THREE pickup trucks pulled up outside George Norris's home in Spring, Texas. Six armed police in flak jackets jumped out. Thinking they must have come to the wrong place, Mr Norris opened his front door, and was startled to be shoved against a wall and frisked for weapons. He was forced into a chair for four hours while officers ransacked his house. They pulled out drawers, rifled through papers, dumped things on the floor and eventually loaded 37 boxes of Mr Norris's possessions onto their pickups. They refused to tell him what he had done wrong. “It wasn't fun, I can tell you that,” he recalls.
Mr Norris was 65 years old at the time, and a collector of orchids. He eventually discovered that he was suspected of smuggling the flowers into America, an offence under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. This came as a shock. He did indeed import flowers and sell them to other orchid-lovers. And it was true that his suppliers in Latin America were sometimes sloppy about their paperwork. In a shipment of many similar-looking plants, it was rare for each permit to match each orchid precisely.
In March 2004, five months after the raid, Mr Norris was indicted, handcuffed and thrown into a cell with a suspected murderer and two suspected drug-dealers. When told why he was there, “they thought it hilarious.” One asked: “What do you do with these things? Smoke 'em?”
Prosecutors described Mr Norris as the “kingpin” of an international smuggling ring. He was dumbfounded: his annual profits were never more than about $20,000. When prosecutors suggested that he should inform on other smugglers in return for a lighter sentence, he refused, insisting he knew nothing beyond hearsay.
He pleaded innocent. But an undercover federal agent had ordered some orchids from him, a few of which arrived without the correct papers. For this, he was charged with making a false statement to a government official, a federal crime punishable by up to five years in prison. Since he had communicated with his suppliers, he was charged with conspiracy, which also carries a potential five-year term.
As his legal bills exploded, Mr Norris reluctantly changed his plea to guilty, though he still protests his innocence. He was sentenced to 17 months in prison. After some time, he was released while his appeal was heard, but then put back inside. His health suffered: he has Parkinson's disease, which was not helped by the strain of imprisonment. For bringing some prescription sleeping pills into prison, he was put in solitary confinement for 71 days. The prison was so crowded, however, that even in solitary he had two room-mates.
A long love affair with lock and key
Justice is harsher in America than in any other rich country. Between 2.3m and 2.4m Americans are behind bars, roughly one in every 100 adults. If those on parole or probation are included, one adult in 31 is under “correctional” supervision. As a proportion of its total population, America incarcerates five times more people than Britain, nine times more than Germany and 12 times more than Japan. Overcrowding is the norm. Federal prisons house 60% more inmates than they were designed for. State lock-ups are only slightly less stuffed.
The system has three big flaws, say criminologists. First, it puts too many people away for too long. Second, it criminalises acts that need not be criminalised. Third, it is unpredictable. Many laws, especially federal ones, are so vaguely written that people cannot easily tell whether they have broken them.
In 1970 the proportion of Americans behind bars was below one in 400, compared with today's one in 100. Since then, the voters, alarmed at a surge in violent crime, have demanded fiercer sentences. Politicians have obliged. New laws have removed from judges much of their discretion to set a sentence that takes full account of the circumstances of the offence. Since no politician wants to be tarred as soft on crime, such laws, mandating minimum sentences, are seldom softened. On the contrary, they tend to get harder.
Some criminals belong behind bars. When a habitual rapist is locked up, the streets are safer. But the same is not necessarily true of petty drug-dealers, whose incarceration creates a vacancy for someone else to fill, argues Alfred Blumstein of Carnegie Mellon University. The number of drug offenders in federal and state lock-ups has increased 13-fold since 1980. Some are scary thugs; many are not.
Michelle Collette of Hanover, Massachusetts, sold Percocet, a prescription painkiller. “I was planning to do it just once,” she says, “but the money was so easy. And I thought: it's not heroin.” Then she became addicted to her own wares. She was unhappy with her boyfriend, she explains, but did not want to split up with him, because she did not want their child to grow up fatherless, as she had. So she popped pills to numb the misery. Before long, she was taking 20-30 a day.
When Ms Collette and her boyfriend, who also sold drugs, were arrested in a dawn raid, the police found 607 pills and $901 in cash. The boyfriend fought the charges and got 15 years in prison. In a plea bargain Ms Collette was sentenced to seven years, of which she served six.
