Levels of Correctional Supervision
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
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. -
A Legacy of Supremacy: Prison, Power, and the Carceral Nation
Western Washington University Western CEDAR WWU Graduate School Collection WWU Graduate and Undergraduate Scholarship Winter 2017 A Legacy of Supremacy: Prison, Power, and the Carceral Nation Luke J. Hickey Western Washington University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwuet Part of the Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Hickey, Luke J., "A Legacy of Supremacy: Prison, Power, and the Carceral Nation" (2017). WWU Graduate School Collection. 554. https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwuet/554 This Masters Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the WWU Graduate and Undergraduate Scholarship at Western CEDAR. It has been accepted for inclusion in WWU Graduate School Collection by an authorized administrator of Western CEDAR. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A LEGACY OF SUPREMACY: PRISON, POWER, AND THE CARCERAL NATION By Luke J. Hickey Accepted in Partial Completion of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts Kathleen L. Kitto, Dean of the Graduate School ADVISORY COMMITTEE Chair, Dr. Kathleen Young Dr. Sean Bruna Dr. Shurla Thibou MASTER’S THESIS In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master’s degree at Western Washington University, I grant to Western Washington University the non- exclusive royalty-free right to archive, reproduce, distribute, and display the thesis in any and all forms, including electronic format, via any digital library mechanisms maintained by WWU. I represent and warrant this is my original work, and does not infringe or violate any rights of others. I warrant that I have obtained written permissions from the owner of any third party copyrighted material included in these files. -
Chalk and Cheese: Australian Vs. Norwegian Prisons
Chalk and Cheese Australian vs. Norwegian Prisons by Irina Dunn 1Published by Community Justice Coalition 2017 © Community Justice Coalition / Irina Dunn 2017 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted by any person or entity, including internet such as engines or retailers, in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying (except under the statutory exceptions provisions of the Australian Copyright Act 1968), recording, scanning or by any information storage and retrieval system without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. The fact that this book is published online does not mean that any part of it can be reproduced without frst obtaining written permission: copyright laws do still apply. Inquiries should be directed to the author. First published by Community Justice Coalition in 2017 PO Box 386 Broadway Sydney NSW 2007 Australia Phone (02) 9283 0123 www.communityjusticecoalition.org National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry: Creator: Irina Dunn, author Title: Chalk & Cheese: Australian vs. Norwegian Prisons ISBN: 9780648140405 (ebook) Subjects: Criminal justice, Administrator of --Australia Criminal justice, Administration of --Great Britain Criminal justice, Administration of --Norway Criminal justice, Administration of --Netherlands Criminal justice, Administration of --Cross-Cultural-Studies Cover designed by Nick Freeman Breakout Media Communications Edited by Irina Dunn 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ -
The Privatization of Immigration Detention: Towards a Global View a Global Detention Project Working Paper
The Privatization of Immigration Detention: Towards a Global View A Global Detention Project Working Paper By Michael Flynn and Cecilia Cannon September 2009 THE PRIVATIZATION OF IMMIGRATION DETENTION: TOWARDS A GLOBAL VIEW A Global Detention Project Working Paper By Michael Flynn and Cecilia Cannon∗ September 2009 Summary: The phrase “private prison” has become a term of opprobrium, and for good reason. There are numerous cases of mistreatment and mismanagement at such institutions. However, in the context of immigration detention, this caricature hides a complex phenomenon that is driven by a number of different factors and involves a diverse array of actors who provide a range of services. This working paper employs research undertaken by the Global Detention Project (GDP)—an inter-disciplinary research project based at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies—to help situate the phenomenon of the privatization of immigration detention within a global perspective. Part of the difficulty in assessing this phenomenon is that our understanding of it is based largely on experiences in English-speaking countries. This working paper endeavors to extend analysis of this phenomenon by demonstrating the broad geographical spread of privatized detention practices across the globe, assessing the differing considerations that arise when states decide to privatize, and comparing the experiences of a sample of lesser known cases. I. INTRODUCTION The phrase “private prison” often conjures images of rapacious corporations out to make a buck at the expense of prisoners. Abetted by neoliberal economic policies, private security companies are given a responsibility long considered a core function of the state—the appropriate treatment of people imprisoned because of their crimes. -
