Editing Prison reform (section)

==History==
[[File:Prison populations.png|thumb|right|Prison populations of various countries in 2008]]
Prisons have only been used as the primary punishment for criminal acts in the last few centuries. Far more common earlier were various types of [[corporal punishment]], [[public humiliation]], [[Unfree labour|penal bondage]], and [[banishment]] for more severe offenses, as well as [[capital punishment]], all of which occur today.{{citation needed|date=December 2023}}

The concept of incarceration was presented circa 1750 as a more humane form of punishment than the corporal and capital punishment. They were originally designed as a way for criminals to participate in religious self-reflection and self-reform as a form of penance, hence the term penitentiary.<ref>Davis, Angela Y. "Imprisonment and Reform" ''Dimensions of Culture 2: Justice'', edited by Dr. Amanda Solomon, Dr. Megan Strom, and Dr. Emily Johnson, Cognella, 2019, pp. 95-102.</ref>

Prisons contained both felons and debtors—the latter of which were allowed to bring in wives and children. The jailer made his money by charging the inmates for food and drink and legal services and the whole system was rife with corruption.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT21X0081.pdf|title=Beyond The Walls: A Comprehensive Look At The History And Future Of Open Prisons|first=Sanjay|last=Sarraf|date=April 2023|via=International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts Volume 11, Issue 4, page 6 ISSN: 2320-2882|access-date=10 October 2024}}</ref> One reform of the sixteenth century was the establishment of the ''London [[Bridewell]]'' as a [[house of correction]] for women and children. This was the only place any medical services were provided.

===Europe===
====Continental countries====
The first public prison in Europe was ''Le Stinche'' in Florence, constructed in 1297, copied in several other cities. The more modern use grew from the prison [[workhouse]] (known as the [[Rasphuis]]) from 1600 in Holland. The house was normally managed by a married couple, the 'father' and 'mother', usually with a work master and discipline master. The inmates, or [[journeymen]], often spent their time on spinning, weaving and fabricating cloths and their output was measured and those who exceeded the minimum received a small sum of money with which they could buy extras from the indoor father.<ref>{{harvnb|Morris|Rothman|1995|pp=68–72}}</ref>

An exception to the rule of forced labor were those inmates whose families could not look after them and paid for them to be in the workhouse. From the later 17th century private institutions for the insane, called the ''beterhuis'', developed to meet this need.

In Hamburg, a different pattern occurred with the ''spinhaus'' in 1669, to which only infamous criminals were admitted. This was paid by the public treasury and the pattern spread in eighteenth-century Germany. In France the use of [[galley slave|galley servitude]] was most common until galleys were abolished in 1748. After this the condemned were put to work in naval [[arsenal]]s doing heavy work. Confinement originated from the ''hôpitaux généraux'' which were mostly asylums, though in Paris they included many convicts, and persisted up till the [[French Revolution]].

The use of capital punishment and [[judicial torture]] declined during the eighteenth century and imprisonment came to dominate the system, although reform movements started almost immediately. Many countries were committed to the goal as a financially self-sustaining institution and the organization was often subcontracted to entrepreneurs, though this created its own tensions and abuse. By the mid nineteenth century several countries had initiated experiments in allowing the prisoners to choose the trades in which they were to be apprenticed. The growing amount of [[recidivism]] in the latter half of the nineteenth century led a number of [[criminologist]]s to argue that "imprisonment did not, and could not fulfill its original ideal of treatment aimed at reintegrating the offender into the community."<ref>{{harvnb|Morris|Rothman|1995|pp=210}}</ref> Belgium led the way in introducing the [[suspended sentence]] for first-time offenders in 1888, followed by France in 1891 and most other countries in the next few years. [[Parole]] had been introduced on an experimental basis in France in the 1830s, with laws for juveniles introduced in 1850, and Portugal began to use it for adult criminals from 1861. The parole system introduced in France in 1885 made use of a strong private patronage network. Parole was approved throughout Europe at the [[International Prison Congress]] of 1910. As a result of these reforms the prison populations of many European countries halved in the first half of the twentieth century.

Exceptions to this trend included France and Italy between the world wars, when there was a huge increase in the use of imprisonment. The National Socialist state in Germany used it as an important tool to rid itself of its enemies as crime rates rocketed as a consequence of new categories of criminal behavior. Russia, which had only started to reform its penal and judicial system in 1860 by abolishing corporal punishment, continued the use of exile with hard labor as a punishment and this was increased to a new level of brutality under [[Joseph Stalin]], despite early reforms by the [[Bolsheviks]].

