By The Correctional Association of New York

The Humane Alternatives to Long-Term (HALT) Solitary Confinement Law (hereinafter “the HALT Law” or “the HALT Solitary Law”) passed on March 31, 2021, and went into effect on March 31, 2022, following years of grassroots organizing and advocacy. The Correctional Association of New York (CANY) – an organization that has been monitoring prison conditions since its founding in 1844 and is the only independent organization in New York State with authority to monitor state prisons and publicly report findings – has been monitoring implementation of the HALT Law in state prisons.1 The HALT Law is considered the most expansive and progressive legislative change in the United States concerning the practice of solitary confinement, known more generally as segregation. HALT dictates fundamental shifts in the duration and definition of segregation; perhaps even more significantly, the law prescribes a sea change in the philosophical underpinnings of behavior management in prisons. Implementation of the law has been met with harsh critique and resistance by some staff within the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), who have linked the law to reported increases in violence in the prisons; various data outlined in this report raise questions about the connection between any increase in violence and the implementation of HALT. Other corrections staff acknowledge that the Department had relied too heavily on segregation in the past and embrace the opportunity to expand programming, even as they navigate the challenges. This report presents CANY’s findings and recommendations regarding implementation of the law in state prisons thus far, based on CANY’s prison monitoring activities in the time leading up to implementation and between April and December 2022. The findings presented here should be considered in that context: CANY has monitored the first eight months of implementation of a law that seeks to transform practices that have been in place for decades. In anticipation of the HALT Law taking effect, DOCCS ended the practice of keeplock (a form of segregation or solitary confinement) starting in late 2021. The HALT Law has also led to a reduction in the use of Special Housing Units (SHU), another form of segregation or solitary confinement, and a reduction in the amount of time people are kept in SHU. In addition, some incarcerated people who had spent years and decades in SHU have been moved to alternative units or to the general population. Moreover, DOCCS is operating alternative units, known under the law as Residential Rehabilitation Units (RRUs), that are providing opportunities for out-of-cell programming and engagement. DOCCS has also published a variety of administrative data and reports in compliance with the law, representing an increase in information-sharing, transparency, and accountability.

New York: CANY, 2023. 65p

By Nidhi Kalra, Brian G. Vegetabile, Shawn D. Bushway, and Greg Baumann

In this paper from RAND, the authors argue that the recidivism statistics cited most often in debates about the collateral consequences of criminal conviction are not appropriate to answer the questions inherent in those debates. In particular, the behaviors of criminal justice cohorts are too often mistakenly used to describe, or are entangled with descriptions of, behaviors of the overall population of people who have ever had a conviction, served time in prison, or experienced some other event in the criminal justice system. This confusion has consequences.

This paper demonstrates that the most-cited recidivism statistics often are based on criminal justice cohort samples that disproportionately contain frequent participants in the criminal justice system and, as a result, have higher recidivism rates compared with the broader population of concern.

Santa Monica, RAND, 2022, 16p.

By Margaret Colgate Love

The problem of collateral consequences calls to mind Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s famous line: “The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience.” U.S. criminal law itself is not theoretically pure. In the area of civil law, in particular commercial law, dozens of uniform laws are on the books, drafted by experts, many of which, such as the Uniform Commercial Code, have been widely adopted. But in a country where we evaluate criminal justice polices based on a melange of principles - retributivist, utilitarian, economic, religious, pragmatic, intuitive, and emotional - there is and could be no Uniform Penal Code.1 Criminal law is inconsistent across states, and even within states, in its underlying justification or rationale, and the reasons that particular rules or practices exist. The Model Penal Code has been widely influential, but—as designed—states adopted only the pieces they liked, and heavily modified them. Disagreement about how to treat someone who has been arrested or prosecuted after their criminal case is concluded is, if anything, even more intense. The collateral or indirect consequences of their experience may be divided into four main types: Loss of civil rights, limits on personal freedom (such as registration or deportation), dissemination of damaging information, and deprivation of opportunities and benefits, each of which may be justified and criticized for different reasons. Accordingly, criminal law practitioners and scholars disagree about the fundamental nature and purpose of collateral consequences. To the extent the public at large ever thinks about them, they also hold a range of views. There is no consensus about whether collateral consequences in general or particular ones should be understood as further punishment for crime or prophylactic civil regulation, as a reasonable effort to control risk or as an unconstitutional and immoral perpetuation of Jim Crow, or, perhaps, understood in some other way. Advocates, analysts, and lawmakers will never be in a position to argue persuasively “because collateral consequences rest on Principle X, it follows that they should apply in and only in Condition Y, and must be relieved under Circumstance Z.” Yet, the practical problem of collateral consequences looms large. With their massive expansion in recent decades, those who experience collateral consequences firsthand know that they cannot become fully functioning members of the community without finding a way to overcome them. The economic dislocations caused by the Covid-19 pandemic underscore the practical implications of collateral consequences: With individuals desperate for money and opportunity, and businesses hungry for workers, the need for a sensible policy to minimize employer concerns about risk is clear. And while there remains no compelling necessity for all states to have the same penalties for armed robbery or cattle rustling, collateral consequences are a national economic problem affecting whole communities that might justify a federal, or at least a uniform, solution. Fortunately, agreement on underlying principles is not required to agree on particular policies.2 Most Americans agree that people arrested or convicted of crime should not be relegated to a permanent subordinate status regardless of the passage of time, successful efforts at rehabilitation and restitution, and lack of current risk to fellow Americans. Finding ways to restore their legal and social status is a compelling necessity, given the array of collateral consequences adversely affecting tens of millions of Americans, their families and communities, the economy, and public safety itself. To adapt a line from Justice Anthony Kennedy’s 2003 speech on criminal justice to the ABA, too many people are subject to too many collateral consequences for too long. At the same time, substantial majorities likely agree that public safety requires excluding those convicted of recent criminal conduct from situations where they present a clear and present danger of serious harm. Even if it is impossible to identify a s

