DOCSLIB.ORG

Introductory Handbook on the Prevention of Recidivism and the Social Reintegration of Offenders

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Introductory Handbook on the Prevention of Recidivism and the Social Reintegration of Offenders Introductory Handbook on The Prevention of Recidivism and the Social Reintegration of Offenders CRIMINAL JUSTICE HANDBOOK SERIES Cover photo: © Rafael Olivares, Dirección General de Centros Penales de El Salvador. UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME Vienna Introductory Handbook on the Prevention of Recidivism and the Social Reintegration of Offenders CRIMINAL JUSTICE HANDBOOK SERIES UNITED NATIONS Vienna, 2018 © United Nations, December 2018. All rights reserved. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Publishing production: English, Publishing and Library Section, United Nations Office at Vienna. Preface The first version of the Introductory Handbook on the Prevention of Recidivism and the Social Reintegration of Offenders, published in 2012, was prepared for the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) by Vivienne Chin, Associate of the International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy, Canada, and Yvon Dandurand, crimi- nologist at the University of the Fraser Valley, Canada. The initial draft of the first version of the Handbook was reviewed and discussed during an expert group meeting held in Vienna on 16 and 17 November 2011.Valuable suggestions and contributions were made by the following experts at that meeting: Charles Robert Allen, Ibrahim Hasan Almarooqi, Sultan Mohamed Alniyadi, Tomris Atabay, Karin Bruckmüller, Elias Carranza, Elinor Wanyama Chemonges, Kimmett Edgar, Aida Escobar, Angela Evans, José Filho, Isabel Hight, Andrea King-Wessels, Rita Susana Maxera, Marina Menezes, Hugo Morales, Omar Nashabe, Michael Platzer, Roberto Santana, Guy Schmit, Victoria Sergeyeva, Zhang Xiaohua and Zhao Linna. The following UNODC staff members also contributed to the development of the first version of the Handbook: Piera Barzanò, Estela Máris Deon, Fabienne Hariga, Valérie Lebaux, Alexandra Martins, Philipp Meissner, Anna Giudice and Miri Sharon. In 2017, UNODC initiated a revision of the 2012 version of the Handbook, among other things, to consolidate its content and to fully incorporate the provisions of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), which had been adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 70/175 of 17 December 2015. Vivienne Chin and Yvon Dandurand, who had prepared the 2012 version of the Handbook, also prepared the revised version. UNODC staff members Philipp Meissner and Muriel Jourdan-Ethvignot undertook the final review of the revised version. The following UNODC staff members also contributed to the development of the revised version: Piera Barzanò, Anja Busse, Anna Giudice, Sven Pfeiffer, Dayan Farias Picon and Ehab Salah. UNODC wishes to express its gratitude for the support provided by the Government of Qatar for the development of the revised version of the Handbook, including its translation into Arabic, French, Russian and Spanish, under the Global Programme for the Implementa- tion of the Doha Declaration: Towards the Promotion of a Culture of Lawfulness. The revised version of the Handbook is dedicated to prison and probation staff, as well as to service providers and volunteers who work towards fostering the social reintegration of offenders around the world. iii Contents Preface I. Introduction 1 II. Why invest in the social reintegration of offenders? 3 A. Relevant international standards and norms 3 B. What are social reintegration programmes? 5 C. The link between social reintegration and public safety 7 D. The prevention of recidivism and related risk factors 8 III. How to invest in the social reintegration of offenders 11 A. Mapping the legal framework and collecting relevant data 13 B. Fostering inter-agency cooperation 16 IV. Prison-based rehabilitation programmes 19 A. Relevant international standards and norms 20 B. Offender assessments 21 C. Programme categories 24 D. Pre-release interventions and arrangements 37 V. Post-release services and supervision 49 A. Relevant international standards and norms 51 B. Aftercare and re-entry assistance 52 C. Early release programmes 56 D. Offender supervision and the role of the community 59 VI. Non-custodial sanctions 67 A. Relevant international standards and norms 68 B. Sentencing policies and social inquiry reports 69 C. Probation and community service 72 D. Diversion and restorative justice 77 v VII. Special categories of offenders 81 A. Children in conflict with the law 81 B. Women offenders 94 C. Other offenders with special needs or posing special risks 104 Annex. Other relevant publications of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 123 Glossary 125 vi I. Introduction This Introductory Handbook on the Prevention of Recidivism and the Social Reintegration of Offenders is a revised version of the 2012 publication with the same title. It is part of