Millions of people in the United States are incarcerated due to a wide range of laws and procedures. Although there has been no evidence against them, those who have faced charges could face longer prison or jail sentences if convicted. The “War on Crime” resulted in these laws and policies due to 50 years of reform efforts to improve public safety, reduce drug use, and redress perceived inequalities in the court system. As a result of these reforms, judicial inequality has increased due to the changes1. Because of the recent spate of high-profile police shootings of African-Americans, structural reforms that promote fairness and provide adequate punishment without jeopardizing public safety should be implemented immediately. The public health implications of the COVID-19 pandemic may prompt an investigation into whether it is possible to reduce pre-trial detention and prison sentences without endangering public health or safety.
The United States has the second-highest incarceration rate globally, after China, despite a slight decline over the past two decades. On average, prison sentences in the United States are longer than those in most other countries. There has been an increase in calls for social and racial justice due to the recent police killings of unarmed black people, which has led to the rise in the number of infections and deaths caused by COVID-19 in US prisons. Given the response to the pandemic in many jurisdictions, it is possible to test whether reducing pre-trial detention or prison terms without jeopardizing public safety. This paper’s findings and conclusions make it difficult to estimate the costs and benefits accurately. Many people were held in prison at a time of rapid change and social upheaval.
Although not been convicted of a crime, there have been numerous efforts to improve public safety, reduce drug use, and correct perceived injustices in the legal system due to the “War on Crime” and “War on Drugs” that began in the 1970s. Although many benefits have resulted from the reforms, there have also been some unintended consequences that have harmed the overall system. Because of their race, law enforcement officers must change their approach when unarmed African-American men and boys are shot and killed by officers. Scientists are examining whether they can reduce pre-trial detention and prison sentences without jeopardizing public safety by using the COVID-19 epidemic as a case study for their investigation.
According to the United Nations, the United States still has the largest prison population globally, despite recent decreases in the number of inmates. United States convicts are more likely to face lengthy prison sentences because of the harshness of their crimes. As a result of the growing calls for social and racial justice following the police killings of unarmed Black people, the virus Covid-19 has negatively impacted the United States’ prison system. The virus’s spread has been particularly hard hit. Many governments have taken unprecedented measures to reduce the number of prisoners in response to this epidemic. It is impossible to estimate the costs and benefits of the information presented here because of the complexity of the facts and conclusions. When the report was gathered, the world was rapidly changing, and societal unrest resulted in a high incarceration rate.
Race is an essential topic in several chapters of this research, and it is extensively discussed in each chapter. Since the turn of the century, there has been a significant disparity in incarceration rates between races. Recent years have seen alarming increases in incarceration rates for young black males with low educational attainment, with rates six to seven times higher than white males.
People of color are more likely than other groups to be imprisoned because of racial and ethnic disparities in incarceration rates. A large portion of incarceration’s social and economic costs can be attributed to these disparities. According to research, the vast majority of inmates are recruited from low-income, minority communities that are also subjected to various other socioeconomic disadvantages in their daily lives2. It was common for minorities to live in high-crime neighborhoods that were also plagued by poverty, family breakdowns, poor health, and racial segregation at a time when high rates of jail admissions were the norm rather than an exception. Inequalities in incarceration caused significant harm to many African Americans, particularly the poor, and forced them to lose trust in state institutions. In low-income and minority neighborhoods, residents have historically had significantly higher incarceration rates than the general population. As a result, minorities, particularly the poorest of the marginalized people, have suffered the most due to the draconian punitive policies implemented over the previous 40 years.
Impacts of a Rising Crime Rate and Injustice on the Community
Because of the findings and conclusions of the study, it is not possible to conduct a straightforward cost-benefit analysis. High-incarceration policies were implemented during significant social upheaval. As a result of new regulations, the Justice Department says that the use of punitive detention has increased significantly, an essential milestone in the history of the American criminal justice system. Western democracies, as far as I know, have progressed to this point in history. There is, however, no evidence that higher jail rates were a significant factor in the decline in crime rates during this period, even though crime rates dropped dramatically during the 1990s and 2000s. Because of their imprisonment, individuals who have been incarcerated, as well as their families and the communities in which they live, stand to suffer significant social consequences.
