Following is the main text of the Keynote Address by President Travis, kicking off the 2/4/2011 University Faculty Senate Conference on “Higher Education in the Prisons.” The thrust of his speech is clearly that public higher education can play an indispensable role promoting successful prisoner reentry back into society, with attendant significant reductions in recidivism.

Let’s begin by recognizing an uncomfortable reality: The United States imprisons a larger percentage of its people than any other nation in the world. A few years ago we surpassed Russia and South Africa to achieve this distinction. Today, there are 2.3 million people held in our country’s prisons and jails. Our rate of incarceration – including BOTH prisons and jails – is 750 out of 100,000 residents. We should compare ourselves to European countries, where the rate of incarceration is much lower. For example, in Germany the rate is 93, in Turkey it is 112, and in Italy and Denmark it is a record low of 67 per 100,000 residents.¹⁷ The high level of imprisonment in America has prompted scholars to observe that we live in an “era of mass incarceration.”⁹

It has not always been so, in our country. For roughly a forty-year period, from 1930 to 1970, the rate of incarceration in America’s prisons was stable and low — about 110 per 100,000,² compared to 502 per 100,000 today, revealing a nearly five-fold increase over four decades.¹⁹ Beginning in 1972, our rate of incarceration started to increase, and has gone up every year since. During times of economic expansion and times of recession; during times of war and times of peace; when the crime rate has been rising and when it has been falling, we have increased our rate of incarceration. Recent data suggest that the level of imprisonment has stabilized in our country, and several states, including New York, have seen modest declines in their prison populations. Perhaps the current fiscal crisis will force states to rethink our punishment policies, but we have a long ways to go to bring our incarceration rates into line with the rest of the world.

Today is not the day to discuss in detail the reasons we have increasingly chosen to use prison as our preferred response to crime. Rather we should focus our attention on the inescapable fact that millions of Americans are cut off from their families and communities, living the regimented lives of this “total institution,”¹⁰ removed from the natural rhythms of life in free society such as working, raising families, building social capital, voting, and experiencing directly the joys and challenges of intimate relationships. In particular, today we are focused on the fact that incarcerated individuals are denied access to the educational opportunities available to their counterparts in free society.

The Iron Law of Corrections
Before addressing this topic directly, I should tell you that I have a particular perspective on the realities of mass incarceration in America. I find it useful to focus on what I have termed “the iron law of corrections:”¹⁸ With the exception of those who die during incarceration, either of natural causes or by execution, everyone we put into prison comes home. This year, over 700,000 people will leave our country’s prisons; another 9 million will leave our jails. This perspective – which I call a “reentry framework” – forces us to ask a very pragmatic question: if everyone who is sent to prison comes home, how should these people be prepared for this inevitable journey, and how should our public and private community-based resources be organized to improve the chances of a successful reintegration?

Allow me to use this reentry framework to define the challenge we are discussing at this conference: “If over 700,000 people are leaving our prisons, how should the nation’s educational institutions be organized to help them make a successful transition to free society?” Stated somewhat differently: “If we have reason to believe that educational opportunities, both inside prison and in the community, can improve reentry outcomes – by reducing recidivism, enhancing human capital, improving family functioning, and connecting returning prisoners to career opportunities – how would we make that happen?”

But I get ahead of myself. Let’s first focus on the educational profile of the people in prison, the educational opportunities provided them, and the research on the effectiveness of educational programs in changing the post-prison trajectory. I will not be discussing jails but focus on prisons because jails are characterized by short stays and high turnover and consequently present quite different challenges to the successful implementation of educational programs.

When Justice Kennedy delivered his famous speech about the “hidden world of punishment” in 2003, he said to his audience that once we enter this world, “we should be startled by what we see.” He catalogued the inexorable growth of the prison population, the inhumane conditions, the enormous costs, and reached this conclusion: “Our resources are misspent, our punishments too severe, our sentences too long.”¹³ In a very poignant moment, he reminded his audience, in words that resonate at this conference today, “the more than 2 million inmates in the United States are human beings whose minds and spirits we must try to reach.”

The Most Educationally Disadvantaged Population
How can we describe these individuals in language that speaks of their minds and spirits, in terms of their educational potential? We know that the prison population, as a general matter, has low levels of educational attainment, and a high level of educational challenges. Nearly two in five (39%) fall below the literacy level, compared to one in five in the general population. According to a 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy, 17 percent of incarcerated individuals report a learning disability, compared to 6 percent of the general population.¹¹

Interestingly, the achievement gap narrows when considering high school completion. Two-thirds (65%) have high school diplomas or GEDs, compared to 82% of the general population. Yet in terms of higher education, the disparities are striking: only 17 percent have any post-secondary education, compared to 51 percent of the general population.⁵ In a study conducted for the Department of Education in 2004, researchers began their report by stating that “the most educationally disadvantaged population in the United States resides in our nation’s prisons.”¹⁴

On one level, we should not be surprised by these statistics: in virtually every measure of socio-economic well-being, including work history, health, prior victimization and family functioning, incarcerated individuals fare poorly. But the important question we face is whether, while they
are incarcerated and particularly as they return home, the period of time in prison is spent wisely, and these deficits are addressed. This question brings us to another stark realization about incarceration in America, namely the paucity of services available to those we have sentenced to be behind bars.

Interestingly, most prisons – federal and state – offer educational programs. According to a 2008 survey by James Stephan, virtually all (98%) federal prisons offer adult basic education, adult secondary education, post-secondary education or vocational training. Even most state prisons (84%) offer some sort of correctional education, although the lowest percentage (32%) offer post-secondary education, whereas two-thirds (66%) offer adult basic education and three-quarters (76%) offer adult secondary education.⁵

But the relevant question is not whether these programs are offered, rather whether incarcerated individuals participate in the programs. For example, although adult basic education is offered in almost all federal prisons, and two-thirds of state prisons, only two percent of the inmates have participated in these programs since their admission to prison. And, as our prisons have expanded, the level of participation in educational programs has decreased, with the largest declines found in vocational training (5 percentage points) and adult secondary education (4 percentage points).⁵ A final observation: these data tell us nothing about the quality of these programs, the persistence in participation, and the match or mismatch between educational needs and educational offerings. Clearly there is a compelling research agenda here that would shed light on these important issues.

The history of support for post-secondary education in prisons in America is marked by a cataclysmic event. In 1994, as one of the provisions of the 1994 Crime Act, Congress decided to withdraw federal support – through the Pell grant program – for students incarcerated in state and federal prisons. The results were dramatic. In the year following the ban, the number of inmates receiving post-secondary education dropped by 44 percent.¹⁶ In New York State, this sharp shift in federal policy had a devastating effect. Before 1994, there were 70 post-secondary prison programs in New York State, a majority provided by CUNY and SUNY. As of April 2008, only 8 programs remained and all were offered exclusively by private colleges.⁷

It is worth noting that, notwithstanding the withdrawal of federal support for post-secondary education, the federal government continues to make substantial investments in education within our prisons. Through the Workforce Investment Act, the federal government invests in adult basic and secondary education, English literacy classes, and special education. One percent of all funding under the Perkins program for vocational and applied technology education may be spent on correctional programs. Funding is available for youth as old as 21 under the elementary and secondary education grant, and for youth with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.⁶ So the Congress singled out post-secondary education for the federal ban, while continuing to invest in other forms of education. I will return to this political reality at the end of my talk.

Links between Programs, Recidivism and Criminal Costs
Now that we have documented the extensive need for education, and the mismatch between educational programs and need, particularly for post-secondary education programs, we should next ask whether these programs are effective. The public and our elected officials would likely use a very direct measure of effectiveness: “Is there reliable evidence that investing in education while someone is in prison reduces their risk of re-offending once they return home?” When our Prisoner Reentry Institute at John Jay College convened a meeting of the Reentry Roundtable to discuss the issues of correctional education, we commissioned a paper by Dr. Gerald Gaes, one of the nation’s preeminent corrections researchers. He reviewed four meta-analyses and found that participation in educational programs was associated with reductions in recidivism ranging from 7 percent to 46 percent.⁸ Another analysis by Aos, Miller and Drake (2006)¹ answered the obvious follow-up question: are these programs cost-effective? They found that an investment of $1,182 in vocational training can save $6,806 in future criminal justice costs. Even more impressive, an investment of $962 in academic education can save $5,306 in future criminal justice costs.

I should quickly note the narrowness of this measure of effectiveness. We certainly do not evaluate the effectiveness of college programs outside prisons by determining whether they reduce recidivism. But more importantly, when assessing prison-based educational programs, surely we would have more robust measures, as we do for educational programs outside the walls. Following the guidance of the AAC&U, we would ask: Do they develop skills of critical thinking? Effective oral communication? Clear writing? Moral reasoning? An ability to work in teams? Respect for diversity? Similarly, we would hope that educational programs would directly address the cognitive issues that are associated with criminal and antisocial behavior. Stated differently, if we can observe a reduction in recidivism, we need to develop a much better understanding of the intermediate mechanisms that produce those results, as well as the independent benefits that allow an individual to function at a higher level in our society.

