Incarceration Rates

International Legal Research

Information about Incarceration Rates in free legal resources:

Treaties & Agreements

International Organizations

Jurisprudence $ Commentary

European Union

IP Law

Incarceration Rates

This entry provides a comprehensive account of prison populations around the world and analyses recent trends in imprisonment.

The imprisonment rate, in the United States, is the estimated number of prisoners under state or federal jurisdiction sentenced to more than 1 year per 100,000 U.S. residents of all ages (i.e., total imprisonment rate) or U.S. residents age 18 or older (i.e., adult imprisonment rate). (See the difference between measures of the incarceration rate and imprisonment rate in this entry, below)

In the United States

At year end 2014, an estimated 6,851,000 persons were under the supervision of U.S. adult correctional systems, a decline of about 52,200 from 6,903,200 at year end 2013. After peaking at 7,339,600 in 2007, the correctional population decreased each year by an average of 1.0%. By year end 2014, the population declined by 0.8% to the lowest level observed in more than a decade (6,886,800 in 2003). About 1 in 36 adults in the United States was under some form of correctional supervision at year end 2014. This was the lowest rate observed since 1996 (5,531,300) when about 1.3 million fewer offenders were under correctional supervision (not shown).

Community Supervision Population Decline

From 2013 (6,903,200) to 2014 (6,851,000), the total correctional population declined by 0.8%. About 7 in 10 persons under correctional supervision at year end 2014 were supervised in the community either on probation (3,864,100) or parole (856,900).1 In comparison, about 3 in 10 offenders (2,224,400) under correctional supervision were under the jurisdiction of state or federal prisons (1,561,500) or held in local jails (744,600). The 52,200 decrease in the number of persons under correctional supervision during 2014 was attributed to a decline in the community supervision population (down 1.0%), as the change in the incarcerated population during the year was small (up 0.1%). All of the decrease in the community supervision population during 2014 was accounted for by the decline in the probation population (down 46,500), as the parole population increased slightly during the year (up 1,700).

After reaching a high of 5,119,000 persons in 2007, the community supervision population declined by annual average of 1.2%. The downward trend in the probation population over the past 7 years was consistent with that of the community supervision population. Since 2007, the probation population declined by an annual average of 1.5%, the largest rate of decline across all correctional populations. In comparison, the parole population grew by an annual average of 0.5% since 2007. During 2014, the number of inmates incarcerated in state or federal prisons or local jails increased slightly (up 1,900), reversing a 5-year decline since 2008. While the jail population grew by 1.8% during 2014, the U.S. prison population dropped by 1.0%. The decrease in the U.S. prison population resulted from a decline in the state (down 10,100) and federal (down 5,300) prison populations. This was the second consecutive decline in the federal prison population after peaking in 2012 (217,800).

Correctional supervision rate

By year end 2014, about 2,780 offenders per 100,000 U.S. adult residents were under some form of correctional supervision, down from 2,830 per 100,000 adults at year end 2013. More than half (56%) of the decline in the correctional supervision rate was attributed to the increase in the size of the U.S. adult resident population during the year, while a smaller share of the decline (44%) resulted from the decrease in the correctional population. (See Methodology.) After peaking at 3,210 per 100,000 U.S. adult residents in 2007, the correctional supervision rate fell steadily each year. Since 2007, the trend in the correctional supervision rate diverged from the trend in the number of persons under correctional supervision. The number of persons supervised by adult correctional systems decreased by an annual average of 1.0% from year end 2007 to 2014. In comparison, the average annual decline in the correctional supervision rate (down 2.1%) was twice as fast during the same period.

However, more than half (52%) of the decrease in the correctional supervision rate resulted from the increase in the U.S. adult resident population since 2007, compared to 48% of the decline attributed to the decrease in the number of offenders under correctional supervision. From 2013 to 2014, the rate of offenders under community supervision declined from 1,950 to 1,910 per 100,000 adults, continuing a downward trend since 2007. The decrease in the community supervision rate over the past 7 years accounted for about three-quarters of the decline in the correctional supervision rate during the period. The incarceration rate also dropped slightly by year end 2014, from 910 per 100,000 at year end 2013 to 900 per 100,000. The incarceration rate has declined steadily each year since 2008.