Incarceration is associated with many risk factors, including unemployment, poverty, dysfunctional families, poor health, and drug use. It is difficult to pinpoint the exact cause of the problem; however, social consequences are a distinct possibility, and the consequences are disproportionately felt by low-income and minority groups3. Because of this, the impact of incarceration on society may be less significant than the impact of high incarceration rates on public policy and public life, particularly in the United States. After hearing these revelations, it was impossible to speak, which left the committee stunned. Science can provide answers to fundamental justice questions. It was generally agreed, especially when the problem is complex, a large amount of data is available, and scientific confidence is questioned. To take away someone else’s freedom, it is necessary to understand the proper connection between a person and society and the role that criminal penalties play in maintaining that connection. The successful implementation of a justice policy necessitates a strong sense of right and wrong for those involved.
The application of normative norms is required to determine the study’s policy implications. As the authors of the study point out, over 40 years, public discourse has elevated the goal of reducing crime above the standards that restrict the use of imprisonment as a form of punishment. In general, according to the principle of proportionality, criminal law violations should be punished directly to the seriousness of the offenses they commit. Forcing people to serve long prison sentences is a direct violation of the principle that the punishment for a crime must be appropriate but not excessive to achieve the desired sentencing outcome. One of the most effective litmus tests for the concept of citizenship is a cruel prison, which is a place where one’s social standing is jeopardized as a result of their time spent in jail. A scarcity of resources makes it challenging to implement social justice in prisons, even in impoverished and minority communities where incarceration is common.
A committee decided that the following principles should guide prisons to control crime in prisons. Although the committee recognizes that different ideals may have varying effects on society’s attitude toward crime, it does not believe this is the case. Long recognized as an affirmation of the social contract, criminal punishment and the criminal justice system have been devoted to preventing and controlling crime for many years4. Over the last few years, debates about prison reform have shifted away from concepts limiting state power, respecting human dignity in prison, and being concerned about their critical link to racial injustice and poverty and inequality. In their place have come concepts that promote a more just and equitable society. In the course of the investigation, it became clear that these ideas needed to be revived and that a unique equilibrium had been discovered in the country’s illegal programs, which was then analyzed and proposed in the study’s findings and conclusions.
The Importance of Government Policy
Because of longer prison sentences for felonies and harsher penalties for those who sell or use illegal drugs, prison populations have increased significantly in recent decades. Because of the lengthened prison sentences for felonies, this is primarily the cause of the problem. These strategies were intended to aid in the reduction of crime by increasing the number of prisons and correctional facilities that were available to the public. According to the committee’s study findings, increasing the number of people imprisoned has not been shown to have any effect on crime. Research has yet to demonstrate the extent to which imprisonment impacts crime, despite the absence of
The expansion of the correctional system has come at a high monetary cost, as has been demonstrated. Those who live and work in the communities where correctional facilities are located bear the brunt of the financial burden associated with incarceration because tax dollars fund these facilities at the state and federal levels. In addition, a significant amount of money is lost because of this. Redirect prison funds to public safety, victim services, and reintegration programs for ex-offenders. Everyone, including the incarcerated and their families, is affected by incarceration costs. A larger percentage of society now feels the stigma and negative consequences of incarceration because of the rapid increase in imprisoned people.However, recognizing the enormous cost of incarceration does not rule out the possibility of prison sentences being acceptable in certain circumstances. However, this estimate of jail expenditures does not consider the fact that, in certain circumstances, incarceration may serve as a deterrent to criminal behavior. Because of their imprisonment, some incarcerated people’s lives have unquestionably improved. Increasing incarceration rates in the United States may have negative effects when viewed in terms of proportionality and parsimony, citizenship, and social justice.
The long-term effects of incarcerating so many citizens are currently unknown. So our policy recommendations are based on the most up-to-date available information. Although our overall recommendations to reduce incarceration rates include changes to sentencing and prison policies, there are numerous other options to consider when making such a change5. More than one possible initiative to assist with the proposed policy shift is almost certainly being considered. Prisoner reintegration, diversionary prosecutions; community-based alternatives; and crime prevention efforts are just some examples. In some way, they are all intertwined. Rehabilitation programs for criminals, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), are expected to play a significant role in the required shift in policy. Although this committee’s mandate does not include evaluating the efficacy of these initiatives, its proposal should be considered in the context of a national policy framework. Later, we’ll go into greater detail about the importance of new scientific research and how it can help.