The final building block of our portrait of education in prisons is an understanding of the connection between in-prison and after-prison education. As I mentioned earlier, I find it instructive to view the world through a reentry lens, which here would require that we ask what percentage of individuals leaving prison are connected with educational programs upon their return. Unfortunately, we have no data to answer this question. We do know, from the 2009 RTI-UI (Urban Institute) Multi-Site Evaluation study, that individuals about to leave prison place a high priority on securing an education when they return home. In fact, when asked to rank their needs, the highest number – 94% of the individuals surveyed – said they wanted an education, placing this need above other life-essential services such as, financial assistance (86%), a driver’s license (83%), job training (82%), and employment (80%).¹⁵ This is a remarkably strong showing of a demand for education … as well as personal statement of motivation to seek a better life.

We should ask ourselves whether we make it easy or difficult for people leaving prison to access our educational programs. A number of states around the country have shown the way. In New Mexico, for example, post-secondary education in that state’s prisons follows a standardized curriculum. This means that these programs articulate to an associate’s degree in general studies in the public universities. North Carolina has created a business advisory council to ensure that the vocational programs offered in the prisons prepare returning inmates for the jobs available in local economies. Here in New York State, the College Initiative works with people returning from prison to pave the way to the colleges of CUNY, and now many men and women benefit from this program each year. And the College and Community Fellowship, previously housed at the CUNY Graduate Center, provides support for formerly incarcerated CUNY students, mostly women. They have a stunning record of success: almost 70 percent of the CCF participants receive four-year degrees within four years of joining the program.

The Prison-to-College Pipeline Initiative
In my view, the connection between prison-based and community-based educational programs is one of the most exciting areas for possible innovation in the larger reentry movement. Pursuing an education may not be the top priority for everyone, but for a large percentage of people coming home from prison, a college experience can be a grounding experience, a way to connect with a community of motivated students and dedicated faculty who can provide guidance and support. Granted, there are still some federal restrictions on loans to students with drug convictions, but these students are eligible for other types of aid, so their education can be affordable. The challenge we face is how best to create the bridge between educational programs in prison and those in the community.

I am very proud of the work by my colleagues at John Jay College who have developed the Prison-to-College Pipeline initiative that will test a new way to create this connection. In the next panel, you will hear from Prof. Baz Dreisinger, who designed the program, Ali Knight, the Director of our Prisoner Reentry Institute, who will oversee implementation of the program, and Distinguished Lecturer Martin Horn, who has provided expert guidance based on his years as a correctional administrator. We plan to launch this program this fall and hope that it will provide a national model for linking a major public university with an innovative correctional administration, under the leadership of Commissioner Brian Fischer, to significantly improve educational and public safety outcomes.

Ideally, our community-based programs would be linked to a strong suite of prison-based programs, but we face the congressional ban on funding college-level programs. I think the time is right for a national re-examination of that ban. The enactment of the Second Chance Act of 2007 (signed into law in April of 2008) has demonstrated the strong bi-partisan support for federal leadership on ways that promote successful prisoner reentry. Granted, the effort to restore Pell Grants faces an uphill battle. At a time when funding for public universities is being cut back, and the tuition burden faced by our students is being increased, it will be very, very difficult to persuade Congress to restore Pell funding. But we must make this effort. We have many good arguments on our side. First, the amount of money in question is modest. When the Pell Grants for prisoners were eliminated in 1994, the funding for students in prison represented a small amount, $34 million representing less than 1/10 of 1 percent of all Pell grants, which totaled $5.3 billion.¹² Second, as noted above, the reductions in recidivism are significant, and the programs are cost-effective, so this investment of federal dollars would save money for states and localities. Yet we must face the reality that these arguments are not likely to carry the day.

But I think we can make a larger argument, and it is one that is made most persuasively by educators. We should be developing the argument that an education is necessary to prevent the marginalization of the millions of individuals who have spent time in prison and now have returned to society. These men and women have lost important years of their lives, years when many of their counterparts were securing an education, and progressing through the work world. We know that criminal activity is concentrated among young men drawn from the poorest communities of America’s cities. In these communities, time spent in prison is now a modal experience. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a young African-American man now has a one-in-three chance of serving at least a year in prison.⁴ In our poorest neighborhoods, upwards of seventy percent of the men have a felony record. Furthermore, we know that many people who leave prison return, after being rearrested or having their parole revoked.

But we know another important fact: at some point, these young men (and women) age out of crime. At some point in their lives, the probability that they will be re-arrested is no greater than the probability of arrest among the general population.³ So, as a society, as we live with the consequences of the massive buildup of our prison population, we face the long-term costs of that policy choice. One of the most profound costs is the creation of a marginalized population in our country, one that is cut off from the benefits of the welfare state, forbidden from working in vast sectors of our economy, denied the right to vote (at least for the period of parole in most states, for life in some states), facing the stigma of a felony record, and living with the consequences of their actions in terms of tensions and exclusions within their families and peer networks.

Ironically, one of the last areas of our society where their individual contributions can still be judged on the merits, where their motivations can lead in unimpeded pathways to success, where they can perhaps turn their experiences into positive material for expression and analysis, is the system of public higher education. Public higher education can play an indispensable role in countering the forces in our society that are leading to the marginalization of millions. Educators, including this audience, believe firmly in the power of a college education to transform lives, unlock human potential, provide a ladder to the middle class, foster notions of citizenship and promote individual responsibility. Do we not hold these very same aspirations for people returning to their communities who need to make a fresh start? If so, it behooves our community of educators who are so resolute in their commitment of promoting public education to advocate for educational opportunities benefitting people in prison.

So, in closing, let me call upon my colleagues who work in higher education and my CUNY colleagues in particular, to think of this conference as an organizing opportunity. There is so much we can do. We should be asking ourselves: What can our institutions do to restore education to our prison systems? We should elevate the notion that an education can serve as a pathway to successful reintegration. We should be challenging our research colleagues to design evaluations of educational programs inside and outside prisons. We should bring our expertise in outcome assessments to the task of understanding the effectiveness of prison-based courses. We should work with our admissions officers to make sure that we do not blindly block access to our colleges merely because someone has a felony record. We should work with our student development officers to help them understand that the jarring experience of leaving prison and returning home may require a distinctive support system for students who have been incarcerated. We should encourage our students to engage with the difficult issues posed by the era of mass incarceration in America, so that we better understand the origins and manifestations of this desire to punish so many people by locking them away, knowing they will all return to live with us again.

We have so much work to do, but today’s conference can represent a turning point in our history of imprisonment.

About the Author
Jeremy Travis is president of John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York. Prior to his appointment, he served as a Senior Fellow in the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center, where he launched a national research program focused on prisoner reentry into society. From 1994-2000, Travis directed the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. Prior to his service in Washington, he was Deputy Commissioner for Legal Matters for the New York City Police Department (1990-1994), a Special Advisor to New York City Mayor Edward I. Koch (1986-89), and Special Counsel to the Police Commissioner of the NYPD (1984-86). Before joining city government, Travis spent a year as a law clerk to then-U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He began his career in criminal justice working as a legal services assistant for the Legal Aid Society, New York’s indigent defense agency. He has taught courses on criminal justice, public policy, history and law at Yale College, the New York University Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, New York Law School and George Washington University. He has a J.D. from the New York University School of Law, an M.P.A. from the New York University Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, and a B.A. in American Studies from Yale College. He is the author of But They All Come Back: Facing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry (Urban Institute Press, 2005), co-editor (with Christy Visher) of Prisoner Reentry and Crime in America (Cambridge University Press, 2005), and co-editor (with Michelle Waul) of Prisoners Once Removed: The Impact of Incarceration and Reentry on Children, Families, and Communities (Urban Institute Press, 2003). He has published numerous book chapters, articles and monographs on constitutional law, criminal law and criminal justice policy.

References
1. Aos, S., Miller, M., Drake, E. 2006. Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

2. Blumstein, A., Cohen. J. (1973). A theory of the stability of punishment. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 64 (2), 198-207.

3. Blumstein, A., Nakamura, K. (2009) Redemption in the Presence of Widespread Criminal Background Checks. Criminology, 47 (2), 10-17.

4. Bonczar, T. Beck, A.J. (2003). Prevalence of Imprisonment in the U.S. Population, 1974-2001. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice; Office of Justice Programs; Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, p.1
.
5. Brazzell, D., Crayton, A., Mukamal, D.A., Solomon, A.L., and Lindahl, N. (2009). From the Classroom to the Community: Exploring the Role of Education During Incarceration and Reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, p..9,11,13.

6. Crayton, A., Neusteter, S.R. (2008). The Current State of Correctional Education. Paper presented at the Reentry Roundtable on Education, John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, March 31.

7. Dreisinger, B., Travis, J. (2010). New York State Prison-to-College Pipeline: Proposal for Multi-Year Higher Education Partnership between The City University of New York and the New York State Departement of Correctional Services.

8. Gaes, G. G. 2008. The Impact of Prison Education Programs on Post-Release Outcomes. Paper presented at the Reentry Roundtable on Education, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, March 31.

9. Garland, D. (2001). Mass Imprisonment: Social causes and consequences. London: Thousand Oaks, p.1.

10. Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. New York: Doubleday Anchor.