“I don't think this is fair,” said the judge. “I don't think this is what our laws are meant to do. It's going to cost upwards of $50,000 a year to have you in state prison. Had I the authority, I would send you to jail for no more than one year…and a [treatment] programme after that.” But mandatory sentencing laws gave him no choice.
Massachusetts is a liberal state, but its drug laws are anything but. It treats opium-derived painkillers such as Percocet like hard drugs, if illicitly sold. Possession of a tiny amount (14-28 grams, or ½-1 ounce) yields a minimum sentence of three years. For 200 grams, it is 15 years, more than the minimum for armed rape. And the weight of the other substances with which a dealer mixes his drugs is included in the total, so 10 grams of opiates mixed with 190 grams of flour gets you 15 years.
Ms Collette underwent drug treatment before being locked up, and is now clean. But in prison she found she was pregnant. After going through labour shackled to a hospital bed, she was allowed only 48 hours to bond with her newborn son. She was released in March, found a job in a shop, and is hoping that her son will get used to having her around.
Rigid sentencing laws shift power from judges to prosecutors, complains Barbara Dougan of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, a pressure-group. Even the smallest dealer often has enough to trigger a colossal sentence. Prosecutors may charge him with selling a smaller amount if he agrees to “reel some other poor slob in”, as Ms Dougan puts it. He is told to persuade another dealer to sell him just enough drugs to trigger a 15-year sentence, and perhaps to do the deal near a school, which adds another two years.
Severe drug laws have unintended consequences. Less than half of American cancer patients receive adequate painkillers, according to the American Pain Foundation, another pressure-group. One reason is that doctors are terrified of being accused of drug-trafficking if they over-prescribe. In 2004 William Hurwitz, a doctor specialising in the control of pain, was sentenced to 25 years in prison for prescribing pills that a few patients then resold on the black market. Virginia's board of medicine ruled that he had acted in good faith, but he still served nearly four years.
Half the states have laws that lock up habitual offenders for life. In some states this applies only to violent criminals, but in others it applies even to petty ones. Some 3,700 people who committed neither violent nor serious crimes are serving life sentences under California's “three strikes and you're out” law. In Alabama a petty thief called Jerald Sanders was given a life term for pinching a bicycle. Alabama's judges are elected, as are those in 32 other states. This makes them mindful of public opinion: some appear in campaign advertisements waving guns and bragging about how tough they are.
Many Americans assume that white-collar criminals get off lightly, but many do not. Granted, they may be hard to catch and can often afford good lawyers. But federal prosecutors can file many charges for what is essentially one offence. For example, they can count each e-mail sent by a white-collar criminal in the course of his criminal activity as a separate case of wire fraud, each of which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years. The decades soon add up. Sentences depend partly on the size of the loss and the number of people affected, so if you work for a big, publicly traded company, you break a rule and the share-price drops, watch out.
Jim Felman, a defence lawyer in Tampa, Florida, says America is conducting “an experiment in imprisoning first-time non-violent offenders for periods of time previously reserved only for those who had killed someone”. One of Mr Felman's clients, a fraudster called Sholam Weiss, was sentenced to 845 years. “I got it reduced to 835,” sighs Mr Felman. Faced with such penalties, he says, the incentive to co-operate, which means to say things that are helpful to the prosecution, is overwhelming. And this, he believes, “warps the truth-seeking function” of justice.
Innocent defendants may plead guilty in return for a shorter sentence to avoid the risk of a much longer one. A prosecutor can credibly threaten a middle-aged man that he will die in a cell unless he gives evidence against his boss. This is unfair, complains Harvey Silverglate, the author of “Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent”. If a defence lawyer offers a witness money to testify that his client is innocent, that is bribery. But a prosecutor can legally offer something of far greater value—his freedom—to a witness who says the opposite. The potential for wrongful convictions is obvious.
Badly drafted laws create traps for the unwary. In 2006 Georgia Thompson, a civil servant in Wisconsin, was sentenced to 18 months in prison for depriving the public of “the intangible right of honest services”. Her crime was to award a contract (for travel services) to the best bidder. A firm called Adelman Travel scored the most points (on an official scale) for price and quality, so Ms Thompson picked it. She ignored a rule that required her to penalise Adelman for a slapdash presentation when bidding. For this act of common sense, she served four months. (An appeals court freed her.)
The “honest services” statute, if taken seriously, “would seemingly cover a salaried employee's phoning in sick to go to a ball game,” fumes Antonin Scalia, a Supreme Court justice. The Supreme Court ruled recently that the statute was so vague as to be unconstitutional. It did not strike it down completely, but said it should be applied only in cases involving bribery or kickbacks. The challenge was brought by Enron's former boss, Jeff Skilling, who will not go free despite his victory, and Conrad Black, a media magnate released this week on bail pending an appeal, who may.