Decision Making in the Protection Process
Aside from various other factors, such as how long it has been since the violation occurred, research cannot determine the optimal punishment duration if the infraction is either too short or long. Several sentencing reforms have been implemented to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system in recent years. Policymakers must exercise caution to avoid undoing the progress that has already been made. Efforts to reduce the number of prisoners will only be successful if policymakers and the general public engage in a complex interplay that emphasizes values and the importance of political leadership. Despite these measures’ high social and financial costs, there was a slight improvement in public safety. Due to the stated ethical goals, it was deemed to conflict with them. There needs to be a rethinking of prison sentences, mandatory minimum sentences, and the enforcement of drug laws.
According to recent research, long sentences should be condensed into shorter ones. Longer prison sentences, according to data, have resulted in an increase in the number of people incarcerated. Legislation such as truth in punishment and the three principles, for example, have all played a role in achieving these results6. Many improvements to sentencing regulations have been implemented, including reduced or eliminated discretionary parole release, increased return rates for parole violations, a reduction in “good time” provisions to expedite release eligibility, a reduction in halfway houses, and enlightening parolee programs. As a result of the new laws, felonies now carry much longer sentences than previously.
According to the findings of this study, long prison sentences have little effect on crime reduction through deterrence or incapacity. Long sentences have no deterrent effect on criminals because they are more concerned with certainty and speed of punishment than with severity. As shown in the graph below, crime risk decreases precipitously with increasing age. Long-term inmates, who naturally mature as they serve their sentences, are less likely to re-offend than those who are released early. Harsh prison sentences are ineffective at deterring crime if sentencing judges cannot target individuals with a high crime rate or a high risk of harm. The costs to state and federal governments are already rising due to an aging jail population, and this trend is only expected to worsen in the coming years.
An effective strategy may be to reduce lengthy prison sentences due to federal and state efforts to reduce incarceration rates. If you’ve been convicted of crack cocaine crimes before, the US Sentencing Commission has retroactively changed your sentence guidelines. Between 2006 and 2011, 39 states reduced prison populations by reducing prison sentences7. Several states have passed new laws to allow prisoners to apply for parole earlier. It includes the states of Mississippi, Michigan, and Alabama. The “three strikes” laws in Los Angeles, Indiana, and South Carolina were relaxed due to widespread public outcry. Other countries have implemented “good time” credit programs, which directly impact parole eligibility and release for inmates. There have been parallel moves in 16 states since 2001. Even though the exact impact on sentence length has not yet been determined, a reduction in state prison populations is undeniable.
It would take a long time to reduce the jail population if policy measures to reduce the number of people serving long prison sentences were only applied to new convictions. If prison policies are changed, inmates may be released sooner. The federal and state governments may revise rules governing work release, halfway houses, and discretionary parole. If other governments want to implement or expand compassionate release programs, geriatric or medical parole, also known as “compassionate release,” could serve as a model. As of 2012, there are now 29 states that allow the elderly and terminally ill to be released from their care.
The average prison sentence in the United States could be drastically reduced if these measures are implemented. It is time for state and federal laws to rethink sentence length as a matter of fundamental fairness. The increasing use of longer prison sentences is to blame for a large portion of incarceration rates. Over time, there could be significant reductions in the prison population if new sentencing guidelines are implemented and detailed research into the benefits of longer sentences like life sentences without parole. Certain offenses should have their maximum sentence length reduced to save money over time. This policy change will not affect public safety if the research’s normative assumptions are met.
Minimum Sentence Requirements
From 1975 to 1995, every state and the United States Congress made many crimes punishable by prison sentences8. According to these statistics, the most frequently enacted change in the criminal justice system in the United States has been the implementation of mandatory sentences. Sentencing reforms were implemented to reduce crime; they believed that imposing mandatory jail terms for certain offenses would deter others from committing them. According to the study’s findings, such regulations have little or no deterrent effect. The National Studies Council convened committees to evaluate current studies to determine whether harsher punishments are beneficial to public safety. They concluded that there is insufficient evidence to back up this claim. It has been established that mandatory minimum sentences compel police officers, prosecutors, and judges to refrain from imposing them on criminals.