a series of practical tools developed by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) to support countries in preventing crime, implementing criminal justice reforms and strength- ening the rule of law. The tools are meant to assist countries in implementing United Nations standards and norms in crime prevention and criminal justice. The publication focuses on the prevention of recidivism and emphasizes the crucial importance of effective programmes to supervise and assist offenders and support their social reintegration. Incarcerated offenders face very real challenges at the time of their release, and communities become unsafe when offenders are released without adequate preparation, supervision or support. Following the publication of the first version of the Handbook, in 2012, two important events occurred that re-emphasized the importance of the rehabilitation and social reintegration of offenders. The first event was the adoption in 2015 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) (General Assembly resolu- tion 70/175, annex); relevant provisions of the Nelson Mandela Rules are reflected in the present version of the Handbook. The second event was the development by UNODC of the Global Programme for the Implementation of the Doha Declaration: Towards the Promotion of a Culture of Lawfulness, which followed the adoption of the Doha Declaration on Inte- grating Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice into the Wider United Nations Agenda to Address Social and Economic Challenges and to Promote the Rule of Law at the National and International Levels, and Public Participation (Assembly resolution 70/174, annex) at the end of the Thirteenth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, held in Doha in April 2015. This four-year initiative includes a major component on fostering prisoner rehabilitation, reflecting Member States’ commitment, expressed in the Doha Declaration (Assembly resolution 70/174, annex, para. 5 (j)), to implement and enhance policies for prison inmates that focus on education, work, medical care, rehabilitation, social reintegration and the prevention of recidivism, and to consider the development and strength- ening of policies to support the families of inmates, as well as to promote and encourage the use of alternatives to imprisonment, where appropriate, and to review or reform restora- tive justice and other processes in support of successful reintegration. The Handbook introduces readers to promising practices and programmes for reducing recidi- vism by addressing the social reintegration challenges faced by all offenders, in particular by those who are or have been incarcerated. The tool can be used in a variety of contexts, 1 2 INTRODUCTORY HANDBOOK ON THE PREVENTION OF RECIDIVISM AND THE SOCIAL REINTEGRATION OF OFFENDERS including as part of technical assistance and capacity-building projects. It is meant, however, to be particularly helpful in supporting reforms and programme development in low- and middle-income countries.1 The target audience of the Handbook is anyone involved in the criminal justice process, including policymakers, legislators, judges, law enforcement officials, prison managers and staff, probation and parole officers, service providers, members of non- governmental organizations (NGOs) and other stakeholders interested in crime prevention and the treatment of offenders. While the Handbook is not prescriptive, it is informed by evidence on successful social rein- tegration practices and provides, where appropriate, advice on programme design and delivery. It offers, in a quick reference format, an overview of key considerations in implementing social reintegration programmes with frequent references to applicable international standards and norms. It covers programmes that can be delivered during and after imprisonment and, to a lesser extent, programmes that can be offered as an alternative to imprisonment. Special attention is given to programmes that focus on the re-entry of offenders into the community.2 Chapter II emphasizes the importance for countries and communities of investing in social reintegration programmes, including by introducing key concepts, terminology and relevant international standards and norms. Chapter III provides a review of lessons learned and research on the successful implementation of reintegration programmes and offers
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Committed During the Armed Conflict in Eastern Ukraine Between 2014–2018