11. Greenberg, E., Dunleavy, E., Kutner, M. (2007). Literacy behind Bars: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy Prison Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

12. Karpowitz, D., Kenner, M. (2001). Education as Crime Prevention: The Case for Reinstating Pell Grant Eligibility for the Incarcerated. New York. Retrieved from the World Wide Weg on February 3, 2011: http://www.bard.edu/bpi/images/crime_report.pdf.

13. Kennedy, A. M. (2003). Speech at the American Bar Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, August 9. Retrieved from the World Wide Web on February 3, 2011: http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/speeches/viewspeeches.aspx?Filename=sp_08-09-03.html.

14. Klein, S., Tolbert, M., Bugarin, R., Cataldi, E.F., Tauschek, G. (2004). Correctional Education: Assessing the status of prison programs and information needs. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, p.1.

15. Lattimore, P. K., Visher, C. (2009). Multi-Site Evaluation of SVORI: Summary and Synthesis. Raleigh, NC: RTI International.

16. Tewksbury, R., Erickson, D. J., Taylor, J. M. (2000). Opportunities Lost: The consequences of eliminating Pell Grant eligibility for correctional education students. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 31 (1/2), 43-56.

17. The Pew Charitable Trust Center. (2008). 1 in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008. Available on the world wide web: http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/8015PCTS_Prison08_FINAL_2-1-1_FORWEB.pdf.

18. Travis, J. (2005). But they all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner reentry. Washington DC: The Urban Institute Press.

19. West, H. C., Sabol, W. J., Greenman, S. J. (2010). Prisoners in 2009. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice; Office of Justice Programs; Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin.

“Of course, money alone can’t solve the complex and widespread challenges facing our communities. To succeed in reducing violent crime, there are several key steps we must take.

First, we must call attention, not only to the symptoms, but also to the sources of violence. Robust enforcement efforts must incorporate a focus on prevention and an effort to understand the root causes of violent crime. Specifically, this means our work must expand beyond arrests and prosecutions. Although PSN has helped to secure many important convictions, it’s also shown that we can’t simply arrest our way out of the problem of violent crime. Of course, incarceration is necessary for public safety. But it’s only partially responsible for the declining crime rates we’ve seen. It’s not a sole, economically sustainable, solution.

Over the last few decades, state spending on corrections has risen faster than nearly any other budget item. Yet, at a cost of $60 billion a year, our prisons and jails do little to prepare prisoners to get jobs and “go straight” after they’re released. People who have been incarcerated are often barred from housing, shunned by potential employers and surrounded by others in similar circumstances. This is a recipe for high recidivism. And it’s the reason that two-thirds of those released are rearrested within three years. It’s time for a new approach.

As so many of you have pointed out, any real effort to contain spending on corrections, while ensuring public safety, must include a strong focus on preparing for reentry. Effective reentry programs provide our best chance for safeguarding our neighborhoods and supporting people who have served their time and are also resolved to improve their lives.

I’m proud that, last year, the Justice Department distributed $28 million in reentry awards under the Second Chance Act. And I’m pleased that we have another $100 million available for reentry programs this year. But we must complement reentry programs with smart and sound policy changes at every level of government.

That’s why I established a Sentencing and Corrections Working Group – to take a fresh look at federal sentencing practices and determine how we can better prepare federal prisoners to transition back into their communities. I am also convening an interagency working group to focus exclusively on reentry issues – everything from housing and job training needs to policy recommendations – and to enhance coordination at the federal level. But we also need more information about state and local crime trends, corrections policies, and neighborhood challenges – the insights many of you can provide.

Second, we must address the problem of violent crime holistically – by building on existing partnerships and bringing in different perspectives. Federal prosecutors must become neighborhood problem solvers, not simply case processors. They must partner with all levels of law enforcement and with all sorts of community partners. Just as surely as U.S. Attorneys, law enforcement officials and leaders across the Justice Department must come together, we must also include more community leaders, teachers, coaches, principals and – above all – parents in our work.

Finally, we must meet this problem with all the resources that sound science can bring to bear. Restoring scientific decision-making at the Justice Department is one of my highest priorities. And while research has told us much about the incidence and impact of violence, it hasn’t yet told us everything. We need more information about what works – and what doesn’t – so that we can make informed funding decisions and identify community-specific strategies.

As we take these steps and work to implement the solutions we need, there is – I believe – good cause for optimism. In fact, being with all of you today, in this great city, fills me with a sense of hope and excitement – excitement from the success you’ve achieved through Project Safe Neighborhoods, and hope for continued progress toward the goal we all share: safe, vibrant and productive communities.”

Click here to link to the entire speech transcript on the Department of Justice website.

The following exerpts were extracted from the report’s “Preface:”

In the United States, where policies have a global outreach for economic (market size), financial, political and cultural reasons (its condition as the superpower and the reach of its cultural production, mostly audiovisual), priorities are also changing. The idea of a war led by a “drug czar” is being abandoned for a more balanced approach.

Secretary of Strate Clinton has stressed several times the idea of shared responsibility, and the new drug “czar” for the Obama administration, Gil Kerlikowske, in his speech to the 53rd meeting of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs in March 2010, presented his assessment: “The results from long-standing initiatives, such as drug courts, and newer alternatives to incarceration including ’smart’ programs which incorporate swift, certain, but modest sanctions, have been extremely encouraging. We must now expand such initiatives so all those for whom diversion from prison is appropriate, can participate. These innovative programs break the cycle of drug use, arrest, release and re-arrest and are much more cost-effective than long-term incarceration.”

After decades of an approach that favored repression as its main component and that prevailed in many countries, it has become clear that it is an oversimplification. Even if it did not totally disregard the public health aspects of drug dependence, it emphasized the criminal aspect of drug use without attenton to te public health aspect and treatment needs, resulting in the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of non-violent people all over the world; and, worse, with no indication whatsoever of any improvement in chemically- and psychologically-dependent people, and no evidence that the roots of the phenomenon were being addressed. In addition, in those countries in which the prision system has been partially privatized, there is a strong economic motive behind sending people to jail.

Drug courts, or drug treatment courts, the first practice of which started in Florida over 20 years ago, in 1989, represent thus an alternative to incarceration with advantages in critical aspects.

First, they foster the committment of addicts to work on getting rid of their dependence; second, the approach avoids incarceration of drug users who participate in these programs and comply with program requirements, and could, depending on the legislation, be applied to petty, non-violent drug dealers, which would avoid their making contacts inside the prison system that often increase the tendency of first offenders to become more deeply involved in illegal activities, as they meet hardened criminals who no longer harbor any hope of being recovered as law-abiding citizens; third, it avoids or reduces the stigma of danger and unreliability often associated with incarcerated people, thus helping reinsertion and recovery; fourth–and this is also becoming more and more critical–it helps reduce the spiralling rise in costs that countries bear to imprison a large portion of their population, sometimes hopeless and helpless poor youngsters, whose possibilities of a decent life decline even more as they are sent to prison.

Statistics vary from country to country, but certain features are common: many prison systems are bordering on bankruptcy; a vast majority of those in jail come from groups that are economically and socially vulnerable; a large portion of all those incarcerated are in prison for non-violent drug-related crimes.

The following exerpts were extracted from the report’s “Forward:”

Because drug abuse is compulsive, it does not stop at the prison door. In a 2009 survey of prisoners conducted by the Scottish Prison Service, 22% of prisoners reported that they had used drugs in prison in the month prior to the survey.

Treatment alternatives to incarceration for drug-dependent offenders involve diverting substance-abusing offenders from prison and jail into treatment and rehabilitation under judicial supervision. By increasing direct supervision of offenders, coordinating public resources, and expediting case processing, treatment alternatives to incarceration can help break the cycle of criminal behavior, alcohol and drug use, and imprisonment.

The details of these alternative mechanisms vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but most involve suspension of the sentence provided the offender agrees voluntarily to participate in a drug treatment program. The judge in the case supervises the offender’s progress in treatment, with the assistance of the prosecutor, social workers (case officers), treatment providers and probation officers. The judge has the power to end the treatment program if the offender violates its terms and conditions, in which case, the sentence will be handed down and the offender will be incarcerated.

The following exerpts were extracted from the main body of Volume I:

With this backdrop, the present publication is designed to begin to fill a critical information gap by providing a preliminary base of information regarding the experience of developing DTCs in various
countries that have embarked on these initiatives and the impact and benefits which these programs have had. Although much still needs to be done, the information compiled from the 12 countries responding to the SE/CICAD survey presents a cogent argument about why DTCs are a good idea, and gives a snapshot of what they cost in terms of human and other resources, what savings they can create for their respective
societies in economic as well as human terms, and what benefits can accrue, particularly in terms of public safety and community wellbeing.

The organization of Volume One of the report mirrors the questions on the CICAD survey instrument, with an introductory section (PartOne) providing a synopsis of the survey responses in key topic areas, followed by a compilation in Part Two of the survey responses to each question from each of the responding countries, including information on the costs and resources that have been necessary to set up and operate DTCs in the responding countries and the impact noted.