Compositional changes in the correctional population

Despite the overall decline in the correctional population over the past 7 years (down 488,900 offenders), the changes in the composition of the population were small. Probationers continued to account for the majority (56%) of offenders under correctional supervision at yearend 2014 (table 4). In 2014, probationers accounted for a slightly smaller portion of the correctional population compared to 2007 (58%), as the number of probationers decreased each year during the period. Prison and parole populations grew slightly as a share of the total correctional population between 2007 and 2014. Prisoners accounted for 23% of offenders under correctional supervision at year end 2014, up slightly from 22% in 2007. The parole population accounted for 13% of the correctional population at the end of 2014, up slightly from 11% in 2007. Inmates incarcerated in local jails represented the smallest shares of the correctional population in 2007 and 2014 (11% each).

The decline in the probation population from 2007 to 2014 accounted for 88% of the decrease in the correctional population

Probationers represented the majority of offenders under correctional supervision from 2007 to 2014, and the decline in this population contributed significantly to the decrease in the correctional population. From 2007 to 2014, the number of probationers decreased by 428,800, representing about 88% of the total decline in the correctional population since 2007-the largest decline among all correctional populations. The prison and local jail populations also declined between 2007 and 2014. However, they accounted for a significantly smaller portion of the decrease in the correctional population compared to probationers. From 2007 to 2014, the number of inmates in prison declined by 35,300 offenders and the number in local jails fell by 35,600, accounting for equal shares of the decline in the correctional population (down 7% each). The parole population was the only correctional population to increase from 2007 to 2014. About 30,800 more parolees were supervised in the community in 2014 compared to 2007, partially offsetting the overall decline in the correctional population during the 7-year period. [1]

In Europe

As of 1st January 2015:

