Incarcerated People

The United States has 5% of the world’s population, but 25% of all prisoners. At any given time, more than 7 million Americans are under the control of the criminal justice system. The U.S. national incarceration rate is the highest in the world—almost 750 per 100,000 people. The operation of private “for-profit” prisons has become a significant feature of the U.S. correctional system. This chapter describes how social injustice affects the health of incarcerated people and their families. In addition, it addresses the root and underlying issues related to the high incarceration rate in the United States. The chapter addresses what needs to be done, including reducing incarceration for nonviolent offenders, improving community services, improving prison health services, reforming drug laws, providing assistance to family members, and enabling former prisoners to vote. A text box addresses political prisoners in other countries.

The Model Regime

This chapter outlines a model regime of prior record enhancement (PRE), designed to promote more rational, parsimonious, and humane sentences. It provides general principles and specific rules reflecting what is known about PRE justifications, costs, benefits, and adverse consequences. The principles specify which punishment purposes justify PRE, while also recognizing the overarching importance of maintaining proportionality to conviction offense seriousness, ensuring that PREs are necessary and cost-effective, minimizing racial disparities and imprisonment of aging and nonviolent offenders, avoiding interference with offender efforts at desistance, and striking a reasonable balance between rule and discretion. The model’s PRE counting rules exclude juvenile and misdemeanor priors, convictions more than 10 years old, upweighting of felonies based on their severity or similarity, and custody status points. First offenders receive substantial sentence mitigation, after which PRE magnitude increases modestly and is capped. High-history offenders are punished no more than twice as severely as first offenders.

Introduction

This chapter provides an overview of the book, including the following major topics: why this neglected topic is so important; the ubiquity of prior record enhancement in modern sentencing systems, and their particularly powerful roles in U.S. jurisdictions with sentencing guidelines; the wide variations in the criminal history scoring formulas used in guidelines, with respect to matters such as which prior crimes and other factors are included, the weight each receives, and the degree to which a high score increases recommended sentence severity; the unclear punishment rationales for such enhancements; and the numerous negative consequences of these enhancements— increasing the size and expense of prison populations, undermining the important goal of punishment in proportion to offense severity, increasing the need for prison beds to house property and other nonviolent offenders, generating large numbers of aging prison inmates, contributing to racial disproportionality in prison populations, and undermining offenders’ efforts to reintegrate into society.

Adverse Impacts on Offense-Based Proportionality and Prison-Use Priorities

This chapter shows how powerful criminal history enhancements undermine important goals of guidelines reforms. First, these enhancements undermine the goal of making punishment severity proportional to the seriousness of the offense for which the offender is being sentenced; if prior record receives more weight in sentencing, conviction offense seriousness receives less weight. Second, these enhancements counteract the goal of reserving expensive prison beds for offenders convicted of violent crimes—powerful criminal history enhancements shift the balance of prison admissions and inmate stocks toward property, drug, and other nonviolent offenders. Third, prior record enhancements change the composition of prison populations by risk level—older offenders often have more prior convictions but declining recidivism risks, so criminal history enhancements increase the number of aging, low-risk prison inmates. The formulaic nature of such enhancements also over-predicts the risk level of some younger offenders. The chapter concludes with proposals for limiting these adverse effects.

Impacts of Criminal History Enhancements on Prison Bed Needs and Costs

This chapter shows how sentencing data can be used to quantify the substantial fiscal impacts of high-magnitude criminal history enhancements, overall and with respect to the problematic aspects of those enhancements identified and discussed in previous chapters. It uses data from Minnesota and several other states as examples because of the excellent sentencing data available for those states. The chapter first examines the total fiscal impact (added bed needs and costs) that results from the sentence-enhancing effects of criminal history on prison commitment and prison duration decisions. It then quantifies the fiscal impacts of the identified problematic aspects of prior record enhancements: disproportionately severe prison durations imposed on high history offenders, imprisonment of nonviolent offenders recommended for prison solely because of their elevated criminal history scores, imprisonment of aging offenders who are recommended for prison due to their high history scores, and racially disparate sentences that result from criminal history enhancements.

The Iowa Gambling Task in Violent and Nonviolent Incarcerated Male Adolescents

Previous studies have found impaired affective decision-making, as measured by the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), in various antisocial populations. This is the first study to compare the IGT in violent and nonviolent incarcerated American youth. The IGT was administered to 185 incarcerated adolescent male offenders charged with either nonviolent (38.4%) or violent (61.6%) crimes. General linear mixed models and t tests were used to assess differences between the groups. The full sample performed worse than if they had selected from the decks at random. The violent offenders performed more poorly than the nonviolent offenders overall, primarily because they preferred “disadvantageous” Deck B to a greater degree; however, they did demonstrate some degree of learning by the final block of the task. Adolescent offenders demonstrate impaired affective decision-making. Behavior suggested preferential attention to frequency of loss and amount of gain and inattention to amount of loss.

Characteristics of Female Youth Offenders in New Zealand

Female youth offending is poorly understood, despite increased rates of such offending. Research indicates there are a range of factors that have a causal impact on the development of offending in young people. This study investigated risk factors using a retrospective file audit of 184 female youth offenders in New Zealand. The findings were classified using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model, which highlights the different contextual levels that influence behavior, including individual, family, peer, school, community, and cultural factors. The results indicate that there are significant risk factors for female youth offenders. There were high rates of mental health difficulties, drug use, histories of maltreatment, family stressors, peer issues, and school behavior problems in the cohort. There was very little difference between violent and nonviolent offenders. All the young women had risk factors affecting them at many levels. Targeted, multisystemic intervention and prevention programs are therefore needed to address female youth offending.