    VIOLENT CRIMES Committed During the Armed Conflict in Eastern Ukraine between 2014–2018 Kharkiv Human Rights Publisher 2018 УДК 355.012АТО(477)’’2014/2018’’(047)=111 Н31 THE List OF abbreviations This report was prepared with financial support of AI — Amnesty International; MTOT — Ministry of Temporarily Occupied Terri- tories and Internally Displaced Persons; ATO — Anti-Terrorist Operation; NGO — Non-Governmental Organization CC — Criminal Code of Ukraine; NPU — National Police of Ukraine; CMA — Civil-Military Administration; OTDLR — Occupied Territories of Donetsk and Lu- СMPO — Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office; hansk Regions; СP — Checkpoint; OSCE — Organization for Security and Coopera- CPC — Criminal Procedural Code; tion in Europe; EXCP — Entry-Exit Checkpoint; PLWHA — People Living with HIV/AIDS; DSA — District State Administration; RSA — Regional State Administration; RS — Rome Statute; ECHR — European Convention on Human Rights; Yuriy Aseev, Volodymyr Hlushchenko, Boris Knyrov, Natalia Okhotnikova, Anna Ovdiienko, LNR — the self-proclaimed “Luhansk People’s ECtHR — European Court of Human Rights; Olena Richko, Gennady Shcherbak, Pavlo Shvab, Yanina Smelyanska, Igor Sosonsky, Republic”; Gennadiy Tokarev, Martha Vovk, Anastasia Yegorova, Yevgeniy Zakharov GC — Geneva Convention(s) of 12 August 1949; DNR — the self-proclaimed “Donetsk People’s Н31 Violent Crimes Committed During the Armed Conflict in Eastern Ukraine between 2014–2018 / HRMM — UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission Republic”; compiler Yevgeniy Zakharov; CO “Kharkiv
    [Show full text]
  • N.2 Definition of Conviction April 2019
    Immigrant Legal Resource Center, www.ilrc.org § N.2 Definition of Conviction April 2019 § N.2 Definition of Conviction Table of Contents I. Definition of Conviction; Limited Effect of Rehabilitative Relief II. When Rehabilitative Relief Works: DACA and Lujan-Armendariz III. Not a Conviction: Pretrial Diversion under Cal Pen C § 1000 (2018) IV. Former California DEJ and Pen C § 1203.43 V. Not a Conviction: Juvenile Delinquency DisPositions VI. Not a Conviction: California Infractions? VII. Not a Conviction: Direct APPeal of Right? VIII. Not a Conviction: Vacation of Judgment for Cause IX. Convictions: Court Martial; Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity How to Avoid or Eliminate a “Conviction” for Immigration PurPoses Most (although not all) immigration consequences relating to crimes require a conviction, as defined by federal immigration law, not state law. If your noncitizen client does not have a conviction for immigration purposes, their immigration case might be saved. This section discusses which dispositions in California criminal courts amount to a conviction for immigration purposes, and how to avoid or eliminate a conviction. Warning: Immigration Consequences Even Without a Conviction. Some immigration penalties are triggered by evidence of conduct or findings, even absent a conviction. A noncitizen might be found inadmissible if immigration authorities have evidence that the person engaged in prostitution1 or ever participated in drug trafficking or money laundering.2 The person might be inadmissible or deportable if they are or were a drug addict or abuser.3 Even a civil finding that a noncitizen violated a domestic violence stay-away order, in any way, makes the person deportable.4 In those situations, avoiding a conviction is a good step, but will not necessarily protect the person.
    [Show full text]
  • Articles on Crimes Against Humanity
    Draft articles on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity 2019 Adopted by the International Law Commission at its seventy-first session, in 2019, and submitted to the General Assembly as a part of the Commission’s report covering the work of that session (A/74/10). The report will appear in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2019, vol. II, Part Two. Copyright © United Nations 2019 Prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity … Mindful that throughout history millions of children, women and men have been victims of crimes that deeply shock the conscience of humanity, Recognizing that crimes against humanity threaten the peace, security and well- being of the world, Recalling the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, Recalling also that the prohibition of crimes against humanity is a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens), Affirming that crimes against humanity, which are among the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, must be prevented in conformity with international law, Determined to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and thus to contribute to the prevention of such crimes, Considering the definition of crimes against humanity set forth in article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Recalling that it is the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction with respect to crimes against humanity, Considering the rights of victims, witnesses and others in relation to crimes against humanity, as well as the right of alleged offenders to fair treatment, Considering also that, because crimes against humanity must not go unpunished, the effective prosecution of such crimes must be ensured by taking measures at the national level and by enhancing international cooperation, including with respect to extradition and mutual legal assistance, … Article 1 Scope The present draft articles apply to the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity.
