S.1675 – Recidivism Reduction and Public Safety Act of 2014

US Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

Recidivism Reduction and Public Safety Act of 2014 – (Sec. 2) Directs the Attorney General to: (1) conduct a review of recidivism reduction programming and productive activities, including prison jobs, offered in correctional institutions; (2) conduct a survey to identify products currently manufactured overseas that could be manufactured by prisoners without reducing job opportunities for other U.S. workers; and (3) submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and the Judiciary a strategic plan for the expansion of recidivism reduction programming and productive activities, including prison jobs, in Bureau of Prison facilities.

Amends the federal criminal code to direct the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to make available appropriate recidivism reduction programming or productive activities, including prison jobs, to all eligible prisoners and to assign such prisoners to such activities using the Post-Sentencing Risk and Needs Assessment System developed by the Attorney General. Defines “eligible prisoner” to mean a prisoner serving a sentence of incarceration for conviction of a federal offense, but excludes a prisoner whom the Bureau of Prisons determines: (1) is medically unable to successfully complete recidivism reduction activities, (2) would present a security risk if permitted to participate in such activities, or (3) is serving a sentence of incarceration of less than one month.

Continue reading at congress.govarrow1

How Did We Get Here?

Right on Crime

In the 1960s, the United States experienced a notorious crime wave. Liberal theories on crime posited that criminals were inevitable products of oppressive societies and, given the correct resources, virtually all offenders were capable of curtailing their criminal behavior. These attitudes did little to limit criminality and, in fact, crime rates continued to swell into the 1970s.

Then the pendulum swung in the opposite direction. Conservative politicians argued that criminals generally could not be rehabilitated, it was pointless to attempt most treatments, and the only realistic solution was to incapacitate a criminal through the use of incarceration. This was often caricatured as the “lock ‘em up and throw away the key” approach.

Continue reading at rightoncrime.comarrow1

Recidivism Of Prisoners Released In 1994

Patrick A. Langan, Ph.D., David J. Levin, Ph.D., Bureau of Justice Statistics, June 2, 2002

Sixty-seven percent of former inmates released from state prisons in 1994 committed at least one serious new crime within the following three years, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. This was a rearrest rate 5 percent higher than that among prisoners released during 1983.

State prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were those who had been incarcerated for stealing motor vehicles (79 percent), possessing or selling stolen property (77 percent), larceny (75 percent), burglary (74 percent), robbery (70 percent) or those using, possessing or trafficking in illegal weapons (70 percent).

Those with the lowest rearrest rates were former inmates who had been in prison for homicide (41 percent), sexual assault (41 percent), rape (46 percent) or driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol (51 percent).

About 1 percent of the released prisoners who had served time for murder were arrested for another homicide within three years, and about 2 percent of the rapists were arrested for another rape within that period.

Within three years, 52 percent of the 272,111 released prisoners were back in prison either because of a new crime or because they had violated their parole conditions (e.g., failed a drug test, missed a parole office appointment).

Men were more likely to be rearrested than were women (68 percent, compared to 58 percent), blacks more likely than whites (73 percent vs. 63 percent) and non-Hispanics more than Hispanics (71 percent vs. 65 percent). Younger prisoners and those with longer records were also more likely to be rearrested.

Continue reading at bjs.govarrow1

La. Gets Lenient With Nonviolent Offenders

Dan HarrisMarch 10, 2014

In the 1980s and 1990s, with Louisiana experiencing a surge in crime, state Sen. John Hainkel helped write and pass tough new sentencing laws.

Now, he makes a startling admission: It “didn’t work at all.”

Too many nonviolent drug criminals got put away, he said. The prison population doubled. The cost tripled. And the crime rate barely dropped.

He said Louisiana simply cannot afford the system he helped design.

“I am a fiscal conservative — a strict fiscal conservative,” said Hainkel, the Republican state senate president. “And it made no sense whatsoever, from either a financial viewpoint or a moral viewpoint, to put people in jail that didn’t need to be in jail.”