There are over 4,000 federal crimes, and many times that number of regulations that carry criminal penalties. When analysts at the Congressional Research Service tried to count the number of separate offences on the books, they were forced to give up, exhausted. Rules concerning corporate governance or the environment are often impossible to understand, yet breaking them can land you in prison. In many criminal cases, the common-law requirement that a defendant must have a mens rea (ie, he must or should know that he is doing wrong) has been weakened or erased.
“The founders viewed the criminal sanction as a last resort, reserved for serious offences, clearly defined, so ordinary citizens would know whether they were violating the law. Yet over the last 40 years, an unholy alliance of big-business-hating liberals and tough-on-crime conservatives has made criminalisation the first line of attack—a way to demonstrate seriousness about the social problem of the month, whether it's corporate scandals or e-mail spam,” writes Gene Healy, a libertarian scholar. “You can serve federal time for interstate transport of water hyacinths, trafficking in unlicensed dentures, or misappropriating the likeness of Woodsy Owl.”
“You're (probably) a federal criminal,” declares Alex Kozinski, an appeals-court judge, in a provocative essay of that title. Making a false statement to a federal official is an offence. So is lying to someone who then repeats your lie to a federal official. Failing to prevent your employees from breaking regulations you have never heard of can be a crime. A boss got six months in prison because one of his workers accidentally broke a pipe, causing oil to spill into a river. “It didn't matter that he had no reason to learn about the [Clean Water Act's] labyrinth of regulations, since he was merely a railroad-construction supervisor,” laments Judge Kozinski.
Such cases account for only a tiny share of the Americans behind bars, but they still matter. When so many people are technically breaking the law, it is up to prosecutors to decide whom to pursue. No doubt most prosecutors choose wisely. But members of unpopular groups may not find that reassuring. Ms Thompson, for example, was prosecuted just before an election, at a time when allegations of public corruption in Wisconsin were in the news. Some prosecutors, such as Eliot Spitzer, the disgraced ex-governor of New York, have built political careers by nailing people whom voters don't like, such as financiers.
Prison deters? Not much, not the worst
Some people argue that the system works: that crime has fallen in the past two decades because the bad guys are either in prison or scared of being sent there. Caged thugs cannot break into your home. Bernie Madoff's 150-year sentence for running a Ponzi scam should deter imitators. And indeed the crime rate continues to drop, despite the recession, as Michael Rushford of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, an advocacy group, points out. This, he says, is because habitual criminals face serious consequences. Some research supports him: after raking through decades of historical data, John Donohue of Yale Law School estimates that a 10% increase in imprisonment brings a 2% reduction in crime.
Others disagree. Using more recent data, Bert Useem of Purdue University and Anne Piehl of Rutgers University estimate that a 10% increase in the number of people behind bars would reduce crime by only 0.5%. In the states that currently lock up the most people, imprisoning more would actually increase crime, they believe. Some inmates emerge from prison as more accomplished criminals. And raising the incarceration rate means locking up people who are, on average, less dangerous than the ones already behind bars. A recent study found that, over the past 13 years, the proportion of new prisoners in Florida who had committed violent crimes fell by 28%, whereas those inside for “other” crimes shot up by 189%. These “other” crimes were non-violent ones involving neither drugs nor theft, such as driving with a suspended licence.
And now the reckoning, in dollars
Crime is a young man's game. Muggers over 30 are rare. Ex-cons who go straight for a few years generally stay that way: a study of 88,000 criminals by Mr Blumstein found that if someone was arrested for aggravated assault at the age of 18 but then managed to stay out of trouble until the age of 22, the risk of his offending was no greater than that for the general population. Yet America's prisons are crammed with old folk. Nearly 200,000 prisoners are over 50. Most would pose little threat if released. And since people age faster in prison than outside, their medical costs are vast. Human Rights Watch, a lobby-group, talks of “nursing homes with razor wire”.
Jail is expensive. Spending per prisoner ranges from $18,000 a year in Mississippi to about $50,000 in California, where the cost per pupil is but a seventh of that. “[W]e are well past the point of diminishing returns,” says a report by the Pew Center on the States. In Washington state, for example, each dollar invested in new prison places in 1980 averted more than nine dollars of criminal harm (using a somewhat arbitrary scale to assign a value to not being beaten up). By 2001, as the emphasis shifted from violent criminals to drug-dealers and thieves, the cost-benefit ratio reversed. Each new dollar spent on prisons averted only 37 cents' worth of harm.
