prison system.
Improved Containment and Security Protocols
Incapacitation is a challenging sentencing objective that can be achieved by implementing several rigorous security practices in prisons. First, penitentiaries should enhance screening, contraband detection, and searches to reduce smuggling. Second, prisons should segregate gangs and disrupt illegal networks by developing better information sharing and intelligence gathering through collaborations with law enforcement [48]; [49]. Finally, tightening inmate privileges, communications, and movement to limit possible cooperation with gangs [29]. Such hardening helps limit outside influence, violence, and criminality, ensuring public safety.
Conclusion
Several systemic failures plague prisons in Wales and England, hindering their ability to fulfill sentencing goals, underscoring the need for well-balanced reforms to restructure the current criminal justice system. A reasonable achievement of sentencing objectives can be restored through comprehensive measures that reduce overcrowding, improve human conditions and security, and support significant investment in rehabilitation and reintegration. It is critical to rebalance sentencing priorities fundamentally to avoid the counterproductive overemphasis on retributive punishment. Promoting rehabilitation and accountability as equal objectives and allocating the necessary resources is sustainable. Public safety is achieved when serious offenders are incapacitated and deterred, while minor wrongdoers are rehabilitated into productive citizens.
References
[1] Elaine Freer, Sentencing New Trajectories in Law (Routledge, 2021).
[2] Peter Joyce and Wendy Laverick, Criminal Justice: An Introduction (4th edn, Routledge 2022).
[3] R v. Dudley and Stephens [1884], 14 Q.B.D. 273.
[4] Rishav Raj, ‘Regina vs. Dudley and Stephens: Murder or a Case of Necessity?’ (2023) 5(1) Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research, 1.
[5] Graeme Edward Minchin, ‘Regina v Dudley & Stephens Anatomy of a Show Trial’ (2020) 11 Beijing Law Review, 782.
[6] Abishek Gupta, ‘Case Comment: Regina vs Dudley and Stephens- A Judicial Valor or a Blunder’ (2023) 3 Jus Corpus Law Journal, 116.
[7] Spandan Tikle, ‘Case Comment: Regina vs Dudley & Stephens’ (2022) 3 Jus Corpus Law Journal, 70.
[8] Jeremy Horder, ‘Fault, Article 7, and the Courts’ development of the Criminal Law’ in A Reed and Others (eds), Fault in Criminal Law: A Research Companion (Routledge, 2022), 135-152.
[9] R v Rimmington, R v Goldstein (2005) UKHL 63, (2006) 1 A.C. 459.
[10] Zhilong Guo, ‘Public Order as a Protectable Interest’ (2021) 41(3) Legal Studies, 410.
[11] Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44).
[12] R v Bentley (Deceased) (1998) EWCA (Crim) 2516, (2001) 1 Crim. App. 21 (U.K.).
[13] John Gunn, ‘A European Psychiatrist’s View of the Death Penalty’ in Alan R. Felthous and Henning Saß (eds) The Wiley International Handbook on Psychopathic Disorders and the Law (Wiley, 2020), 477-495.
[14] Lucy McDonald, ‘Your Word against Mine: The Power of Uptake’ (2021) 199 Synthese, 3505.
[15] Santiago Tobón, “Do Better Prisons Reduce Recidivism? Evidence from a Prison Construction Program” (2022) 104 The Review of Economics and Statistics, 1256.
[16] Christopher Berry-Dee, Talking with Serial Killers: Sleeping with Psychopaths (Diversion Books 2023a).
[17] Christopher Berry-Dee, Talking with Serial Killers: The Sinister Study of Stalkers (Diversion Books, 2023b).
[18] Charlotte Calkin, ‘An Exploratory Study Of Understandings And Experiences of Implementing Restorative Practice in Three UK Prisons’ (2021) 17(1) British Journal of Community Justice, 92.
[19] Annelies Goger, David Harding and Howard Henderson, “Rethinking Prisoner Reentry” (2021) 20(4) Contexts, 46.
[20] Susan McNeeley, “The Effects of Vocational Education on Recidivism and Employment among Individuals Released before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic” (2023) 00(0) International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 1.
[21] Bethany May Statham, Belinda Winder and Daniel Micklethwaite’ Success Within a UK Open Prison and Surviving the “Pains of Freedom”’ (2020) 27(8) Psychology, Crime & Law, 729.