Mandatory minimum sentences should be reconsidered to make a more significant contribution to reducing the prison population. Many countries have conducted this type of research, and 12 states relaxed their minimum mandatory sentencing regulations between 2001 and 2010 in response to the findings. There is no need for legislative reform; instead, changes in prosecution policy may have an equal or more significant impact on punishment than legislative reform. According to recent orders to federal prosecutors, some drug prosecutions will no longer rely on statutory minimum sentences.
To adhere to the principles of proportionality and parsimony, laws that impose jail time for minor offenses must be reevaluated9. When judges have more leeway in imposing criminal penalties, they recognize the severity of the punishment and the need only to charge it when necessary. According to this analysis, the number of people attempting to avoid paying fines will decrease; in conclusion, all evidence indicates that the proposed changes will reduce the prison population without jeopardizing public safety.
Drug Laws Enforcement
The drug war has resulted in a significant increase in people imprisoned in the United States. During the decades when the prison system was developing, drug offenses were responsible for more than twice as many people being detained as any other type of crime. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the number of people sentenced to state prison for drug offenses increased steadily from 10,000 in 1980 to more than 120,000 in 1990 and more than 157,000 in 2008. According to National Research Council findings, the price of drugs dropped dramatically from the 1980s to the 1990s due to massive increases in prison time for drug offenses during this period. Current drug enforcement strategies must be rethought because they are ineffective and costly, and alternative solutions must be investigated. Another goal is to reduce drug-related incarceration, which disproportionately impacts minority communities. African Americans and Hispanics are more likely to commit drug trafficking because they have higher incarceration rates.
To reduce the number of people imprisoned, our country’s drug war must be reexamined. It is critical to reconsider the problem of illegal drug use because it affects both public health and criminal justice10. According to some experts, specific health-focused options can reduce social and economic costs while also improving public health. As a result of current law enforcement techniques, drug policy must be reconsidered. By utilizing a coordinated multi-agency approach that effectively addresses the negative consequences, focused deterrence concepts can be successfully applied to overt drug markets. This method has since gained popularity in the United States.
Penalties for drug offenses have become more difficult to obtain in recent years. As previously stated, the incarceration rate could be reduced if mandatory minimum and extended prison terms for drug crimes were abolished. Correctional facility utilization rates have decreased due to changes in federal sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine convictions, as well as the renovation of New York City’s Rockefeller Center, among other factors. It is stated in Drug Laws that there may be a benefit to reducing the amount of time spent in prison for drug offenses.
It is possible that the criminal justice system could benefit from different approaches to dealing with drug abuse. Several states and the federal government are already implementing this policy. One of the best ways to reduce drug use and prison populations is through drug treatment courts and prosecutorial diversion programs. If you’re concerned about drug abuse, you may want to consider a probation program called Project HOPE. This program uses swift and certain sanctions, as well as a drug testing system, to address the issue without resorting to prison time. These and other program changes that lessen America’s reliance on its prison system are outside the scope of this study, and we must emphasize the importance of conducting a long-term, comprehensive investigation into how we currently deal with drug addiction and criminality instead11.
Other Sentencing Policy Issues
When tackling the crime problem, policymakers had to take historical shifts in political, racial, and social dynamics into account, as well as the current situation. National policy debates have been dominated by rising crime rates. During political debates, the issues of crime and race were frequently mixed up. The liberalization of public policy that took place in the 1960s can be seen in the growth of social programs and the expansion of rights for criminal defendants and convicts. However, crime rates continued to rise during this time period. Discussions about criminality took place during this time because crime policy was primarily established at the state and municipal levels at this time Concerns about crime and punishment were on the minds of state legislators and local elected officials such as judges and prosecutors when they drafted sentencing guidelines. Penal policy evolved as a result of this development, and it became increasingly aggressive.
All levels of government have implemented numerous changes to the rules governing criminal prosecution and sentencing in an effort to make prison time more effective. The threat of incarceration has become more prevalent in recent years, even for minor infractions. Violence and recurrence-related crimes received longer sentences in prison. Major cities were more heavily policed and penalized for drug trafficking compared to smaller towns and rural areas12. Due to mandatory sentencing legislation, harsher sentences for violent crimes, and increased criminalization of drug-related behavior, prison populations have risen.