  • Albania : 5 811 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 4 537 (total capacity of penal institutions); 128.1 (prison density per 100 places); 200.9 (prison Population Rate per 100,000 inhabitants)
  • Andorra : 53 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 145 (total capacity of penal institutions); 36.6 (prison density per 100 places);
  • Armenia : 3 880 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 4 576 (total capacity of penal institutions); 84.8 (prison density per 100 places);
  • Austria : 8 692 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 8 760 (total capacity of penal institutions); 93.5 (prison density per 100 places); 101.3 (prison Population Rate per 100,000 inhabitants)
  • Belgium : 13 299 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 10 135 (total capacity of penal institutions); 131.1 (prison density per 100 places); 118.1 (prison Population Rate per 100,000 inhabitants)
  • BH: Rep. Srpska : 940 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 1404 (total capacity of penal institutions); 67 (prison density per 100 places);
  • Croatia : 3 763 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 4 022 (total capacity of penal institutions); 93.6 (prison density per 100 places); 89.1 (prison Population Rate per 100,000 inhabitants)
  • Cyprus : 526 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 480 (total capacity of penal institutions); 109.6 (prison density per 100 places); 62.1 (prison Population Rate per 100,000 inhabitants)
  • Czech Republic : 18 658 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 20 020 (total capacity of penal institutions); 93.2 (prison density per 100 places); 177 (prison Population Rate per 100,000 inhabitants)
  • Denmark : 3 578 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 3 925 (total capacity of penal institutions); 91.2 (prison density per 100 places); 90.7 (prison Population Rate per 100,000 inhabitants)
  • Estonia : 2 921 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 3 034 (total capacity of penal institutions); 96.3 (prison density per 100 places); 222.4 (prison Population Rate per 100,000 inhabitants)
  • Finland : 2 974 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 3 083 (total capacity of penal institutions); 91.4 (prison density per 100 places); 54.4 (prison Population Rate per 100,000 inhabitants)
  • Georgia : 10 372 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 21 678 (total capacity of penal institutions); 47.8 (prison density per 100 places);
  • Germany : 61 872 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 75 793 (total capacity of penal institutions); 81.6 (prison density per 100 places); 76.2 (prison Population Rate per 100,000 inhabitants)
  • Greece : 11 798 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 9 886 (total capacity of penal institutions); 119.3 (prison density per 100 places); 108.7 (prison Population Rate per 100,000 inhabitants)
  • Iceland : 141 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 165 (total capacity of penal institutions); 85.5 (prison density per 100 places);
  • Ireland : 3 546 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 4 126 (total capacity of penal institutions); 85.9 (prison density per 100 places); 76.6 (prison Population Rate per 100,000 inhabitants)
  • Italy : 53 623 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 49 635 (total capacity of penal institutions); 108 (prison density per 100 places); 88.2 (prison Population Rate per 100,000 inhabitants)
  • Latvia : 4 745 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 5 852 (total capacity of penal institutions); 81.1 (prison density per 100 places); 238.9 (prison Population Rate per 100,000 inhabitants)
  • Liechtenstein : 8 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 20 (total capacity of penal institutions); 40 (prison density per 100 places); 21.4 (prison Population Rate per 100,000 inhabitants)
  • Lithuania : 8 636 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 9 399 (total capacity of penal institutions); 91.9 (prison density per 100 places); 295.6 (prison Population Rate per 100,000 inhabitants)
  • Luxembourg : 657 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 711 (total capacity of penal institutions); 92.4 (prison density per 100 places); 116.7 (prison Population Rate per 100,000 inhabitants)
  • Monaco : 28 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 78 (total capacity of penal institutions); 35.9 (prison density per 100 places);
  • Montenegro : 1 193 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 1 100 (total capacity of penal institutions); 108.5 (prison density per 100 places); 191.8 (prison Population Rate per 100,000 inhabitants)
  • Norway : 3 630 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 3 800 (total capacity of penal institutions); 95.5 (prison density per 100 places); 70.3 (prison Population Rate per 100,000 inhabitants)
  • Poland : 77 872 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 87 661 (total capacity of penal institutions); 88.8 (prison density per 100 places); 204.9 (prison Population Rate per 100,000 inhabitants)
  • Romania : 30 156 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 28 901 (total capacity of penal institutions); 104.3 (prison density per 100 places); 151.8 (prison Population Rate per 100,000 inhabitants)
  • San Marino : 2 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 8 (total capacity of penal institutions); 25 (prison density per 100 places);
  • Serbia : 10 288 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 9 340 (total capacity of penal institutions); 110.1 (prison density per 100 places); 144.6 (prison Population Rate per 100,000 inhabitants)
  • Slovak Republic : 10 020 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 11 318 (total capacity of penal institutions); 88.5 (prison density per 100 places); 184.8 (prison Population Rate per 100,000 inhabitants)
  • Slovenia : 1 490 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 1 322 (total capacity of penal institutions); 112.7 (prison density per 100 places); 72.2 (prison Population Rate per 100,000 inhabitants)
  • Spain: Total : 65 017 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 77 209 (total capacity of penal institutions); 84.2 (prison density per 100 places); 143.1 (prison Population Rate per 100,000 inhabitants)
  • Spain: State Adm. : 55 723 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 65 980 (total capacity of penal institutions); 84.5 (prison density per 100 places);
  • Spain: Catalonia : 9 294 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 11 229 (total capacity of penal institutions); 82.8 (prison density per 100 places);
  • Sweden : 5 400 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 6 495 (total capacity of penal institutions); 83.1 (prison density per 100 places); 55.4 (prison Population Rate per 100,000 inhabitants)
  • Switzerland : 6 923 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 7 235 (total capacity of penal institutions); 95.7 (prison density per 100 places); 84 (prison Population Rate per 100,000 inhabitants)
  • the FYRO Macedonia : 3 459 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 2 531 (total capacity of penal institutions); 136.7 (prison density per 100 places); 167.2 (prison Population Rate per 100,000 inhabitants)
  • Turkey : 158 537 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 163 249 (total capacity of penal institutions); 97.1 (prison density per 100 places); 204 (prison Population Rate per 100,000 inhabitants)
  • Ukraine : 73 431 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 140 419 (total capacity of penal institutions); 52.3 (prison density per 100 places);
  • UK: England and Wales : 84 691 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 88 116 (total capacity of penal institutions); 96.1 (prison density per 100 places);
  • UK: Northern Ireland : 1 736 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 1 966 (total capacity of penal institutions); 88.3 (prison density per 100 places);

As of 1st January 2016:

  • Albania : 6 288 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 5 484 (total capacity of penal institutions); 114.7 (prison density per 100 places)
  • Andorra : 41 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 145 (total capacity of penal institutions); 28.3 (prison density per 100 places)
  • Armenia : 4 873 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 4 584 (total capacity of penal institutions); 84.5 (prison density per 100 places)
  • Austria : 8 658 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 8 814 (total capacity of penal institutions); 92.5 (prison density per 100 places)
  • Belgium : 12 799 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 9 962 (total capacity of penal institutions); 111.1 (prison density per 100 places)
  • BH: Rep. Srpska : 877 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 1 459 (total capacity of penal institutions); 60.1 (prison density per 100 places)
  • Croatia : 3 341 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 4 022 (total capacity of penal institutions); 83.1 (prison density per 100 places)
  • Czech Republic : 20 866 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 20 919 (total capacity of penal institutions); 99.7 (prison density per 100 places)
  • Denmark : 3 314 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 3 576 (total capacity of penal institutions); 92.7 (prison density per 100 places)
  • Estonia : 2 681 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 2 930 (total capacity of penal institutions); 91.5 (prison density per 100 places)
  • Finland : 3 002 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 3 079 (total capacity of penal institutions); 91 (prison density per 100 places)
  • France : 66 678 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 58 561 (total capacity of penal institutions); 113.9 (prison density per 100 places)
  • Ireland : 3 603 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 4 116 (total capacity of penal institutions); 87.5 (prison density per 100 places)
  • Latvia : 4 409 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 5 852 (total capacity of penal institutions); 75.3 (prison density per 100 places)
  • Liechtenstein : 10 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 20 (total capacity of penal institutions); 50 (prison density per 100 places)
  • Lithuania : 7 355 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 9 299 (total capacity of penal institutions); 79.1 (prison density per 100 places)
  • Montenegro : 1 121 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 1 350 (total capacity of penal institutions); 83 (prison density per 100 places)
  • Netherlands : 9 018 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 11 248 (total capacity of penal institutions); 80.2 (prison density per 100 places)
  • Norway : 3 679 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 4 097 (total capacity of penal institutions); 90.2 (prison density per 100 places)
  • Romania : 28 334 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 27 473 (total capacity of penal institutions); 103.1 (prison density per 100 places)
  • San Marino : 2 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 8 (total capacity of penal institutions); 25 (Prison Population Rate per 100,000 inhabitants)
  • Serbia : 10 067 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 9 459 (total capacity of penal institutions); 106.4 (prison density per 100 places)
  • Slovak Republic : 9 913 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 11 188 (total capacity of penal institutions); 88.6 (prison density per 100 places)
  • Slovenia : 1 393 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 1322 (total capacity of penal institutions); 105.4 (prison density per 100 places)
  • Spain: Total : 61 614 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 76 122 (total capacity of penal institutions); 80.9 (prison density per 100 places)
  • Spain: State Adm. : 52 804 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 65 091 (total capacity of penal institutions); 81.2 (prison density per 100 places)
  • Spain: Catalonia : 8 810 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 11 031 (total capacity of penal institutions); 79.9 (prison density per 100 places)
  • Sweden : 5 245 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 6 228 (total capacity of penal institutions); 84.2 (prison density per 100 places)
  • the FYRO Macedonia : 3 427 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 2 519 (total capacity of penal institutions); 136 (prison density per 100 places)
  • UK: England and Wales : 84 968 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 88 116 (total capacity of penal institutions); 96.4 (prison density per 100 places)
  • UK: Northern Ireland : 1 513 (total number of prisoners, including pre-trial detainees); 1 841 (total capacity of penal institutions); 82.2 (prison density per 100 places)

Growth Trends in Prison Privatization

For-profit prison privatization, which dates back to 16th Century England, began to enjoy a modern reincarnation in the United States in the 1980s. Privatization advocates promised low-cost, quality, detention services at a time when government resources were being strained under the weight of exploding prison populations. It was on the back of these promises that lawmakers and officials would hand over eight percent of America’s prisoners, as well as larger amounts of its federal pre-trial and immigrant detainees, to privately owned or operated facilities by 2011. However, although privatization has enjoyed a steady reemergence in the United States, the companies managing these facilities have faced persistent criticism for providing low-quality services, failing to save taxpayer money, and negatively affecting criminal justice policy.

Despite these failures, several countries have followed the United States in utilizing private prisons and detention centers with the intent of decreasing correctional expenditures and reducing prison overcrowding. [2]

Australia

Australia’s first private prison was operated by an American enterprise. The Queensland facility began operations in 1990, and soon stoked interest in privatization in several other states. By 2011, five of Australia’s eight states had some level of privatization, with Victoria having the highest rate (33 percent), as well as the largest privately held population (1,530).

England and Wales

In England, the first private prison managed by an American corporation dated from 1992. Approved under a Conservative Government, another corporation began a trend in England and Wales that would result in a total of 14 private prisons by 2012.

Scotland

Scotland’s first private prison was Her Majesty’s Prison (HMP) Kilmarnock. It was opened in 1999 and is operated privately under a 25-year contract with the Scottish Prison Service. Kilmarnock was joined in 2008 by the Addiewell Prison.

South Africa

In 1997, South Africa began planning to open four private prisons. In 1999, those plans were scaled back to two facilities, Kutama-Sinthumule Correctional Centre and Mangaung Maximum Security Correctional Centre.