Hustle and Flow: Prison Privatization Fueling the Prison Industrial Complex
FULCHER FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 6/10/2012 2:43 PM Hustle and Flow: Prison Privatization Fueling the Prison Industrial Complex Patrice A. Fulcher* ABSTRACT The Prison Industrial Complex (“PIC”) is a profiteering system fueled by the economic interests of private corporations, federal and state correctional institutions, and politicians. The PIC grew from ground fertilized by an increase in the U.S. prison population united with an economically depressed market, stretched budgets, and the ineffective allocation of government resources. The role of the federal, state, and local governments in the PIC has been to allocate resources. This is the first of a series of articles exploring issues surrounding the PIC, including (1) prison privatization, (2) outsourcing the labor of prisoners for profit, and (3) constitutional misinterpretations. The U.S. prison population increased in the 1980s, in part, because of harsh drug and sentencing laws and the racial profiling of Blacks. When faced with the problem of managing additional inmates, U.S. correctional institutions looked to the promise of private prison companies to house and control inmates at reduced costs. The result was the privatization of prisons, private companies handling the management of federal and state inmates. This Article addresses how the privatization of prisons helped to grow the PIC and the two ways in which governments’ expenditure of funds to private prison companies amount to an inefficient allocation of resources: (1) it creates an incentive to increase the prison population, which led to a monopoly and manipulation of the market by Correction Corporation of America (“CCA”) and The GEO Group, Inc. -
Private Prison Fact Sheet
Private Corrections Institute, Inc. QUICK FACTS ABOUT PRISON PRIVATIZATION The private prison industry has a sordid past, dating from the turn of the 20th century when inmates were handed over to private businesses under the “convict lease” system, primarily in the South. Abuses by private prison companies that used inmates for forced labor, including a high rate of prisoner deaths, led government agencies to abandon the concept of for-profit incarceration. The industry revived in the early 1980s due largely to tough-on-crime sentencing laws and the war on drugs, which resulted in an increase in the prison population. A number of companies were formed to capitalize on the developing market for housing inmates, including the industry leader, Corrections Corp. of America (CCA), the industry’s second-largest firm, GEO Group (previously known as Wackenhut Corrections), and Cornell Corrections, MTC, Civigenics and various other smaller companies. The industry expanded in the 1990s due to a crackdown on illegal immigration but has leveled off in more recent years. Today, approximately 8% of state and federal prisoners are held in privately-operated facilities, totaling over 126,000 inmates. Government agencies contract with private prison companies for several reasons, primarily anticipated cost savings and a need for additional bed space. However, there are a number of negative factors related to private prisons that should be considered, including the following: Staff Turnover Rate Staffing costs account for about 80% of operational expenses for prisons whether they are public or private. Thus, one of the main ways that private prison companies reduce costs to increase their profit margins is by cutting staffing expenses. -
State Slavery Sanctioned by the 13Th Amendment
State Slavery sanctioned by the 13th Amendment HISTORY OF PRISON LABOR IN THE UNITED STATES Prison labor has its roots in slavery. After the 1861-1865 Civil War, a system of “hiring out prisoners” was introduced in order to continue the slavery tradition. Freed slaves were charged with not carrying out their sharecropping commitments (cultivating someone else’s land in exchange for part of the harvest) or petty thievery – which were almost never proven –or vagrancy (leaving the plantation in search of better opportunities) and were then “hired out” for cotton picking, working in mines and building railroads. From 1870 until 1910 in the state of Georgia, 88% of hired-out convicts were Black. In Alabama, 93% of “hired-out” miners were Black. In Mississippi, a huge prison farm similar to the old slave plantations replaced the system of hiring out convicts. The notorious Parchman plantation existed until 1972. At