Postwar reforms stressed the need for the state to tailor punishment to the individual convicted criminal. In 1965, Sweden enacted a new criminal code emphasizing non-institutional alternatives to punishment including conditional sentences, [[probation]] for first-time offenders and the more extensive use of [[Fine (penalty)|fines]]. The use of probation caused a dramatic decline in the number women serving long-term sentences: in France the number fell from 5,231 in 1946 to 1,121 in 1980. Probation spread to most European countries though the level of surveillance varies. In the Netherlands, religious and philanthropic groups are responsible for much of the probationary care. The Dutch government invests heavily in correctional personnel, having 3,100 for 4,500 prisoners in 1959.<ref>{{harvnb|Morris|Rothman|1995|pp=218–222}}</ref>

However, despite these reforms, numbers in prison started to grow again after the 1960s even in countries committed to non-custodial policies.

====United Kingdom====
=====18th century=====
During the eighteenth century, British justice used a variety of measures to punish criminals, including fines, the pillory and whipping. Transportation to the American colonies was used until 1776. The death penalty could be imposed for many offenses.{{Citation needed|date=March 2019}}

[[John Howard (prison reformer)|John Howard]]'s book,  ''The State of the Prisons'' was published in 1777.<ref>{{citation |title=The State of the Prisons in England and Wales with an account of some foreign prisons|author=John Howard|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4EhNAAAAYAAJ|year=1777}}</ref> He was particularly appalled to discover prisoners who had been acquitted but were still confined because they could not pay the jailer's fees. He proposed that each prisoner should be in a separate cell with separate sections for women felons, men felons, young offenders and debtors. The prison reform charity [[Howard League for Penal Reform]] takes its name from John Howard.

The [[Penitentiary Act 1779]] ([[19 Geo. 3]]. c. 74) which passed following his agitation introduced solitary confinement, religious instruction and a labor regime and proposed two state penitentiaries, one for men and one for women. These were never built due to disagreements in the committee and pressures from wars with France and jails remained a local responsibility. But other measures passed in the next few years provided magistrates with the powers to implement many of these reforms and eventually in 1815 jail fees were abolished.

Quakers such as [[Elizabeth Fry]] continued to publicize the dire state of prisons as did [[Charles Dickens]] in his novels ''[[David Copperfield (novel)|David Copperfield]]'' and ''[[Little Dorrit (novel)|Little Dorrit]]'' about the [[Marshalsea]]. [[Samuel Romilly]] managed to repeal the death penalty for theft in 1806, but repealing it for other similar offences brought in a political element that had previously been absent. The Society for the Improvement of Prison Discipline, founded in 1816, supported both the [[Panopticon]] for the design of prisons and the use of the [[treadwheel]] as a means of hard labor. By 1824, 54 prisons had adopted this means of discipline.<ref>{{harvnb|Morris|Rothman|1995|p=97}}</ref> Robert Peel's [[Gaols Act 1823]] ([[4 Geo. 4]]. c. 64) attempted to impose uniformity in the country but local prisons remained under the control of magistrates until the [[Prison Act 1877]] ([[40 & 41 Vict.]] c. 21).

=====19th century=====
The American [[separate system]] attracted the attention of some reformers and led to the creation of [[Millbank Prison]] in 1816 and [[Pentonville (HM Prison)|Pentonville prison]] in 1842. By now the end of transportation to Australia and the use of hulks was in sight and [[Joshua Jebb]] set an ambitious program of prison building with one large prison opening per year. The main principles were separation and hard labour for serious crimes, using treadwheels and cranks. However, by the 1860s public opinion was calling for harsher measures in reaction to an increase in crime which was perceived to come from the 'flood of criminals' released under the penal servitude system. The reaction from the committee set up under the commissioner of prisons, Colonel [[Edmund Frederick du Cane]], was to increase minimum sentences for many offences with deterrent principles of "hard labour, hard fare, and a hard bed".<ref>{{harvnb|Fox|1952|p=46}}</ref> In 1877 he encouraged [[Disraeli]]'s government to remove all prisons from local government and held a firm grip on the prison system till his forced retirement in 1895. He also established a tradition of secrecy which lasted till the 1970s so that even magistrates and investigators were unable to see the insides of prisons.<ref>{{harvnb|Morris|Rothman|1995|p=153}}</ref> By the 1890s the prison population was over 20,000.

