Critical Junctures and Conditions of Change: Exploring the Fall of Prison Populations in US States

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne Karstedt ◽  
Tiffany Bergin ◽  
Michael Koch
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Prison Population ◽  
Mass Incarceration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Transformative Change ◽  
Us States ◽  
State Prison ◽  
Critical Junctures ◽  
Penal Reform ◽  
Prison Populations

State prison populations in the United States have been regularly declining since 2009, and, at the end of 2014, the combined federal and state prison population was at its lowest level since 2005. Criminologists were caught by surprise by this development in the country that epitomized contemporary ‘mass incarceration’. Their theoretical accounts were steeped in a ‘punitive worldview’ that left no space for the stabilization and eventual decline in mass incarceration in the United States. This article focuses on policy processes, rather than structural conditions, as drivers of penal change. The article begins with an overview of theories of punishment and their shortcomings. The framework that guides our study is based on the concept of ‘critical junctures’, which are seedbeds of long-term transformative change that present opportunities and constraints for actors in the penal field. The empirical research presented here analyses the adoption of legal reforms aimed at reducing mass incarceration by the 50 US states. We find that a trifecta of conflicting actors – legal, political and public – accounts for the complex and sometimes contradictory ways in which states move towards penal reform.

The downside of downsizing: Persistence of racial disparities following state prison reform

2021 ◽  
pp. 146247452110060
Author(s):  
Amy E Lerman ◽  
Alyssa C Mooney
Keyword(s):  
Racial Disparities ◽  
Prison Population ◽  
Mass Incarceration ◽  
Prison Reform ◽  
State Prison ◽  
Probation And Parole ◽  
Substantial Progress ◽  
Prison Populations ◽  
Racial Ethnic ◽  
Double Digit

Nationwide, prison populations have declined nearly 5% from their peak, and 16 states have seen double-digit declines. It is unclear, though, how decarceration has affected racial disparities. Using national data, we find substantial variation in state prison populations from 2005–2018, with increases in some states and declines in others. However, although declines in the overall state prison population were associated with declines for all groups, states with rising prison populations experienced slight upticks in prison rates among the white population, while rates among Black and Latinx populations declined. As a result, greater progress in overall decarceration within states did not translate to larger reductions in racial disparities. At the same time, we do not find evidence that a decline in prison populations is associated with a rise in jail incarceration for any racial/ethnic group. In additional exploratory analyses, we suggest that recent incarceration trends may be driven by changes in returns to prison for probation and parole violations, rather than commitments for new crimes. Our results make clear that while efforts to reverse mass incarceration have reduced the size of prison populations in some states, they have not yet made substantial progress in resolving the crisis of race in American criminal justice.

Greening the Gulag: Austerity, neoliberalism, and the making of the “green prisoner”

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 1120-1136
Author(s):  
B Jewell Bohlinger
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Prison Population ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Mass Incarceration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Effective Strategies ◽  
The Past ◽  
Cost Cutting ◽  
Important Challenge ◽  
The Impact

Over the past 30 years the U.S. prison population has exploded. With the impact of climate change already here, we are also seeing new critiques of mass incarceration emerge, namely their environmental impact. In response to these burgeoning critiques as well as calls to action by the Justice Department to implement more sustainable and cost-effective strategies in prisons, the United States is experiencing a surge in prison sustainability programs throughout the country. Although sustainability is an important challenge facing the world, this paper argues that while “greening” programs seem like attempts to reform current methods of imprisonment, sustainability programming is an extension of the neoliberalization of incarceration in the United States. By emphasizing cost cutting while individualizing rehabilitation, prisons mobilize sustainability programming to produce “green prisoners” who are willing to take responsibility for their rehabilitation and diminish their economically burdensome behaviors (i.e. excessive wastefulness). Using semi-structure journals and interviews at three Oregon prisons, this paper investigates these ideas through the lens of the Sustainability in Prisons Project.

Regulating California’s Prison Population

2016 ◽  
Vol 664 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Austin
Keyword(s):  
Driving Forces ◽  
Prison Population ◽  
Mass Incarceration ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Court Order ◽  
Ballot Initiative ◽  
The Past ◽  
Penal Codes ◽  
Prison Populations

While many scholars and social commentators bemoan the rise of “mass incarceration” in the United States, few states have succeeded in significantly reducing prison populations. Fueled by systemic changes in penal codes, sentencing practices, and federal funding all designed to increase the use of imprisonment, most states have been unable to reverse the massive increase that has transpired over the past four decades. More alarming, there are few indications that mass incarceration will be reduced any time soon. There are a few exceptions, with California being one. Since 2007, California’s prison population has dropped by over 43,000 prisoners. Reductions have also been achieved in the state parole (82,000) and probation (15,000) populations. Today there are 146,000 fewer Californians in prison, jail, parole, or probation. Initially driven largely by a period of lengthy litigation, a rare federal court order to depopulate, several other reforms, reflecting a sticks and carrots approach, were introduced beginning in 2007 to lower imprisonment rates. Among them was “Realignment,” which relocated approximately 27,000 state prisoners to the counties. However, it required another stick in the form of a ballot initiative (Proposition 47) to further reduce the prison population and meet compliance with the federal court order. In the end, it was the externally imposed dual “sticks” of litigation and a ballot initiative that proved to be the driving forces in reducing California’s use of mass incarceration.

