Explore the vast range of titles available.

Having gained unique access to California prisoners and corrections officials and to thousands of prisoners' written grievances and institutional responses, Kitty Calavita and Valerie Jenness take us inside one of the most significant, yet largely invisible, institutions in the United States. Drawing on sometimes startlingly candid interviews with prisoners and prison staff, as well as on official records, the authors walk us through the byzantine grievance process, which begins with prisoners filing claims and ends after four levels of review, with corrections officials usually denying requests for remedies.Appealing to Justiceis both an unprecedented study of disputing in an extremely asymmetrical setting and a rare glimpse of daily life inside this most closed of institutions. Quoting extensively from their interviews with prisoners and officials, the authors give voice to those who are almost never heard from. These voices unsettle conventional wisdoms within the sociological literature-for example, about the reluctance of vulnerable and/or stigmatized populations to name injuries and file claims, and about the relentlessly adversarial subjectivities of prisoners and correctional officials-and they do so with striking poignancy. Ultimately,Appealing to Justicereveals a system fraught with impediments and dilemmas, which delivers neither justice, nor efficiency, nor constitutional conditions of confinement.

Objectives. We investigated the extent to which racial/ethnic disparities in prison and diversion to drug treatment were explained by current arrest and criminal history characteristics among drug-involved offenders, and whether those disparities decreased after California’s Proposition 36, which mandated first- and second-time nonviolent drug offenders drug treatment instead of prison. Methods. We analyzed administrative data on approximately 170 000 drug-involved arrests in California between 1995 and 2005. We examined odds ratios from logistic regressions for prison and diversion across racial/ethnic groups before and after Proposition 36. Results. We found significant disparities in prison and diversion for Blacks and Hispanics relative to Whites. These disparities decreased after controlling for current arrest and criminal history characteristics for Blacks. Proposition 36 was also associated with a reduction in disparities, but more so for Hispanics than Blacks. Conclusions. Disparities in prison and diversion to drug treatment among drug-involved offenders affect hundreds of thousands of citizens and might reinforce imbalances in criminal justice and health outcomes. Our study indicated that standardized criminal justice policies that improved access to drug treatment might contribute to alleviating some share of these disparities.

Objectives. To evaluate the effects of California Proposition 47, which reclassified felony drug offenses to misdemeanors in 2014, on racial/ethnic disparities in drug arrests. Methods. Using data on all drug arrests made in California from 2011 to 2016, we compared racial/ethnic disparities in drug arrests between Whites, Blacks, and Latinos, immediately and 1 year after policy changes, controlling for secular and seasonal trends. Results. In the month following passage, absolute Black–White disparities in monthly felony drug arrests decreased from 81 to 44 per 100 000 and continued to decrease over time. There was an immediate increase of 27% in the relative disparity, however, because a higher proportion of felony offense types among Whites was reclassified. Total drug arrest rates also declined, suggesting drug law enforcement was deprioritized. During the first year after enactment, felony drug arrests fell by an estimated 51 985 among Whites, 15 028 among Blacks, and 50 113 among Latinos. Conclusions. Reducing criminal penalties for drug possession can reduce racial/ethnic disparities in criminal justice exposure and has implications for improving health inequalities linked to social determinants of health.

This article examines how increasingly punitive prison conditions, epitomized by the birth and spread of the supermax prison, developed in the United States. This analysis builds on a growing literature about the \"new punitiveness\" of U.S. punishment policy and its global proliferation. This article shifts the focus away from the policies that have led to increasing rates of incarceration, however, and toward the policies that have shaped the conditions of incarceration. Drawing on archival research and more than 30 oral history interviews with key informants, I examine the administrative and legislative processes that underwrote the supermax innovation in California in the 1980s. During California's late twentieth-century prison-building spree, prison administrators deployed multiple rhetorics of risk to extend their control over conditions of confinement in state prisons. As the state invested billions of dollars in prison building initiatives, legislators, who were focused primarily on building prisons faster, ceded authority over prison design and conditions to prison administrators. In the end, rather than implementing legislative policy, prison administrators initiated their own policies, institutionalizing a new form of \"supermax\" confinement, pushing at the limits of constitutionally acceptable practices.

This article examines legal and political developments in California in the 1970s and early 1980s that led to extreme changes in the state's use of imprisonment. It uses historical research methods to illustrate how institutional and political processes interacted in dynamic ways that continuously unsettled and reshaped the crime policy field. It examines crime policy developments before and after the passage of the state's determinate sentencing law to highlight the law's long-term political implications and to illustrate how it benefited interest groups pushing for harsher punishment. It emphasizes the role executives played in shaping these changes, and how the law's significance was as much political as legal because it transformed the institutional logics that structured criminal lawmaking. These changes, long sought by the law enforcement lobby, facilitated crime's politicization and ushered in a new era of frenetic and punitive changes in criminal law and punishment. This new context benefited politicians who supported extreme responses to crime and exposed the crime policy process to heightened degrees of popular scrutiny. The result was a political obsession with crime that eschewed moderation and prioritized prison expansion above all else.

