This study addresses the following questions: (1) What is the human rights situation in prisons in Africa? What challenges do African prisons face in general? (2) Is there a legal framework in place for the protection of prisoners’ rights in Africa and how does it relate to other human rights instruments? What is the mandate of the Commission in relation to the prisoners’ rights? (3) What has the Commission done and achieved under its promotional and protection mandates in respect of prisoners’ rights? Have the various mechanisms been fully utilised in relation to prisoners’ rights? How has the Commission been able to optimise its relationship with the states, civil society and national human rights institutions to fully protect these rights? (4) If the conclusion is reached that the Commission has not effectively addressed issues of prisoners’ rights, how would it do so more effectively? / Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2008. / A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Law University of Pretoria, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Masters of Law (LLM in Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa). Prepared under the supervision of Lukas Muntingh and Jamil Mujuzi of the Community Law Centre, Faculty of law, University of the Western Cape, South Africa / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/ / Centre for Human Rights / LLM

This dissertation describes the role of architects in the development of the prison system in the United States. In the late eighteenth century, penologists sought to standardize conditions in penal institutions and to develop reliable methods for the social conditioning of inmates. Architects designed prisons that embodied the standards of penal theory, arguing that the form of an institution could serve as a powerful means of assuring that prison routine adhered to the dictates of modern penology. While early prison architects focused upon the development of a standard institutional type, the growth of the penal bureaucracy in the twentieth century forced them to develop a structural vocabulary commensurate with the scale of the modern prison system. They broke the prison down into a series of flexible components, each of which could function effectively in diverse institutional contexts. As criminologists sought to address the ostensible urban crisis in the 1960s, moreover, architects envisioned the extension of the new carceral infrastructure to the city. These techniques served the standardization of the prison system in the twentieth century. Like the early prison architects, modern designers sought to make each element of their structural vocabulary determinative of the activities of inmates and guards in penal institutions. By freeing these elements from the compositional order of early penal institutions, moreover, architects facilitated the rapid expansion of the prison system and the extension of carceral space into new contexts. By the 1970s, the refinement of advanced techniques for the construction of prisons meant that architects no longer played a pivotal role in shaping the prison system. As legal policymakers abandoned rehabilitative penology and emphasized the punitive function of confinement, the techniques of efficient prison construction developed by architects served a massive institutional building campaign whose sole justification was the incapacitation and segregation of the inmate population.

Bibliography: pages 85-89. / This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of a B.A (Hons.) degree in African Studies, for which my home department was Social Anthropology. The project arose out of my interest in the interdisciplinary work of Michel Foucault and its application to the history of Africa. This has been broadened into an interest in post-structuralist theory, and has been particularly focussed on the "institution". A prime example of Foucault's "complete" or "austere" institution is the prison. The Breakwater convict station, a colonial prison in Cape Town during the nineteenth century, suited both my theoretical and empirical interests. I chose this particular institution because it was the prison from which the linguist W.H.I. Bleek drew his San informants in the 1870s, and because the prison and its records were based in Cape Town. I wanted to incorporate ideas from secondary sources on Bleek and his work (e.g. Thornton 1983, Deacon 1988a). But the work took its own directions, and I have focussed here on the organization of the prison and on the prisoners in general rather than on the San.

The main area of inquiry for this thesis is super-maximum security prisons or as commonly referred to “supermax prisons”. First, the thesis traces the shift from the use of physical punishment to the use of disciplinary measures in punitive institutions and the development of the modern prison until it reaches its latest form as embodied in the supermax model. Secondly, the design, characteristics, and conditions of these prisons are also explored to demonstrate how they systematically contribute to the dehumanization and depersonalization of prisoners. These institutions are subsequently found to represent physical spaces of the lawless “state of exception” that reduces inmates to a “bare” animal-like form of living through depriving them of all the rights and prerogatives granted to them by law. Third, the thesis analyzes the penological rationale commonly invoked to justify supermax prisons and concludes that it suffers from a clear deficiency in demonstrating any evidence-based credibility. Finally, the thesis sheds light on the devastating and long-lasting impacts of supermax confinement on mental health and argues that it may be in violation of fundamental human rights such as the right against torture and other cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment or punishment as provided by international law.

The purpose of this study is to explore the use of interstate inmate transfers (IITs) by prison wardens and the administrative intent that guide their use. This study assesses the explanatory power of the new penology in three cases and asks three broad questions of two prison wardens and the DOC: What correctional goals do you hope to accomplish with interstate inmate transfers? Why? And what contextual factors (if any) are felt to inhibit or facilitate these goals? IITs are controversial. Supporters of IITs argue that in addition to serving the needs of correctional managers, they may also serve to help inmates reenter society, remain physically safe while incarcerated, remain close to family and friends, and have access to appropriate correctional programming and treatment. On the other hand, critics of IITs argue that they are much more than a correctional management tool. Rather, IITs are evidence of an informally emerging "new penology" in American corrections that—due to the increasingly problematic conditions of confinement encountered by correctional managers (e.g., overcrowding)—emphasize a shift in focus away from what is good for the individual inmate to what is good for managing the correctional system as a whole. The case data collected in this research contradict, to a large degree, new penological assumptions. The findings point to high levels of ideological and behavioral autonomy among prison wardens as well as high levels of individualized and moralistic thinking with regard to inmate management, and a general feeling that correctional management at the institutional level is only situationally (rather than perpetually) stressful. Thus, the new penological assumption that criminal justice actors lack human agency or that inmates are thought of only in actuarial terms, may be an incorrect or incomplete assumption in relation to prison wardens and the intent of IITs in these cases. This study concludes that in order to better understand and possibly predict the administrative intent of IITs, an alternative theoretical framework should be utilized—one that better captures the dynamism and variability of influence that unique situational and dispositional factors (and their interaction) may have on administrative intent.