Starting with crime rates, the effectiveness of criminal justice policies can be assessed. Since the data does not indicate how much crime is reduced by increasing the prison population, most studies agree that the increased incarceration rates have led to a drop. According to some studies, as the incarceration rate rises, the benefits of imprisonment in terms of crime reduction diminish; however, this could be due to the increasing age of the jail population. High levels of scientific confidence in the consequences of increased incarceration rates are difficult to achieve, as are many carefully considered assessments of major historical events in general. Sentence policy, socioeconomic inequality, and hundreds of other factors contribute to the rise in incarceration; because of their interdependence, it is difficult to isolate any of these factors from the others.
Researchers face significant scientific challenges in distinguishing cause and effect from a wide range of societal factors in order to accurately assess the impact of increased prison sentences on crime, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions. During the 1970s and 1980s, higher jail populations were associated with lower overall crime rates, but there is only a sliver of evidence that this was true. Although both prison admissions and time spent in prison contributed to an increase in the number of people imprisoned, studies have shown that time served had the greatest impact. Rather than the length of time in prison, studies have shown that the certainty of being apprehended deters criminals from committing crimes. Long sentences may have little effect on an offender’s ability to function in society, given the decline in criminal behavior that occurs as people age.
Inmates and their families suffer as a result of the growing prison population. Starting with studies on prison conditions and inmate health, the committee examined these implications. Some inmates may have been adversely affected by increased incarceration rates, which may have made it more difficult for them to reintegrate into society when they are released13. A decrease in prison deaths has led to an increase in the number of incarcerated people, despite a decrease in overcrowding, lack of rehabilitation programs, and increased demand for medical and mental health facilities. According to the research, several aspects of prison life, including financial hardship, restricted mobility and privacy, and a high level of uncertainty and dread, were found to be detrimental to the mental health of specific prisoners.
According to research, people with a high disease burden and an increased risk of mental illness are targeted by these stresses. Convicted felons are more likely to suffer from drug addiction and mental illness due to their imprisonment (HIV, viral hepatitis, sexually transmitted infections, and others). Prison inmates are far more likely to commit suicide, relapse into drug addiction, or die from an overdose after being released from prison than the general population. As a result, incarceration harms both the individual and the broader community. Low wages, high unemployment, and few opportunities for advancement await the incarcerated. Individuals incarcerated face bleak futures because of educational failure, criminal activity, and mental health issues before being sentenced.
Because of these pre-existing characteristics, estimating the economic impact of imprisonment with precision and precision is difficult. Despite this, incarceration can harm a person’s productivity and career prospects. According to a controlled study, criminal histories may have long-term consequences in the workplace for job applicants with a criminal record. Ex-convict families have a reputation for instability, and their children have a reputation for behavioral issues. The number of children in prison has risen dramatically in recent years, and studies have shown that having a parent in prison can have a negative impact on a child’s development. However, while research indicates a significant link between fathers’ incarceration and family difficulties such as housing instability or behavioral disorders in their children, it is difficult to establish direct links between the two14. If male convicts’ spouses and children had a positive relationship with their families before being imprisoned, they were more likely to suffer negative consequences. When it came to the consequences of high incarceration rates, the committee took into account more than just individuals and their families.
African American and Hispanic communities, which have the highest incarceration rates, have been disproportionately affected. Because of the shift in criminal policy toward greater use of jails, these communities have seen an increase in the number of people detained or incarcerated and then returned to prison for violating their parole terms or committing another crime. It is impossible to determine whether or not the high concentration of prisons influences the level of corruption in these neighborhoods because it is difficult to draw definitive causal conclusions. Although it is difficult to argue against this conclusion, it is clear that incarceration is concentrated in high-crime areas disproportionately populated by minorities.
The committee investigated how an increase in the prison population affects civic and social life more broadly. Because of the country’s high incarceration rate, ex-prisoners and their relatives and friends are less likely to participate in civic and political activities. Increased incarceration rates resulted from the destruction of critical socioeconomic and demographic records, paving the way for a broader system of stigmatization and marginalization at the levels of law, politics, and society15. State finances have become an essential part of government administration due to the enormous cost of imprisonment to the state.
