Members of racial, ethnic, and Indigenous minorities have long accounted for disproportionate percentages of prison admissions in Western nations and of prison populations. The minorities affected vary between countries. Discriminatory or differential treatment by criminal justice officials from policing through to parole is part of the problem. Much media and professional attention focuses on sentencing, where the decision-making is most public. An emerging body of research identifies sentencing as a cause—or, at the very least, an amplifier—of minority overincarceration. Solutions aiming to reduce it have been implemented, with varying but modest degrees of success, in the United States, England and Wales, Canada, and Aotearoa New Zealand. Progress toward reducing minority overincarceration has been slow. Most US sentencing commissions have failed to determine the extent to which their guidelines contribute to the problem. The Sentencing Council of England and Wales has taken the limited step of warning judges about racial disparities, without suggesting remedial steps to be taken. Courts in Canada and Aotearoa New Zealand have taken more activist approaches, mitigating sentences when offenders adduce evidence of discrimination or abuse by criminal justice officials.
{"title":"Sentencing Members of Minority Groups: Problems and Prospects for Improvement in Four Countries","authors":"Julian V. Roberts, Gabrielle Watson, Rhys Hester","doi":"10.1086/725721","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/725721","url":null,"abstract":"Members of racial, ethnic, and Indigenous minorities have long accounted for disproportionate percentages of prison admissions in Western nations and of prison populations. The minorities affected vary between countries. Discriminatory or differential treatment by criminal justice officials from policing through to parole is part of the problem. Much media and professional attention focuses on sentencing, where the decision-making is most public. An emerging body of research identifies sentencing as a cause—or, at the very least, an amplifier—of minority overincarceration. Solutions aiming to reduce it have been implemented, with varying but modest degrees of success, in the United States, England and Wales, Canada, and Aotearoa New Zealand. Progress toward reducing minority overincarceration has been slow. Most US sentencing commissions have failed to determine the extent to which their guidelines contribute to the problem. The Sentencing Council of England and Wales has taken the limited step of warning judges about racial disparities, without suggesting remedial steps to be taken. Courts in Canada and Aotearoa New Zealand have taken more activist approaches, mitigating sentences when offenders adduce evidence of discrimination or abuse by criminal justice officials.","PeriodicalId":51456,"journal":{"name":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45274735","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since the discovery of the “jail disease,” probably typhus, in the eighteenth century, health experts have recognized that the prison is a near perfect incubator of contagious disease. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, therefore, public health authorities and human rights groups advocated immediate and sustained decarceration of overcrowded prisons to save lives and stop the spread of the virus. Yet, decarceration efforts globally were uneven and largely failed to live up to expectations. Instead, prison systems typically sought to control the spread of COVID-19 by imposing strict “lockdowns” on prisoner movement that bordered on long-term solitary confinement in many jurisdictions. The consequences of these severe conditions on prisoners’ mental and physical health are only just emerging. The ramifications for future prison reform efforts may be more profound. If a deadly pandemic is not enough to instigate a reimagining of the role of prison in society, it is unclear what could.
{"title":"The COVID-19 Pandemic and the Future of the Prison","authors":"Shadd Maruna, Gillian Mcnaull, N. O’Neill","doi":"10.1086/722434","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/722434","url":null,"abstract":"Since the discovery of the “jail disease,” probably typhus, in the eighteenth century, health experts have recognized that the prison is a near perfect incubator of contagious disease. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, therefore, public health authorities and human rights groups advocated immediate and sustained decarceration of overcrowded prisons to save lives and stop the spread of the virus. Yet, decarceration efforts globally were uneven and largely failed to live up to expectations. Instead, prison systems typically sought to control the spread of COVID-19 by imposing strict “lockdowns” on prisoner movement that bordered on long-term solitary confinement in many jurisdictions. The consequences of these severe conditions on prisoners’ mental and physical health are only just emerging. The ramifications for future prison reform efforts may be more profound. If a deadly pandemic is not enough to instigate a reimagining of the role of prison in society, it is unclear what could.","PeriodicalId":51456,"journal":{"name":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","volume":"51 1","pages":"59 - 103"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43564723","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Imprisonment has deleterious effects on prisoners’ mental, physical, social, and economic well-being. These harms are long lasting and affect prisoners’ partners and children. In the United States and elsewhere, imprisonment disproportionately inflicts these harms on people of color and people living in poverty. Although imprisonment is regarded as a reasonable and effective means of protecting the public, it is not, when compared with nonconfinement alternatives, an effective way to achieve public safety. Two broad sets of policy reforms would be better: retroactive and prospective sentencing reforms that reduce reliance on confinement for all types of offenses, including violent crimes, and broad initiatives that reduce reliance on prison and jails while also investing in housing, education, treatment, health, and communities. Researchers and policy analysts need to engage in problem-solving research that examines not only incarceration’s effects but alternative ongoing efforts to achieve public safety and justice.