Continue reading on abcnews.go.comarrow1

Do you know where the children are? A Report of Massachusetts Youth Unlawfully Held Without Bail

Barbara Fedders and Barbara Kaban, Prison Policy Initiative, September 15, 2006

In 2004, over four thousand Massachusetts children and youth between the ages of seven and seventeen spent time behind bars — in some cases up to four days — after their arrest and prior to their first court appearance. While the law requires that young people must be at least fourteen years old to be detained, more than five hundred children under fourteen were so held that year.

Massachusetts law also provides that a party empowered by the judicial branch — a judge, magistrate, or bail commissioner — should review detention decisions about arrested youths, but many children and adolescents are unlawfully deprived of this opportunity. Routinely, decisions to detain young people are based solely on juvenile probation officers’ recommendations, which are made pursuant to a cursory consideration of facts, and without benefit of written procedures or guidelines – all in violation of due process principles. Probation officers frequently recommend detention for youths accused of minor offenses, rather than reserving it for the most serious and dangerous offenders.

Continue reading at prisonpolicy.orgarrow1

Challenging Just Deserts: Punishing White-Collar Criminals

John BraithwaiteJournal of Criminal Law and Criminology, v73-2, Summer 1982

In the wake of growing disillusionment as to the efficacy of deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation, the last decade has seen a resurgence of “just deserts” as the rationale for punishing criminals. They should be punished because they deserve to be punished. The quantum of their suffering should be in proportion to the seriousness of their crime, not according to any assessment of whether they are rehabilitated or when they no longer pose a threat to the community.

Continue reading at northwestern.eduarrow1

Jailhouse Strong

 Josh Bryant, Adam benShea, October 1, 2013

Tired of all the latest exercise “advancements” delivering no results? For less than the cost of a day pass to any trendy chain gym, you can get Jailhouse Strong. With innovation and dedication prisoners make incredible strength gains. Jailhouse Strong offers functional strength training with a workout system that is based on the training habits cultivated behind bars. Through interviews with personalities ranging from a former Mr. Olympia, who started lifting behind bars, to a co-founder of the Crips Street gang, Jailhouse Strong describes the workouts prisoners use to become lean and powerful. Jailhouse Strong includes programs for lifting, bodyweight movements, and conditioning with unarmed combat techniques. The workouts require minimal cost, equipment, time, and space and they can be done at home, in a hotel, or just about anywhere. Whether you are doing 10–25 or working 9-5, Jailhouse Strong can fit into your schedule because Jailhouse Strong provides the fitness habits that are crucial for getting strong and for maintaining a level of emotional balance amidst the volatile reality found on both sides of prison walls.

Continue reading at amazon.comarrow1

California Prison Downsizing and Its Impact on Local Criminal Justice Systems

Joan Petersilia8 Harvard Law & Policy Review, June 30, 2014

California has embarked on a prison downsizing experiment of historical significance. Facing a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Brown v. Plata, which ordered the state to reduce its prison population by 25% within two years, Governor Jerry Brown signed the Public Safety Realignment Ace (AB 109). Realignment transferred authority for large numbers of convicted felons from the state prison and parole system to the state’s fifty-eight counties.

Continue reading at stanford.eduarrow1

States of Incarceration: The Global Context

Prison Policy Initiative, 2014

The state of Louisiana is often called out for having the highest incarceration rate in the world. But in the global context, how far behind are the other 49 states, really? This report finds that the disturbing answer is “Not very far.”

Around the globe, governments respond to illegal activity and social unrest in many ways. Here in the United States, policymakers in the 1970s made the decision to start incarcerating Americans at globally unprecedented rates. The decades that followed have revealed that the growth in the U.S. prison population can be more closely attributed to ideological policy choices than actual crime rates. The record also shows that our country’s experiment with mass incarceration has not managed to significantly enhance public safety, but instead has consistently and disproportionately stunted the social and economic well-being of poor communities and communities of color for generations.

Continue reading on prisonpolicy.orgarrow1