Zimring remarks on the California Correctional Realignment and the Realignment plan expressed in Assembly Bill 109. He also examines the impacts and consequences of the California Realignments. Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications, Inc.

Objectives. We determined the costs and savings attributable to the California Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA), which mandated probation or continued parole with substance abuse treatment in lieu of incarceration for adult offenders convicted of nonviolent drug offenses and probation and parole violators. Methods. We used individually linked, population-level administrative data to define intervention and control cohorts of offenders meeting SACPA eligibility criteria. Using multivariate difference-in-differences analysis, we estimated the effect of SACPA implementation on the total and domain-specific costs to state and county governments, controlling for fixed individual and county characteristics and changes in crime at the county level. Results. The additional costs of treatment were more than offset by savings in other domains, primarily in the costs of incarceration. We estimated the statewide policy effect as an adjusted savings of$2317 (95% confidence interval = $ 1905, $2730) per offender over a 30-month postconviction period. SACPA implementation resulted in greater incremental cost savings for Blacks and Hispanics, who had markedly higher rates of conviction and incarceration. Conclusions. The monetary benefits to government exceeded the additional costs of SACPA implementation and provision of treatment.

The jail-involved population-people with a history of arrest in the previous year-has high rates of illness, which leads to high costs for society. A significant percentage of jail-involved people are estimated to become newly eligible for coverage through the Affordable Care Act's expansion of Medicaid, including coverage of substance abuse treatment and mental health care. In this article we explore the need to break down the current policy silos between health care and criminal justice, to benefit both sectors and reduce unnecessary costs resulting from lack of coordination. To draw attention to the hidden costs of the current system, we review three case studies, from Washington State, Los Angeles County in California, and New York City. Each case study addresses different aspects of care needed by or provided to the jail-involved population, including mental health and substance abuse, emergency care, and coordination of care transitions. Ultimately, bending the cost curve for health care and criminal justice will require greater integration of the two systems. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

In the nearly four decades since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, the average time between sentencing and execution in the United States has steadily increased to 16.5 years as of the end of 2011. In states like California, the total lapsed time from sentencing to execution exceeded two decades as of 2008. In response to these lengthening delays, scores of death row inmates have been raising Lackey claims over the last few decades—claims that inordinate preexecution delays on death row constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. These claims have universally failed in the lower courts, even though two Supreme Court Justices have staunchly supported these claims and repeatedly noted that these claims have merit. This Note examines the two existing formulations of the Lackey claim and argues that the reason that Lackey claims have been unsuccessful is that their focus on individual inmates' delays has been misplaced. These claims' case-by-case method of Eighth Amendment argumentation is inadequate to challenge the larger phenomenon of systemic delay that plagues states like California, delay that is due primarily to the state's advertently flawed administration of the death penalty rather than to the state's or defendant's post-trial course of conduct in a particular case. Drawing from empirical findings on several states' administration of the death penalty and from the fact that lengthy passages of time on death row are not unique to certain inmates but rather endemic in certain states, this Note concludes that the Eighth Amendment violation inherent in systemic preexecution delay is that the state is systematically implementing a torturous punishment distinct from death—that is, life in the \"shadow of death.\" This new punishment is categorically cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment. As with other constitutional violations, the state can and should be held responsible for imposing this punishment, even—and especially—when the state's policy of doing so is not underwritten by legislation.

Legislation passed in 2000 allowed syringe exchange programs (SEPs) in California to operate legally if local jurisdictions declare a local HIV public health emergency. Nonetheless, even in locales where SEPs are legal, the possession of drug paraphernalia, including syringes, remained illegal. The objective of this paper is to examine the association between the legal status of SEPs and individual arrest or citation for drug paraphernalia among injection drug users (IDUs) in California from 2001 to 2003. Using data from three annual cross-sections (2001-03) of IDUs attending 24 SEPs in 16 California counties (N = 1,578), we found that overall, 14% of IDUs in our sample reported arrest or citation for paraphernalia in the 6 months before the interview. Further analysis found that 17% of IDUs attending a legal SEP (defined at the county level) reported arrest or citation for drug paraphernalia compared to 10% of IDUs attending an illegal SEP (p = 0.001). In multivariate analysis, the adjusted odds ratio of arrest or citation for drug paraphernalia was 1.6 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.2, 2.3] for IDUs attending legal SEPs compared to IDUs attending illegal SEPs, after controlling for race/ethnicity, age, homelessness, illegal income, injection of amphetamines, years of injection drug use, frequency of SEP use, and number of needles received at last visit. IDUs attending SEPs with legal status may be more visible to police, and hence, more subject to arrest or citation for paraphernalia. These findings suggest that legislative efforts to decriminalize the operation of SEPs without concurrent decriminalization of syringe possession may result in higher odds of arrest among SEP clients, with potentially deleterious implications for the health and well-being of IDUs. More comprehensive approaches to removing barriers to accessing sterile syringes are needed if our public health goals for reducing new HIV/HCV infections are to be obtained.