[22] Karen Bullock and Annie Bunce, ‘The Prison Don’t Talk to You about Getting out of Prison: On Why Prisons in England and Wales Fail to Rehabilitate Prisoners’ (2020) 20(1) Criminology & Criminal Justice, 111.
[23] Laura Pinto Hansen, Introduction to Penology and Corrections (Aspen Publishing, 2023).
[24] Charles Ubah, Offender Rehabilitation Issues: Critical Lessons for Criminology, Criminal Justice, and Public Policy (Lexington Books 2023), 21.
[25] Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37).
[26] Skinns Christopher David, Conservative Government Penal Policy 2015-2021: Austerity, Outsourcing and Punishment Redux? (Palgrave Macmillan 2022).
[27] Rajeev Syal, ‘One in 10 Prisons in England and Wales Should Be Shut down, Watchdog Says’ (The Guardian, 2023).
[28] Chaminda Jayanetti, ‘Staff Shortages an Issue amid ‘Deeply Worrying’ Prison Deaths in England’ (The Guardian, 2023).
[29] Susan Easton and Christine Piper, Sentencing and Punishment: The Quest for Justice (5th edn, Oxford University Press, 2022).
[30] Anna Damm and Cédric Gorinas, “Prison as a Criminal School: Peer Effects and Criminal Learning behind Bars” (2020) 63(1) The Journal of Law and Economics, 149.
[31] Laura Small and Paul Hackett, Offender Rehabilitation Programs: The Role of the Prison Officer (Routledge, 2023).
[32] Cathy, Cowling, Reducing Recidivism: A Focus on Rehabilitation Instead of Punishment (Lexington Books, 2023).
[33] Maurice Vanstone and Philip Priestley (eds), The Palgrave Handbook of Global Rehabilitation in Criminal Justice (Palgrave Macmillan, 2023), 127-144.
[34] Burcu Öztürk and others, “Criminal Justice Diversion and the Importance of Program Retention” (2022) 6(1) Journal of Forensic Social Work, 43.
[35] Elaine Genders and Elaine Player, ‘Long Sentenced Women Prisoners: Rights, Risks and Rehabilitation’ (2020) 24(1) Punishment & Society, 3.
[36] Grant Duwe and Makada Henry-Nickie, “Training and Employment for Correctional Populations” (2021) 20(4) Contexts, 40.
[37] Bill Keller, What’s Prison for? Punishment and Rehabilitation in the Age of Mass Incarceration (Columbia Global Reports 2022).
[38] Christy Visher and John Eason, ‘A Better Path Forward for Criminal Justice: Changing Prisons to Help People Change’ (Brookings, 2021).
[39] Danielle Wallace and Xia Wang, “Does In-Prison Physical and Mental Health Impact Recidivism?” (2020) 11 SSM-Population Health, 1.
[40] Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 (c. 11).
[41] Matthew Cracknell, “The Resettlement Net: ‘Revolving Door’ Imprisonment and Carceral (Re)Circulation” (2021) 25(1) Punishment & Society, 223.
[42] Philip Birch and Louise Sicard (eds), Prisons and Community Corrections: Critical Issues and Emerging Controversies (Routledge, 2021).
[43] Cormac Behan and Abigael Stark, Prisons and Imprisonment: An Introduction (Springer, 2023).
[44] Esther Nir and Siyu Liu, “The Challenge of Imposing Just Sentences under Mandatory Minimum Statutes: A Qualitative Study of Judicial Perceptions” (2021) 33(2) Criminal Justice Policy Review, 177.
[45] Julien Grenet, Hans Grönqvist and Susan Niknami, “The Effects of Electronic Monitoring on Offenders and Their Families” (2024) 230 Journal of Public Economics, 1.
[46] Jyoti Belur and others, “A Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of the Electronic Monitoring of Offenders” (2020) 68 Journal of Criminal Justice, 1.
[47] Marina Richter, Barbara Ryser and Ueli Hostettler, “Punitiveness of Electronic Monitoring: Perception and Experience of an Alternative Sanction” (2021) 13 European Journal of Probation, 262.
[48] Mary Carlton, ‘Advancing Knowledge to Reduce Gangs and Gang Violence: Perspectives From Researchers and Practitioners’ (National Institute of Justice, 2021).
[49] Daniel Pyrooz, “The Residue of Imprisonment: Prisoner Reentry and Carceral Gang Spillover” (2023) Justice Quarterly, 1.