Since the recession threw their budgets into turmoil, many states have decided to imprison fewer people, largely to save money. Mississippi has reduced the proportion of their sentences that non-violent offenders are required to serve from 85% to 25%. Texas is making greater use of non-custodial penalties. New York has repealed most mandatory minimum terms for drug offences. In all, the number of prisoners in state lock-ups fell by 0.3% in 2009, the first fall since 1972. But the total number of Americans behind bars still rose slightly, because the number of federal prisoners climbed by 3.4%.
A less punitive system could work better, argues Mark Kleiman of the University of California, Los Angeles. Swift and certain penalties deter more than harsh ones. Money spent on prisons cannot be spent on more cost-effective methods of crime-prevention, such as better policing, drug treatment or probation. The pain that punishment inflicts on criminals themselves, on their families and on their communities should also be taken into account.
“Just by making effective use of things we already know how to do, we could reasonably expect to have half as much crime and half as many people behind bars ten years from now,” says Mr Kleiman. “There are a thousand excuses for failing to make that effort, but not one good reason.”
This article appeared in the Briefing section of the print edition
The intent of this paper is to examine the history of the prison population in the United States in regards to men and women. It will discuss the impact of the crowded prisons on the inmates as well as possible solutions to alleviate the crowding in the prisons.
Before the authorities developed the female institution, they housed the women in a separate division of the male prison. In general, the women in these sections encountered horrific conditions. The excessive use of solitary confinement characterized these along with significant acts of sexual and physical abuse that the male inmates and guards meted out to them. The women in these facilities received few, if any, services (Mallicoat, 2012 from Freedman, 1981). Further, Mallicoat (2012) said that they housed the women at Auburn State Prison in New York, in the attic space where they experienced unsupervised situations. Male inmates received the assignment to distribute their meals to these women. In several instances, the men remained for extensive time than they required to complete the duties that pertained to their job. Unsurprisingly, many prison-related pregnancies occurred from these interacted experiences.
Unfortunately, in 1825, Rachel Welch, a pregnant woman died from beatings she received from a male guard. However, this incident led to momentous changes in how they housed the incarcerated women. Consequently, in 1839, in response to the growing concerns of the abuse of the females in male prison facilities, they opened the first women prison facility. Therefore, they located the Mount Pleasant Prison Annex on the Sing Sing grounds and placed a male penitentiary in Ossining, New York. Even though they set a female warden at the Mount Pleasant, the male Sing Sing administrators still had complete control. These males had minimal perception about the nature of criminality in the females. Notwithstanding the officials intent to eliminate the abuse experience that the women encountered inside of the prison setting, the male guards continued to abuse and administer corporal punishment to these the women at Mount Pleasant.
Additionally, Mallicoat, (2012) contended that the unpleasant conditions and the high levels of neglect and abuse, impelled moral reformers in the United States to work toward improved conditions for these incarcerated women. During the 1820s and 1830s, several American reformers came from liberal religious backgrounds within the middle- and upper-class communities. These reformers’ efforts led to noteworthy changes for the incarcerated women, which included the development of separate women institutions.
As a new perspective, the reformatory became an institution, which they developed for the purpose of rehabilitating women from their immoral behaviors. At that point and for an undefined time, they sent the women to the reform center until they became satisfied that these women got improved. The women whom they sent to sent to the reformatories were most likely the White, working-class women (Mallicoat, 2012). Based on the viewpoint that they designed the jail to improve the women’s moral character, the women received sentence for various crimes. These crimes included indecent and vulgar behavior, fornication, veneral disease, adultery and a series of premarital pregnancies.
In comparison to male institutions, the custodial institutions had design and values. They offered very little in regards to the rehabilitative programming for the incarcerated women. These women whom they placed in custody faced several distinctive issues, with many of which the prison was ill-equipped to deal. Interestingly, some facilities had prison nursery programs that gave the mothers, while they remain in incarceration, the opportunity to stay with their young children. They additionally, created gender-responsive programming to address the particular needs of the female offenders (Mallicoat, 2012).
