LCM, HZ/2. 'ZKB 7507 7 S ONGRE%SSIONAL% RESEARCH SERVICE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Archived Issue Brief 1 ~ 22,-2».-.-‘ ~,..'a‘L1 $ 1 . 3 ..,f""-A 5'75’ 3 _%*S,,,;s' $1.39 9 «nr;r:‘-_=. .::‘.n:’.L"»5 -”-"'1‘*“‘ :p'.:u'2n:1r£‘B“~ ,.. -.- -V '1 M‘ ,1 , ,,. LI, K ». '_,«' 7.’; ‘. 1 4 VJ ,l\_ V. ’r“* v. ‘ \ ‘V ‘ ‘ 7 " ‘V’ . q¢rrf—"~"§ I F‘ J‘ 1 ~ - 4 z 89 RSV J. =53 . .7 ' > umuii u»% nves 0 ;fiI1If1~“Ifl ssoufi Co L 1 5;m7ugjq1jiiWfl mum PRISON REFORM: FEDERAL ROLE (ARCHIVED--01/25/80) ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB75077 AUTHOR: Hcclure, Barbara Education and Public Welfare Division THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MAJOR ISSUES SISTER DATE ORIGINATED ggggggzg DATE UPDATED gggggggg FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 0814 CRS- 1 IB75077 UPDATE-08/1H/80 L§§Q§-2E2l!lIlQ! There are approximately 314,000 offenders currently housed in State and Federal prisons. Many of these institutions are overcrowded, antiquated facilities that are understaffed and under4eguipped, and in which prisoners are often brutally treated, emotionally and physically, by staff and fellow inmates. The statistics on recidivism indicate that many criminals are not being reformed by prison, apparently because of these conditions and the ineffectiveness of existing rehabilitation programs. Thus prisons need improvement, both in physical facilities and institutional programs, since they now neither protect society from crime nor rehabilitate criminals. The direction of this reform and the source of its financing are currently at issue. A §A§E§BQQ§2-AEQ-£QLl_Z_A!ALX§-§ There is little dispute that American prisons are in need of reform. Recent studies have shown that approximately one-third of the offenders released from prison will be reimprisoned within 5 years. Also, these repeat offenders tend to commit more serious crimes after their release. In addition, several recent Federal court rulings, most notably two Alabama cases heard in 1975, and a 1977 case in Rhode Island, have pointed wut that conditions in some prisons are such that incarceration constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court has upheld those cases it has heard on appeal, including the controversial rulings in the Alabama cases, as modified by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. According to a recent report by the American Civil Liberties Union's National Prison Project, 18 States, plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, are now under court order to correct overcrowding or the total conditions of confinement. An additional 11 States are facing legal challenges over prison conditions. It has been argued that if courts see a need to use their power to correct unconstitutional conditions created by the neglect of other goverment officials, then the need for prison reform must indeed be great. Riots, such as at Attica State Prison, N.Y., and, more recently, in Santa Fe, New Mexico, have exposed the conditions of prisons and the frustrations and resentment against society that prisons foster in men who will at some time be released into society. Some people argue that not only do prisons fail to rehabilitate inmates, but present prison conditions even limit an inmate's chance to rehabilitate himself. In addition, there have been increasing reports by prison officials that tensions are mounting among inmates, and they fear that the Nation may again be faced with a series of major prison riots. Prison reform, like criminal law and its enforcement, is primarily within the jurisdiction of the States and localities. Consequently, the legislative iurisdiction of Congress is necessarily limited to two general areas: eforms affecting the policy and operations of the Federal prison system; and legislation providing assistance for reform activities conducted by public and private agencies. However, in spite of these limitations, the Federal role in prison reform is important. cns- 2 1375077 UPDATE-08/1n/80 The term "prison" is technically defined to mean any State or Federal institution housing offenders for a year and a day, or more. Thus, prisons do not include jails housing persons awaiting trial or sentenced to less that a year and a day, or police “lock-ups," which usually hold an individual overnight. It has been estimated that there are over 158,000 persons in the Nation's nearly 3,500 jails; these are not included in the 314,000 figure for the approximate population of the over #80 State correctional institutions and H2 Federal correctional facilities. Prisons exist for several different and often conflicting reasons. It is generally agreed that the three most significant purposes of prisons are (1) retribution (i.e., society is punishing an offender for the injury he has inflicted on some one or some thing); (2) deterrence (i.e., an