{"title":"The Effects of Imprisonment in a Time of Mass Incarceration","authors":"K. Beckett, Allison Goldberg","doi":"10.1086/721018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/721018","url":null,"abstract":"Imprisonment has deleterious effects on prisoners’ mental, physical, social, and economic well-being. These harms are long lasting and affect prisoners’ partners and children. In the United States and elsewhere, imprisonment disproportionately inflicts these harms on people of color and people living in poverty. Although imprisonment is regarded as a reasonable and effective means of protecting the public, it is not, when compared with nonconfinement alternatives, an effective way to achieve public safety. Two broad sets of policy reforms would be better: retroactive and prospective sentencing reforms that reduce reliance on confinement for all types of offenses, including violent crimes, and broad initiatives that reduce reliance on prison and jails while also investing in housing, education, treatment, health, and communities. Researchers and policy analysts need to engage in problem-solving research that examines not only incarceration’s effects but alternative ongoing efforts to achieve public safety and justice.","PeriodicalId":51456,"journal":{"name":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","volume":"51 1","pages":"349 - 398"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49560619","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
“The problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color-line” wrote W. E. B. Du Bois in The Souls of Black Folk. That remains true in twenty-first-century America, especially in criminal justice systems generally and particularly in prisons. Racial disparities in sentencing and in imprisonment have declined slightly from historic peaks in the 1980s and 1990s but remain stubbornly high. Differential criminal justice system treatment of Blacks and Whites has changed form since the Civil War but endured as convict labor, prison farms, imprisonment rate disparities, contemporary tough-on-crime laws, and police practices that target members of minority groups, places they frequent, and behaviors for which they are disproportionately often arrested. In earlier times, differential treatment was often openly invidious. In more recent times it is nominally color-blind but produces similarly skewed results. We need to understand why and how differential treatment of Black people has persisted through a century and a half of fundamental changes in criminal justice system policies and practices and how this has happened within the context of shifting notions of what race is and what constitutes racism.
{"title":"The Peculiar Journey: Race, Racism, and Imprisonment in American History","authors":"R. Crutchfield","doi":"10.1086/722510","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/722510","url":null,"abstract":"“The problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color-line” wrote W. E. B. Du Bois in The Souls of Black Folk. That remains true in twenty-first-century America, especially in criminal justice systems generally and particularly in prisons. Racial disparities in sentencing and in imprisonment have declined slightly from historic peaks in the 1980s and 1990s but remain stubbornly high. Differential criminal justice system treatment of Blacks and Whites has changed form since the Civil War but endured as convict labor, prison farms, imprisonment rate disparities, contemporary tough-on-crime laws, and police practices that target members of minority groups, places they frequent, and behaviors for which they are disproportionately often arrested. In earlier times, differential treatment was often openly invidious. In more recent times it is nominally color-blind but produces similarly skewed results. We need to understand why and how differential treatment of Black people has persisted through a century and a half of fundamental changes in criminal justice system policies and practices and how this has happened within the context of shifting notions of what race is and what constitutes racism.","PeriodicalId":51456,"journal":{"name":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","volume":"51 1","pages":"105 - 135"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41433384","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Imprisonment rates and patterns and the professionalism and decency of prison operations vary widely between countries and, within the United States, between states. The explanations for differences are deeply embedded in national or local histories and political cultures; substantial changes are hard to achieve. Day-to-day life even in the “best” prisons is usually drab, monotonous, and unpleasant; in the worst it is squalid, unhealthy, and sometimes terrifying. Conditions for guards and other staff are often little better. The big difference is that they can go home at shift’s end. They are often poorly paid and little respected; work in claustrophobic, stultifying environments; and deal daily with angry, depressed, mentally ill, and otherwise troubled people. The best run, most humane prisons address those challenges as best they can—in some countries, sometimes, reasonably well. Many prisons—in some countries, most—are terrible places. Sometimes that is because policy makers cannot or will not spend the money needed to run them decently, sometimes because they do not much care what goes on inside, and sometimes because they affirmatively want prisoners to suffer. Staff miseries are collateral damage.