In recent times according to Biron (2013) The United States Congress research wing issue warning that 30 years of historically unparalleled increase in the number of the United States incarcerated prisoners. The incarcerations have led to extensive of overcrowding that presently impacts the federal prison system’s infrastructure. In addition, for over 30 years, based on a new report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the population within the federal has escalated to approximately 790% increase — 219,000 from 25,000 inmates. Today, these distended figures, have confirmed that the United States incarcerated more people than any of the other countries. Out of 100,000, they have imprisoned some 716 persons.
Throughout the 1980s, prisoners’ litigation in the federal courts experienced dramatic increase. Although the Supreme Court said that the constitution did not mandate comfortable prisons in response to Rhode v Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 101 S.C + 2392, 69 L. Ed. 2d 59 (1981), lower courts intervened to limit the number of inmates whom they could house in some of the prisons. The officials often welcome judicial interventions since the overcrowding in the prisons made it difficult to control the prison populations.
Crowded prison have more prisoners in the jail than what the facility can allow. The unhealthy state of the prisons relates to several issues that the American corrections currently face. The overcrowded prisons upset the inmates and also hinder their improvement in the psychological sphere. Additionally, the overcrowded prisons deprive the inmates of resources. This unavailability of resources and the absence of a peaceful environment can produce destructive outcome for the prisoners (Dhannyya, 2012).
Indeed, overcrowding in the prison has several undesirable effects upon the detainees. Research demonstrated that overcrowding in prison produces aggression, competition for the limited available resources, increased incidents of illness, increased likelihood of relapse into criminal behavior and higher rates of suicide. Research has also specified that overcrowding has three kinds of effects on the daily prison surroundings.
The first effect centers around the lesser amount of everything that they have to stretch the same resources and space even further. They curtail the opportunities through which inmates can participate in rehabilitative and self-improvement programs like the academic, vocational training and employment programs. The lack of work or opprtunities to work, often result in inmate idleness and often reinforces the adage that idleness breeds discontent and disruptive behavior (Howard, 1996).
The individual inmate’s behavior forms the second effect of overcrowding. Crowding creates stress and this stress in conjunction with other factors within the prison setting, can increase the adverse impacts of crowding. The inability to maintain personal identity, fear, idleness, or to turn off unwanted stimulation and interaction like noise, add to the stress that crowding presents.
The third effect includes a combination of the inability of the correctional system to meet the increased demand for more space along with the resulting harm that the individual inmates encounter. Without a doubt, in an attempt to cope with the limited available space and the overcrowding, which take place, there is a strong tendency to misclassify offenders develop. To some extent, overcrowding result in offenders being classified on the basis of the available space than the level of security and the most suitable programs for the offenders (Howard, 1996).
In addition to the three notable effects, among the inmates, the overcrowded prison initiates aggression and competition for the limited resources. It also influences illness and sufferings among the prisoners. Prison overcrowding increases the suicide rates and boosts recidivism among the prisoners (Dhannyya, 2012). Then there is prison rape, which served as one of the most serious problem for an inmate. During this experience, the smaller and puny prisoners, especially if they are unaligned to a particular gang, become most vulnerable (Scheb & Sheb 11).
Sheb & Sheb 11 assert that the problem gained national attention. As a result, in July 2003, Congress enacted the Prison Rape reduction Act, which produced a commission that would examine all the problem related issues. It also required the local officials and federal state receive assistance from the Department of Justice.
Cunniff, (2002) posits that always collecting, monitoring, and analyzing admission and length-of-stay information from the solution to alleviating crowding, as well as, manage the jail population. In addition, it will also help when they share the results with other justice officials as well as, with the officials who have leadership roles in the general government. Their cooperation will become essential as they collaboratively control the practices and policies that establish the jail admissions and the length of stay. As noted earlier, the handling and mechanisms of this issue, lie out of the control of the sheriff and, or jail administrator.
For this reason, the sheriff and the jail administrator have a stake in forming a justice system-wide criminal justice coordinating committee (CJCC), or in strengthening an existing CJCC that is not operating well. The forum serves as a place where the sheriff can demonstrate that potential or actual jail crowding is a justice system dysfunction: it is not merely “the sheriff’s problem.”
These officials have a significant stake in ensuring the prison bed resource is best used to maximize public protection. When they present pure and credible, practical evidence, they will do all they can to modify their practices and policies. A jail administrator and/or sheriff can exert substantial influence on the decision-making in which these other agencies become engaged. However, thay can only do so if they possess the facts and if they can proficiently answer questions about the changes the jail population makes. They can additionaly accomplish this influence if they can clearly demonstrate how the changes in admission rates or the lengths of stay can improve how they administer justice.