individual is punished as an example for others, to deter him from future criminality, and to insure that at least for the duration of his confineent he will be unable to perpetuate further crime); and (3) rehabilitation (i.e., the incarceration period is used to change or correct an offender so that he will be law abiding when he is released). However, it generally is agreed among penologists that only the retribution and the temporary physical deterrence goals have been accomplished by prisons. It has been argued that prisons are not totally at fault in the apparent failure of crime deterrence. Many criminologists believe that other components of the criminal justice system have been major contributors to this failure. They contend that because of selective law enforcement by police, and disparate court proceedings, such as plea bargaining and inequitable sentences for similar crimes, many people do not perceive themselves as likely to be arrested and sentenced to a long prison term. In short, according to some prison experts, our correction system is undermine in its effectiveness because human whims and subjective standards too frequently determine who is imprisoned and how long they stay. However, aside from this complex problem of the failure of deterrence, many corrections experts maintain that the primary responsibility for failure to rehabilitate criminals lies with specific shortcomings of the prisons themselves. One of the major problems in State and Federal prisons is poor facilities. One crucial aspect of this problem is the increasingly overcrowded conditions of most prisons. According to a Corrections nagazine survey of all Federal and State prisons, between Jan. 1, 1976 and Jan. 1, 1977, prison populations increased by 13% (over 33,000 inmates), representing the largest one-year increase on record. The most recent Corrections Magazine survey shows another, although smaller, population increase of 5% (covering the period of Jan. 1, 1977—Jan. 1, 1978). According to Corrections magazine, the causes of this current population crisis are (1) the post-war "baby boom," which is now resulting in a high number of individuals between the ages of 17 and 29, the "high risk" age category for criminal activity; (2) the high unemployment level, which hurts young adults the most; and (3) the current emphasis on punishment, and a general toughening of attitudes by prosecutors, judges, and parole boards. The latest national prisoner count by the Bureau of the Census for the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) shows a 1979 year-end population increase of 2.3% over the 1978 year-end count. For inmates in State institutions alone, the prison populations increased by 3.8%. However, the Federal prisons had a decrease in their populations. The BJS states that the reduction in the Federa‘ inmate population reflects the 0.5. Bureau of Prison's emphasis on relievix overcrowding as well as the high priority currently being placed on prosecutions for white collar and organized crime, which require longer processing time and result in relatively fewer incarcerations. CRS- 3 IB75077 UPDATE“08/1%/80 In addition to being overcrowded, prisons are often understaffed. These two problems combined mean that inmates are often subject to assault, rape, extortion, and theft. In terms of the institutional facilities themselves, although the Federal Bureau of Prisons and most States are building more modern prisons, over 50% of the maximum security prisons currently in use were built prior to 1900, and their age is reflected in their dilapidated condition. As examples in the Federal prison system, Atlanta and Leavenworth, two Federal penitentiaries together housing over 2,200 inmates, are both over 70 years old. In contrast, the National Clearinghouse for Criminal Justice Planning and Architecture, a private agency under contract with the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA), has developed standards for housing criminals, including the following: no institutions for over #00 individuals, 350-H00 gross square feet of living space per inmate, single occupancy rooms, institution locations near urban centers, and as much "normal" interior design as security permits. Since 1977, both the Commission on Accreditation for Corrections of the American Correctional Association (ACA)(which recently has become independent from ACA) and the Department of Justice have developed even more extensive standards that go beyond architectural measures and include standards for health care, inmate rights, and educational, vocational, and social services. These two sets of standards are judged to be about 95% in agreement, with only nine standards differing significantly. In late 1978, ‘the LEAA selected 12 state torrectional departments to participate in an experimental program for implementing the ACA's correctional standards. The first correctional institution to be accredited by the Commission on Accreditation, on May 15, 1979, was Illinois’ Vienna Correctional Center. Since then, four Federal Community Treatment Centers (halfway houses} have received accreditation awards, as well as the U.S. Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana, the Federal Correctional Institutions in Lompoc, California; Memphis, Tennessee; and Texarkana, Texas; and the Federal Prison Camp in Allenwood, Pennsylvania. However, the Justice Department standards are still in draft form and it is as yet unclear which set of standards eventually will be adopted by the Federal Government. The relatively high recidivism rate for ex—prisoners appears to indicate that the rehabilitative ideal has failed. A significant number of criminals are not being reformed or corrected in prisons, in part because of the limitations of our knowledge of human behavior. The rehabilitative ideal was formulated in the late 18th century when U.S. prisons were first built and were intended to be places for contemplation and self-examination, resulting in repentence and reform. In the early 1900's the so-called "medical model” was adopted in which criminals, like the mentally ill, were considered "sick" and in need of diagnosis and "treatment." Classification systems were established to diagnose an offender's problem and prescribe, the type of treatment he required. Vocational and educational programs and group and individual psychological therapy programs were established (although these programs were often poorly unded). Following California's example, indeterminate sentences were statutorily established by which individuals were sentenced for unspecified terms and not released until they were "cured." However, since the early 1970's, corrections specialists have been arguing CRS- Q IB75077 UPDATE-08/14/80 that even well-designed, adequately funded rehabilitation programs have not reformed criminals. This was documented in a controversial study by Robert Hartinson, and others, of rehabilitation programs from 1905 to 1967. This research indicated that there is no evidence to support the success of any rehabilitation program. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that rehabilitation techniques such as indeterminate sentences and unfurnished segregation cells may allow for abuses of power by prison officials. some current proposals for prison reform by leading experts in the field are summarized below: (1) Prisons are costly to build and maintain. The current average cost to maintain one innate in a Federal prison for one year is approximately $10,329.50 (FY79). Thus, with a total Federal prison population of nearly 23,500, the daily maintenance cost to the taxpayers in one year is over $242.7 million. The maintenance figure for’ State prisons may range from $20,000 down to $2,000 per inmate. But if the State costs averaged out close to the Federal average, then the cost for the approximately 310,000 inmates in state and Federal prisons would be over $3.2 billion for one year. And none of these figures include consideration of the costs of constructing new prisons, which average approximately $12 million for each new Federal institution. Therefore, ideas such as community-based treatment (e.g., probation, alternative service, intermittent sentences to be served on weekends), restitution programs, and the greater use of fines as punishment are considered by some to be useful reform suggestions, since they would in the long run be less expensive and possibly" more effective. If State or Federal administrations find it necessary to construct new prisons, they should use these to replace antiquated institutions, and theyx should follow the recommended guidelines- (2) Since prisons are and will remain necessary for some types of offenders, they should be made as humane as possible. Prisoners’ rights should be carefully protected and facilities, including living arrangements, health and sanitation levels, and safety, should be improved. Many experts believe that the first step in diverting an individual from crime is making him believe that he has been fairly treated. (3) Host criminal laws now provide for indeterminate sentences for offenses. Thus, a court sentences an individual for an indefinite period of time (e.g., for not less than 2 years and not more than 6 years). The amount of time that the offender actually serves in prison is generally based on whether the Parole Board believes that he has been rehabilitated and will not commit new crimes upon his release. Therefore, a third suggested possible reform is that prison sentences should be fixed by the courts, not by prison officials. David Fogel, executive director of the Illinois Law Enforcement Commission, proposes a system of "flat time" sentences that would eliminate indeterminate