When the COVID-19 pandemic erupted in early 2020, many of the first known clusters were in jails and prisons. With poor ability to socially distance, inadequate access to prophylactic and preventative supplies, and a populace with more comorbidities than the general population, prisons and jails quickly transformed into incubation centers for the most virulent novel antigen of the last century. The United States faced a particularly daunting challenge in that despite making up just 4.2% of the global population, the correctional system houses 25% of the world’s incarcerated population. With public health experts sounding the alarm regarding the dangers to the incarcerated and surrounding communities, bold strategies were needed to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Reducing population, it was argued, by either temporarily or permanently releasing inmates who were deemed the most medically vulnerable and least threatening to public safety, was largely viewed as the most effective strategy nationwide. Instead of heeding these recommendations, administrators and legislators at both the federal and local level opted instead to try to combat the virus in prison and jails primarily with quarantines and lockdowns, draconian violations of human rights that 18 months after the pandemic’s beginning would result in an infection rate for the incarcerated population 5.5 times higher than the general population and a mortality rate 3 times that of the general population. By looking at a timeline of the pandemic in the US with a particular focus on Pennsylvania and Philadelphia County more specifically, we are able to confront the missteps that led to this humanitarian crisis. Using contemporary data and research we establish the bioethical violations that occurred due to the abdication of population reduction policies and provide data corroborating the efficacy of decarceration as a preventative tool. Furthermore, acknowledging that this public health crisis is both ongoing and likely to occur again, we argue that there is a bioethical imperative for broad decarceration measures that are inclusive of the majority of inmates in the United States. Recognizing the failures of lengthy sentencing policies to deter crime, the exorbitant costs associated with high per capita incarceration, and the obsolete and racist policies that led to these high incarceration rates in this country, we argue that our elderly and ill incarcerated population poses a negligible risk to public safety, and it is essential we reduce the number of individuals in our nation’s jails and prisons immediately. By reassessing the role of our corrections system we can not only prevent the next humanitarian crisis but recalibrate our correctional system within a rehabilitative rather than punitive paradigm. / Urban Bioethics

For nearly three decades, the United States of America has been the consistent leader in incarceration rates worldwide. A number of structural social problems have contributed to this reality (e.g., the school-to-prison pipeline, the 1994 Crime Bill, and aggressive surveillance and policing of poor and minority neighborhoods). Recently, a number of structural solutions have presented themselves in effort to decarcerate prisons and consider pathways for returning citizens with emphasis on housing, healthcare, and education. This dissertation focuses on the education component with an eye toward higher education-in-prison programs (HEPPs). The last decade denotes an inflection point for mass incarceration and HEPPs in part due to increased funding from public and private sectors as well as bipartisan support for making higher education accessible for incarcerated people. In the midst of cross-sector support for these programs, the colleges and universities providing the core elements – teaching and learning – have been mostly silent actors. This study looks at partnerships between prisons and higher education institutions and centers the voices and narratives of higher education faculty and administrators responsible for leading HEPPs. Drawing on the civic mission of higher education, as well as participants’ conceptions of their work, this study considers how faculty and administrators describe the intent and function of their HEPPs and the extent to which they align with the civic mission of higher education. Through a qualitative multisite case analysis of three higher education institutions in New York State, the findings of this study reveal that these programs view themselves as being responsive to historical structures of inequity in higher education and broader society. They also conveyed a desire for their programs to become an institutionalized component of their college or university. There were five patterns, across cases, that provided insight into these programs and multiple levels including: (1.) program professionals, (2.) program place and space, (3.) programs in service to the institutional mission and civic mission, (4.) program attentiveness to external factors, and (5.) program conceptualization: the two-way partnership misnomer. These patterns might also prove relevant to university partnerships more broadly. The study concludes with implications for theory, practice, and future research related to HEPPs with emphasis on the need to situate all aspects of these programs not, as they often are, in economic and workforce metrics, but rather in the experiences of faculty, staff, and students participating in college-in-prison as well as returning citizens attending college.

No description available.

No description available.

The practice of polygamy among the Mormons during the nineteenth century was vigorously prosecuted by the federal government in response to the demands of those whose political and economic goals could best be served through exploitation of the national attitude toward polygamy. Hundreds of men served prison terms for practicing what they believed was their religious obligation. This study of the sentences from the prison admission records has focused on the comparative severity of the judges, examines age as an influencing factor in sentencing, and compares the sentences of the polygamists with those for crimes against person and property.The results show which judges were most severe; that some deference was shown the aged, and that judges who gave severe maximum sentences to polygamists did not give such sentences in equal proportion to those convicted of crimes against person and property. The major influence appears to be the selection of the judge in the first place, to be severe or lenient, in response to national attitude against, or influential sympathy for the Mormons.