Teaching Yoga to Incarcerated Populations

Despite overall societal progress in reducing adverse impacts of heat and cold, incarcerated populations remain highly vulnerable to environmental stressors. Incarcerated populations experience a combination of risk factors related to their physical health and well-being that increase their thermal vulnerability: social isolation, disproportionate mental health issues, comorbidities, limited mobility, and a reliance on external factors to provide a safe, healthy environment. In carceral spaces, thermal exposure agitates these already complex situations, shaping a confluence of various economic, political, and ecological intersectionalities. This synthesis contextualizes the ongoing scholarship on climate change, thermal exposure, the built environment, and public policy, to examine thermal inequities experienced by incarcerated populations. In examining this context, we connect our work to carceral geographies, the geographies of violence, racial capitalism, and abolition ecologies. Ultimately, the review highlights how physical geographers may directly converse with critical geographers, promote equity and environmental justice, and work to reduce adverse impacts of extreme temperature events.

Download Full-text

Sex Differences in Inmates: Anger, Sensitivity to Provocation and Family History of Imprisonment

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology ◽

10.1177/0306624x211049189 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 0306624X2110491

Author(s):

Marta Bodecka-Zych ◽

Anna Zajenkowska ◽

Mary Bower Russa

Keyword(s):

Family History ◽

Comparison Group ◽

Female Inmates ◽

Male And Female ◽

Female Prisoners ◽

Increased Risk ◽

Incarcerated Populations ◽

History Of ◽

Male Prisoners

Little research has explored the role of aggression, anger, and family history of incarceration as they relate to female offenders. The current study aimed to address this gap in the literature by investigating these possible risk factors for incarceration among both men and women. The survey involved 123 (61 female and 62 male) prisoners convicted for violent crimes and a comparison group of 118 (60 female and 58 male) adults from the community. We found that women (convicted and non-convicted) were more sensitive to provocation than men, while community adults showed higher levels of trait anger than prisoners. Detainees were more likely than community adults to have a relative in prison. Although male and female inmates were equally likely to have a relative in prison, they differed in their relation to the imprisoned relative. Male and female prisoners showed increased risk for incarceration of same sex, first degree relatives (father and brothers for men, and mothers for women). These results may contribute to improved understanding of incarcerated populations. As such, this represents a critical first step in creating recovery programs that are more gender appropriate.

Download Full-text

Heterogeneity in Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) Seroprevalence Estimates from U.S. Adult Incarcerated Populations

Annals of Epidemiology ◽

10.1016/j.annepidem.2009.04.001 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 19 (9) ◽

pp. 647-650 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Amy J. Harzke ◽

Karen J. Goodman ◽

Patricia D. Mullen ◽

Jacques Baillargeon

Keyword(s):

Hepatitis B Virus ◽

Hepatitis B ◽

B Virus ◽

Incarcerated Populations

Download Full-text

Emotional Intelligence of Incarcerated Populations as Measured by The Rorschach Inkblot Technique

Open Access Journal of Addiction and Psychology ◽

10.33552/oajap.2020.03.000559 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 3 (2) ◽

Author(s):

Ashley Ginter

Keyword(s):

Emotional Intelligence ◽

Incarcerated Populations

Download Full-text

The Constitutional Law of Incarceration, Reconfigured

10.31228/osf.io/7te2v ◽

2018 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Margo Schlanger

Keyword(s):

Due Process ◽

Use Of Force ◽

Mass Incarceration ◽

Federal Court ◽

Pretrial Detention ◽

Legal Standards ◽

Eighth Amendment ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Incarcerated Populations ◽

Lower Courts

103 Cornell L. Rev. 357 (2018)As American incarcerated populations grew starting in the 1970s, so too did court oversight of prisons. In the late 1980s, however, as incarceration continued to boom, federal court oversight shrank. This Article addresses the most central doctrinal limit on oversight of jails and prisons, the Supreme Court’s restrictive reading of the constitutional provisions governing treatment of prisoners — the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause and the Due Process Clause, which regulate, respectively, post-conviction imprisonment and pretrial detention. The Court’s interpretation of the Eighth Amendment’s ban of cruel and unusual punishment, in particular, radically undermined prison officials’ accountability for tragedies behind bars — allowing, even encouraging, them to avoid constitutional accountability. And lower courts compounded the error by importing that reading into Due Process doctrine as well. In 2015, in Kingsley v. Hendrickson, a jail use of force case, the Court relied on 1970s precedent, not subsequent caselaw that had placed undue emphasis on the subjective culpability of prison and jail officials as the crucial source of constitutional concern. The Kingsley Court returned to a more appropriate objective analysis. In finding for the plaintiff, the Supreme Court unsettled the law far past Kingsley’s direct factual setting of pretrial detention, expressly inviting post-conviction challenges to restrictive — and incoherent — Eighth Amendment caselaw. The Court rejected not only the defendants’ position, but the logic that underlies 25 years of pro-government outcomes in prisoners’ rights cases. But commentary and developing caselaw since Kingsley has not fully recognized its implications. I argue that both doctrinal logic and justice dictate that constitutional litigation should center on the experience of incarcerated prisoners, rather than the culpability of their keepers. The takeaway of my analysis is that the Constitution is best read to impose governmental liability for harm caused to prisoners — whether pretrial or post-conviction — by unreasonably dangerous conditions of confinement and unjustified uses of force. In this era of mass incarceration, our jails and prisons should not be shielded from accountability by legal standards that lack both doctrinal and normative warrant.

Download Full-text