{"title":"Punishments, Politics, and Prisons in Western Countries","authors":"M. Tonry","doi":"10.1086/721278","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/721278","url":null,"abstract":"Imprisonment rates and patterns and the professionalism and decency of prison operations vary widely between countries and, within the United States, between states. The explanations for differences are deeply embedded in national or local histories and political cultures; substantial changes are hard to achieve. Day-to-day life even in the “best” prisons is usually drab, monotonous, and unpleasant; in the worst it is squalid, unhealthy, and sometimes terrifying. Conditions for guards and other staff are often little better. The big difference is that they can go home at shift’s end. They are often poorly paid and little respected; work in claustrophobic, stultifying environments; and deal daily with angry, depressed, mentally ill, and otherwise troubled people. The best run, most humane prisons address those challenges as best they can—in some countries, sometimes, reasonably well. Many prisons—in some countries, most—are terrible places. Sometimes that is because policy makers cannot or will not spend the money needed to run them decently, sometimes because they do not much care what goes on inside, and sometimes because they affirmatively want prisoners to suffer. Staff miseries are collateral damage.","PeriodicalId":51456,"journal":{"name":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","volume":"51 1","pages":"7 - 57"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41937423","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The prison may or may not be always with us. Only time will tell. Half a century ago, it appeared to be in terminal decline. Imprisonment rates were falling inmost developed countries, including theUnited States. Prison abolition movements were emerging, particularly in Scandinavia and the Netherlands, and a call for a “national moratorium on prison construction” was being heard in the United States. Foundations were being laid for what later became known as the restorative justicemovement.New community programs for diversion of cases from the criminal justice system were everywhere proliferating. Most of what we now think of as communitybased penalties—community service, victim-offender mediation, home confinement, day reporting centers, intensive probation supervision, electronic monitoring, financial penalties including day fines, prosecutorial diversion—were being invented or greatly expanded. From the 1940s through themid-1970s, leading practitioners and scholars believed the prison’s days were numbered, except possibly residually for the very most serious crimes and most troubled offenders. In 1942, Hermann Mannheim of the London School of Economics, then and in following decades Britain’s most influential criminologist, observed, “The days of imprisonment as a method of mass treatment of lawbreakers are largely over. What remains of it will have to employ much more scientific methods of selection and treatment in order to survive” (1942, p. 222).