Washington, DC: Collateral Consequences Resource Center (CCRC) , 2022. 129p.

By: Lisa Mary Armstrong and Margaret Malloch

In June 2011, the Commission on Women Offenders was set up to explore ways to improve the justice system in Scotland. The Commission’s report made a broad range of recommendations echoing those of the Corston Review (2017) but for the most part have remained aspirational. In Scotland, change has been painfully slow with many women imprisoned on short term sentences and remand rates having spiralled during the pandemic. One of the recommendations to come out of the Commission’s report led to the building of two Community Custodial Units (CCUs). The units were designed to take into consideration the high rate of trauma and adversities that formed the experience of many women in prison. Consequently, the discourse of trauma-informed and gender-specific approaches to punishment has been pronounced. This chapter considers the aims and objectives of the restructuring of the women’s prison estate and the emphasis that it gives to conjoining ‘community’ and ‘custody’ in the operation of the two new units that are presented as the innovative pulse of the new Strategy for Women in Custody. We are interested in exploring the extent to which the prison is the most effective space for this attempt at community integration, in contrast to a distinct community resource. While acknowledging the recent introduction of the CCUs, we do not attempt to provide an evaluation of them, but rather to engage with the principles and ethos which underpin their conceptualisation.

Geographies of Gendered Punishment, Palgrave Studies in Prisons and Penology

By Tony Parker

Recidivism and Rehabilitation: The document explores the challenges of rehabilitating repeat offenders, highlighting the cycle of crime and punishment.

Humanity and Understanding: It emphasizes the importance of treating criminals as human beings and understanding their circumstances.

Systemic Failures: The text discusses the inadequacies of the judicial and penal systems in addressing the root causes of criminal behavior.

Personal Struggles: The narrative of Charlie Smith illustrates the personal difficulties and societal rejection faced by habitual offenders.

Faber & Faber, 2013, 176 pages

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

By Sheldon Glueck And Eleanor T. Glueck

The book provides a comprehensive analysis of the after-conduct of discharged offenders, focusing on the implications for reforming criminal justice:

● Causal Relations: It emphasizes the importance of understanding the multiple causal factors, both biological and environmental, that influence criminal behavior.

● Predictive Techniques: The document discusses the feasibility of using predictive tables to aid in sentencing and parole decisions.

● Reform Proposals: It suggests reforms for criminal justice based on scientific insights, such as re-designing correctional equipment to address causes rather than symptoms.

● Scientific Insights: Follow-up studies are highlighted as a means to gain scientific insights into the effectiveness of sentencing, treatment, and parole practices.

These key insights aim to shift the focus from punitive measures to a more rehabilitative approach that considers the complex interplay of factors contributing to criminal behavior.

Cambridge University. London 1945. Kraus Reprint Corporation New York 1966. 129p.

By Judith A. Ryder

The rate of female incarceration continues to surge, resulting in over 714,000 women currently being held behind bars worldwide. Females generally enter carceral facilities with low educational profiles, and educational programming inside is rarely a high priority. Access to education is a proven contributor to women’s social and economic empowerment and can minimise some of the obstacles they encounter after being released from custody. Support for the intellectual potential of incarcerated female ‘students’ can address intersecting inequalities that impede access to social protection, public services and sustainable infrastructure. Policymakers, academics and activists concerned with gender equality must begin by focusing on academic and vocational program development for female prisoners, built through strong community partnerships, and inclusive of trauma informed supports.

International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 9(1), pp. 139-149. 2020