Despite 15 years of reform efforts, the incarceration rate in the United States remains unprecedentedly high. This book provides the first comprehensive survey of these reforms and explains why they have proven to be ineffective. After many decades of stability, the imprisonment rate in the United States quintupled between 1973 and 2003. Since then, nearly all states have adopted multiple reforms intended to reduce imprisonment, but the U.S. imprisonment rate has only decreased by a paltry 2 percent. Why have American sentencing reforms since 2000 been largely ineffective? Are tough mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders the primary reason our prisons are always full? This book offers a fascinating assessment of the wave of sentencing reforms adopted by dozens of states as well as changes at the federal level since 2000, identifying common themes among seemingly disparate changes in sentencing policy and highlighting recent reform efforts that have been more successful and may point the way forward for the nation as a whole. In The Failed Promise of Sentencing Reform, Michael O'Hear exposes the myths that American prison sentencing reforms enacted in the 21st century have failed to have the expected effect because U.S. prisons are filled to capacity with nonviolent drug offenders as a result of the "war on drugs" or because of new laws that took away the discretion of judges and corrections officials. O'Hear then makes a convincing case for the real reasons sentencing reforms have come up short: because they exclude violent and sexual offenders, and because they rely on the discretion of officials who still have every incentive to be highly risk-averse. He also highlights how overlooking the well-being of offenders and their families in our consideration of sentencing reform has undermined efforts to effect real change.

Properly developed algorithms can reduce incarceration and help policymakers adopt more legally sophisticated bail and sentencing practices.

Volume 52 is an annual survey of cutting-edge issues by preeminent criminology scholars. Since 1979, Crime and Justice has presented a review of the latest international research, providing expertise to enhance the work of sociologists, psychologists, criminal lawyers, justice scholars, and political scientists. The series explores a full range of issues concerning crime, its causes, and its cures. In both the review and the thematic volumes, Crime and Justice offers an interdisciplinary approach to address core issues in criminology.

This book brings together contributions from twenty-three world-leading scholars and commentators that address a range of contemporary and pressing international themes in mental health, disability and criminal law. The authors use the work of internationally renowned academic, Emeritus Professor Bernadette McSherry, as a springboard to reflect on recent developments in these areas of law and to anticipate the future directions they may take. In doing so, they aim to inform and inspire a new generation of mental health, disability and criminal law scholars, advocates and reformers. The book is divided into four substantive sections: reforming mental health and disability law; regulating coercion and restrictive practices; improving access to justice and the criminal law; and transforming mental health law. It also includes an introduction from the editors and an afterword from Emeritus Professor McSherry. The book is aimed at regulators, policymakers, lawyers, clinicians, consumer advocates and academics who are interested in the urgent and contentious issues surrounding the reform and development of mental health, disability and criminal law. It will help them understand the key issues and problems and presents suggestions for reform. The book is interdisciplinary and international in its focus.

The Supreme Court’s Role in Mass Incarceration illuminates the role of the United States Supreme Court’s criminal procedure revolution as a contributing factor to the rise in U.S. incarceration rates. Noting that the increase in mass incarceration began climbing just after the Warren Court years and continued to climb for the next four decades—despite the substantial decline in the crime rate—the author posits that part of the explanation is the Court’s failure to understand that a trial system with robust rights for defendants is not a strong trial system unless it is also reliable and efficient. There have been many explanations offered for the sudden and steep escalation in the U.S. incarceration rate, such as "it was the war on drugs" to "it was our harsh sentencing statutes." Those explanations have been shown to be inadequate. This book contends that we have overlooked a more powerful force in the rise of our incarceration rate—the long line of Supreme Court decisions, starting in the Warren Court era, that made the criminal justice system so complicated and expensive that it no longer serves to protect defendants. For the vast majority of defendants, their constitutional rights are irrelevant, as they are forced to accept plea bargains or face the prospect of a comparatively harsh sentence, if convicted. The prospect of a trial, once an important restraint on prosecutors in charging, has disappeared and plea-bargaining rules. This book is essential reading for both graduate and undergraduate students in corrections and criminal justice courses as well as judges, attorneys, and others working in the criminal justice system.

The articles in this collection originally appeared in the journal “Overcrowded Times”. They provide an overview of sentencing policy, practices, and institution in the United States, other English-speaking countries (Canada, England, Australia, New Zealand & South Africa), and Europe.

This publication contains oral evidence given in relation to the Committee's inquiry into sentencing policy by Lord Woolf, the former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. It also includes written evidence submitted by a range of organisations including the Home Office, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, the Crown Prosecution Service, Criminal Bar Association, the Howard League for Penal Reform, JUSTICE, the Parole Board, the Police Federation, the Prison Governors' Association, the Prison Reform Trust, and the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales.

"The explosive rise in the U.S. incarceration rate in the second half of the twentieth century, and the racial transformation of the prison population from mostly white at mid-century to sixty-five percent black and Latino in the present day, is a trend that cannot easily be ignored. Many believe that this shift began with the "tough on crime" policies advocated by Republicans and southern Democrats beginning in the late 1960s, which sought longer prison sentences, more frequent use of the death penalty, and the explicit or implicit targeting of politically marginalized people. In The First Civil Right, Naomi Murakawa inverts the conventional wisdom by arguing that the expansion of the federal carceral state-a system that disproportionately imprisons blacks and Latinos-was, in fact, rooted in the civil-rights liberalism of the 1940s and early 1960s, not in the period after. Murakawa traces the development of the modern American prison system through several presidencies, both Republican and Democrat. Responding to calls to end the lawlessness and violence against blacks at the state and local levels, the Truman administration expanded the scope of what was previously a weak federal system. Later administrations from Johnson to Clinton expanded the federal presence even more. Ironically, these steps laid the groundwork for the creation of the vast penal archipelago that now exists in the United States. What began as a liberal initiative to curb the mob violence and police brutality that had deprived racial minorities of their first civil right - physical safety - eventually evolved into the federal correctional system that now deprives them, in unjustly large numbers, of another important right: freedom. The First Civil Right is a groundbreaking analysis of root of the conflicts that lie at the intersection of race and the legal system in America." -- Publisher's description.