least 37 states have legalized the contracting of prison labor by private corporations that mount their operations inside state prisons. The list of such companies contains the cream of U.S. corporate society: IBM, Boeing, Motorola, Microsoft, AT&T, Wireless, Texas Instrument, Dell, Compaq, Honeywell, Hewlett-Packard, Nortel, Lucent Technologies, 3Com, Intel, Northern Telecom, TWA, Nordstrom’s, Revlon, Macy’s, Pierre Cardin, Target Stores, and many more. All of these businesses are excited about the economic boom generation by prison labor. Just between 1980 and 1994, profits went up from $392 million to $1.31 billion. Inmates in state penitentiaries generally receive the minimum wage for their work, but not all; in Colorado, they get about $2 per hour, well under the minimum. -
Imprisonment and the Separation of Judicial Power: a Defence of a Categorical Immunity from Non-Criminal Detention
IMPRISONMENT AND THE SEPARATION OF JUDICIAL POWER: A DEFENCE OF A CATEGORICAL IMMUNITY FROM NON-CRIMINAL DETENTION J EFFREY S TEVEN G ORDON* [e fundamental principle that no person may be deprived of liberty without criminal conviction has deteriorated. Despite a robust assertion of the principle by Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ in Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration, subsequent jurisprudence has eroded it and revealed stark division amongst the Justices of the High Court. is article clarifies the contours of the disagreement and defends the proposition that, subject to a limited number of categorical exceptions, ch III of the Constitution permits the involuntary detention of a person in custody only as a consequential step in the adjudication of the criminal guilt of that person for past acts. is article proposes a methodology for creating new categories of permitted non-criminal detention and applies that methodology to test the constitutionality of the interim control orders considered in omas v Mowbray.] C ONTENTS I Introduction ............................................................................................................... 42 II Legislative Power, Judicial Power and Imprisonment .......................................... 46 A From Which Section Does the So-Called ‘Constitutional Immunity’ from Executive Detention Originate? ........................................................ 51 1 Does the Legislative Power of the Commonwealth Conferred by Section 51 Extend to Authorising Imprisonment Generally? ............................................................... 52 2 Does Chapter III Have Any Operation When Parliament Enacts a Law Authorising Imprisonment? ................................... 55 * BSc (Adv) (Hons), LLB (Hons) (Syd), LLM (Columbia). Sincerest thanks to Peter Gerangelos for reading a dra, for generous advice, and for sparking my interest during his fascinating course on Advanced Constitutional Law at the University of Sydney. -
Overview of Prison Privatization in Arizona
Prison Privatization in Arizona A briefing paper prepared by the American Friends Service Committee, Arizona Area Program American Friends Service Committee, Arizona Area 103 N. Park Ave., Ste. 111 Tucson, AZ 85719 (520)623-9141 (520)623-5901 fax [email protected] October 2010 Introduction The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) is a Quaker organization that works for peace and justice worldwide. Our work is based on a commitment to nonviolence and the belief that all people have value and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. The AFSC‟s programs promote social justice by focusing on a diverse set of social concerns. The organization‟s criminal justice work has always focused on the need for an effective and humane criminal justice system that emphasizes rehabilitation over punishment. Here in Arizona, our criminal justice program advocates for a reduction in the state‟s prison population through rational sentencing reform and a moratorium on new prison construction. A key focus of that effort is our work to educate the public on the risks inherent in prison privatization through for-profit prison corporations. This document is an attempt to paint a picture of the current efforts at privatization of prisons in the state of Arizona and raise questions about the potential pitfalls of this practice. Arizona Overview Arizona‟s experiment with for-profit incarceration began in the early 90‟s when the state faced the first of many prison overcrowding crises. Arizona‟s first privately operated prison was the Marana Community Correctional Treatment Facility, a minimum-security prison for people with substance abuse issues. -
Supermax Isolation