======1877–1914======
The British penal system underwent a transition from harsh punishment to reform, education, and training for post-prison life. The reforms were controversial and contested. In 1877–1914 era a series of major legislative reforms enabled significant improvement in the penal system. In 1877, the previously localized prisons were nationalized in the Home Office under a Prison Commission. The [[Prison Act 1898]] ([[61 & 62 Vict.]] c. 41) enabled the Home Secretary to and multiple reforms on his own initiative, without going through the politicized process of Parliament. The [[Probation of Offenders Act 1907]] ([[7 Edw. 7]]. c. 17) introduced a new probation system that drastically cut down the prison population while providing a mechanism for transition back to normal life. The [[Criminal Justice Administration Act 1914]] ([[4 & 5 Geo. 5]]. c. 58) required courts to allow a reasonable time before imprisonment was ordered for people who did not pay their fines. Previously tens of thousands of prisoners had been sentenced solely for that reason. The Borstal system after 1908 was organized to reclaim young offenders, and the [[Children Act 1908]] ([[8 Edw. 7]]. c. 67) prohibited imprisonment under age 14, and strictly limited that of ages 14 to 16. The principal reformer was Sir [[Evelyn Ruggles-Brise]]. the chair of the Prison Commission.<ref>R. C. K. Ensor. ‘’ England 1870-1914’’ (1937) pp 520-21.</ref><ref>J.W. Fox, ‘’The Modern English Prison ‘’ (1934).</ref>

======Winston Churchill======
Major reforms were championed by The Liberal Party government in 1906–1914. The key player was [[Winston Churchill in politics, 1900–1939|Winston Churchill]] when he was the Liberal [[Home Secretary]], 1910–11.<ref>Jamie Bennett,  "The Man, the Machine and the Myths: Reconsidering Winston Churchill’s Prison Reforms." in Helen Johnston, ed., ''Punishment and Control in Historical Perspective'' (2008) pp. 95-114. [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230583443_6 online] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180601232527/https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057%2F9780230583443_6 |date=2018-06-01 }}</ref> He first achieved fame as a prisoner in the Boer war in 1899.  He escaped after 28 days and the media, and his own book, made him a national hero overnight.<ref>{{cite book |author=Candice Millard |authorlink= |title=Hero of the Empire: The Boer War, a Daring Escape, and the Making of Winston Churchill | others= <!--Переклад з англійської: ім'я перекладача--> |url= |accessdate= |year=2016 |publisher= Random House Large Print |location=London |isbn= 9780804194891 |page= 563 |series= |volume= |language=en}}</ref>  He later wrote, "I certainly hated my captivity more than I have ever hated any other in my whole life... Looking back on those days I've always felt the keenest pity for prisoners and captives."<ref>{{cite book|author=Paul Addison|title=Churchill: The Unexpected Hero|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Fa2h24pcwAUC&pg=PT59|year=2005|page=51|publisher=OUP Oxford |isbn=9780191608575|access-date=2019-05-19|archive-date=2023-02-05|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230205075857/https://books.google.com/books?id=Fa2h24pcwAUC&pg=PT59|url-status=live}}</ref> As Home Secretary he was in charge of the nation's penal system. Biographer [[Paul Addison]] says. "More than any other Home Secretary of the 20th century, Churchill was the prisoner's friend. He arrived at the Home Office with the firm conviction that the penal system was excessively harsh." He worked to reduce the number sent to prison in the first place, shorten their terms, and make life in prison more tolerable, and rehabilitation more likely.<ref>Addison, p. 51.</ref> His reforms were not politically popular, but they had a major long-term impact on the British penal system.<ref>Edward Moritz, Jr., "Winston Churchill - Prison Reformer," ''The Historian'' 20#4 (1958), pp. 428-440 {{JSTOR|24437567}}</ref><ref>Victor Bailey,  "Churchill As Home-Secretary--Prison Reform." ''History Today'' vol 35 (March 1985): 10-13.</ref>