Incarceration in the United States: The Extent and Future of the Problem

1985 ◽  
Vol 478 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
JAMES AUSTIN ◽  
BARRY KRISBERG
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Population Growth ◽  
Prison Population ◽  
The United States ◽  
Current Data ◽  
Special Importance ◽  
Sentencing Reforms ◽  
National Trends ◽  
Prison Populations

The purpose of this article is to summarize and interpret the most current data on imprisonment in the United States. These data will be examined in light of other criminal justice and national trends affecting prison population growth. Of special importance will be analysis of historical and projected trends in the use of American prisons. This will include an examination of the methods used to forecast future incarceration rates in light of changing criminal justice policies and other factors believed to influence prison population growth. The authors conclude that despite a projected national trend of a leveling off of prison admissions, prison populations will continue to rise, reflecting the effects of sentencing reforms aimed at increasing prison terms.

Probation Revocation

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
David E. Olson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Mass Incarceration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Missed Appointments ◽  
Department Of Justice ◽  
Technical Violations ◽  
Prison Populations ◽  
The Impact

Despite all the attention paid to the growing prison populations in the United States since the early 1990s, it remains, as it has throughout recent history, that probation accounts for the largest portion of those under the custody of the criminal justice system. The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that at the end of 2015, there were more than 3.7 million adults under the supervision of U.S. probation authorities, compared to 1.5 million in prison, 870,000 on parole, and 728,000 in local jails. And while probation is not often thought about within the context of “mass incarceration” in the United States, probation directly impacts prison and jail populations in two specific ways. First, a sentence of probation for a felony offense is the most frequent alternative to a prison sentence. Second, the revocation of probation can directly lead to the imposition of a sentence to prison or jail, depending on the nature of the original conviction offense. During 2015, in the United States, it is estimated that 12% of all probationers exiting supervision were incarcerated due to probation revocation, which translates to an estimate of more than 233,000 probationers annually. Probation revocation means that the sentencing court has determined that a violation of the conditions of probation have occurred, and because of this, the original probation sentence is no longer appropriate. As a result of a probation sentence being revoked, the sentencing court imposes a different (usually more serious) sanction on the offender. Often, those on probation for a felony offense who have their probation revoked are sentenced to prison, leading to their admission to prison. Indeed, given this link, scholars and practitioners have identified reducing probation revocation as one strategy to reducing prison populations, and jurisdictions often focus on reducing probation revocations as a means to lowering their commitments to prison. Probation revocation can result from either new arrests or violations of technical aspects of the sentence, such as missed appointments or non-compliance with treatment orders. However, whether or not a probation sentence is revoked as a result of these violations varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This variation in the use of probation revocation as a response to violations of probation illustrates the localized nature of revocation proceedings, and attempts to reduce these disparities have taken many forms. These efforts to reduce the impact of probation revocations on prison admissions have ranged from providing local jurisdictions with financial incentives to respond to revocation-eligible violations with sanctions other than incarceration, to legislative efforts to prohibit sentences to prison as a response to probation revocations stemming from technical violations or instances where public safety is not threatened.

Is plea bargaining a rational choice? Plea bargaining as an engine of racial stratification and overcrowding in the United States prison system

2012 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Savitsky
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Prison Population ◽  
Criminal Activity ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
The United States ◽  
Racial Stratification ◽  
Large Numbers ◽  
Bargaining Position ◽  
Black Defendants ◽  
Prison Populations

The United States incarcerates 1% of American adults. Incarceration rates have increased steadily since 1970 even while criminal activity has dropped. Additionally, while crime rates are relatively equal across races, the rate of incarceration for blacks has risen faster than for whites. This paper argues that plea bargaining, which accounts for 95% of criminal dispositions, is a major causal factor of high prison populations and high levels of racial stratification in prisons. This paper hypothesizes that by placing defendants in a multi-player Prisoner’s Dilemma, and by reducing transaction costs, plea bargaining allows prosecutors to act on a political will to incarcerate large numbers of people. Additionally, it hypothesizes that since black defendants are likely to have less faith in the criminal justice system than white defendants, this places them in a worse bargaining position, leading to systematically worse bargains. These differential bargains aggregate into a stratified prison population.

scholarly journals O znaczeniu fundamentalnych zasad karania w polityce karnej — uwagi na tle przyczyn i skutków „masowego uwięzienia” w Stanach Zjednoczonych