    [Show full text]
  • Consequences of Failing to Admit Guilt at Parole Hearings Daniel S
    MEDWED_TRANSMITTED.DOC2 2/26/2008 1:51 PM The Innocent Prisoner’s Dilemma: Consequences of Failing to Admit Guilt at Parole Hearings Daniel S. Medwed∗ INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 493 I. THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF PAROLE ................................................ 497 A. HISTORICAL ORIGINS AND PURPOSES OF PAROLE ................................ 497 B. PAROLE RELEASE DECISION-MAKING: CONTEMPORARY STANDARDS AND POLICIES .................................................................................... 504 II. THE EFFECT OF PAROLE RELEASE DECISION-MAKING NORMS ON THE INNOCENT ............................................................................................... 513 A. PAROLE: AN INNOCENCE OPTION OF LAST RESORT ............................. 518 B. PRESSURE ON INNOCENT INMATES TO “ADMIT” GUILT ........................ 523 III. ADMISSIONS OF GUILT AND THE PAROLE RELEASE DECISION RECONSIDERED ....................................................................................... 529 A. THE DANGER OF ASSUMING THE LITIGATION PROCESS ACCURATELY FILTERS THE GUILTY FROM THE INNOCENT ......................................... 530 B. POTHOLES ON THE PATH TO REDEMPTION THROUGH THE PAROLE PROCESS ........................................................................................... 532 IV. SUGGESTIONS FOR REFORM .................................................................... 541 A. LIMITATIONS ON THE SUBSEQUENT USE OF STATEMENTS FROM PAROLE HEARINGS ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Compensation Chart by State
    Updated 5/21/18 NQ COMPENSATION STATUTES: A NATIONAL OVERVIEW STATE STATUTE WHEN ELIGIBILITY STANDARD WHO TIME LIMITS MAXIMUM AWARDS OTHER FUTURE CONTRIBUTORY PASSED OF PROOF DECIDES FOR FILING AWARDS CIVIL PROVISIONS LITIGATION AL Ala.Code 1975 § 29-2- 2001 Conviction vacated Not specified State Division of 2 years after Minimum of $50,000 for Not specified Not specified A new felony 150, et seq. or reversed and the Risk Management exoneration or each year of incarceration, conviction will end a charges dismissed and the dismissal Committee on claimant’s right to on grounds Committee on Compensation for compensation consistent with Compensation Wrongful Incarceration can innocence for Wrongful recommend discretionary Incarceration amount in addition to base, but legislature must appropriate any funds CA Cal Penal Code §§ Amended 2000; Pardon for Not specified California Victim 2 years after $140 per day of The Department Not specified Requires the board to 4900 to 4906; § 2006; 2009; innocence or being Compensation judgment of incarceration of Corrections deny a claim if the 2013; 2015; “innocent”; and Government acquittal or and Rehabilitation board finds by a 2017 declaration of Claims Board discharge given, shall assist a preponderance of the factual innocence makes a or after pardon person who is evidence that a claimant recommendation granted, after exonerated as to a pled guilty with the to the legislature release from conviction for specific intent to imprisonment, which he or she is protect another from from release serving a state prosecution for the from custody prison sentence at underlying conviction the time of for which the claimant exoneration with is seeking transitional compensation.
    [Show full text]
  • Juvenile Life Without Parole
    POLICY BRIEF: JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE Juvenile Life Without Parole: An Overview The momentum to protect youth rights in the criminal legal system is clear. Twenty- five states and the District of Columbia have banned life sentences without the possibility of parole for people under 18; in nine additional states, no one is serving life without parole for offenses committed before age 18. The Sentencing Project, in its national survey of life and from life without parole sentences, regardless of the virtual life sentences in the United States found 1,465 crime of conviction. Life without parole, as a mandatory people serving JLWOP sentences at the start of 2020. minimum sentence for anyone under age 18 was found This number reflects a 38% drop in the population of unconstitutional. Montgomery, in 2016, clarified that people serving JLWOP since our 2016 count and a 44% Miller applied retroactively. Jones reaffirmed both drop since the peak count of JLWOP figures in 2012.1 Montgomery and Miller but held that a specific factual This count continues to decline as more states eliminate finding of “permanent incorrigibility” at the time of JLWOP. sentencing is not required for the imposition of a juvenile life without parole sentence. In five decisions – Roper v. Simmons (2005), Graham v. Florida (2010), Miller v. Alabama (2012), Montgomery Henceforth, few youth will be sentenced to life without v. Louisiana (2016), and Jones v. Mississippi (2021) – the possibility of parole. Moreover, youth sentenced to the Supreme Court of the United States establishes parole-ineligible life sentences in 28 states where the and upholds the fact that “children are constitutionally sentence was mandatory and the federal government different from adults in their levels of culpability”2 when are in the process of having their original sentences it comes to sentencing.