sentences, plea bargaining, and parole (although "good time," i.e., time off a prisoner's sentence for good behavior, would not be abolished). Thus, a person sentenced to prison would serve a predetermined time with no hope of early release, except for good behavior. It has been argued that these sentences should not be lengthy, as studies indicate that long term confinement makes it more difficult for an offender to return to normal society. A number of studies strongly indicate that the certainty of punishment is the important factor, not the severity. (4) Similarly, the 1976 report of the Committee for the Study of Incarceration proposes a system of “presumptive sentencing" by which sentences are statutorily specified for each offense category and can only be CRS- 5 IB75077 UPDATE-08/1fl/80 changed due to aggravating or mitigating circumstances, specified by the zentencing judge in writing. Under this system, judges would be barred from basing sentences on predictions of an individual's future behavior, but would instead look only at his past behavior. The committee's report, entitled "Doing Justice," argues that sentences should be based on the assumption that an offender dgggrggg to be punished, rather than on such principles as deterrence or rehabilitation. Furthermore, the Committee emphasizes that imprisonment should be used only for the most serious crimes, with very few prison sentences exceeding 3 years. Overall, their recommendations would sharply scale down penalties for first offenders, reduce sentencing disparity and discretion, and eliminate indeterminate sentencing. (5) Norval Harris, a leading prison expert, recommends that it should be made clear who should go to prison and not just who should not. For example, it has been argued that incarceration is the only viable alternative for violent offenders who have continued in their assaultive behavior upon release from prison, or who commit premeditated violence, especially when their victim is a random stranger. However, studies seem to indicate that individuals who have committed "crimes of passion" (i.e., crimes committed in a moment of intense emotional stress in response to a unique set of circumstances) are not likely to commit such a crime again. Similarly, studies appear to show that most shoplifters, check forgers, and petty thieves are only hardened by a term in prison. As a class, these types of offenders might be better handled with other types of punishment, .such as having to repay their victim, combined with a period of probation or mandatory attendance at counseling sessions. (6) Rehabilitation programs, which are now usually mandatory, should be made voluntary, and not tied to either the time a prisoner must serve (i.e., when he will be paroled) or to the conditions of his incarceration (e.g., what privileges he has). The "coerced cure”, or involuntary participation in rehabilitation programs, should be eliminated because this approach is subject to administrative abuse and, even more important, because the present state of knowledge of what causes criminal behavior is too limited to justify mandatory programs based on this knowledge. (7) some people, such as Harvard professor James Q. Wilson and sociologist Ernest van den Haag, argue for incarcerating more offenders, even if only for a short time. This argument is based on the idea that regardless of whether the threat of prison deters criminals, increased use of the prisons would affect the rising crime rate by getting more criminals off the streets. It has been noted that such a plan would necessitate additional funding for more prison construction and increased prisoner maintenance costs. The Federal role in prison reform, though limited, is important. Although State governments have control over 89% of all prisoners, Congress has direct control over the approximately 23,500 inmates in Federal institutions. Often the States look to the Federal Bureau of Prisons for guidance and leadership in reforms. Legislation for one such Federal prison reform "model" was enacted in 1965 (P.L. 89-176, 18 U.S.C. 4082). It authorized work release, halfway houses, and emergency furlough programs for Federal.prisoners. This rehabilitation ct was expanded in 1973 by P.L. 93-209, which allowed the temporary release of inmates for the additional purpose of reestablishing family and community ties, not just for “compelling reasons." other Federal legislation that may be viewed as a model for State action CBS- 6 IB75077 UPDATE-08/14/80 is the Parole Commission and Reorganization Act (P.L. 94-233), which was signed into law on Mar. 15, 1976. This legislation amends 18 U.S.C., chapter 311 to reconstitute the U.S. Parole Board as the nine-member, regionalized U.S. Parole Commission and makes this Commission independent of the Department of Justice, except for administrative purposes. The purpose of