The United States has the second-highest incarceration rate globally, after China, despite a slight decline over the past two decades benefits are debatable in terms of their magnitude. This has resulted in a steadily rising incarceration rate in the United States, which is the focus of this paper. As a primary means of crime prevention, they turned to prisons. A result of more severe penalties, repeated offenses and extreme violence were punished more severely, and drug offenses were pursued more aggressively.
Communities are increasingly being used as a justification for incarceration for minor infractions. Because of this fundamental shift in penal policy was either ignored or overlooked that there could be negative social consequences. Policymakers also failed to consider the possibility that increasing jail capacity would have a minor impact on crime prevention. Contrary to popular belief, this committee found little or no impact on crime from the dramatic rise in the number of people incarcerated.
On the other hand, the data suggest that the increase in the jail population may have had a negative impact on inmates, their families, and society. The committee recognizes that academic attempts to estimate these two impacts are fraught with significant scientific ambiguity, which it believes. Despite a significant shift in punitive policy in the United States, the committee concludes that numerous benefits did not materialize and that societal harm may have resulted as a result; the committee’s conclusion reflects this ambiguity. Increases in prison sentence length have only a moderate deterrent effect on criminal behavior. Long prison sentences become ineffective in preventing crime through incapacitation as people age, unless they primarily target high-rate or very dangerous offenders. The extent to which the increase in incarceration contributed to a reduction in crime is unknown, and most research findings indicate that it was unlikely to be significant.
When parole (or probation) is revoked for technical violations of release conditions, policymakers may try to reduce the number of people who are sent to prison. This could reduce the number of people who end up in prison. The number of convicts returning to prison has decreased dramatically in jurisdictions that have implemented this reform model. A notable lack of public proclamation of normative norms in the justice field has been observed in recent years16. We have not seen an increase in the number of people in prison in the United States for a long time. As a foundation for future public policy and research, law and governance theory principles with long histories are critical.
In light of the limited crime-prevention benefits of long prison sentences, federal and state authorities should drastically alter current criminal justice policies in order to reduce the American prison population. Rethink their position on mandatory minimum fines and lengthy prison sentences. Detainees’ personal experiences and the impact on their families should also be taken into consideration by legislators. We believe that state and federal policymakers should rethink their approaches to sentencing, prisons, and social services based on the information we have gathered. It can only happen if the political will is there to make it happen.
To halt this trend, government action is required, just as it was with the increase in the prison population. Changing state and federal policies on an unprecedented scale will be necessary to halt the downward trend. Another way of putting it is that they need to reevaluate the current system of lengthy prison sentences, minimum mandatory sentences, and general drug law enforcement methods. As a result, current legislation must be amended to allow officers of the law, prosecutors, and others involved in the justice system to exercise their discretion more effectively. Due to a growing public consensus that current procedures have been detrimental rather than beneficial, new punitive measures must be developed. The general public must be persuaded that this is true. The United States has the second-highest incarceration rate globally, after China, despite a slight decline over the past two decades.
Beckett, K. “The politics, promise, and peril of criminal justice reform in the context of mass incarceration.” Annual Review of Criminology 1, no. 1 (2018), 235-259. Web.
Beckett, K., and M. M. Francis. “The origins of mass incarceration: The racial politics of crime and punishment in the post-civil rights era.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 16, no. 1 (2020), 433-452. Web.
Blankenship, K. M., A. M. Del Rio Gonzalez, D. E. Keene, A. K. Groves, and A. P. Rosenberg. “Mass incarceration, race inequality, and health: Expanding concepts and assessing impacts on well-being.” Social Science & Medicine 215 (2018), 45-52. Web.
Boonin, D. “Punishment, restitution, and incarceration.” Rethinking Punishment in the Era of Mass Incarceration, 2017, 122-143. Web.
Brennan, J. “Corporal punishment as an alternative to incarceration.” Rethinking Punishment in the Era of Mass Incarceration, 2017, 294-308. Web.
“Chapter one The Prison Buildup and the Birth of Private Prisons.” Inside Private Prisons, 2017, 13-35. Web.