    [Show full text]
  • Restorative Versus Retributive Justice Kathleen Daly Reviews the Discourse That Has Framed Restorative Justice As the Antidote to Punishment
    Restorative versus Retributive Justice Kathleen Daly reviews the discourse that has framed restorative justice as the antidote to punishment. n 'Restorative justice: the real story' (Punishment and Advocates seem to assume that an ideal justice system should Society 2002), Kathleen Daly draws on her experience of be of one type only, that it should be pure and not contaminated / restorative justice conferencing and an extensive survey of by or mixed with others. [Even when calling for the need to academic literature to refute four myths that she says have "blend restorative, reparative, and transformative justice... with grown up around restorative justice. These are that: (1) the prosecution of paradigmatic violations of human rights", restorative justice is the opposite of retributive justice; (2) Drambl (2000:296) is unable to avoid using the term 'retributive' restorative justice uses indigenous justice practices and was to refer to responses that should be reserved for the few.] the dominant form ofpre-modern justice; (3) restorative justice Before demonstrating the problems with this position, I give a is a 'care' (or feminine) response to crime in comparison to a sympathetic reading of what I think advocates are trying to say. justice' (or masculine) response; and (4) restorative justice Mead's (1917-18) 'The Psychology of Punitive Justice' can be expected to produce major changes in people. She says contrasts two methods of responding to crime. One he termed that "simple oppositional dualisms are inadequate in depicting"the attitude of hostility toward the lawbreaker" (p. 227), which criminal justice, even in an ideal justice system", and argues "brings with it the attitudes of retribution, repression, and for a 'real story' which would serve the political future of exclusion" (pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Life Imprisonment and Conditions of Serving the Sentence in the South Caucasus Countries
    Life Imprisonment and Conditions of Serving the Sentence in the South Caucasus Countries Project “Global Action to Abolish the Death Penalty” DDH/2006/119763 2009 2 The list of content The list of content ..........................................................................................................3 Foreword ........................................................................................................................5 The summary of the project ..........................................................................................7 A R M E N I A .............................................................................................................. 13 General Information ................................................................................................... 14 Methodology............................................................................................................... 14 The conditions of imprisonment for life sentenced prisoners .................................... 16 Local legislation and international standards ............................................................. 26 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 33 Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 36 A Z E R B A I J A N ........................................................................................................ 39 General Information ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Consolidation of Pardon and Parole: a Wrong Approach Henry Weihofen
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 30 Article 8 Issue 4 November-December Winter 1939 Consolidation of Pardon and Parole: A Wrong Approach Henry Weihofen Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Henry Weihofen, Consolidation of Pardon and Parole: A Wrong Approach, 30 Am. Inst. Crim. L. & Criminology 534 (1939-1940) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. CONSOLIDATION OF PARDON AND PAROLE: A WRONG APPROACH HENRY WEMOFEN* There is a growing tendency throughout the United States to consolidate pardon with parole administration, and even with pro- bation. This movement seems to have met with almost unanimous approval; at least it has no opposition. It is the purpose of this paper to remedy that lack and furnish the spice of opposition. The argument for such consolidation-is that pardon and parole perform very largely the same function. A conditional pardon, particularly, is practically indistinguishable from a parole. But the governor, granting a conditional pardon, usually has no officers available to see that the conditions are complied with. Why not-, it is argued-assign this duty to parole officers? Moreover, it is felt to be illogical to have two forms of release so similar as parole and conditional pardon issuing from two different sources, one from the parole board and the other from the governor's office.