this act is to ensure prisoners of a fair and equitable parole process by (1) providing for guidelines or criteria for parole determinations; (2) establishing requirements for parole hearing procedures (e.g., adequate notice, access to information, and right to a "representative" or advocate); (3) requiring clear explanations to a prisoner for a denial of parole; and (n) establishing due process for an individual threatened with parole revocation for a technical violation of his parole conditions. The Federal Government has also contributed to prison reform through financial assistance to State governments. The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) has provided such assistance since its creation by Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968. In 1970, this assistance was expanded by the addition of a new Part E to the LEAA legislation, providing for block and discretionary funding for the improvement of correctional facilities and programs of State and local governments. Part E funds allocated for FY79 were $31.2 million, in addition to other LEAA funds for corrections. The Justice System Improvement Act of 1979 amends Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968 by serving as a substitute for it. Grants to States for corrections projects, including facility renovations, are authorized under Part D of this legislation, although funding for new prison construction is expressly prohibited. In the 96th Congress, only a few pieces of legislation affecting prisons or prisoners have been introduced. The most important of these was H.R. 10 (and its companion bill, S- 10) which was approved as Public Law 96-2&7 on May 23, 1980. This legislation authorized the Attorney General to institute civil suits on behalf of persons confined in State correctional or health facilities who are being deprived of their Federal constitutional or statutory rights. A number of bills (H.R. 5610, S. 2722 and others) are pending that would preclude or limit the payment of social security benefits to prisoners. LEE l§L-A$..0.H P.L. 96-247 (H.R. 10). Authorizes the Attorney General to institute a civil suit in behalf of any person confined in a State correctiona1.or health facility who is being deprived of Federal constitutional or statutory rights, provided such person has exhausted State administrative remedies which meet certain minimum standards under the Civil Rights Act. H.R. 10 introduced Jan. 15, 1979; referred to Judiciary Committee. Reported, amended, Apr. 3, 1979 (H.Rept. 196-80). 1979. Passed House, amended, May 23, 1979. The senate bill, S. 10 introduced Jan. 15, 1979; referred to Judiciary Committee. Reported by Judiciary Committee, amended, Nov. 15, 1979 (S.Rept. 96-416). H.B. 10 passed Senate, amended to incorporate the language~of S. 10, on Feb. 28, 1980. Senate accepted conference report May 6; House passed conference report Ma’ 12. Signed into law as P.L. 96-207 May 23, 1980. S. 1373 (Pell) Authorizes the Commissioner of Education to provide financial assistance CBS‘ 7 IB75077 UPDATE—O8/14/80 to States for use in expanding educational programs for criminal offenders at :orrectional institutions. Introduced June 19, 1979; referred to Committee on Labor and Huaan Resources. §§AEl.!§§ U.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee A on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice. Behavior modification,programs,oFederal.Bureau9of.Prisons. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1974. 73 p. ---— Civil rights for institutionalized persons. Hearings, 95th Congress, 1st session, on H.R. 2439 and H.B. 5791. Apr. 29 ... May 23, 1977. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1977. 900 p. ---- Federal prisoners furlough. Hearing, 93d Congress, 1st session, on H.H. 7352. July 19, 1973. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1973. 38 p. ----- Parole Reorganization Act. Hearings, 93d Congress, 1st session, on H.R. 1598 and identical bills. June 21 and 28, 1973. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1974. 275 p. ---- Prison construction plans and policy. Hearings, 94th Congress, 1st session. July 28 and 30, 1975. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975. 473 p. ---- Prison inmates in medical research. Hearings, 94th Congress, 1st session, on H.R. 3603. Sept. 29 and Oct. 1, 1975. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975. 612 p. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on the Constitution. Civil rights of institutionalized persons. Hearings, 95th Congress, 1st session, on S. 1393. June 17 ... July 1, 1977. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1977. 1138 p. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on National Penitentiaries. Future role of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. Hearings, 92d Congress, 1st session. Har. 2-3, 1971. Washington, 0.3. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 152 p. ----Innate furloughs. Hearings, 93d Congress, 1st session, on S. 1678. June 13, 1973. Washington. U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1973. 26 p. . ---- The Community Supervision and services Act. Hearings, 93d Congress, 1st session, on S. 798. Mar. 27, 1973. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1973. 534 p. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Penitentiaries and Corrections. The role of prisons in society. Hearings, 95th Congress, 1st session. Oct. 5-6, 1977. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. 131 p. cBs~ 3 1375077 upnaTr~oa/14/so n.s. Congress. Rouse. Conference Committee, 1930. Civil Rights rt Institutionalized Persons Act; conference report to accompany fl.R. 10. fwushington, U.S. Govt. Erint. 0ff.} 1980. 18 p. (96th Congress, 2d session. douse Report no. 96~U97) 0.5. Congress. Conference Committees, 1976. Parade Commission and Reorganization Act; conference report to accompany H.R. 5727. [Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.) 1976. 37 p. (94th congress, 2d session- House. Report no. 94-838) 3.5. Congress. House. committee on the Judiciary. Civil rights of institutionalized persons; report together with dissenting views to accompany H.R. 9400, including the CBC cost estimate- Washington, U.5. Euwt. Print. Ott., 1978. 35 p. (95th Congress, 2d session. House. Report no. 95»1058) -~-- Civil rights or institutionalized persons; report together with supplemental and dissenting views to accompany H.R. 10. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 32 p. (96th Congress, 1st session. House. Report no. 96-80) ----‘Parole Reorganization bot oi 1975; report to accompany R.R. 5727. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off , 1975. 30 p. (9Qth Congress, 1st session. House- Report no. 9u~1au) 1.3. Congress. house. Committee on the Judiciary. Snbcomeittee on Courts, Civil Liberties and the Administration of Justice. Federal prisoners fiurlougn; report to accompany H.R. 7352. Washington, U.s. Govt. Print. 0fi., 1973. H p. 4936 Congress, 1st session. House. Report no. 93~u25) 3.5. Congress. House. Select Committee on Crime. Reform of our correctional systems. Washington, 0-5. Govt. Print. 0if., 1973. 75 p. (935 Congress, 1st session. House. Report no. 93-329) 0-5. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Civil rights of instjtttionalized persons; report on S. 1393, together with minority views. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. 38 p. 193th Congress, 2d session. Senate. Report no. 95-105o) -~~- Civil rights of the institutionalized; report on S. 10, together with ninority and additional views. Washington, 0.3. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 68 p. (96th Congress, 1st session. Senate. Report no. 96-H16) ~--‘“ The Parole Commission not; report to accompany H.E. 5727. Hashingtcn, 8.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1975. #9 p. (94th Congress, 1st session. Senate. Report no. 94-369) 0.5. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee CRS- 9 ZB75077 UPDATE*03f1R/BC on National Eenitentiaries. Inmate furloughs; report to accompany B.R. 7532. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1973. 3 p. g33d Conggess, 3st session. Senate. Report no. 93-4182 --~~ The seniority supervision and Services Ac.; report to accomgany 5. 793. Washington, 8.3. Govt. Print. Cff., 1973. 19 p. (93d Congress, 1st session. Senate. Bepozrt no . 9 .3 ~-417) Fogei, Davifl. "...He are the living proof..."; the justice nofiel for corrections. Cincinnati, W.H. Anlerson C0,, I975. 328 p. (HV9471.F5b) Gettinger, Steve. G.S. prison population hits a;l-time high. Corrections magazine, V. II, March 19?6;.9~20. Settinger, Steve. “Cruel and unusual“ prisons. Corrections magazine, V. 11:, December 1977: 3~16. nartinson, Ectert. What vatks?-questions and answers about prison reform. Public interest, no. 35, spring 1973: 22-54. norzis, Eorval. The future of iaptisonsent. Chicago, University of Chicago press, 137Q. EH4 p. (HV8705.n67) National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standarés anfi Goais. Corrections. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Oif., 1973. 636 p. €H?933fl.N28 1973) A The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administratioo of Justice. Task fiorce geport: corrections. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. 0ff., 3967. 222 p. ;HV930fl.A5 1967) Serrill, Michael 3. Critics of cotzections speak out. Corrections magazine, v. II, Match 1976: 3«8, 21-26. You Hirsch, Andrew. Doing justice: the choice of punishaents; report of the Committee for the Study of Incarceration. New York, Hill and Wang. 1976. 179 p. [3V3?C8.V65} ‘ kg. 9 -‘u'..“'@xr.,._-' r7—_,§o‘ W. F"-V, —~ _. ''’''--.-~... ‘ II. 1 ,‘_.J.‘g—_.:. ‘Y‘ .J * 1 ‘-'~—.. :_ . "-4.4-u