======Borstal system======
During 1894–95, [[Herbert Gladstone]]'s Committee on Prisons showed that criminal propensity peaked from the mid-teens to the mid-twenties. He took the view that central government should break the cycle of offending and imprisonment by establishing a new type of reformatory, that was called ''[[Borstal]]'' after the village in [[Kent]] which housed the first one. The movement reached its peak after the first world war when [[Alexander Paterson (penologist)|Alexander Paterson]] became commissioner, delegating authority and encouraging personal responsibility in the fashion of the [[Public school (UK)|English Public school]]: cellblocks were designated as 'houses' by name and had a ''[[housemaster]]''. Cross-country walks were encouraged, and no one ran away. Prison populations remained at a low level until after the second world war when Paterson died and the movement was unable to update itself.<ref>{{harvnb|Morris|Rothman|1995|pp=157–161}}</ref>  Some aspects of Borstal found their way into the main prison system, including [[open prison]]s and housemasters, renamed ''assistant governors'' and many Borstal-trained prison officers used their experience in the wider service. But in general the prison system in the twentieth century remained in Victorian buildings which steadily became more and more overcrowded with inevitable results.

===United States===
{{Essay-like|section|date=September 2022}}
In colonial America, punishments were severe. The Massachusetts assembly in 1736 ordered that a thief, on first conviction, be fined or whipped. The second time he was to pay [[treble damages]], sit for an hour upon the gallows platform with a noose around his neck and then be carted to the whipping post for thirty stripes. For the third offense he was to be hanged.<ref>{{harvnb|Morris|Rothman|1995|p=113}}</ref> But the implementation was haphazard as there was no effective police system and judges would not convict if they believed the punishment was excessive. The local jails mainly held men awaiting trial or punishment and those in debt.

In the aftermath of independence most states amended their criminal punishment statutes. Pennsylvania eliminated the death penalty for robbery and burglary in 1786, and in 1794 retained it only for first degree murder. Other states followed and in all cases the answer to what alternative penalties should be imposed was incarceration. Pennsylvania turned its old jail at Walnut Street into a state prison. New York built Newgate state prison in Greenwich Village and other states followed. But by 1820 faith in the efficacy of legal reform had declined as statutory changes had no discernible effect on the level of crime and the prisons, where prisoners shared large rooms and booty including alcohol, had become riotous and prone to escapes.

In response, New York developed the [[Auburn system]] in which prisoners were confined in separate cells and prohibited from talking when eating and working together, implementing it at [[Auburn State Prison]] and [[Sing Sing]] at [[Ossining (town), New York|Ossining]]. The aim of this was [[Rehabilitation (penology)|rehabilitative]]: the reformers talked about the penitentiary serving as a model for the family and the school and almost all the states adopted the plan (though Pennsylvania went even further in separating prisoners). The system's fame spread and visitors to the U.S. to see the prisons included [[de Tocqueville]], who wrote ''[[Democracy in America]]'' as a result of his visit.

By the 1860s prison overcrowding became an issue, in part because of the long sentences given for violent crimes and despite harsh treatment of prisoners. An increasing proportion of prisoners were new immigrants. As a result of a tour of prisons in 18 states, [[Enoch Wines]] and [[Theodore William Dwight|Theodore Dwight]] produced a monumental report describing the flaws in the existing system and proposing remedies.<ref>
{{citation |title=Report on the Prisons and Reformatories of the United States and Canada|author1=Enoch Wines|author2=Theodore Dwight|year=1867|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0-mgzeGoepoC}}
</ref> Their critical finding was that not one of the state prisons in the United States was seeking the reformation of its inmates as a primary goal.<ref>{{harvnb|Morris|Rothman|1995|p=172}}</ref> They set out an agenda for reform which was endorsed by a ''National Congress'' in [[Cincinnati]] in 1870. These ideas were put into practice in the [[Elmira Reformatory]] in New York in 1876 run by [[Zebulon Brockway]]. At the core of the design was an educational program which included general subjects and vocational training for the less capable. Instead of fixed sentences, prisoners who did well could be released early.

But by the 1890s, Elmira had twice as many inmates as it was designed for and they were not only the first offenders between 16 and 31 for which the program was intended. Although it had a number of imitators in different states, it did little to halt the deterioration of the country's prisons which carried on a dreary life of their own. In the southern states, in which blacks made up more than 75% of the inmates, there was ruthless exploitation in which the states leased prisoners as chain gangs to entrepreneurs who treated them worse than slaves. By the 1920s drug use in prisons was also becoming a problem.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, psychiatric interpretations of social deviance were gaining a central role in criminology and policy making. By 1926, 67 prisons employed psychiatrists and 45 had psychologists. The language of medicine was applied in an attempt to "cure" offenders of their criminality. In fact, little was known about the causes of their behaviour and prescriptions were not much different from the earlier reform methods.<ref name="morris178">{{harvnb|Morris|Rothman|1995|p=178}}</ref> A system of probation was introduced, but often used simply as an alternative to suspended sentences, and the probation officers appointed had little training, and their caseloads numbered several hundred making assistance or surveillance practically impossible. At the same time they could revoke the probation status without going through another trial or other proper process.<ref>{{harvnb|Morris|Rothman|1995|p=182}}</ref>