one Supermax Isolation Solitary confinement has been part of American correctional practice since the birth of the nation. Th e idea of isolating prisoners for their own good was supported in the fi nal years of the eighteenth century by such prominent fi gures as Benjamin Franklin and his friend Benjamin Rush, the pioneering psychiatrist. During that era, many Quakers viewed crime as a moral lapse and jail as a place where prisoners would be left by themselves in a cell and would be expected to search their souls about their errant ways and be “penitent” (thus the origin of the word penitentiary). But over the years, prison funding could not keep pace with a growing prison population, so this kind of solitary confi nement for the general population of prisoners was abandoned as too expensive to construct for or to maintain. Where solitary was retained, its original rehabilitative rationale was stripped away; it was now openly used merely as a dreaded punishment and deterrent within the prison and as a convenient means of separating out, for months, years, even decades, individuals whose inclusion in the general prison population might pose problems for prison management. the long history of solitary confinement in the united states Th e fi rst correctional facility in the nation to consign prisoners to single cells was the Walnut Street Jail in Philadelphia. It was originally built in 1773 to handle the overfl ow of prisoners from the nearby, massively overcrowded High Street Jail. Th ere were simply too many debtors, paupers, prostitutes, thieves, and ex- slaves going to jail for the jailers to fi nd the space to house them. -
1 Immigration Detention in International Law And
Immigration Detention in International Law and Practice (In search of solutions to the challenges faced in Bulgaria) This paper is a result of academic research in my PhD studies, but it is inspired and based on my experience as a practicing lawyer providing free legal aid at the immigration detention center in Sofia. Valeria Ilareva Table of Contents: I. Introduction The term “administrative detention”; who are immigration detainees? II. Legal grounds for detention. The two step proportionality approach: 1. General reasons for the lawfulness of the detention: 1.1. Pre-admission detention; 1.2. Pre-removal detention. 2. Individual reasons for the lawfulness of the detention: 2.1. Failure of voluntary return; 2.2. Risk of absconding or a proven threat to public order, public security or national security; 2.3. Failure of non-custodial measures. III. Rights of the detainees: procedural safeguards and detention conditions: 1. Procedural safeguards: 1.1. The right to be informed: 1.1.1. on the reasons for the detention; 1.1.2. on the rights in connection with the detention order; 1.2. Right of access to a lawyer; 1.3. Right to appeal; 1.4. Periodic review of detention; 1.5. Enforceable right to compensation for damages; 1.6. Rights of specific groups of persons: 1.6.1. Stateless persons 1.6.2. Protection of families (the right to respect for family life) 1.6.3. Rights of children 1.6.4. Regard for the special needs of other vulnerable groups. 2. Detention conditions IV. Conclusion I. Introduction Worldwide increasing numbers of asylum seekers and immigrants – real people with real rights - are deprived of their liberty through the construct of administrative detention. -
Administrative Detention
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR EXTERNAL POLICIES OF THE UNION POLICY DEPARTMENT ISRAEL'S POLICY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETENTION POLICY BRIEFING Abstract Administrative detention is a pre-emptive measure that allows authorities to detain suspects before the trial. While the procedure can be applied to anyone and exists in many countries, the issue has become particularly pressing in Israel. Israeli authorities use administrative detention principally to constrain Palestinian political activism and apply the procedure for an unlimited period of time without pressing charges. As of April 2012, there were 309 administrative detainees in Israeli prisons, contributing to the total tally of 5 000 Palestinians in Israeli jails, including 27 members of the Palestinian Legislative Council. A great many of these prisoners — some 2 000 — have been on a hunger strike since April 17, demanding better conditions of confinement and an end to detention without trial. The condition of two of the hunger strikers is critical. While international human rights organisations have recurrently condemned the Israeli practice of administrative detention as a violation of human rights, the issue has only recently attracted widespread international interest. The time is now ripe to place the issue on the agenda of European Union - Israel relations. DG EXPO/B/PolDep/Note/2012_146 May/2012 PE 491.444 EN Policy Department DG External Policies This Policy Briefing is an initiative of the Policy Department, DG EXPO AUTHORS: Dua' Nakhala and Pekka HAKALA, Directorate-General for External Policies of the Union Policy Department WIB 06 M 071 rue Wiertz 60 B-1047 Brussels Feedback to [email protected] is welcome Editorial Assistant: Agnieszka PUNZET LINGUISTIC VERSION Original: EN ABOUT THE EDITOR Manuscript completed on 10 May 2012.