The difference between measures of the incarceration rate and the imprisonment rate

The incarceration rate and the imprisonment rate are two different statistics, which are useful depending on the correctional population of interest. In the United States, the incarceration rate describes the incarcerated population that consists of inmates under the jurisdiction of state or federal prisons and inmates held in local jails. In comparison, the imprisonment rate describes the prison population under the jurisdiction of state or federal prisons and sentenced to more than 1 year. The imprisonment rate excludes prisoners who are unsentenced, those with sentences of less than 1 year, and all local jail inmates.

Given these differences, the incarceration rate will always be higher than the imprisonment rate because the imprisonment rate includes only a subset of the population accounted for in the incarceration rate. The section about the United States in this entry focuses on the total correctional population, which consists of the community supervision (i.e., probation and parole) and incarcerated (i.e., prison and local jail) populations. Therefore, except for table 3, rates presented in this report are incarceration rates because they describe the total incarcerated population.

Resources

Notes

1. Glaze, L., Kaeble, D., Minton, T., & Tsoutis, A. (2015). Correctional populations in the United States 2014. Bureau of Justice Statistics U.S. Department of Justice.
2. Mason, C. (2013). International growth trends in prison privatization. The Sentencing Project.

Further Reading

  • Aebi, M., Linde, A., & Delgrande, N. (2015). Is there a relationship between imprisonment and crime in Western Europe? European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 21(3), 425-446.
  • Aebi, M. F., Tiago, M. M. & Burkhardt, C. (2015). SPACE I Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics: Prison populations. Survey 2014. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
  • Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York: New Press.
  • American Bar Association. (1994). ABA standards for criminal justice sentencing: Standard 18-2.4 severity of sentences generally (3d ed.). Washington, DC.
  • American Law Institute (2011). Model penal code: Sentencing. Tentative draft no. 2. Philadelphia: The American Law Institute.
  • Amnesty International (2016). Death sentences and executions in 2015.Appleton, C. (2015). Life without parole. Oxford Handbooks Online.
  • Blumstein, A., & Cohen, J. (1973). A theory of the stability of punishment. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 64(2), 198-207.
  • Braman, D. (2002). Families and incarceration. In M. Mauer & M. Chesney-Lind (Eds.), Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment (pp. 117-135). New York: New Press.
  • Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, (2011).
  • Canela-Cacho, J. A., Blumstein, A., & Cohen, J. (1997). Relationship between the offending frequency (??) of imprisoned and free offenders. Criminology, 35(1), 133-175.
  • Carson, A. E. (2015). Prisoners in 2014. Bureau of Justice Statistics U.S. Department of Justice.
  • Carter, T. (2012). Prison break. ABA Journal, 98, 44-51.
  • Christie, N. (2004). A suitable amount of crime. New York: Routledge.
  • Clear, T., Rose, D., Waring, E., & Scully, K. (2003). Coercive mobility and crime: A preliminary examination of concentrated incarceration and social disorganization. Justice Quarterly, 20(1), 33-64.
  • Council of Europe. (2015). Council of Europe annual penal statistics.Death Penalty Information Center (2016a). Abolitionist and retentionist countries.
  • Death Penalty Information Center (2016b, May 12). Facts about the death penalty.
  • Dolovich, S. (2009). Incarceration American-style. Harvard Law & Policy Review, 3, 237-259.
  • Dostoyevsky, F. (1862). The House of the dead. (Original classic). Brisbane, AU: Emereo.
  • Ganesan, A. (1996). Police abuse and killings of street children in India. Human Rights Watch Children’s Rights Project.
  • Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Glaze, L., Kaeble, D., Minton, T., & Tsoutis, A. (2015). Correctional populations in the United States 2014. Bureau of Justice Statistics U.S. Department of Justice.
  • Gottschalk, M. (2006). The prison and the gallows: The politics of mass incarceration in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Henry, J. S. (2012). Death-in-prison sentences: Overutilized and underscrutinized. In C. Ogletree & A. Sarat (Eds.), Life without parole: America’s new death penalty? (pp. 66-95). New York: New York University Press.
  • Hooks, G., Mosher, C., Genter, S., Rotolo, T. & Lobao, L. (2010). Revisiting the impact of prison building on job growth: Education, incarceration, and county-level employment. Social Science Quarterly, 91(1), 228-244.
  • Institute for Criminal Policy Research. World Prison Brief.Kriminalomsorgen (2016). About the Norwegian Correctional Service.