The extracted table below shows the enrollment of offenders in the DTC’s of the 12 participating countries:

The first publication will be followed by a second one, building on the summary information compiled during the course of preparing the current one. The overarching goal of this second publication will be to draft a series of Best Practices and Recommendations based on a more in-depth and scientifically based approach. This second report will therefore not only inform on the concept of DTCs, but will also address the questions of how to improve their efficiency, how to validate their effectiveness and how best to
incorporate them in the criminal justice system of the various countries that have already established such a scheme or are planning to do so in the near future.

The following excerpts were extracted from a section on Preliminary Findings:

All respondents with available data reported reduced recidivism rates among participants in the DTC compared to offenders processed in the traditional criminal justice system. Ireland reported figures from two small random assignment studies that showed 75% and 85% reductions in recidivism. Some respondents had comparison figures for the costs for handling offenders in the DTC, compared with the costs in the traditional adjudication process, and reported much lower costs for DTC participants compared to those in the traditional system. Evaluation reports for U.S. DTCs have estimated savings ranging from $3,000 to $20,000 per drug court participant, based on avoided costs of incarceration.

Another notable benefit of DTC participation, besides cost savings, has been the effect of DTC programs on the community. Reductions in recidivism and substance abuse can remove stresses on community services like police and hospital services. Respondents also noted the creation of safer communities resulting from reduced crime. Some also noted that DTC participants gain a chance to be productive
members of their communities and, as a result of their increased self-esteem and improved physical health, are better able to find jobs, reconnect with family and friends, and take greater responsibility for their own lives.

The following excerpt was extracted from one of Volume II’s numerous tables that detail survey results for dozens of summaries (by country) of the impact of DTC’s on recidivism rates, cost effectiveness and community benefits. The U.S. response chosen, because of superior success, was for a January 2009 Rutland County, Vermont evaluation of the cost benefits derived from the drug court in that jurisdiction.

“Program investment cost was $19,405 per drug court participant; cost due to recidivism (rearrests, new court cases, probation, incarceration and victimizations) over 3 years was $48,277 per drug court participant vs.$64,251 per comparison group member, with savings of $15,977 per participant.

Total criminal justice system cost per participant during the program is $5,809 less thn traditional court processing ($9,749 if victimizations are included).

If the program continues to enroll a cohort of 26 new participants annually, savings per participants over 3 years will be $138,441 per cohort; after 5 years, the accumulated savings will be over $2,000,000.

Summary: $ criminal justice system cost savings of $15,977. Criminal justice system costs 59% less during program participation compared with costs for nondrug court participants. Projected 150% return on investment after 5 years; projected 300% return on investment after 10 years.

In conclusion, should Slammer readers wish to review either volume of the American University report, the following link will take them to the PDF versions:

LINK to Multinational Report (Click here)

Authorship of this effort is attributed to the Justice Programs Office, School of Public Affairs, American University, Washington, D.C., by Caroline S. Cooper, Research Professor and Director of the Justice Programs Office, and graduate research assistants Brent Franklin and Tiffany Mease.

This publication was drafted by the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD), Secretariat for Multidimensional Security of the Organization of American States (OAS); the Justice Programs Office, School of Public Affairs, American University; the Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy (IRCP), Universiteit Gent; the Ministerio Público of Chile (General Prosecutor’s Office); and the International Association of Drug Treatment Courts (IADTC). It was developed in the framework of the EU-LAC Drug Treatment City Partnerships, an initiative coordinated by CICAD/SMS/OAS and funded by the European Commission. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the position of the EU or the OAS.

Establishing Drug Treatment Courts: Strategies, Experiences
and Preliminary Outcomes
ISBN 978-0-8270-5448-6

The vast majority of inmates, prison cells are not their permanent address. Most prisoners will serve their sentences and then return back into our communities. What kind of neighbors will they be?

If current trends continue, over half of them will be rearrested and back in prison within three years. These high failure rates represent a threat to public safety and increased cost to taxpayers. With more than 735,000 men and women coming home from state and federal prisons each year, making sure they are ready to be peaceful, productive citizens is a critical public safety concern.

That’s why Prison Fellowship, the world’s largest outreach to prisoners and their families, launched the Out4Life campaign back in 2007. Out4Life is a holistic approach to prisoner reentry that harnesses the strengths of both government agencies and nonprofit organizations to help offenders make a successful reentry into society. Out4Life is neither a reentry program nor an event, but is rather a long-term campaign to develop coalitions that will be able to reduce recidivism across the country.

Out4Life kicks off in each state with a conference attended by local and state government officials and community leaders and organizations—both faith-based and secular. The main goal of the conferences is to build lasting, self-sustaining coalitions to provide reentry services to ex-prisoners. By coordinating services and programs, the coalitions make sure that all offenders’ needs are met, and that no resources are wasted through duplication. As the coalitions develop, Prison Fellowship provides information and resources to strengthen their work, and channels of communication to increase their cooperation.

The needs of released prisoners are overwhelming. A bus ticket and twenty dollars hardly suffice to get these men and women back on their feet. They must find housing, reliable transportation, jobs, medical care, education, and personal identification documents. Many need addiction and/or mental health treatment. Many need help reconnecting with their families and their children. And, many are trying to do all this with little grasp of the new technology that now saturates society.

Transitioning from prison to community is obviously more than just switching addresses. It’s also about crossing cultures. On the inside, men and women have very little control over their daily lives. But on the outside, they face a bewildering barrage of decisions about what to wear, what to eat, where to go, and how to spend their time. On the inside, being stoic and tough is often important to survival, but on the outside, offenders have to relearn social norms and manners that allow them to interact acceptably with others.

Out4Life unites the hands of government, nonprofit groups, and business in coalitions because the government alone cannot help offenders overcome these obstacles. Navigating the challenges of reentry requires a guide – a mentor who provides the counsel, accountability, and encouragement of an enduring, nurturing relationship in a supportive community. A study by Pennsylvania University of one of Prison Fellowship’s intensive reentry programs confirmed that having a mentor is the key factor in helping released prisoners avoid falling back into criminal behavior. Staff and volunteers from faith-based and nonprofit organizations are uniquely positioned to build these relationships of trust.

Out4Life draws together a broad range of community groups because the needs of returning prisoners are so numerous and diverse that no single organization can meet them all well. Teamwork helps ensure that no returning prisoner slips through the cracks.

In its early stages, the campaign is meeting with success in states across the country. Collaborating with the Department of Corrections and local groups, Prison Fellowship launched the first Out4Life initiative with a conference in Louisiana. This event has spawned five coalitions involving more than 300 organizations and agencies. Conferences have occurred during the past year in Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia, Michigan, Arizona, and Minnesota, and more are planned for the coming months in Ohio, Virginia, Texas, and Oregon.

Leaders in these states have shared high praises for the Out4Life campaign. Larry Norris, Director of Arkansas’ Department of Corrections, believes that “successful prisoner reentry can only occur when government, business, faith and community leaders work together. The Out4Life conference is focused on developing ways we can all come together to make Arkansas communities safer.” And Gayle Ray, Tennessee’s DOC Commissioner, explained at the Out4Life conference in Tennessee that “groups like this – faith-based groups and other folks – can really be helpful in our efforts to lower recidivism even more.”

Lowering recidivism by helping men and women transform their lives is Out4Life’s mission. There is no simple solution to breaking the cycle of crime, but by relying on the strength of public-private partnerships we can make significant progress. The Out4Life campaign is self-explanatory, it hopes to help men and women make it out of prison cells for good – and permanently become contributing members of our communities.

Mark Earley, former State Senator and Attorney General of Virginia, became President of Prison Fellowship on February 1, 2002. As Presdent and CEO of Prison Fellowship, Earley oversees the national ministry founded by Charles Colson in 1976, which has since spread to 113 countries in addition to the United States.

For more information on Out4Life, visit here

For more information on Prison Fellowship, visit here

Since 1996, the study shows, the Sunshine state has added more than 20 new categories of financial obligations to those accused and convicted of a crime. The fees are levied even on those who have no money and cannot pay. Increasingly, the result is a self-perpetuating cycle of debt — and sometimes further incarceration — for those re-entering society after prison.

The new study shows that the Florida legislature increasingly relies on “user fees” paid by indigent defendants to finance not just the criminal justice system but other state operations as well.

“As unemployment hovers around 10 percent, it is time to consider whether heaping more debt on those unable to afford it is a sensible and moral approach to financing state functions,” said Rebekah Diller, author of The Hidden Costs of Florida’s Criminal Justice Fees. “For many reasons, this is simply bad public policy.”

The report also raises key questions about the efficiency of the practice. Many of these fees are uncollectible, leaving the court system underfunded. In some places, collection costs are borne partly by counties and court clerks, and the adjudication of fee payments incurs even more costs.

Among the findings:
1. The Florida Legislature has eliminated payment exemptions for the indigent, thus demanding revenue from a population unable to pay;

2. In Leon County, collection practices resulted in more than 800 arrests for failure to appear at debt hearings and more than 20,000 hours of jail time alone in one year.

3. Florida routinely suspends drivers’ licenses for failure to make payments, a practice that sets the debtor up for a vicious cycle of “driving with a suspended license” convictions;

4. Florida allows private debt collection firms to add up to a 40 percent surcharge on unpaid debt.

Among the recommendations:
1. The Legislature should exempt those unable to pay criminal justice fees from legal financial obligations;

2. Payment plans should be tailored to an individual’s ability to pay, as state law already requires;

3. Florida’s Supreme Court should adopt court rules to end the new debtors’ prison;

4. Counties can save money by eliminating debt-related arrests for failure to appear and resulting incarceration in already crowded jails.