监狱可能会也可能不会永远和我们在一起。只有时间会告诉我们答案。半个世纪前，它似乎处于衰落的边缘。包括美国在内的大多数发达国家的监禁率都在下降。废除监狱的运动正在兴起，特别是在斯堪的纳维亚和荷兰，在美国也听到了“全国暂停建造监狱”的呼吁。为后来被称为恢复性司法运动的运动奠定了基础。从刑事司法系统转移案件的新社区项目到处都在激增。我们现在所认为的大多数基于社区的惩罚——社区服务、受害者-罪犯调解、家庭监禁、日间报告中心、强化缓刑监督、电子监控、包括日间罚款在内的经济惩罚、转移起诉——都是在当时被发明或大大扩展的。从20世纪40年代到70年代中期，主要的从业人员和学者认为，监狱的日子屈指可数，除了可能剩下的最严重的犯罪和最麻烦的罪犯。1942年，伦敦经济学院(London School of Economics)的赫尔曼·曼海姆(Hermann Mannheim)——当时以及随后的几十年里，他是英国最有影响力的犯罪学家——观察到，“将监禁作为一种大规模对待违法者的方法的日子基本上结束了。”剩下的将不得不采用更科学的选择和治疗方法来生存”(1942,p. 222)。
{"title":"Has the Prison a Future?","authors":"Sandra M. Bucerius, M. Tonry","doi":"10.1086/722453","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/722453","url":null,"abstract":"The prison may or may not be always with us. Only time will tell. Half a century ago, it appeared to be in terminal decline. Imprisonment rates were falling inmost developed countries, including theUnited States. Prison abolition movements were emerging, particularly in Scandinavia and the Netherlands, and a call for a “national moratorium on prison construction” was being heard in the United States. Foundations were being laid for what later became known as the restorative justicemovement.New community programs for diversion of cases from the criminal justice system were everywhere proliferating. Most of what we now think of as communitybased penalties—community service, victim-offender mediation, home confinement, day reporting centers, intensive probation supervision, electronic monitoring, financial penalties including day fines, prosecutorial diversion—were being invented or greatly expanded. From the 1940s through themid-1970s, leading practitioners and scholars believed the prison’s days were numbered, except possibly residually for the very most serious crimes and most troubled offenders. In 1942, Hermann Mannheim of the London School of Economics, then and in following decades Britain’s most influential criminologist, observed, “The days of imprisonment as a method of mass treatment of lawbreakers are largely over. What remains of it will have to employ much more scientific methods of selection and treatment in order to survive” (1942, p. 222).","PeriodicalId":51456,"journal":{"name":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","volume":"51 1","pages":"1 - 5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42280466","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Drug-involved offenders have been long overrepresented in prisons. Intensified drug law enforcement in many countries increased both incarceration rates, especially for drug offenses, and numbers of drug-involved prisoners. This is attributable to four features of drugs and drug markets. Drug use disorders typically are not the only problems facing drug-involved prisoners. A high proportion exhibit severe mental health problems such as major depression, personality disorders, and psychotic disorders. Before incarceration, many drug-involved prisoners have unstable housing and are at high risk of homelessness; incarceration increases that risk. The high concentration of drug-involved offenders in prisons presents numerous challenges. After release, the most obvious are high rates of drug relapse and recidivism. Former prisoners have extraordinarily high risks of drug overdoses shortly after release; in the long term, diseases acquired during imprisonment are transmitted in the community. Effective prison-based drug treatment holds promise to break this cycle and mitigate physical and mental health problems of drug-involved prisoners. Unfortunately, access to treatment modalities proven to be effective in reducing drug use and recidivism is limited. A paradigm shift in drug enforcement and treatment is needed to meet the challenges presented by individuals with drug use disorders more effectively.
{"title":"Drug Use Disorders before, during, and after Imprisonment","authors":"Ojmarrh Mitchell","doi":"10.1086/722353","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/722353","url":null,"abstract":"Drug-involved offenders have been long overrepresented in prisons. Intensified drug law enforcement in many countries increased both incarceration rates, especially for drug offenses, and numbers of drug-involved prisoners. This is attributable to four features of drugs and drug markets. Drug use disorders typically are not the only problems facing drug-involved prisoners. A high proportion exhibit severe mental health problems such as major depression, personality disorders, and psychotic disorders. Before incarceration, many drug-involved prisoners have unstable housing and are at high risk of homelessness; incarceration increases that risk. The high concentration of drug-involved offenders in prisons presents numerous challenges. After release, the most obvious are high rates of drug relapse and recidivism. Former prisoners have extraordinarily high risks of drug overdoses shortly after release; in the long term, diseases acquired during imprisonment are transmitted in the community. Effective prison-based drug treatment holds promise to break this cycle and mitigate physical and mental health problems of drug-involved prisoners. Unfortunately, access to treatment modalities proven to be effective in reducing drug use and recidivism is limited. A paradigm shift in drug enforcement and treatment is needed to meet the challenges presented by individuals with drug use disorders more effectively.","PeriodicalId":51456,"journal":{"name":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","volume":"51 1","pages":"307 - 347"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47392197","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Criminalization is the process by which people are classified by authorities as criminal and become subject to the control of criminal justice agencies—police, courts, and correctional departments. “Careers in criminalization” refers to sustained criminal justice involvement through repeated incarceration and ongoing police and court contact. Careers in criminalization are produced through a mutually reinforcing process of system-induced harms and criminal justice traps that combine to prolong surveillance and penal control. System-induced harms are physical, psychological, and reputational injuries that may be criminogenic or otherwise impede adjustment to community life. Criminal justice traps are cycles of involvement created through intensive surveillance, compliance enforcement, and system marking. The idea of careers in criminalization has special relevance for understanding prisoner reentry, in which criminal justice institutions and officials sustain surveillance and penal control, delaying social integration.