In 1913, [[Thomas Mott Osborne]] became chairman of a commission for the reform of the New York prison system and introduced a [[Mutual Welfare League]] at Auburn with a committee of 49 prisoners appointed by secret ballot from the 1400 inmates. He also removed the striped dress uniform at Sing Sing and introduced recreation and movies. Osborne published in 1916 the book ''[[Society and Prisons: Some Suggestions for a New Penology]]'', which influenced the discussion of prison reform and contributed to a change in societal perceptions of incarcerated individuals.<ref name=":2">{{Cite book |last=Tannenbaum |first=Frank |title=Osborne of Sing Sing |publisher=[[University of North Carolina Press]] |year=1933 |location=Chapel Hill |pages=103}}</ref><ref name=":4">{{Cite book |last=McKelvey |first=Blake |title=American prisons: A history of good intentions |publisher=Patterson Smith |year=1977 |location=Montclair, NJ |pages=262–265}}</ref> Progressive reform resulted in the "Big House" by the late twenties – prisons averaging 2,500 men with professional management designed to eliminate the abusive forms of corporal punishment and prison labor prevailing at the time.

The American prison system was shaken by a series of riots in the early 1950s triggered by deficiencies of prison facilities, lack of hygiene or medical care, poor food quality, and guard brutality. In the next decade all these demands were recognized as rights by the courts.<ref name="morris178"/> In 1954, the American Prison Association changed its name to the [[American Correctional Association]] and the rehabilitative emphasis was formalized in the 1955 United Nations [[Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners]].

Since the 1960s the prison population in the US has risen steadily, even during periods where the crime rate has fallen. This is partly due to profound changes in sentencing practices due to a denunciation of lenient policies in the late sixties and early seventies and assertions that rehabilitative purposes do not work. As a consequence sentencing commissions started to establish minimum as well as maximum [[sentencing guidelines]], which have reduced the discretion of parole authorities and also reduced parole supervision of released prisoners.  Another factor that contributed to the increase of incarcerations was the Reagan administration's "War On Drugs" in the 1980s. This War increased money spent on lowering the number of illegal drugs in the United States. As a result, drug arrests increased and prisons became increasingly more crowded.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/10/war-on-drugs-prisons-infographic_n_4914884.html|title=Just How Much The War On Drugs Impacts Our Overcrowded Prisons, In One Chart|first=Kathleen|last=Miles|date=10 March 2014|via=Huff Post|access-date=5 May 2019|archive-date=28 April 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180428111844/https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/10/war-on-drugs-prisons-infographic_n_4914884.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The rising prison population was made up disproportionately of African American with 90% of those sentenced to prison for drug offense in Illinois in 2002.<ref>Alexander, Michelle. "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color Blindness." ''Dimensions of Culture 2: Justice, Edited by Dr. Amanda Solomon, Dr. Megan Strom, and Dr. Emily Johnston, Cognella, 2019, pp. 89-94.''</ref> By 2010, the United States had more prisoners than any other country and a greater percentage of its population was in prison than in any other country in the world. "Mass incarceration" became a serious social and economic problem, as each of the 2.3 million American prisoners costs an average of about $25,000 per year. Recidivism remained high, and useful programs were often cut during the recession of 2009–2010. In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court in ''[[Brown v. Plata]]'' upheld the release of thousands of California prisoners due to California's inability to provide constitutionally mandated levels of healthcare.