Florida’s increasing reliance on fee revenue coincides with a rising concern about policies that affect massive numbers of Floridians with a criminal conviction. Florida has the third-largest prison population of any state. Nearly 90 percent of the more than 100,000 people currently in Florida’s state prisons will be released, and, if past trends persist, nearly one-third will be re-incarcerated for a new crime.

The report also offers longer-term reforms, such as reconsidering legal financial obligations in felony cases.

For more information, contact Susan Lehman at 212-998-6318 or susan.lehman@nyu.edu .

According to a 3/7/10 article by Michael Lollar appearing in The Commercial Appeal, Tennessee’s DOC claims recidivism rates of 51 percent when studied for a three-year period; this compares to national studies that average 65 percent over the same time period. But the 20-year study by Correctional Counseling, Inc., a Memphis-based behavioral therapy firm, followed 1,381 inmates that first did time between 1987 and 1991. Their psychologists found that the recidivism rate numbers keep going up over time, and they’re higher because most other studies don’t count incarcerations after the three-year basis, nor do they count subsequent incarcerations that take place in other states, nor arrests followed by probation or parole in any locale.,

According to the 20-year study, which was designed to compare inmates that received “moral reconation therapy” versus inmates that received only standard counseling, 94 percent of the latter group had been rearrested and 82 percent of them wound up behind bars. For those getting the new therapy, 81 percent had been rearrested and 61 percent were re-incarcerated.

For full story, click here.

There’s a right way and many wrong ways to solve most problems, including the problem of how to reduce high offender recidivism rates. Scholarly researchers have identified the approaches that do work, and revealed those that don’t.-ED

“What works” is not a program or an intervention, but a body of knowledge based on over thirty years of research that has been conducted by numerous scholars in North America and Europe. Also referred to as evidence-based practice, the “what works” movement demonstrates empirically that theoretically sound, well-designed programs that meet certain conditions can appreciable reduce recidivism rates for offenders. Through the review and analysis of hundreds of studies, researchers have identified a set of principles that should guide correctional programs.

Target high-risk offenders for greater success
The first is the risk principle, or the “who” to target: those offenders who pose the higher risk of continued criminal conduct. This principle states that our most intensive correctional treatment and intervention programs should be reserved for higher-risk offenders. Risk in this context refers to those offenders with a higher probability of recidivating.

Why waste our programs on offenders who do not need them? This is a waste of resources, and more importantly, research has clearly demonstrated that when we place lower-risk offenders in our more structured programs, we often increase their failure rates (and thus reduce the overall effectiveness of the program). There are several reasons this occurs. First, placing low-risk offenders together with higher-risk offenders only serves to increase the chances of failure for the low risk.

For example, let’s say that your teenage son or daughter did not use drugs, but got into some trouble with the law. Would you want them in a program or group with heavy drug users? Of course you wouldn’t, since it is more likely that the higher-risk youth would influence your child more than the other way around.

Second, placing low-risk offenders in these programs also tends to disrupt their prosocial networks; in other words, the very attributes that make them low risk become interrupted, attributes such as school, employment, family, and so forth. Remember, if they do not have these attributes, it is unlikely they are low risk to begin with. The risk principle can best be seen from a 2002 study of offenders in Ohio who were placed in a halfway house or community-based correctional facility (CBCF). The study found that the recidivism rate for higher-risk offenders who were placed was reduced, while the recidivism rates for the low-risk offenders that were placed in the programs actually increased. We recently replicated this study with over 20,000 offenders, and once again saw the same effect; overall there was a 6 percent increase in recidivism rates for low-risk offenders and a 10 percent reduction for high risk.

Target factors that correlate with crime
The second principle is referred to as the need principle, or the “what” to target: criminogenic factors that are highly correlated with criminal conduct. The need principle states that programs should target crime-producing needs, such as antisocial attitudes, values, and beliefs, antisocial peer associations, substance abuse, lack of problem-solving and self-control skills, as well as other factors that are highly correlated with criminal conduct. Researchers such as Andrews, Bonta, Gendreau and others have identified a major set of risk factors:

1. Antisocial/procriminal attitudes, values, beliefs and cognitive emotional states
2. Procriminal associates and isolation from anticriminal others
3. Temperamental and antisocial personality patterns conducive to criminal activity including:

o Weak socialization
o Impulsivity
o Adventurous
o Restless/aggressiveness
o Egocentrism
o A taste for risk
o Weak problem-solving/self-regulation and coping skills

4. A history of antisocial behavior
5. Familial factors that include criminality and psychological problems in the family including:

o Low levels of affection, caring and cohesiveness
o Poor parental supervision and discipline practices
o Outright neglect and abuse

6. Low levels of personal, educational, vocational or financial achievement
7. Low levels of involvement in prosocial leisure activities
8. Substance abuse

Although these eight domains constitute the major set, the first four are considered the most important and are often referred to as the “big four”. If you successful target and change these four, the others often follow.

When recidivism treatment fails, why?
A recent study conducted by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections confirms the importance of these risk factors. This study examined men and women on parole, and looked at who failed and who succeeded: Failures were:

• More likely to hang around with individuals with criminal backgrounds
• Less likely to live with a spouse
• Less likely to be in a stable supportive relationship
• Less likely to identify someone in their life who served in a mentoring capacity
• Less likely to have job stability
• Less likely to be satisfied with employment
• Less likely to take low-end jobs, and work up
• More likely to have negative attitudes toward employment and unrealistic job expectations
• Less likely to have a bank account
• More likely to report that they were “barely making it”
• More likely to report use of alcohol or drugs while on parole
• Had unrealistic expectations about what life would be like outside of prison
• Had poor problem-solving or coping skills
• Did not anticipate long-term consequences of behavior
• Failed to utilize resources to help themselves
• Acted impulsively to immediate situations
• Felt they were not in control
• More likely to maintain antisocial attitudes
• Viewed violations as an acceptable option to situation
• Maintained general lack of empathy
• Shifted blame or denied responsibility

Interestingly, successes and failures did not differ in difficulty for finding a place to live after release, and were equally likely to report eventually obtaining a job. The most important factors centered around attitudes, whether they be about work, or behavior, social support systems, peers, and temperament and skill deficiencies.

Which recidivism programs don’t work well
It is important to remember that programs need to ensure that the vast majority of their interventions are focused on these factors. Non-criminogenic factors such as self-esteem, physical conditioning, understanding one’s culture or history, and creative abilities will not have much effect on recidivism rates.

An example of a program that tends to target non-criminogenic factors can be seen in offender-targeted military-style boot camps. These programs tend to focus on non-criminogenic factors, such as drill and ceremony, physical conditioning, discipline, self-esteem, and bonding offenders together. Because they tend to focus on non-crime producing needs, boot camps have little impact on future criminal behavior according to most studies. It is also important to remember that high-risk offenders have multiple risk factors, which is why programs that tend to be one-dimensional are much less effective than programs that target multiple risk factors.

Effective treatments are behavioral in nature
The third principle is the treatment principle, or the “how:” the ways in which correctional programs should target risk and need factors. This principle states that the most effective treatments are behavioral in nature. Behavioral programs have several attributes. First, they are centered on the present circumstances and risk factors that are responsible for the offender’s behavior. Hanging around with the wrong people, not going to work or school, using drugs or alcohol to excess, are examples of current risk factors, whereas focusing on the past is not very productive, mainly because one cannot change the past.

Second, behavioral programs are action oriented rather than talk oriented. In other words, offenders do something about their difficulties rather than just talk about them. These approaches are used to teach offenders new, prosocial skills to replace the antisocial ones (e.g. stealing, cheating, lying, etc.) through modeling, practice, and reinforcement.

An example of behavioral programs would be structured social learning programs where new skills are taught, and behaviors and attitudes are consistently reinforced. Other examples would include cognitive behavioral programs that target attitudes, values, peers, substance abuse and anger, etc., and family-based interventions that train family on appropriate behavioral techniques.

Interventions based on these approaches are very structured, and emphasize the importance of modeling and behavioral rehearsal techniques that engender self-efficacy, challenge of cognitive distortions, and assist offenders in developing good problem-solving and self-control skills. These strategies have been demonstrated to be effective in reducing recidivism.

Non-behavioral treatments don’t work
Non-behavioral interventions that are often ineffectively used in programs would include drug and alcohol education, fear tactics and other emotional appeals, talk therapy, non-directive client-centered approaches, having them read books, shaming them, lectures, milieu therapy, and self-help. Likewise, programs (regardless of the model) that cannot maintain fidelity (i.e. constant staff turnover), or are vague and unstructured (i.e. counseling for everyone) are also ineffective. There is little empirical evidence that these approaches will lead to long-term reductions in recidivism.