{"title":"Careers in Criminalization: Reentry, Recidivism, and Repeated Incarceration","authors":"B. Western, D. Harding","doi":"10.1086/721742","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/721742","url":null,"abstract":"Criminalization is the process by which people are classified by authorities as criminal and become subject to the control of criminal justice agencies—police, courts, and correctional departments. “Careers in criminalization” refers to sustained criminal justice involvement through repeated incarceration and ongoing police and court contact. Careers in criminalization are produced through a mutually reinforcing process of system-induced harms and criminal justice traps that combine to prolong surveillance and penal control. System-induced harms are physical, psychological, and reputational injuries that may be criminogenic or otherwise impede adjustment to community life. Criminal justice traps are cycles of involvement created through intensive surveillance, compliance enforcement, and system marking. The idea of careers in criminalization has special relevance for understanding prisoner reentry, in which criminal justice institutions and officials sustain surveillance and penal control, delaying social integration.","PeriodicalId":51456,"journal":{"name":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","volume":"51 1","pages":"435 - 469"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48022496","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Mass incarceration of Indigenous peoples is a fundamental Canadian human rights problem. One response since the 1970s has been to “Indigenize” prisons by teaching Indigenous culture and history, facilitating spirituality, involving Elders and communities in rehabilitation, and creating special prisons called “healing lodges.” Criminologist proponents of “critical prison studies” are widely dismissive of these programs, with some arguing that Indigenized programming advances cultural genocide. They are wrong. University of Alberta Prison Project researchers interviewed nearly 600 prisoners in six prisons across western Canada, of whom 40 percent self-identified as Indigenous. Respondents generally praised Indigenizing initiatives for teaching them about their history and culture and helping them feel empowered and proud of their Indigenous identity. They said the initiatives helped them feel better able to cope with colonial traumas, including residential school and foster care system experiences; created a support network between Elders and fellow prisoners; and facilitated basic religious accommodation. Respondents’ criticisms focused on prison management, particularly security restrictions and staff prejudice that can prevent access to Indigenized resources. Indigenized programming supports the dignity and religious rights of incarcerated Indigenous peoples. Participants wanted expanded, more easily accessible cultural programming.
{"title":"Indigenizing Prisons: A Canadian Case Study","authors":"Justin Tetrault","doi":"10.1086/720943","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/720943","url":null,"abstract":"Mass incarceration of Indigenous peoples is a fundamental Canadian human rights problem. One response since the 1970s has been to “Indigenize” prisons by teaching Indigenous culture and history, facilitating spirituality, involving Elders and communities in rehabilitation, and creating special prisons called “healing lodges.” Criminologist proponents of “critical prison studies” are widely dismissive of these programs, with some arguing that Indigenized programming advances cultural genocide. They are wrong. University of Alberta Prison Project researchers interviewed nearly 600 prisoners in six prisons across western Canada, of whom 40 percent self-identified as Indigenous. Respondents generally praised Indigenizing initiatives for teaching them about their history and culture and helping them feel empowered and proud of their Indigenous identity. They said the initiatives helped them feel better able to cope with colonial traumas, including residential school and foster care system experiences; created a support network between Elders and fellow prisoners; and facilitated basic religious accommodation. Respondents’ criticisms focused on prison management, particularly security restrictions and staff prejudice that can prevent access to Indigenized resources. Indigenized programming supports the dignity and religious rights of incarcerated Indigenous peoples. Participants wanted expanded, more easily accessible cultural programming.","PeriodicalId":51456,"journal":{"name":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","volume":"51 1","pages":"187 - 236"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48906028","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：