This approach will also serve the community well when time to build a new jail arrives. Officials will be more informed and more supportive. They will be able to help the community understand that prison bed space is being used wisely. The general public will not support efforts to expand prison bed space until it becomes convinced that they squeeze out all the potential excess of the existing operation (Cunniff, 2002).
Accordingly, the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (2000) states that the availability of alternatives, treatment options, and other resources are a powerful tool to decrease the jail populations. In fact, the Multnomah County, Oregon, public defender keeps and continually updates a database of services for both pre-trial defendants and adjudicated defendants awaiting sentencing.
In Monroe County, New York, they permanently assign defenders to two staff members from the county’s Alternative to Incarceration program. They make available defense advocacy services for the defendants who are on bond in jail and those about to receive sentence. The staff also identify alternative programs for the clients plus, monitor the progress that the clients’ make.
The Commonwealth of Virginia Public Defender’s Commission, in most of its offices throughout the states, utilizes sentencing advocates. The lawyers develop diversion plans or locate alternative sentencing programs for the defendants so that they can provide assistance. The sentencing advocates also work with defendants and their families in order to address and recommend optional treatments or alternative sentencing to the court (National Criminal Justice Reference Service, 2000).
They have added alternative advocacy to the solution. Importantly, in several communities, the interest of the private defense bar in improving bail practices attract the establishment of pretrial services agencies. Subsequently, bar associations have sponsored the development of pre-trial offices in California, Monroe County, new York and San Mateo County. Further, the involvement of the ongoing bar has served as the chief catalyst in dealing with jail crowding as it occurs in both jurisdictions. Public defender offices also support individual optional prison term ventures. Community Partners in Action Center on Alternatives, work along with public defender offices in Hartford and New Haven, Connecticut, to develop structured, individualized sentencing recommendations for the clients liable to receive jail terms. They structure the program on the client’s specific planning model that the National Center for Institutions and Alternatives pioneered.
Finally, they focus on defender’s case-processing systems that may influence the jail populations’. They employ vertical processing, which involves assigning a case to the same team throughout the court process or attorney. They may reduce court delay and save jail space. The horizontal processing, on the other hand, comprises reassignment of instances when they pass a certain stage. This form of processing frequently results in considerable delay in the case while a new attorney becomes familiar with the defendant and the case((National Criminal Justice Reference Service 2000).
Without a doubt, this paper has confirmed the experiences of prison overcrowding. This issue has developed for a long time in the jail system. Many ill-effects have resulted, which have created immeasurable discomforts and substandard experiences for the inmates. However, with time the authorities have implemented solutions to this overcrowding situation. They have sponsored the development of pre-trial offices and had also focused on defender’s case-processing systems that may influence the jail populations. Finally, they intend to reduce court delay so as to limit the crowding in jail.
Biron, C. (2013). U.S. Prison Population Seeing “Unprecedented Increase” Retrieved December 19, 2014, from http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/02/u-s-prison-population-seeing-unprecedented-increase/
Cunniff, M. (2002). Jail Crowding: Understanding Jail Population Dynamics. Retrieved December 19, 2014, from http://static.nicic.gov/Library/017209.pdf
Dhannyya. (2012). Prison overcrowding effects on Inmates,Overcrowded prisons in US and Canada,Negative impact or effects of overcrowding. Retrieved December 19, 2014, from http://dhannyya.hubpages.com/hub/Prison-overcrowding-and-its-effects-on-Inmates
Howard, J. (1996). PRISON OVERCROWDING. Retrieved December 19, 2014, from http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/pub/C42.htm
Mallicoat, S. (2012). Women and crime: A text/reader (Vol. ISBN-13: 978-1412987509 ISBN- 10: 1412987504, pp. 461- 463). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE.
National Criminal Justice Reference Service. (2000, January 1). A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective. Retrieved December 19, 2014, from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/182507.pdf
Scheb, J., & Scheb, II, J. (2009). Criminal Procedure. Retrieved December 19, 2014, from https://books.google.com.jm/books?id=4F4gMAKbeuEC&pg=PA240&lpg=PA240&dq=the issues prison officials encounter due to the overcrowding problem of prison&source=bl&ots=a0LYS3GyvZ&sig=kuvAtD1MtzX-RjXr_5te7h5IsKs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=t6KUVJ2TGsqYgwTY9IOoDw&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=the issues prison officials encounter due to the overcrowding problem of prison&f=false