  • Lappi-Seppälä, T. (2001). Sentencing and punishment in Finland: The decline of the repressive ideal. In M. Tonry & R. S. Frase (Eds.), Sentencing and sanctions in western countries (pp. 92-151). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Lofstrom, M., & Raphael, S. (2016). Incarceration and crime: Evidence from California’s public safety realignment reform. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 664(1), 196-220.
  • Lynch, J., & Pridemore, W. (2011). Crime in international perspective. In J. Q. Wilson & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Crime and public policy (pp. 5-52). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Lynch, M. (2011). Mass incarceration, legal change, and locale. Criminology and Public Policy, 10(3), 673-698.
  • Lynch, M. & Verma, A. (2016). The imprisonment boom of the late 20th century: Past, present, and future. In J. Wooldredge & P. Smith (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of prisons and imprisonment (pp. 1-34). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Lyons, J. (2014,). As 9 are killed in Brazil, tweets accuse police of vigilante justice. The Wall Street Journal, November 6.
  • Macovei, M. (2004). The right to liberty and security of the person. In Human Rights Handbooks (No. 5).
  • Mason, C. (2013). International growth trends in prison privatization. The Sentencing Project.Mauer, M. & Chesney-Lind. (2002). Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment. New York: New Press.
  • M. S. L. J. (2015). Paying for poverty. The Economist, April 24.
  • Muhammad, K. G. (2010). The condemnation of blackness: Race, crime, and the making of modern urban America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • National Research Council of the National Academies. (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring causes and consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  • Nellis, A. (2013). Life goes on: The historic rise in life sentences in America. The Sentencing Project.
  • Pease, K. (1994). Cross-national imprisonment rates. British Journal of Criminology, 34, 116-131.
  • Pratt, J. (2007). Penal populism. Abingdon, U.K.: Taylor & Francis.
  • Roberts, J. V., Stalans, L. J., Indermauer, D., & Hough, M. (2003). Penal populism and public opinion: Lessons from five countries. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Ruddell, R. (2005). Social disruption, state priorities, and minority threat: A cross-national study of imprisonment. Punishment & Society, 7(1), 7-28.
  • Savelsberg, J. J. (1994). Knowledge, domination, and criminal punishment. American Journal of Sociology, 99(4), 932.
  • Schmitt, J., & Warner, K. (2010). Ex-offenders and the labor market. Center for Economic and Policy Research.Simon, J. (2007). Governing through crime: How the war on crime transformed American democracy and created a culture of fear. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Strenge, R. (2004, July 19). Researchers find prisons offer few economic benefits to small towns. Washington State University News Service.
  • Thomas, J., & Torrone, E. (2006). Incarceration as forced migration: Effects on selected community health outcomes. American Journal of Public Health, 96(10), 1762-1765.
  • Travis, J. (2002). Invisible punishment: An instrument of social exclusion. In M. Mauer & M. Chesney-Lind (Eds.), Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment (pp. 15-36). New York: New Press.
  • Tremblay, P. (1986). The stability of punishment: A follow-up of Blumstein’s hypothesis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2(2), 157-180.
  • Tonry, M. (2004). Thinking about crime: Sense and sensibility in American penal culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Van Kesteren, J. N., Mayhew, P. & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2000). Criminal victimisation in seventeen industrialised countries: Key-findings from the 2000 International Crime Victims Survey. The Hague, Ministry of Justice, WODC.
  • Verma, A. (2016). A turning point in mass incarceration? Local imprisonment trajectories and decarceration under California’s Realignment. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 664, 108-135.
  • Wacquant, L. (2009). Punishing the poor: The neoliberal government of insecurity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
  • Weigend, T. (2001). Sentencing and punishment in Germany. In M. Tonry & R. S. Frase (Eds.), Sentencing and sanctions in western countries (pp. 188-221). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Weisburd, D., Farrington, D., & Gill, C. (2016). What works in crime prevention and rehabilitation? New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • Weitekamp, E. G. M., & Kerner, H. J. (1994). Cross-national longitudinal research on human development and criminal behavior. Dordecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
  • Whitman, J. Q. (2003). Harsh Justice: Criminal punishment and the widening divide between America and Europe. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • World Health Organization (2003). World health report.Young, W., & Brown, M. (1993). Cross-national comparisons of imprisonment. Crime and Justice, 17, 1-49.
  • Zimring, F. E., Hawkins, G., & Kamin, S. (2001). Punishment and democracy: Three strikes and you’re out in California. New York: Oxford University Press.

Leave a Comment