Frosting the cake
Other supplemental considerations that do indeed enhance correctional program effectiveness include targeting responsivity factors, such as a lack of motivation or other barriers that can influence someone’s participation in a program. Making sure that you have well-trained and interpersonally sensitive staff, providing close monitoring of offenders whereabouts and associates, assisting with other needs that the offender might have, ensuring the program is delivered as designed through quality assurance processes, and providing structured aftercare.

If we put it all together we have the “who, what and how” of correctional intervention to cut recidivism rates, also known as “what works.”

Dr. Latessa has published over 110 works in the area of criminal justice, corrections and juvenile justice. He is co-author of seven books, including “Corrections in the Community” and “Corrections in America.” Professor Latessa has directed over 100 funded research projects, including studies of day reporting centers, juvenile justice programs, drug courts, intensive supervision programs, halfway houses and drug programs. He and his staff have also assessed over 550 correctional programs throughout the United States, and he has provided assistance and workshops in over forty states.

Best known in the sports world as a former four-time All-Pro football player with the NFL’s Cleveland Browns, Bill Glass has continued to gain worldwide recognition over the decades as Founder and leader of the Champions for Life prison ministry. He is author of 11 books, including “Crime: Our Second Vietnam.” Today, Bill Glass is a highly sought-after speaker and motivator, with a packed schedule around the nation and overseas. The-Slammer is honored to have him as a guest commentator.

That’s right, “We’re losing.” I think that every time I walk into a prison. I’ve probably been in more prisons than anyone, about 400 per year. We’re losing. That thought haunts me. It’s one of the reasons I’ve spent the last 39 years of my life leading the Weekend of Champions. It’s why I’ve led our team into more than 3,000 prison units, often going back to the same prison where I’ve talked to thousands of inmates, officers and prison officials. What I see in all their faces is this: despair. What I hear in their voices is this: exhaustion.

What I know in my heart is this: we’re losing. Yes, this country is losing the war on crime. The police know it. The prison officials know it. The inmates know it. And recently, with the widespread problems of prison overcrowding and broken budgets, even the politicians know it. It doesn’t matter how many jails are built. It doesn’t matter how many criminals are put behind bars. It doesn’t matter how much money is spent on state-run rehabilitation, re-entry and other social service programs.

What does matter to inmates is this: someone that cares about them.

Fathers Not Doing the Job They Must
We conducted a Weekend of Champions in a juvenile prison in San Saba, Texas, for offenders ages 10 to 15. I asked the warden, “How many of these kids had visits from their fathers in the past year?” “One,” he said. I knew it would be bad, but one? Only one in a year? “For fifteen minutes,” the warden said. “One visit.” I said, “You’ve got three hundred kids in here.” “One visit,” he repeated. The truth is, the father got in an argument with his son and stomped out mad after fifteen minutes. Lots of mothers, grandmothers, and aunts came, but only one father, for only fifteen minutes.

I was at Mississippi’s Parchman Prison, which housed 44 men on death row. I walked up and down, from cell-to-cell. I asked all 44 men about their fathers. Some just shrugged, refusing to talk about it. Others raged. It was like taking a needle to a boil. Of the 44 men on death row, not one had a good thing to say about his father. Some were interested in hearing about the Lord, some were not. Some were white, some black. Most came from poor families, but not all of them.

As a group, they had little in common other than crimes. And, yes, their hatred of their fathers. They all said they loved their mothers and/or their grandmothers. You could even press them about it, and they might admit their mothers were prostitutes or did drugs. But they forgave their mothers. Why? Because their mothers made them feel loved. The mothers blessed them; their fathers should have.

80 percent of the children of inmates will go to prison also. The curse is passed down. Guess what happens? No one comes, not the family, not the friends, not the gang. Very few prisoners receive visits, and that’s probably part of the reason they’re in jail in the first place. No one cared about them.

Being Disowned Is a Recipe for Disaster
One prisoner told me, “You should have been here last week. I had this great visit.” I asked him about it, and he talked about his wife bringing along their kids. They had a picnic lunch. The sun was bright and warm, but not hot. The sky was blue. The ham sandwiches were great. The ice tea hit the right spot. The kids were happy, and they all played together. Frankly, all the detail was more than I wanted to hear.

But his friend asked me, “Was he telling you about the visit from his wife?” I said he was. “He hasn’t had a visit in ten years,” said the fellow inmate. I was stunned, because the story was told to me in such vivid detail. “Why would he lie to me like that?” I asked. “Well, to him, it’s real,” said the inmate. “When he doesn’t have a visit, he just goes to that fantasy and lives there for awhile.”

This is so common, being basically disowned by loved ones, for men and women sitting in jail, knowing that they have no one waiting for them when they are released. When they are released, if they don’t have a family or friend waiting to take them home, the system hands them $50, or whatever is in their account, and a bus ticket to their home town or the place of their arrest. Not far from some of those prisons are the worst bars. The guys take that $50 (some states a little more), head straight for the bar, and drink it up. It’s a recipe for disaster.

They either get in a fight, or end up committing a robbery for more money. It’s all too common for a guy to be released on a Friday, and end up right back in the same prison by Monday. That’s why these guys need some sort of family structure. But research has shown only ten percent of all inmates receive regular visits. Most inmates are lucky to receive one visit a year.

Criminals think differently than we do. If we don’t understand this, then we have no chance of ever helping them. This is not to excuse their behavior. It’s just a fact. Most of us grew up with a sense of order. Dad had a job. Mom may have worked too, but she also took care of the kids. There was Little League, music lessons and soccer. There was church on Sundays. There was a family. Most of these guys have no families, at least not families as we know them. “Fear seemed to walk with me every day of my life,” said Ron. He was a black inmate who grew up in the inner city. You’ve heard the story before. No father was around. Mother had a drug problem. Grandmother was too old to cope with the young kids. “In my neighborhood, your only hope was to join a gang,” Ron said. “Outside the gang, you just weren’t gonna live.“

With Commitment, Lives Can Be Changed, One Person at a Time
The history of Christianity is filled with people who’ve committed the most heinous crimes. Chapter 11 of Hebrews is sort of a roll call of saints, a spiritual hall of fame! If you read closely, four women are mentioned. Three were prostitutes. One had an incestuous relationship. Check out your Bible. Moses was a murderer. Paul was a multi-murderer, killing Christians in cold blood. David had an adulterous affair, and arranged for the murder of his mistress’s husband. Almost any crime ever committed was committed by one of the people we now consider saints. This is not to say that sin is good, or that we must condone it. It’s to point out the redeeming power of Jesus Christ. The early church reached out to the pagan world in places such as Corinth. God wants us to do the same. He orders us to go into this very, very corrupt society and change it, even if it means doing it one person at a time in the prisons.

I remember a Weekend of Champions we had at Angola Prison in Louisiana. It was 105 degrees. I went into lockdown, and I saw our Teammates (volunteer counselors) squatting like baseball catchers in front of the cells. They were talking to the inmates through the holes that were used to pass the trays of food into the cells from the hallway. That was the only way to see the inmate from the outside. A big steel door covered the rest of the cell.

There were two hundred men in that lockdown unit. It wasn’t just hot, it was sweltering. Your shirt stuck to your back. Sweat rolled down into your eyes. The heat and humidity just sucked your energy, turning you into a human dishrag. Our Teammates witnessed to every one of those two hundred inmates. In another lockdown unit, the only way to see the prisoners, eye-to-eye, was to lie on your belly and talk to them under the door. When I first saw our Teammates doing this, I thought they had lost their minds. But this was the only way for them to make eye contact, the only way to truly hear the prisoners. You had prisoners on their bellies on one side of the door, our Teammates on the other. One officer walked in and screamed, “You can’t lie on the floor in my unit.” “But officer, I’ve been doing it all morning, and it works really well,” our counselor explained. “Well, you just can’t do it,” the officer said. “But it’s the only way we can see and hear each other,” the counselor said. “Is it breaking a rule to lie on the floor?” “Well…not really,” admitted the officer. And our men were allowed to continue to witness while flat on their bellies.

Our Christian Motorcyclists Association biker Teamates look like tough guys. They ride big, noisy, smoke-belching bikes right into the prison yards. Yet, they are sincere about their mission, caring enough to give up their weekends to go to prison and talk to inmates. That makes a far bigger impression on these men than some guy in a suit-and-tie with a huge Bible sitting in the chapel.

Some of our biker guys rode their bikes all the way to Alaska for a Weekend of Champions. A year later, I was back in Alaska and some of the inmates were still talking about the bikers who rode all the way from Alabama to Alaska, a 9,000-mile round trip. That was commitment, and their red, raw, wind-burned faces proved it. Don’t ever think that the inmates weren’t impressed, and many of them had been changed from within.

When Hearts Are Changed, Lives Will Change
We are all infected with the attitudes of our environment. Many problems are systemic, and the whole system is polluted. It’s not just the criminal justice system; it is a problem of the entire culture, starting from earliest childhood. In 1972, when we started, and even more so today, prisoners and our entire culture need a whole new way of life. The prison sickness is only slightly more extreme than the virus in the “outside” world. It’s like an iceberg showing an ugly tip with the huge hidden problems of the total society being even more dangerous. Crime grows out of the total society.