In 2015, a bipartisan effort was launched by [[Koch family foundations]], the [[ACLU]], the [[Center for American Progress]], [[Families Against Mandatory Minimums]], the [[Coalition for Public Safety]], and the [[John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation|MacArthur Foundation]] to more seriously address criminal justice reform in the United States.<ref name=tAtl>{{cite web| last =Ball| first =Molly| title =Do the Koch Brothers Really Care About Criminal-Justice Reform?| work =The Atlantic| date =Mar 3, 2015| url =https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/do-the-koch-brothers-really-care-about-criminal-justice-reform/386615/| access-date =May 5, 2019| archive-date =March 26, 2017| archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20170326051351/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/do-the-koch-brothers-really-care-about-criminal-justice-reform/386615/| url-status =live}}</ref><ref name=dbeast>{{cite web| last =Mak| first =Tim| title =Koch Bros to Bankroll Prison Reform| work =The Daily Beast| date =Jan 13, 2015| url =http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/13/koch-bros-to-bankroll-prison-reform.html| access-date =November 14, 2015| archive-date =February 21, 2016| archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20160221075317/http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/13/koch-bros-to-bankroll-prison-reform.html| url-status =live}}</ref> The Kochs and their partners are combatting the systemic overcriminalization and overincarceration of citizens from primarily low-income and minority communities.<ref name=wapos>{{cite news| last =Horwitz| first =Sari| title =Unlikely Allies| newspaper =Washington Post| date =Aug 15, 2015| url =https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/08/15/clemency-the-issue-that-obama-and-the-koch-brothers-actually-agree-on/| access-date =May 5, 2019| archive-date =September 13, 2017| archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20170913044313/http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/08/15/clemency-the-issue-that-obama-and-the-koch-brothers-actually-agree-on/| url-status =live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2015/1020/Congress-s-big-bipartisan-success-that-might-be-just-beginning |title=Congress's big, bipartisan success that might be just beginning |work=Christian Science Monitor |date=Oct 20, 2015 |author=Gass Henry |access-date=November 14, 2015 |archive-date=March 1, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160301010458/http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2015/1020/Congress-s-big-bipartisan-success-that-might-be-just-beginning |url-status=live }}</ref> The group of reformers is working to reduce recidivism rates and diminish barriers faced by rehabilitated persons seeking new employment in the work force. In addition they have a goal in ending [[Asset forfeiture]] practices since law enforcement often deprives individuals of the majority of their private property.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://cjonline.com/news/2015-10-15/forfeiture-reform-aligns-likes-billionaire-charles-koch-aclu | title=Forfeiture reform aligns likes of billionaire Charles Koch, ACLU | work=The Topeka Capital Journal | date=Oct 15, 2015 | author=Hudetz, Mary | access-date=2015-11-14 | archive-date=2016-01-14 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160114205427/http://cjonline.com/news/2015-10-15/forfeiture-reform-aligns-likes-billionaire-charles-koch-aclu | url-status=live }}</ref>

[[Decarceration in the United States]] includes overlapping reformist and [[Prison abolition movement|abolitionist]] strategies, from "front door" options such as sentencing reform, [[decriminalization]], [[Diversion program|diversion]] and mental health treatment to "back door" approaches, exemplified by parole reform and early release into community supervision programs, amnesty for inmates convicted of non-violent offenses and imposition of prison capacity limits.<ref>{{Cite web|title=NCJRS Abstract - National Criminal Justice Reference Service|url=https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=204851|website=www.ncjrs.gov|language=en|access-date=2020-05-08|archive-date=2020-10-01|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201001080505/https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=204851|url-status=live}}</ref> While reforms focus on incremental changes, abolitionist approaches include budget reallocations, prison closures and restorative and transformative justice programs that challenge incarceration as an effective deterrent and necessary means of incapacitation. Abolitionists support investments in familial and community mental health, affordable housing and quality education to gradually transition and jail employees to jobs in other economic sectors.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Decarceration Strategies: How 5 States Achieved Substantial Prison Population Reductions|url=https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/decarceration-strategies-5-states-achieved-substantial-prison-population-reductions/|website=The Sentencing Project|date=5 September 2018 |language=en-US|access-date=2020-04-29|archive-date=2022-05-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220520150746/https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/decarceration-strategies-5-states-achieved-substantial-prison-population-reductions/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title='Abolish Prisons' Is the New 'Abolish ICE'|url=https://politi.co/2MrbixA|last=Arrieta-Kenna|first=Ruairí|website=POLITICO Magazine|date=15 August 2018 |language=en|access-date=2020-04-29|archive-date=2021-11-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211107172525/https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/08/15/abolish-prisons-is-the-new-abolish-ice-219361/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Vera Institute|url=https://www.vera.org/ending-mass-incarceration|last=Hyperakt|date=2020-05-02|website=Vera|language=en|access-date=2020-05-03|archive-date=2020-05-02|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200502175119/https://www.vera.org/ending-mass-incarceration|url-status=live}}</ref>