2017 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
pp. 509-522
Author(s):  
Barbara Stańdo-Kawecka
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Prison Population ◽  
Criminal Policy ◽  
Mass Incarceration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Support ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Continuous Growth ◽  
Philosophy Of Punishment ◽  
The Social

The importance of the fundamental principles of punishment in criminal policy — remarks against a background of causes and results of “mass incarceration” in the United StatesIn the last century, in the United States, there was a significant change in the paradigms of punishment. In the 1970s the ideology of rehabilitation collapsed and reforms, which aimed at restoring justice in punishment and reduction of the prison population, were initiated. In the next decade, the movement aiming at liberal reforms lost the social and political support and was replaced with the repressive criminal policy. At the same time, a rapid increase in the prison population started which has been referred to in the criminological literature as the phenomenon of mass incarceration. After four decades of continuous growth in the number of persons deprived of their liberty there is no doubt that the social and financial consequences of a repressive system of punishment proved to be dramatic. For this reason, issues concerning the restoration of justice and rationality in punishment have again been discussed in the United States.Many European countries also experienced the “punitive turn” in the criminal policy at the end of the 20th century, although its scale was incomparable with what happened in the United States. It does not mean, however, that American discussions on the philosophy of punishment and criminal policy are irrelevant for Europe. Multidimensional negative effects of the American policy of mass incarceration indicate the dangers resulting from ignoring the basic principles of punishment that protect against abuses of the state’s power to punish. Additionally, they encourage a serious discussion about the integration of punishment theories with the empirical knowledge on the results of sentencing and sentence enforcement.

scholarly journals Same old song and dance? An analysis of legislative activity in a period of penal reform

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 389-412
Author(s):  
Michael Campbell ◽  
Heather Schoenfeld ◽  
Paige Vaughn
Keyword(s):  
Crime Control ◽  
Mass Incarceration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Data Set ◽  
State Legislation ◽  
Penal Reform ◽  
Or Practice ◽  
New Ideas ◽  
Legislative Activity ◽  
Prison Populations

After years of tough-on-crime politics and increasingly punitive sentencing in the United States, economic, political, and social shifts in the 21st century have created new opportunities for opponents of the penal status quo. By 2013, a majority of states had enacted some type of reform aimed at reducing prison populations. An emerging body of punishment and society scholarship seeks to understand the possibilities and characteristics of reform efforts by examining enacted state legislation. In this article, we use a unique data set of all proposed and passed bills in three legislative sessions in New Jersey between 2001 and 2013 to provide a nuanced empirical account of change and continuity in penal logics in the period of reform. Even when not enacted, proposed legislation shapes the penal field by introducing new ideas that are later incorporated into rhetoric, policy, or practice. Proposed bills that never become law can also alter the political calculus for reformers or their opponents. Our findings demonstrate that by expanding our universe of data, we gain insight into characteristics of “late mass incarceration” that we might otherwise miss. In particular, while we find evidence of decarceration and bifurcation logics, our analysis also demonstrates that state lawmakers continue to participate in “crime control theater” and reproduce the same punitive penal logics that helped build the carceral state.

Decarceration Problems and Prospects

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Todd R. Clear
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Policy Reform ◽  
Mass Incarceration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Annual Review ◽  
Publication Date ◽  
Violent Crimes ◽  
Prison Populations ◽  
Broad Consensus ◽  
Western Democracies

Incarceration rates in the United States are far higher than the world's other Western democracies, so high that they are referred to as mass incarceration. After nearly 40 years of sustained growth in US incarceration rates, a broad consensus exists to bring them down. The Iron Law of Prison Populations directs attention to the fact that 51 different jurisdictional-level penal policies, rather than crime, drive incarceration rates, making systematic policy reform difficult. However, the fact that prison populations have already begun to decline, combined with the emerging public will to reduce incarceration and dropping age-specific incarceration rates, promotes optimism in the decarceration agenda. Three issues remain to be resolved: the eventual target rate of incarceration, what to do with people convicted of violent crimes, and how to avoid the distracting focus on reentry programming. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Criminology, Volume 4 is January 13, 2021. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

A Second Chance at Health

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 70-80
Author(s):  
Jennifer Elyse James
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Black Women ◽  
Prison Population ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Mass Incarceration ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Second Chance ◽  
Feminist Bioethics

Mass incarceration and the aging prison population in the United States is an ethical crisis, understudied in empirical bioethics research. In this article, I share one woman’s narrative to illustrate how older Black women describe accessing healthcare while incarcerated and identify sites for bioethical exploration. I argue that, due to the punitive nature of prison healthcare interactions, wherein women are seen as inmates first and patients second, healthcare providers are caught in a trap of competing ethical commitments to their patients and the state. As the prison population ages, these challenges will become more acute. Feminist bioethics has a critical role to play in imagining new possibilities for accessing, giving, and receiving care in the carceral context.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document