In order to have the most effective impact, one must seek to change the hearts of criminals. This can best be accomplished in prison. It is the only place you can meet with them in large groups. Once they are released, they scatter all over the world. While incarcerated, they are hurting, open, and prone to hear, respond and grow spiritually. Eighty percent of all crime is committed by ex-cons. If they find a new way of life while in prison, and continue to grow spiritually when they get out, they don’t become repeat offenders. I doubt I can convince everyone of the reliability of my solutions to crime, but there is a value in discussing solutions. There is an even greater value in taking action, and that’s why we conduct Weekends of Champions! Instead of the national average recidivism rate of 70%, our experience indicates that under 10% is common among those inmates that incorporate our message into their lives.

The Weekend of Champions is designed to turn the evil of prison to the good, and to the redirection of thousands of lives. Our approach is dramatic. Bring in ten to twenty professional athletes, ex-cons, and other entertainers to appear on the platform or stage, along with two hundred to a thousand Teammates visiting all prisons within a fifty-mile radius. Each prison will have from fifty to seventy-five Teammates with free run of the “joint.”

A lot of people ask why we go to all the trouble and expense of putting on such a spectacular program for a “bunch of losers.” Simple, first we want a crowd. The inmates don’t have to come; it’s not compulsory. An athletic field or gym is usually better than the chapel because the majority avoid the prison church, much like many people do in the outside world. Second, this dramatic approach can change a prison’s entire social structure. A con’s lifestyle is always characterized by daily repetition of sleep, meals, yard, and counts. It’s Interrupted only by work (not usually available), school (not usually available), chapel (only about five to ten percent usually attend), visits (less than ten percent get visits), mail (few inmates get much), commissary (money is scarce), and medicine calls (they usually have to go line up).

Their normal dull schedule is changed for this one weekend. Routine work and recreation programs, even “The Count” and meal times are often altered. Our Teammates are allowed to eat with the cons, and visit them in their cells. In short, the sameness of their daily life is altered. Thirdly, I sincerely don’t believe they are losers. I know that many of them, who think they are losers, can be changed. As long as there is life, there is hope. Rebirth is still a possibility. Losing isn’t necessarily a permanent condition.

It Takes a Special Approach for Kids
An important new part of our ministry, which we call Ring of Champions, is a program where teens who are first-time offenders come to an all-day event led by our platform guests, usually great sports stars. The secret to its success is its mentoring program. All of us, at one time or another, have had a little help from someone that helped us be a better man, woman, husband, wife, father, mother or employee. Someone, who by his or her gift of time or insight, helped mold us into a better person. Someone who saw the potential in us at a time when we might not have been fully aware of it.

For the past several years, Ring of Champions has been providing such mentors to Youth at Risk Juveniles. The national average for juveniles returning to the system after their first arrest is 70%. Of the kids that Ring of Champions has mentored and lead to Faith in Christ, fewer than 8% have returned to the system. This dramatic impact on non-returning youth has saved taxpayers millions of dollars to date. I believe that the proven formula for Ring of Champions’ success with juveniles can even be tailored to fit into the adult prison system, with a similar positive impact on recidivism. Perhaps not too far in the future it will happen.

For more information about Champions for Life, go to: http://www.billglasscfl.org

On November 19, 2009, Professor DiNitto had the opportunity to testify before a hearing of the United States Sentencing Commission, marking the 25th anniversary of the passage of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. She highlights her major points from that appearance in the following commentary.- ED.

Drug abuse and dependence pose serious problems for many Americans. As far back as the Harrison Act of 1914, U.S. laws have conflated drug addiction and crime, creating an underclass of people who are considered criminals because they have a drug addiction. To return drug addiction to a public health concern so that it can be treated appropriately, four courses of action are needed:

• Treat offenders using evidence-based practices;
• Divert individuals with drug problems from prison to treatment whenever possible;
• End discrimination against drug offenders;
• Increase community-based treatment and social welfare services.

Treat Drug Offenders in Prison and Upon Release
In 2004, 46% of those in federal prison for drug possession and 59% for drug trafficking had used an illicit drug in the month before their offense.¹ Of all federal prisoners, 64% were regular drug users, and 45% met criteria for drug abuse or dependence (most met criteria for dependence). In comparison, less than 3 percent of the U.S. population meets drug abuse or dependence criteria.² Treating drug problems should be a federal justice system priority because:

• The 75% of federal inmates who meet drug abuse or dependence criteria have a prior criminal history, compared to 57% of other federal inmates;¹
• Offenders who do not receive appropriate treatment are more likely to reoffend.³

Apparently, many federal prisoners have not received the type and intensity of treatment services they need. Of those who met abuse or dependence criteria, 49% participated in some type of drug program.¹ About one-third participated in drug-abuse education and one-fifth in self-help or peer counseling. Only 17% received treatment from a professional. About half of all offenders in the Nation’s jails, prisons, and probation programs have drug problems, but “less than 10 percent of adults with substance abuse problems can receive treatment on a given day.”⁴

Services are also critical as offenders return to the community upon release. In many ways, addiction can be compared to Type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and asthma.⁵ All are chronic illnesses, and relapse (nonadherence to treatment and spells of illness) is not uncommon. The Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse stresses that addiction often requires “multiple treatment episodes,” so that individuals can “accumulate the sequential gains that ultimately result in long-term, stable control over their condition.”⁶

Divert People with Drug Problems from the Criminal Justice System
If drug dependence has genetic, psychological, and environmental origins, and is not by itself a moral failing or crime, then policies that encourage imprisoning so many people who have drug problems, and imprisoning them for long periods of time, should be changed. Given that nearly half (47%) of Americans have used an illicit drug at some point in their lifetime,² drug use is more a normative, rather than a deviant experience.

In 2000, 57% of federal inmates were incarcerated for a drug offense; only 10% of all federal inmates were incarcerated for a violent offense.⁷ In 2007, the most serious crime of more than half (53%) of federal inmates continued to be drug offenses.⁸ The U.S. Sentencing Commission reports that only a very small percentage of U.S. citizens convicted of federal drug crimes was eligible for alternative sentencing, and only two-thirds of those eligible received an alternative sentence.⁹ More could be done to divert offenders to community-based treatment rather than prison. Studies show that “every $1 invested in addiction treatment programs yields a return of between $4 and $7 in reduced drug-related crime, criminal justice costs, and theft.”¹⁰ The returns are even greater when healthcare savings, increased workplace productivity, and other factors are added.

End Discrimination Against Drug Offenders and Others with Drug Problems
People convicted of drug crimes are punished by the criminal justice system, and are often punished again. The welfare reform legislation of 1996 bans drug felons from receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and food stamps. States that have not opted out of this ban punish offenders and their children by leaving them with less cash and food assistance. Those working to rehabilitate themselves may need TANF, food stamps, and the associated services (e.g., employment services, childcare) these programs may offer. Drug offenders who are repeatedly singled out for discriminatory treatment may face almost insurmountable barriers to supporting themselves and their children.

The Higher Education Act (HEA) also singles out students convicted of drug crimes. Students with any adult drug possession or sale convictions can be denied federal financial aid for varying lengths of times, including forever, making it more difficult for them to engage in productive activity through a college education.

Other erosions of the social welfare system, such as denying Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income to those with serious alcohol and drug problems also produce negative results. For example, these erosions have been associated with increased substance use and drug crime and reductions in medical care, substance abuse, and mental health treatment.¹¹

Increase Community-based Treatment/Services to Reduce Drug Use and Crime
Accessing adequate treatment for alcohol and drug problems can be difficult. In 2008, 37% of those who said they wanted drug abuse treatment and made an effort to get it, but did not get it, said it was because they had no health insurance or could not afford treatment.² The current system of publicly supported drug treatment is unable to meet the need for services, especially inpatient or residential care that people with the most severe problems may need. As the United States engages in the debate over health care reform, we must insist that everyone has a source of health care that includes high-quality, evidence-based treatment for alcohol, drug, and mental health problems.

In addition to psychosocial services, medications that can be helpful to people with alcohol, drug, and/or mental health problems should be available. A new federal mental health and substance abuse parity law becomes effective in January 2010. Due to exceptions in the law and because millions of Americans have no health insurance at all, many people will still not have ready access to substance abuse treatment. In addition to treatment specifically for drug problems, many ex-offenders need services that address employment, education, family, legal, and other problems.

Another reason many do not get treatment is stigma.² Others admit they are not ready to stop using. Many more do not get treatment because they do not perceive they have a problem or need treatment. The criminal justice system has helped people with drug problems by directing them to treatment, but only one-third of the federal drug control budget has gone to treatment and prevention.¹² Two-thirds has gone to law enforcement and interdiction, though alone, these expenditures do not address drug abuse and dependence. We must do more to help individuals with drug problems obtain education, treatment, and other services they need, and to encourage scientific testing of alternatives to incarceration that can better serve people with drug problems, their families, and their communities.

Diana DiNitto is Cullen Trust Centennial Professor in Alcohol Studies and Education and a Distinguished Teaching Professor at University of Texas at Austin School of Social Work. She began her career working in substance abuse treatment services. The views expressed are strictly her own.

Her full testimony is available at http://www.ussc.gov/AGENDAS/20091119/DiNitto.pdf -ED.