    [Show full text]
  • Prison Abolition and Grounded Justice
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2015 Prison Abolition and Grounded Justice Allegra M. McLeod Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1490 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2625217 62 UCLA L. Rev. 1156-1239 (2015) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Social Control, Law, Crime, and Deviance Commons Prison Abolition and Grounded Justice Allegra M. McLeod EVIEW R ABSTRACT This Article introduces to legal scholarship the first sustained discussion of prison LA LAW LA LAW C abolition and what I will call a “prison abolitionist ethic.” Prisons and punitive policing U produce tremendous brutality, violence, racial stratification, ideological rigidity, despair, and waste. Meanwhile, incarceration and prison-backed policing neither redress nor repair the very sorts of harms they are supposed to address—interpersonal violence, addiction, mental illness, and sexual abuse, among others. Yet despite persistent and increasing recognition of the deep problems that attend U.S. incarceration and prison- backed policing, criminal law scholarship has largely failed to consider how the goals of criminal law—principally deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and retributive justice—might be pursued by means entirely apart from criminal law enforcement. Abandoning prison-backed punishment and punitive policing remains generally unfathomable. This Article argues that the general reluctance to engage seriously an abolitionist framework represents a failure of moral, legal, and political imagination.
    [Show full text]
  • Episode Fourteen: Legal Process Hello, and Welcome to the Death
    Episode Fourteen: Legal Process Hello, and welcome to the Death Penalty Information Center’s podcast exploring issues related to capital punishment. In this edition, we will discuss the legal process in death penalty trials and appeals. How is a death penalty trial different from other trials? There are several differences between death penalty trials and traditional criminal proceedings. In most criminal cases, there is a single trial in which the jury determines whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. If the jury returns a verdict of guilty, the judge then determines the sentence. However, death penalty cases are divided into two separate trials. In the first trial, juries weigh the evidence of the crime to determine guilt or innocence. If the jury decides that the defendant is guilty, there is a second trial to determine the sentence. At the sentencing phase of the trial, jurors usually have only two options: life in prison without the possibility of parole, or a death sentence. During this sentencing trial, juries are asked to weigh aggravating factors presented by the prosecution against mitigating factors presented by the defense. How is a jury chosen for a death penalty trial? Like all criminal cases, the jury in a death penalty trial is chosen from a pool of potential jurors through a process called voir dire. The legal counsel for both the prosecution and defense have an opportunity to submit questions to determine any possible bias in the case. However, because the jury determines the sentence in capital trials, those juries must also be “death qualified,” that is, able to impose the death penalty in at least some cases.
    [Show full text]
  • Aging in Prison a Human Rights Problem We Must Fix
    Aging in prison A human rights problem we must fix Photo: Nikki Khan THE AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE Prison Watch Project Developed by Mary Ann Cool, Bonnie Kerness, Jehanne Henry, Jean Ross, Esq., AFSC student interns Kelsey Wimmershoff and Rachel Frome, and those people inside who gave this issue voice and vision 1 Table of contents 1. Overview 3 2. Testimonials 6 3. Preliminary recommendations for New Jersey 11 4. Acknowledgements 13 2 Overview The population of elderly prisoners is on the rise The number and percentage of elderly prisoners in the United States has grown dramatically in past decades. In the year 2000, prisoners age 55 and older accounted for 3 percent of the prison population. Today, they are about 16 percent of that population. Between 2007 and 2010, the number of prisoners age 65 and older increased by an alarming 63 percent, compared to a 0.7 percent increase of the overall prison population. At this rate, prisoners 55 and older will approach one-third of the total prison population by the year 2030.1 What accounts for this rise in the number of elderly prisoners? The rise in the number of older people in prisons does not reflect an increased crime rate among this population. Rather, the driving force for this phenomenon has been the “tough on crime” policies adopted throughout the prison system, from sentencing through parole. In recent decades, state and federal legislators have increased the lengths of sentences through mandatory minimums and three- strikes laws, increased the number of crimes punished with life and life-without-parole and made some crimes ineligible for parole.
    [Show full text]