Darke, Sacha, Chris Garces, Luis D. Gottberg, and Andrés Antillano. Carceral Communities in Latin America: Troubling Prison Worlds in the 21st century. Basingstoke: Springer Nature, 2020. Web.
Davis, Colin. “Whose War, Which War?” Traces of War, 2018, 234-238. Web.
Elmquist, JoAnna M., Andrew Ninnemann, and Gregory L. Stuart. “Rockefeller Laws.” Encyclopedia of Drug Policy (n.d.).
Kane, Lindsey. “Vera Institute of Justice.” Encyclopedia of Race and Crime (n.d.). Web.
Lattimore, Pamela K. “Thoughts from the Multi-Site Evaluation of the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement Demonstration Field Experiment 1.” Handbook on Moving Corrections and Sentencing Forward, 2020, 99-123. Web.
Leipold, A. D. “Is mass incarceration inevitable?” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2019. Web.
“Long-term Imprisonment in Latin America.” Life Imprisonment and Human Rights (n.d.). Web.
“News Release.” Federal Sentencing Reporter 29, no. 2-3 (2017), 134-135. Web.
Robinson, G. B. “Mass incarceration.” The Killing Season, 2019, 208-236.
“Sentencing: Mandatory Minimum Sentences.” Striking a balance: Debating Criminal Justice and Law, 2018, 147-155.
Temin, P. “Mass incarceration.” The Vanishing Middle Class, 2017. Web.
Wacquant, L. “From slavery to mass incarceration.” Race, Law and Society, 2017, 277-296. Web.
Wildeman, C., and E. A. Wang. “Mass incarceration, public health, and widening inequality in the USA.” The Lancet 389, no. 10077 (2017), 1464-1474. Web.
- Elmquist, JoAnna M., Andrew Ninnemann, and Gregory L. Stuart. “Rockefeller Laws.” Encyclopedia of Drug Policy (n.d.).
- Davis, Colin. “Whose War, Which War?” Traces of War, 2018, 234-238.
- Lattimore, Pamela K. “Thoughts from the Multi-Site Evaluation of the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement Demonstration Field Experiment 1.” Handbook on Moving Corrections and Sentencing Forward, 2020, 99-123.
- Darke, Sacha, Chris Garces, Luis D. Gottberg, and Andrés Antillano. Carceral Communities in Latin America: Troubling Prison Worlds in the 21st century. Basingstoke: Springer Nature, 2020.
- “Chapter one The Prison Buildup and the Birth of Private Prisons.” Inside Private Prisons, 2017, 13-35.
- “Long-term Imprisonment in Latin America.” Life Imprisonment and Human Rights (n.d.).
- Brennan, J. “Corporal punishment as an alternative to incarceration.” Rethinking Punishment in the Era of Mass Incarceration, 2017, 294-308.
- Wildeman, C., and E. A. Wang. “Mass incarceration, public health, and widening inequality in the USA.” The Lancet 389, no. 10077 (2017), 1464-1474.
- Temin, P. “Mass incarceration.” The Vanishing Middle Class, 2017.
- “News Release.” Federal Sentencing Reporter 29, no. 2-3 (2017), 134-135.
- Boonin, D. “Punishment, restitution, and incarceration.” Rethinking Punishment in the Era of Mass Incarceration, 2017, 122-143.
- Beckett, K. “The politics, promise, and peril of criminal justice reform in the context of mass incarceration.” Annual Review of Criminology 1, no. 1 (2018), 235-259.
- Beckett, K., and M. M. Francis. “The origins of mass incarceration: The racial politics of crime and punishment in the post-civil rights era.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 16, no. 1 (2020), 433-452.
- Robinson, G. B. “Mass incarceration.” The Killing Season, 2019, 208-236. “Sentencing: Mandatory Minimum Sentences.” Striking a balance: Debating Criminal Justice and Law, 2018, 147-155.
- Blankenship, K. M., A. M. Del Rio Gonzalez, D. E. Keene, A. K. Groves, and A. P. Rosenberg. “Mass incarceration, race inequality, and health: Expanding concepts and assessing impacts on well-being.” Social Science & Medicine 215 (2018), 45-52
- Wacquant, L. “From slavery to mass incarceration.” Race, Law and Society, 2017, 277-296