References
1. Mumola, C. J., & Karberg, J. C. (2007, January 19). Drug use and dependence, state and federal prisoners, 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved November 9, 2009, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/dudsfp04.pdf.

2. Office of Applied Studies. (2009). Results from the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National findings. Washington, DC: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Retrieved October 1, 2009, from http://oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k8nsduh/2k8Results.pdf.

3. National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2007). Principles of drug abuse treatment for criminal justice populations: A research-based guide. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health. Retrieved November 9, 2009, from http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/PODAT_CJ/PODAT_CJ.pdf.

4. Whitten, L. (2009). Research addresses needs of criminal justice staff and offenders. NIDA Notes, 22(3), 4-5. Retrieved November 9, 2009, from http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_notes/NNvol22N3/nidaatwork.html.

5. McLellan, A. T., Lewis, D. C., O’Brien, C. P., Kleber, H. D. (2000). Drug dependence, a chronic medical illness: Implications for treatment, insurance, and outcomes evaluation. JAMA, 284(13), 1689-1695.

6. Volkow, N. D. (2009, October). Suiting treatment to the nature of the disease. NIDA Notes, 22(4). Retrieved November 9, 2009, from http://www.drugabuse.gov/NIDA_notes/NNvol22N4/DirRepVol22N4.html.

7. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2007, August 8). Criminal offenders statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved October 17, 2009, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm.

8. West, H. C, & Sabol, W.J. (2009, May 12). Prisoners in 2007. Appendix Table 12. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved November 9, 2009, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/p07.htm.

9. U.S. Sentencing Commission. (2009, January). Alternative sentencing in the federal criminal justice system. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved November 16, 2009, from http://www.ussc.gov/general/20090206_Alternatives.pdf.

10. National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2009). Principles of drug addiction treatment: A research-based guide (2nd ed.). Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health. Retrieved November 9, 2009, from http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/PODAT/PODAT.pdf.

11. For studies on this topic see Contemporary Drug Problems, 30(1/2), 2003.

12. Office of National Drug Control Policy. (2009, May). National drug control strategy. FY 2010 budget summary. Table 1. Federal drug control spending by function. (Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President). Retrieved September 27, 2009, from http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/10budget/index.html

Throughout the history of capital punishment in the United States, innocent people have been wrongfully convicted and executed. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia opined in State v. Marsh that, “the dissent does not discuss a single case — not one — in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit. If such an event had occurred in recent years, we would not have to hunt for it; the innocent’s name would be shouted from the rooftops by the abolition lobby.” However, the context of Scalia’s quote is clearly not in alignment with reality. While the Supreme Court has yet to admit that America has indeed executed innocent people, citizens can no longer rest assured that the criminal justice system and, particularly, capital punishment are fail safe.

There are numerous documented cases that within our borders, authorities have executed factually innocent persons dating as far back as the Salem Witch Trials of 1692. Research of the records(1) from colonial America show that 19 innocent people were hung and one person was horrifically pressed to death. In addition, 4 innocent persons died in prison for certain, while 13 others are believed to have died in prison, but sources conflict on that exact number.

In 1977, Massachusetts’ Governor Michael Dukakis signed a proclamation declaring, “Any stigma and disgrace should be forever removed from the names of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti(2) … we are not here to decide whether these men are guilty or innocent … we are here to say that the high standards of justice, which we in Massachusetts take such pride in, failed Sacco and Vanzetti.” This proclamation excited much controversy over the long-questioned case as to whether the two men were guilty of a 1921 robbery-murder. We may never know whether Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty or innocent, but the handgun alleged to have been used in the Sacco-Vanzetti murder had ballistic tests run as late as 1961, alluding to Sacco’s possible guilt and Vanzetti’s possible innocence.

For professionals working in the field of criminal justice, the number of posthumous exonerations hangs heavy on their minds. A 2004 study by Samuel Gross(3) found four cases of posthumous exonerations between 1989 and 2004. Since Gross’ study, at least one other person has been exonerated after death; Timothy Cole was posthumously exonerated earlier this year by Texas judge Charlie Baird. In my current research into probable innocents that have been executed, I have uncovered at least 74 cases in which wrongful executions have most likely taken place.

Discussions within the media and in criminology conferences have noted that posthumous exoneration numbers appear to be very small in comparison to the whole number of documented executions that have taken place in the United States. Possibly the most prominent reason is the difficulty of gaining access to cases after an inmate has been executed. In most cases, all case files and evidence are destroyed following an execution.

According to the Death Penalty Information Center(4), there were approximately 14,489 documented government executions prior to the 1972 Furman(5) moratorium, and there have been 1,188 additional executions since 1976, when the moratorium was overturned. Focusing in more detail on this post-1976 time period, there have been 139 death row exonerations (Innocence(6), 2009), an estimated 39 innocents executed (Executing(7), 2009), and 5 posthumous exonerations (Gross, 2004; & Ryan(8), 2009). The last year for which total death-row population is available was 2007; as of year-end, the Department of Justice listed 3,220 persons on death row in the United States (Capital(9), 2009). Calculating the ratio percentage for the number of actual exonerations (139), versus the number of actual executions (1188), yields the figure 11.7%. This extrapolation leads to a somewhat blurry statistic that may delineate some measure of the possible mistakes being made in capital cases and executions.

When examining cases of possible wrongful execution, it is necessary to delve deeply into them in order to form a basic understanding of what mistakes were causative. Once found, these identified mistakes form the basis to address related problems in the judicial system. Ultimately, reformers are then better equipped to promote changes that ensure an even better system of American justice.

Current research based on examination of numerous cases has highlighted for me one terrifying aspect of the criminal justice system: the near impossibility to prove innocence after conviction. Many factors attribute to a wrongful conviction: mistaken eyewitness identification, now-debunked forensic science, untruthful snitches and informants, impotent defense attorneys, and overzealous police and prosecutors. But once these factors are discovered and brought up in a court of law after an erroneous conviction, there remains a horrendous maze of insurmountable mountains that advocacy groups and attorneys must traverse before an innocent person can be released from prison.

In the course of my research, I have read many articles dealing with opposing viewpoints on the death penalty. Yet very few of these articles expressed the view that state- and country-sanctioned killing of innocent people is acceptable. Since it has unquestionably been proven that innocent people do indeed die on death row, should Americans continue to support the death penalty?

This research into probable wrongful executions began as an attempt to understand how innocent people can fall through the cracks in the capital punishment process, but it has lead to far more questions than it has answered for the author. For example, why do prosecutors refuse DNA testing for an inmate for whom death is imminent? Why do judges refuse to remand cases where upwards of 90% of the evidence has been recanted, debunked, or otherwise proven faulty? Why do governors, the so-called gatekeepers protecting the so-called fail-safe capital punishment system, allow evidence files from acclaimed experts sit on their desk while a very-probably innocent human is executed by the very state that the governor vowed to honor and protect?

The next turn in this course of reforming the criminal justice system must address the difficulties of righting a wrongful conviction. And, additional system reforms need to be put in place that will assist truly innocent people to escape the machinery of death, rather than pushing them to their untimely end.

About the Author: Our guest commentator, Gretchen Cothron, is a forensic consultant who researches wrongful convictions, and provides information to organizations such as The Innocence Project, as well as to individual attorneys. As a senior at the University of Tampa, majoring in criminology and law & justice, she is currently working on a research fellowship, attempting to create a searchable database of cases of wrongful convictions. She has also given presentations on wrongful convictions to the American Society of Criminology, the Southeastern Criminal Justice Association and the National Collegiate Honors Conference. Miss Cothron can be reached at gretchencothron@gmail.com .

References:
1. Salem Witch Trials:
Sutter, T. Victims of the Salem witch trials of 1962, Salemwitchtrials.com, retrieved on:
10.29.09 from: http://www.salemwitchtrials.com/victims.html
2. Sacco and Vanzetti:
Watson, B. (2007). Sacco and Vanzetti: the men, the murders, and the judgment of
mankind. Viking. P.365, Retrieved 10.8.09 from:
http://books.google.com/books?id=NYXicMbLkrcC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA365#v=onepage&q=&f=false
3. The 2004 study by Samuel Gross
Gross, S., et al. (2004). Exonerations in the United States, 1989-2003. University ofMichigan. Retrieved 10.22.09 from: http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=206150
4. Execution statistics:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions-year
5. What was the Furman moratorium?
Furman v. State of Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) [the case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was cruel and unusual, thus enacting the moratorium until it was overturned by Gregg v. Georgia , 428 U.S. 153 (1976)] Furman: http://www.oyez.org/cases/19701979/1971/1971_69_5003 Gregg: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_74_6257
6. Innocence 2009
Innocence List (2009). Death Penalty Information Center. Retrieved 11.3.09 from: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row
7. Executing 2009
Executing the innocent (2009). Northwestern University School of Law. Retrieved 11.20.09 from http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/issues/deathpenalty/executinginnocent/
8. Gross, 2004 & Ryan, 2009
Gross is listed above.
Ryan. (2009). Timothy Cole exonerated in Texas. Innocence Project of Florida. Retrieved 11.4.09 from: http://floridainnocence.org/content/?p=519
9. Capital, 2009
Capital punishment statistics (2009). U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved 11.3.09 from:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm