research paper on overcrowding of prisons

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychiatry

Do Overcrowding and Turnover Cause Violence in Prison?

Stéphanie baggio.

1 Division of Prison Health, Geneva University Hospitals and University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

2 Department of Forensic Psychiatry, Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

Nicolas Peigné

Patrick heller.

3 Adult Psychiatry Division, Department of Mental Health and Psychiatry, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland

Laurent Gétaz

4 Division of Tropical and Humanitarian Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals and University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

Michael Liebrenz

Associated data.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation, to any qualified researcher.

Violence is common in prison and its individual risk factors are well documented. However, there is a mixed evidence on the relationship between prison violence and institutional factors, such as overcrowding and turnover, and recent research suggested that these factors may not be important or relevant. This study investigated the association between prison violence and institutional factors in a Swiss pre-trial prison between 2013 and 2018. Measures included violence (assaults requiring immediate medical attention) as well as the annual overcrowding and turnover rates. Using a meta-regression, the results showed that prison violence was higher when overcrowding and turnover increased. Overall, our study highlighted that institutional prison factors might have notable detrimental effects on prison life. Reduction of prison overcrowding and turnover appear critical to reduce prisoners’ vulnerability. Turning prison into safe places designed to promote desistance would probably not be achievable without considering these crucial factors.

Introduction

Prison overcrowding, when the number of prisoners exceeds the prison capacity, is an important concern worldwide. In 2018, overcrowding remained one of the most important issues in prison ( 1 ), with 27 countries operating at 150% to 200% ( 2 ). Turnover, the rate at which the prison population is renewed, has been less extensively studied ( 3 , 4 ), but may also have detrimental consequences for prisoners ( 4 ). Both can undermine the ability of prison systems to meet human needs, including access to appropriate accommodation, timely health care, and access to rehabilitation programs and educational or vocational activities ( 5 ).

However, in a recent empirical study, Fazel, Ramesh & Hawton ( 3 ) underscored the importance of individual over institutional factors. In their multicentric study conducted in 24 high-income countries, there was no significant association between prison suicide and two major institutional factors, namely overcrowding and turnover. These findings resulted in a call to focus on individual and relevant ecological factors ( 3 ). This mixed evidence also applies to prison violence: A meta-analysis to conclude that future policies should focus on “more important predictors” than overcrowding to predict (violent) misconduct ( 6 , p. 409), even if overcrowding has long been described as a potential risk for prison violence ( 7 ).

These conclusions have risen legitimate fears of misinterpretation and neglect of critical institutional factors ( 8 ). Besides, very recent prison studies highlighted significant associations between overcrowding, turnover, and self-harm ( 4 ); and between overcrowding and violent misconduct ( 9 , 10 ). Another recent study also reported that institutional infractions were more likely to happen a few months after entry ( 11 ). As turnover is associated with an increased number of prison entries, it may lead to increased levels of misconduct, infractions, and violence.

This study focused on violence against others, as there is a paucity of empirical studies investigating the association between institutional factors and this kind of violence. Prison violence has been most often investigated using assaults registered in official prison records (i.e., “violent misconduct”) ( 6 , 7 ). In addition, to our knowledge, previous studies on prison violence focused on overcrowding and turnover has been neglected. We hypothesized that institutional factors would lead to increased levels of violence, and thus, that these factors should not be neglected in empirical prison studies and health policy.

Materials and Methods

Prison-level data were collected between 2013 and 2018 in a Swiss pre-trial prison located in Geneva (Champ-Dollon). This prison is mainly a pre-trial prison, but there are also sentenced detainees. In this prison, prisoners spend 23 h a day in their cell. The prison capacity was 376 (with 22 additional places in 2017 and 2018). Nurses are present in the prison 24/7 in a prison medical unit. This prison has been repeatedly criticized by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) for chronic overcrowding and detention setting, including lack of activities ( 12 ). Data were collected using prison-level statistics and prison nurses’ records. Since we used anonymous quality control data, ethical approval was not required.

Prison Overcrowding

The annual overcrowding rate was computed by dividing the annual mean daily population by the prison capacity. It was extracted from the statistics available each year for the whole prison, upon request to the direction of the prison.

Turnover Ratio

The turnover rate was computed using the number of releases divided by the number of entries plus the average prison population of the previous year ( 3 ). It was also extracted from the statistics available each year for the whole prison, upon request to the direction of the prison.

Nurses recorded systematically and anonymously each assault requiring medical attention immediately after its occurrence, in accordance with the guidelines of a previous study on prison violence, recommending a systematic statistical recording of routine data on prison violence, to standardize injury surveillance ( 13 ).

Statistical Analyses

We tested the association between violence, overcrowding, and turnover using a fixed-effect multivariate meta-regression. Each year was considered as a separate sample (too few events to consider months as separate samples). Analyses were performed with R 3.5.1 (package metaphor 2.0.0).

Over the study period, the average rate of overcrowding was 175.4% and the turnover rate 73.2%. This meant that the prison was overcrowded, as the number of prisoners exceeded its official capacity (100%). However, there is no official definition of what constitutes overcrowding ( 5 ). The turnover rate was also high, with on average 73.2% of the prison population entirely reviewed each year. On average, there was 9.1% of cases of violence/population of inmates over the study period. The meta-analytic prevalence estimate for prison violence over the study period was 8.5% (95% confidence interval: 7.6%–9.3%).

There were significant effects of both overcrowding (b = 0.001, p < .001) and turnover (b = 0.009, p < .001) on prison violence. Increased overcrowding and turnover were associated with increased prevalence estimates of violence. When overcrowding increased of one point (on a one hundred percent scale), prison violence increased of 0.1 point of percentage. Figure 1 shows that increased levels of overcrowding were associated with higher prevalence estimates of prison violence. When turnover increased of one point (on a one hundred percent scale), prison violence increased of 0.9 point of percentage. The pattern was less clear in the forest plot depicted in Figure 1 , but the effect was nonetheless significant.

Forest plot of the effect of overcrowding and turnover on prison violence, sorted by overcrowding rate. 95% CI: 95% confidence intervals. Whiskers represent 95% CI for the prevalence estimate of each year. Prevalence estimates are reported for assaults requiring immediate medical attention. Overcrowding and turnover are reported as percentages.

In our study, there was a meta-analytic percentage of 8.5% of assaults requiring immediate medical attention. This percentage ranged between previous estimates, from 0.8% for assaults classified as violent misconduct in official prison reports ( 9 ) to 23.5% of assaults (including assaults against staff) classified as disciplinary offences in official prison reports ( 10 ). As these studies used very different measures to assess prison violence and were conducted in different settings, comparisons are not possible.

Our study showed that institutional prison factors were significantly associated with prison violence (i.e., assaults requiring immediate medical attention). This result replicated recent empirical findings focusing on overcrowding in the US and using official misconduct reports ( 9 , 10 ). Our study extended these results in a European country and with data not necessarily recorded in the official prison reports. It followed recent guidelines for systematic statistical recording of violence ( 13 ). In addition, to our knowledge, this study was the first to examine the association between turnover and prison violence, highlighting that this institutional factor also led to increased levels of prison violence.

Overall, our study highlighted that institutional prison factors might have notable detrimental effects on prison life and adjustment to prison life. Reduction of prison overcrowding and turnover appear critical to reduce prisoners’ vulnerability and they should not be neglected. These detrimental effects may be even worse for especially vulnerable people living in detention (e.g., those in bad health or having severe psychiatric disorders, older people). Even if these factors are not easily modifiable, future prison policies should be developed to promote prisoners’ health and rehabilitation. Indeed, (violent) misconduct is associated with increased recidivism ( 14 ).

Meanwhile, adequate prevention measures to reduce violence in overcrowded prisons are needed. It should include adequate occupational activities as well as screening and treatment for psychiatric disorders targeting specific needs; as well as enhancement of social skills, social relationships, and social support using relevant psychosocial programs ( 13 , 15 ). Such need for adjustments in prison policy is regularly emphasized in the legal literature as well ( 16 , 17 ).

This study has some limitations. A first limitation was the lack on individual data, such as personal risk factors for prison violence. However, the prison population of Champ-Dollon was stable over time [e.g., rates of psychiatric treatments and socio-demographic profiles, ( 18 )] so we could be confident that the changes in prison violence was mostly related to the institutional factors. Second, the results were probably related to the specific characteristics of the prison, namely the lack of freedom of movement and activities. However, the 23-h confinement period per day and the lack of access to a workplace are comparable in most pre-trial prisons in Switzerland ( 17 ). Furthermore, Champ-Dollon is especially overcrowded ( 12 ). Another shortcoming was that we used an operationalization of prison violence (i.e., assaults requiring immediate medical attention) which did not allow comparisons with other studies. Our study missed less severe cases of violence (not requiring immediate medical care), but it used a less restrictive operationalization of prison violence in comparison with some previous studies relying exclusively on official prison reports. In addition, given its retrospective design, we were unable to collect information on violence against staff members. Future multicentric studies should include prisons’ characteristics, and especially time spent locked up in cells and available pro-health, pro-social, and occupational activities ( 4 ), as well as individual-level factors and all kinds of violence, including those against staff members. Further studies should also develop assessments of prison violence that allow comparisons between prisons and include less severe forms of violence. Finally, prison violence can also mean psychological violence, such as harassment, bullying, or sexual violence ( 19 ). Future studies should also investigate this kind of violence.

To conclude, we believe that institutional factors should not be neglected in prison research and future prison policies. Overcrowding and turnover have an important impact on prisoners’ health, prison life, and adjustment to prison life; even if these effects depend on the specific characteristics of the prison under study. Distress and misconduct in prison should be considered as the interplay between individual and institutional factor, and not only as something prisoners import in prison ( 8 ). Turning prison into safe places designed to promote desistance would probably not be achievable without considering these crucial factors.

Data Availability Statement

Ethics statement.

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation was not required for this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements. Since we used anonymous quality control data, ethical approval was not required.

Author Contributions

SB conceived the study’s objective, drafted the manuscript, and performed the statistical analyses. NP participated in data collection. PH, LG, ML, and HW made substantial contributions in the interpretation of the data. NP, PH, LG, ML, and HW revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content. All authors approved the final version to be published and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work related to its accuracy and integrity.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Human Rights Behind Bars pp 59–80 Cite as

Prison Overcrowding and the Developing Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights

• Krešimir Kamber 27 , 28  
• First Online: 09 October 2022

323 Accesses

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 103))

This Chapter looks into the manner in which the issue of prison overcrowding is addressed under the European Convention on Human Rights. It examines, in particular, the legal context in which the European Court of Human Rights leading case-law on the matter—Muršić v Croatia—has developed, and the effects which that case-law has created in the European legal landscape. In the context of this inquiry, the Chapter first analyses the concept of ‘prison overcrowding’. It finds that there is a lot of uncertainty over the main characteristics of that concept but that it may be best understood from the perspective of a ‘totality of conditions’ test, which focuses on the qualitative aspects of imprisonment rather than any pre-determined numerical criteria. The Chapter further provides an overview of the evolving Convention case-law concerning the rights of prisoners and, in particular, regarding the protection from prison overcrowding. In this connection, the Chapter analyses in detail the principles developed in the Muršić judgment. It finds that these principles are duly followed as the relevant law both in the Court’s subsequent processing of cases and at the wider European level, notably in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Chapter cautions, however, that this coherence in the case-law may not be sufficient to address the problem of prison overcrowding and that the European legislature and policy makers will need to reflect on the possibility of agreeing over the common binding minimum standards of material conditions of detention.

Opinions expressed are personal.

Download chapter PDF

1 Introduction

In December 2012 Mr Kristijan Muršić, who served a prison sentence for armed robbery and theft in several Croatian prisons, used his right guaranteed under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’) Footnote 1 and lodged an application Footnote 2 with the European Court of Human Rights (‘the Court’) complaining of inadequate conditions of detention in a prison in which he had served a substantial part of his sentence. While it is safe to assume that he was not familiar with all the intricacies of European prison law Footnote 3 and standards—including the Court’s case-law—concerning the rights of prisoners, Footnote 4 Mr Muršić was not unfamiliar with prison. He knew well to realise that something might be wrong with the manner in which he was treated in the prison (and he was partially right) and thus he sought the protection of his rights, first before the domestic authorities and then before the Court.

Mr Muršić’s application to the Court happened to come at the time when the Court’s case-law on the rights of prisoners—and in particular in relation to the issue of prison overcrowding—was well developed, although still not consolidated as regards a number of different practical and conceptual issues that arise in this context. And Mr Muršić’s complaint happened to touch upon some of the most critical, and methodologically unsettled, aspects of the case-law. Footnote 5

It thus first led to a judgment adopted by a Chamber, Footnote 6 which was then referred to and re-examined by the Grand Chamber. Footnote 7 The Grand Chamber judgment finally settled and consolidated the Court’s case-law on the issues relating to the problem of prison overcrowding. The law developed in that judgment also influenced the European policies, standards and jurisprudence. Footnote 8 The Muršić case thereby became one of the most relevant sources of the European law on prison overcrowding.

In October 2021, at about the time of completion of this Chapter, the Muršić Grand Chamber judgment reaches its five years of existence: a point in time when a properly considered analysis can be made of the manner in which that judgment fits into the perspective of the Court’s case-law and other European standards on prison overcrowding. Footnote 9 This Chapter will attempt to undertake that analysis.

The Chapter is structured in the following manner. The next section, Sect. 2 , seeks to elucidate the main characteristics of the concept of ‘prison overcrowding’. Section 3 provides an overview of the evolution of the Court’s case-law on prison overcrowding. Section 4 analyses the Muršić judgment, while Sect. 5 briefly outlines the post- Muršić developments in the Court’s case-law and elsewhere. Section 6 concludes.

2 The Concept of Prison Overcrowding

In the contemporary society governed by the rule of law, the recourse to imprisonment is still considered to be the appropriate means of ensuring, at the final stage, a proportionate and humane reaction to the (presumed) commission of a criminal offence. Footnote 10 This is true irrespective of whether imprisonment—as a form of social incapacitation— Footnote 11 serves to ensure, in some instances, the proper conduct of criminal proceedings and the protection of public order (in case of a reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence has been committed), or is used as a sanction for the commission of a criminal offence aimed at achieving desistence, retribution, social rehabilitation and reformation of the perpetrator. In other words, as matters currently stand, the prison is an acceptable institution of social order which, in itself, does not contravene any public interest or individual rights-based considerations. Footnote 12

But the prison can also be overused. Footnote 13 The overuse of the prison—which can be the result of different failures at the policy, legislative and operational level—is capable of causing different dysfunctions of the criminal justice system. Footnote 14 These dysfunctions, ultimately, undermine the rule of law Footnote 15 and the social understanding of justice and lead to various breaches of individual rights guaranteed in international law and national constitutions. Footnote 16

Each of these dysfunctions needs to be analysed systematically and addressed argumentatively. The relevant discussions in that regard, instead of slipping into the field of often irrational and politicised discourses, Footnote 17 must have a sound empirical, theoretical and normative justification and basis. In other words, they have to be based on hard facts. The same is true for the dysfunction of the criminal justice system of interest in this Chapter: the problem of prison overcrowding.

The problem of prison overcrowding has been for years at the centre of European policy and criminal justice reforms, Footnote 18 as well as litigation at the European and national levels. Footnote 19 It is a persisting problem in Europe Footnote 20 and globally. Footnote 21 Research has shown that prison overcrowding adversely affects not only the overall management of the prison system, Footnote 22 but also health and well-being of prisoners. Footnote 23 As outlined by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), overcrowding causes, in particular, cramped and unhygienic accommodation, constant lack of privacy, reduced out of cell activities, overburdened healthcare services, and increased tension and more violence between prisoners and between prisoners and staff. Footnote 24

But what is prison overcrowding?

There is no common—European or for that matter universal— Footnote 25 definition of prison overcrowding. Very often, overcrowding is measured as a ratio of the number of available places in the prison system and the actual number of prisoners placed there. Thus, overcrowding occurs when the demand for space in prisons exceeds the overall capacity of prison places in a given state or in a particular prison of that state. Footnote 26

The difficulty of this definition is that many European states (and elsewhere) do not have a precise definition of ‘minimum space’ per prisoner. Footnote 27 Moreover, countries use different methods of calculation of prison capacity. Some refer to the design capacity, which designates the nominal number of places available in a given state or in a particular prison of that state. Others rely on the concept of operational capacity that designates the capacity under which a prison system can operate. Footnote 28

Furthermore, it is possible that a particular prison system is not experiencing overcrowding and that some prisons are nevertheless overcrowded. Footnote 29 It is also possible that there is overcrowding only in relation to the placement of a particular category of prisoners (women, juveniles, sexual offenders, remand prisoners). Thus, in reality, while there are empty places in one prison (unit), other prisons may be overcrowded. Accordingly, although there is apparently no overcrowding when the total number of prisoners is measured against the overall capacity of the prison system (or of a prison), in reality some prisoners may be experiencing overcrowding.

It is therefore suggested that when calculating overcrowding, unoccupied places in the prison system should also be considered. According to this understanding, the existence or not of overcrowding in a particular prison system or in a prison can more accurately be expressed through the concept of ‘supernumerary total of prisoners’, which reflects the possible excess of a number of prisoners that, in total, a prison system can accommodate. Footnote 30

In some systems, there is a high turnover of prisoners so the reliance on the actual number of persons placed in a prison (system) is inadequate. The dynamics of incarceration and releases are such that a pure numerical assessment at a given moment does not reflect the actual state of affairs. It is thus suggested that waiting lists, temporary and early releases should also be measured against the overall capacity of the prison system. Footnote 31

It follows that, whatever the method chosen, a purely numerical measurement of overcrowding can hardly reflect the actual state of overcrowding in a particular prison system. Nevertheless, such numerical or quantitative methods of measurement are important as despite the possible margin of error they do provide important information for designing policies to reduce prison population and ensure better conditions of imprisonment. Footnote 32 In this connection, the definition of ‘minimum space’ per prisoner in domestic legislation is an indispensable precondition for any meaningful management of prison capacity. Footnote 33

A more appropriate method for the measurement of the extent to which overcrowding actually affects prisoners in a particular prison system relates to the concept of ‘totality of conditions’. This term was conveniently construed in the extensive prison litigation practices in the United States. Footnote 34 However, in reality, as will be discussed below, it is also used in Europe. For the purpose of the present discussion, it will be denoted as the ‘totality of conditions test’.

According to this test, overcrowding occurs when the number of prisoners placed in prison(s) of a country reaches such a level that it is no longer possible to ensure a reasonable degree of personal privacy (social density), adequate hygiene, sanitary and health conditions, nutrition, appropriate out-of-cell activities, and/or any meaningful programme of rehabilitation and social reintegration of prisoners. In practice, all these categories are measured in accordance with the relevant domestic and international standards. Footnote 35 At the same time, in this context, the space allocated to each prisoner—which, as explained above, should be established in domestic law—is only one of the factors for the measurement of whether overcrowding occurred.

This is the approach taken by the Court for its assessment of prison overcrowding under Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture). Indeed, in Muršić , as will be discussed in detail in Sect. 4 , the Court took the numerical standard only as an indication—albeit in some instances a very strong one—of whether overcrowding infringed the absolute prohibition under Article 3. The same approach to the issue of prison overcrowding has been followed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the Dumitru-Tudor Dorobantu case, Footnote 36 which will further be analysed in Sect. 5 .

Moreover, the totality of conditions test is supported at various levels of the Council of Europe (CoE), whose activities play a critical role in devising European prion law and policies. Footnote 37

Thus, the CoE White Paper on prison overcrowding—as currently the most elaborate European document on the principles and standards relating to prison overcrowding—notes difficulties in the definition of overcrowding and essentially refers to the totality of conditions test. It states in particular that ‘space and square meters are not the only relevant factors when assessing overcrowding issues’ and that ‘[o]vercrowding problems are also part of and closely linked to the general issue of providing for appropriate overall prison conditions, including staffing and offering meaningful activities that meet international standards and are aimed at re-socialising prisoners’. Footnote 38

The CPT established Footnote 39 in its practice a basic ‘rule of thumb’ standard for the minimum amount of living space that a prisoner should be afforded in a cell. Footnote 40 However, as the CPT has recognised, when deciding whether accommodation in a particular cell amounts to inhuman or degrading treatment and thus from a policy matter becomes a human rights issue, the cell-size standards cannot be regarded as absolute and other elements of a prisoner’s accommodation need to be taken into account. Thus, in reality, the CPT adopts the approach closely linked to the one elaborated in the White Paper on prison overcrowding and developed by the Court in Muršić . It can therefore be concluded that the notion of prison overcrowding in European prison law reflects the logic of the totality of conditions test.

3 Evolution of the Court’s Case-Law

In 2019, just when he was about to retire from a long service in the Court, the then Registrar of the Court Roderick Liddell published a paper under the title: ‘Are the Convention’s authors turning in their grave: European Judges and prisoners’ rights?’ Footnote 41 In his article, Liddell sought to respond to the tendencies in certain countries of criticising the Court for having provided legal protection to prisoners’ grievances. This, in particular, concerned the Vinter and Others v the United Kingdom Footnote 42 judgment concerning the right to hope of prisoners convicted to life imprisonment, Footnote 43 which was reportedly commented by a British politician saying that the Convention authors were turning in their graves after this judgment. Footnote 44

As Liddell observed, the Convention does not contain any provision explicitly referring to the rights of prisoners. Footnote 45 This, he suggested, reflected the different priorities in the post-Second World War Europe, but also a narrower initial understanding of the rights which, from the perspective of developing human rights law, prisoners retained after their imprisonment. Footnote 46 Thus, in the early stages of functioning of the Convention machinery for the protection of human rights, the numerous prisoners’ complaints were examined on a rather limited basis and primarily from the perspective of procedural guarantees of the right to liberty under Article 5 of the Convention. Footnote 47

However, as Liddell noted, the European society has evolved to the point of recognising that the protection of the rights of prisoners is an issue of the rule of law. He thus concluded, as regards the interrogation in the title of his paper, that although the Convention authors might not have anticipated the extent to which the Convention would now apply in different areas, it would be difficult to consider that they were ‘turning in their graves’ because the Convention was used for the protection of the rights of prisoners. Footnote 48

The Court has based the necessity to protect the rights of prisoners on the concept of human dignity, which forms the very essence of the Convention and bears a particularly strong link with the prohibition of ‘degrading’ treatment or punishment under Article 3 of the Convention. Footnote 49 On this basis, the Court developed an abundant jurisprudence concerning different aspects of the life in prison, such as the material conditions of detention (including overcrowding), Footnote 50 solitary confinement, Footnote 51 visitation rights, Footnote 52 special prison regimes, Footnote 53 prison work, Footnote 54 transport of prisoners, Footnote 55 and the prohibition of discrimination of prisoners. Footnote 56 It is thus now well-established in the Court’s case-law that a (lawfully detained) prisoner does not forfeit his or her Convention rights save for the right to liberty. Footnote 57 In other words, the Convention rights do not stop at the prison gate. Footnote 58

In the process of evolution of the Convention law on prisoners’ rights, the Court has frequently been called upon to examine the complaints alleging a violation of Article 3 on account of insufficient personal space allocated to both remand and serving prisoners. First such cases were decided by the Court in early 2000s. Footnote 59 Since then, the Court has found more than 1500 violations of Article 3 in cases concerning inadequate conditions of detention. In many cases, the Court has also found a violation of Article 13 relating to the lack of an effective domestic remedy for allegations of inadequate conditions of detention. In addition, many cases have been resolved on the basis of friendly settlements or unilateral declarations. At present, there is approximately 9000 pending applications relating to prison conditions, many of which concern an issue of prison overcrowding. Footnote 60 This is some 14% of all pending applications before the Court. Footnote 61

Although in the absence of precise statistics, these numbers have to be taken with caution, they indicate that the Court has faced, and still faces, the problem of inadequate conditions of detention, including prison overcrowding, as systemic human rights issues. The Court has thus sought to addressed them through its pilot and leading (or quasi-pilot) judgment procedures, which allowed it to indicate solutions for the resolution of the problem going beyond the contingencies of a particular case. Footnote 62 In particular, in practice, through the pilot and leading judgment procedures the Court has indicated to the European governments the necessary measures that needed to be taken in order to address the underlying human rights issue relating to inadequate conditions of detention, including prison overcrowding.

The first two pilot judgments were adopted in 2009 with respect to Poland, Footnote 63 which was followed by six further pilot judgments concerning Russia, Footnote 64 Italy, Footnote 65 Bulgaria, Footnote 66 Hungary, Footnote 67 Romania, Footnote 68 and Ukraine. Footnote 69 In addition, since 2011 the Court has adopted several leading or quasi-pilot judgments concerning six other states, namely Slovenia, Footnote 70 Greece, Footnote 71 Belgium, Footnote 72 the Republic of Moldova, Footnote 73 Portugal, Footnote 74 and France. Footnote 75

Measuring the actual effect of these judgments on the prison systems in national legal orders is beyond the scope of the present Chapter. It suffices to note that there is evidence that the Court’s pilot and leading (quasi-pilot) judgments did have some positive effects on reducing prison overcrowding. Footnote 76 However, without structural reforms to address the problem of overcrowding at different levels of government in the national orders, it would be illusory to expect that prison litigation at the international level could, in itself, resolve the matter. Footnote 77

What many of these judgments undoubtedly did manage to achieve is the affirmation of the existence of prisoners’ human rights, including the right to appropriate and dignified accommodation, and have led to the introduction of different remedies (preventive and compensatory) Footnote 78 in national legal orders to vindicate those rights. Footnote 79 The Court’s case-law empowered prisoners and thereby balanced the distribution of power in the prison context to the extent that nowadays—at least in Europe—any ‘slave of the state’ doctrine Footnote 80 seems so misplaced that its rejection requires no further elaboration.

4 The Muršić Judgment

4.1 the muršić case.

The Muršić case is on the facts similar to many other cases examined by the Court concerning the issue of material conditions of detention. It concerns a prisoner who was accommodated in several different cells in the prison, which differed in size and the number of persons placed there. Moreover, as it is often the case, Mr Muršić’s view on the conditions of his imprisonment radically differed from the views of the Government. While Mr Muršić considered that his accommodation in the prison fell short of the Convention requirements as regards various material aspects of imprisonment (such as hygiene and sanitary conditions, nutrition, meaningful out-of-cell activities), the respondent Government considered that the conditions of his imprisonment were satisfactory. Footnote 81

The central feature of the case was that during his stay in the prison, Mr Muršić spent several short non-consecutive periods, and a period of twenty-seven consecutive days, in cells where he disposed of less than 3 sq. m of personal space. There were also several non-consecutive periods in which he was allocated between 3 and 4 sq. m of personal space in the cells. Otherwise, on the basis of the available documentary evidence, no other aspect of Mr Muršić’s imprisonment prima facie ran counter to the Convention requirements. Footnote 82

With respect to the space aspect, the conditions of Mr Muršić’s accommodation fell short of the relevant CPT requirements of minimum personal space per prisoner. Footnote 83 Moreover, while the Court’s case-law was not clear on what the actual minimum Convention standard was, Footnote 84 these periods were below some of the existing standards in the case-law. However, unlike in the great majority of other cases, these periods were non-consecutive, and they concerned accommodation in, what otherwise seemed, acceptable material conditions.

These circumstances thus opened up two critical questions before the Court:

What, if any, is the Convention (Article 3) acceptable minimum standard of personal space that a prisoner must have in the cell?

If there is a minimum standard, does it operate in an absolute manner: in other words, does any non-compliance with that standard lead to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, irrespective of the nature and extent of the restriction(s) and irrespective of other considerations relating to the material conditions of imprisonment?

These two questions linked to other ancillary issues, such as the Court’s relationship with the CPT, the burden of proof in conditions of detention cases, and the clarification of methods to be applied when examining the complaints of prison overcrowding from the Convention perspective.

Another distinguishing feature of the Muršić case was that it did not raise a structural issue concerning the conditions of detention in the respondent State. Indeed, concerning Croatia, the Court has never found that conditions of detention disclosed a structural problem from the standpoint of Article 3 of the Convention. Footnote 85 The case therefore gave an opportunity to the Court to address the issue of personal space in prison in a methodologically specific and focused manner and not merely as part of an overall systemic problem, in which context many nuances of different aspects of the problem—particularly those of methodological nature—often get lost.

4.2 Reaffirming the General Principles of the Convention Prison Law

The Muršić judgment Footnote 86 did not change the general precepts of the Convention law on the rights of prisoners, including the right to adequate conditions of detention. However, before Muršić , the Grand Chamber never specifically dealt with the issue of prison overcrowding, which was rather addressed sporadically in judgments focusing on some other aspects of the rights of detainees. Footnote 87 Thus, the reaffirming of the general principles in the Muršić judgment could be seen as a final consolidation of the Convention law in this context.

The Court, in particular, reaffirmed the absolute nature of the prohibition of ill-treatment under Article 3. However, it reiterated that ill-treatment should attain a minimum level of severity in order to fall within the scope of Article 3. This minimum is relative. Footnote 88 It depends on ‘all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim’. Footnote 89 In this context, the concept of human dignity—as the salient factor in the protection of prisoners’ rights— Footnote 90 plays a particularly important role in determining whether this minimum level is reached. In particular, the Court explained that degrading treatment under Article 3 was characterised by the existence of treatment that humiliates or debases an individual, showing a lack of respect for or diminishing his or her human dignity, or arouses feelings of fear, anguish or inferiority capable of breaking his or her moral and physical resistance. Footnote 91

The Muršić judgment also reaffirmed the Court’s overarching principle for the assessment of the allegations of breaches of prisoners’ rights. This principle, accepting the realities of prison life and the very concept of imprisonment, provides as follows:

[T]o fall under Article 3, the suffering and humiliation involved must in any event go beyond that inevitable element of suffering and humiliation connected with detention. The State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him or her to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his or her health and well-being are adequately secured… Footnote 92

Muršić also made it clear that the state responsibility in this context is objective: Footnote 93 the absence of any intention to breach the prisoner’s rights by placing him or her in inadequate conditions does not rule out the finding of a violation of Article 3. This also means that a lack of financial resources, or other logistical difficulties, cannot be invoked to justify inadequate conditions of detention. Footnote 94

4.3 The Standard of Minimum Personal Space

In its pre- Muršić case-law the Court has considered the space factor to ‘weigh heavily’ in its assessment of whether the impugned conditions of detention were ‘degrading’ within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. Footnote 95 At the same time, however, the ‘space factor’ remained an open and uncertain category in the case-law, which the Court sought to justify by pointing out that it was unable to determine ‘once and for all’ a specific number of square metres that should be allocated to a detainee (in multi-occupancy cell in prison) as a requirement flowing from the Convention. Footnote 96

This uncertainty was reflected in the fact that in some cases—which in fact formed a great majority of cases— Footnote 97 the Court took 3 sq. m of floor surface per detainee as the relevant minimum ‘space factor’. Where a prisoner disposed of less than that space in a multi-occupancy cell, the Court consider that the overcrowding was so serve that it justified the finding of a violation of Article 3. Footnote 98 In a few other cases, however, the Court considered that personal space of less than 4 sq. m indicated the existence of severe overcrowding justifying the finding of a violation of Article 3. Footnote 99

The uncertainty in the Court’s case-law in this context is not surprising. It reflected the realities of indeterminacy of the concept of overcrowding, Footnote 100 the absence of uniform and consistent international standards on the requirements of adequate personal space per prisoner, Footnote 101 and the variety of rules in national legal orders on the minimum number of personal space to be allocated to a detainee. Footnote 102

The doubts over the ‘space factor’ also opened up a problem of institutional nature for the CoE. On the one hand, the Court’s pilot and quasi-pilot judgments have taken 3 sq. m as the relevant minimum personal space per prisoner, Footnote 103 which thereby became the starting point for devising the requisite institutional reforms of the domestic legal orders to tackle the problem of prison overcrowding. On the other hand, the CPT set—as the rule of thumb—the minimum standard at 4 sq. m of floor surface per prisoner, Footnote 104 which, in the practical management of often scarce prison resources, represented a substantially more stringent requirement on the national orders.

In Muršić , Footnote 105 the Court resolved the existing uncertainties by placing the critical emphasis on the requirement of consistency. It held that the interests of legal certainty, foreseeability and equality before the law required it to adopt the standard of 3 sq. m of personal space as applied in its pilot and leading judgments, and which was referred to in the Idalov Grand Chamber Footnote 106 case. However, it is important to note that the Court thereby did not set out that minimum standard as any penological policy requirement but as ‘the relevant minimum standard for its assessment under Article 3 of the Convention’.

Linked to this latter remark, when addressing the surrounding uncertainties, the Court explained that in the performance of its judicial role in protecting the minimum standards of prisoners’ rights under the Convention it could not be bound by the standards set out by other international bodies or the standards set out in national legislations. This is also true as regards the CPT standards, which are general requirements that aim at prevention and therefore provide a degree of protection that is greater than that which the Court, in its judicial reactive role, could apply when examining the individual complaints of breaches of prisoners’ rights. Nevertheless, the Court considered it important to stress that it remained ‘attentive’ to the CPT standards and that it gave ‘careful scrutiny’ to all cases where the personal space allocated to a detainee fell below those standards. Footnote 107

Lastly, in Muršić , Footnote 108 the Court clarified the methodology to be applied when calculating the minimum personal space allocated to a detainee. That space excludes any in-cell sanitary facility, but includes the space occupied by furniture. Footnote 109 In addition, the Court explained that the relevant minimum standard of 3 sq. m was to be applied in cases concerning the imprisonment of remand and serving prisoners, as well as those placed in dormitories in penal colonies (where that exists, such as in Russia).

4.4 The (Non-)absolute Relevance of the Space Factor

Having determined the relevant minimum standard for its assessment of the space factor in the context of prison overcrowding, the Court was required to determine the weight it attached to that factor alone. In other words, the Court was required to translate, in practical terms, the principle according to which the space factor ‘weighs heavily’ in its assessment of prison overcrowding.

From the perspective of the Court’s case-law, Footnote 110 two approaches were conceivable in this context. The first approach would attribute an absolute importance to the space factor. This means that any restriction on the requisite personal space—no matter how minor and irrespective of the context in which it occurred—would run counter to Article 3 of the Convention. That would either obviate the need for any further examination of other conditions of detention, or other conditions would be examined simply to determine whether they further aggravated the already Convention non-compliant situation. The second approach would take the space factor as the predominant factor in the overall assessment of overcrowding. However, it would not operate as an absolute criterion as, in some instances, the scarce allocation of personal space could be compensated by other aspects of detention.

The Court decided to follow the former, conceptually defendable, Footnote 111 approach to the relevance of the space factor in the context of prison overcrowding. Footnote 112 It explained that the question of compliance with Article 3 could not be reduced to a numerical calculation of square metres as such an approach would risk obfuscating the actual picture of the reality of conditions of detention. This, however, did not mean that the critical relevance of the space factor was undermined.

The importance attached to the space factor in the overall assessment of prison conditions meant that a ‘strong presumption’ of a violation of Article 3 would arise when the personal space available to a detainee fell below 3 sq. m in multi-occupancy accommodation. Nevertheless, in the circumstances, it was possible that the cumulative adequate aspects of detention conditions might rebut that presumption. Footnote 113 This would, however, be possible only where the following factors are cumulatively met:

the reductions in the required minimum personal space of 3 sq. m are short, occasional and minor;

such reductions are accompanied by sufficient freedom of movement outside the cell and adequate out-of-cell activities; Footnote 114 and

the prisoner is confined in what is, when viewed generally, an appropriate detention facility, Footnote 115 and there are no other aggravating aspects of the conditions of his or her detention. Footnote 116

When devising the above test, the Court has also indicated that where the space factor ranges between 3 and 4 sq. m of personal space, the space factor remains a ‘weighty factor’ in the assessment of the adequacy of conditions of detention. In such instances, the conditions of detention would run counter to Article 3 only if the space factor is coupled with other aspects of inappropriate physical conditions of detention relating, most specifically, to access to outdoor exercise, natural light or air, availability of ventilation, adequacy of room temperature, the possibility of using the toilet in private, and compliance with basic sanitary and hygienic requirements. Moreover, these aspects remain relevant for the assessment of adequacy of prison conditions even where no issue with the allocation of personal space arises (when the prisoner would have more than 4 sq. m of personal space). Footnote 117

4.5 The Outcome in Muršić

On the facts of the case, the Court found that a strong presumption of a violation of Article 3 arose with respect to the periods when Mr Muršić had been detained in cells where the personal space allocated to him fell below 3 sq. m. As regards the period of twenty-seven days, the Court considered that the strong presumption of a violation could not be called into question. It thus found a violation of Article 3.

On the other hand, as regards the other periods during which Mr Muršić disposed of less than 3 sq. m of personal space, the Court considered that the respondent Government had rebutted the strong presumption of a violation showing that Mr Muršić had been detained in generally appropriate conditions, the non-consecutive periods could be regarded as short and minor reductions in personal space, during which he had sufficient freedom of movement and out-of-cell activities. The Court thus found no violation of Article 3. On the basis of the same considerations, the Court also found no violation of Article 3 concerning the periods when Mr Muršić disposed of between 3 and 4 sq. m of personal space in the prison.

5 The Post- Muršić Developments

The primary aim of the Muršić judgment was to consolidate the Court’s case-law on the different aspects of the problem of prison overcrowding, notably with respect to the issue of minimum personal space and the weight which the space factor carries in the judicial assessment of prisoners’ complaints in this context. This aim could be considered as being satisfactory achieved as the Court has shown an exemplary rigour of consistency in the application of the relevant Muršić test and standards.

The principles elucidated in Muršić have been applied for the relevant assessment in all post- Muršić pilot and leading (quasi-pilot) judgments. Footnote 118 They have also been applied in more than 100 Chamber judgments and have become a well-established case-law allowing the Court to process more than 200 cases concerning prison overcrowding by adopting a judgment in the summary Committee procedure. Many cases have also been resolved on the basis of friendly settlements and unilateral declarations. Footnote 119 At present, the Muršić principles remain fully valid case-law without any variations in substance or scope, and without any relevant deviations in their application.

The Muršić judgment has also influenced the developments in other sources of European prison law. Thus, for instance, the Commentary to the revised 2020 EPR contains an extensive reference to the Muršić principles when elaborating on the relevant provisions of allocation and accommodation of prisoners. Footnote 120 Similarly, while retaining its own (higher) standards, the CPT has referred to the Muršić judgment both in the context of its general reporting Footnote 121 and its monitoring work. Footnote 122

The most critical importance of the Muršić judgment from the general European judicial perspective is its acceptance as the applicable law by the CJEU in the context of the application of the principle of mutual recognition in EU law. This was the issue that arose before the CJEU in the Dumitru-Tudor Dorobantu case. Footnote 123

The main question before the CJEU in that case was whether the EU member States in the context of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) cooperation should follow the Muršić test in determining whether inadequate personal space infringes the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment. Footnote 124 The CJEU—taking the only reasonable step which ensures consistency of the European judicial responses to the issue of overcrowding—ruled that in the absence, currently, of minimum standards in that respect under EU law the national authorities must follow the Muršić approach when examining the adequacy or prison conditions in the context of the EAW cooperation. Footnote 125

6 Conclusion

The Convention undoubtedly represents the critical pillar of European law in the area of prisoners’ rights. This is particularly true in the context of prison overcrowding, where the Convention principles developed in the Muršić judgment are accepted as the common European law on the matter.

Often, however, there is an impression that the Muršić case-law is known more by rumour than study. This relates, more specifically, to two common misconceptions about the principles developed in the Muršić judgment. The first is related to the assumption that Muršić has lowered the protection of the rights of prisoners by adopting a minimum standard below that provided in the CPT practice, and the second concerns the accusation that the judgment has trivialised the concept of human dignity by reducing it to a mere numerical calculation. Footnote 126

The analysis in this Chapter has shown that neither of this is true. The standards which the Muršić judgment developed are in fact highly demanding on the authorities, they are conceptually adapted to the judicial role of the Court, and they explicitly reject the possibility that the issue of prison overcrowding could be reduced to the mere numerical calculation. This latter accusation is also ignoring the reality of contemporary rights protection where the general ideas of justice and order need to some extent be transposed into technocratic prescriptions and policy directions which could then be applied in practice. Footnote 127

The Muršić judgment, including its echo in the CJEU case-law, may, however, not be sufficient in the long run to regulate the issue of prison overcrowding at the general European level. Assuming, for now, that prison will survive as an institution of social order, the European legislature and policy makers will need to reflect on the possibility of agreeing over the common binding minimum standards of material conditions of detention. Footnote 128 In that context, the Court’s case-law, including the principles developed in the Muršić judgment, will certainly play an important guiding role.

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, ETS No. 005, 4 November 1949.

On the manner of exercise of the right of individual application see, for instance, Leach ( 2017 ), and Sicilianos and Kostopoulou ( 2019 ).

The term ‘European prison law’ could be taken as encompassing, in particular, the rules and standards set out in the Court’s case-law, practice of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), the provisions of the European Prison Rules (Recommendation Rec(2006)2-rev of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the European Prison Rules, 1 July 2020), and also in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and other European (primarily the Council of Europe) materials, it being understood that some of these sources might be directly binding and some operate as the soft-law requirements. See further van Zyl Smit and Snacken ( 2011 ), and Kamber ( 2020 ), pp. 482–484.

For the most comprehensive overview of the Court’s case-law on the prisoners’ rights see Guide on the case law of the European Convention on Human Rights: Prisoners’ rights, Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights (2021), available at www.echr.coe.int .

See the dissenting opinion of Judge Sicilianos in the Chamber judgment Muršić v Croatia , Application no. 7334/13, judgment of 12 March 2015.

Muršić supra note 5. The Chamber judgment (adopted by a six votes to one vote majority) found no violation of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the conditions of Mr Muršić’s imprisonment.

Muršić v Croatia [GC], Application no. 7334/13, judgment of 20 October 2016.

See infra, Sect. 5 .

The Muršić case has already been subject to some reflection and analysis: see, for instance, Falxa ( 2015 ), Sudre ( 2016 ), Keiber ( 2016 ), Pinto de Albuquerque and Ciuffoletti ( 2016 ), Tulkens ( 2017 ), Dreyer ( 2017 ), Simon ( 2018 ), Arden ( 2019 ), and Nussberger ( 2019 ).

There is emerging convincing evidence showing that prison is in fact a failed institution of social order. See for instance Daw ( 2020 ). Note also that as soon as the prison became central to criminal punishment it became the focus of various reforms. See further O’Brein ( 1998 ); see also Howard ( 1777 ) and Vander Beken ( 2016 ).

In reality the role of the prison is intended to protect society immediately by keeping the prisoners out of the wider society. See further, van Zyl Smit ( 2010 ), pp. 503–504.

For the discussion on issues relating to the rights-based penal governance see Armstrong ( 2018 ) and Coyle ( 2009 ).

Already some twenty years ago the rise in prison population globally in the international community has been labelled as ‘epidemic’. See further Harding ( 1998 ), pp. 3–7. This is, however, not to say that the ‘overuse’ is linked only to the number of prisoners placed in a prison system. The ‘overuse’ could also be measured through qualitative methods, such as where in a particular legal system is, as a matter of law and/or established practice, imprisonment is applied in contravention of the applicable principles of international and/or constitutional law relating to the right to liberty. See, for instance, ECtHR, Navalnyy v Russia [GC], Application no. 29580/12 et al., judgment of 15 November 2018. See also Schönteich ( 2013 ).

Research has shown that the overuse of the prison and the rise in prison population poses significant threats to three dimensions of system performance: accountability, efficiency, and effectiveness. See further Mears ( 2008 ).

Turner ( 1971 ).

See further Rogan ( 2012 ).

See, for instance, Daily Mail (2013) Dozens of Britain’s worst killers set to launch bids for freedom after European Court of Human Rights rules we DON’T have the right lock them up for life. Available at www.dailymail.co.uk . See also Uitz (2020) Hirst meets Burdov in Hungary’s New Year Resolution: The Hungarian Government Suspends the Enforcement of a Pilot Judgment. ECHR Blog, available at www.echrblog.com .

On 24 and 25 April 2019 the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) organised a High-level Conference on prison overcrowding (funded together by the CoE and the European Commission), which aimed at taking stock of the issues surrounding the problem of prison overcrowding and providing some solutions for future reform. This was the most comprehensive high-level event in Europe on the issue of prison overcrowding. The conference proceedings and other materials are available at www.coe.int . See also European Parliament resolution of 5 October 2017 on prison systems and conditions (2015/2062(INI).

See infra, Sects. 3 and 5 .

See further Snacken and Beyens ( 1994 ), Maculan et al. ( 2013 ), Dünkel ( 2017 ), Aebi et al. ( 2019 ). See also Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics (SPACE), available at www.wp.unil.ch/space .

See further Penal Reform International (PRI) Global prison trends, available at www.penalreform.org ; United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) (2013), Handbook on Strategies to Reduce Overcrowding in Prisons, United Nations : Vienna.

See, for instance, Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member States No.R (99)22 concerning Prison Overcrowding and Prison Population Inflation, 30 September 1999; Le Contrôleur général des lieux de privation de liberté (2018), Les droits fondamentaux à l’épreuve de la surpopulation carcérale Approche concrète sur la base de l’expérience du Contrôleur général des lieux de privation de liberté, Éditions Dalloz: Paris.

Haney ( 2012 ), le Roux-Kemp ( 2013 ). See also UNODC, WHO, UNAIDS and OHCHR joint statement on COVID-19 in prisons and other closed settings, 13 May 2020, available at www.who.int .

CPT, Living space per prisoner in prison establishments: CPT standards, CPT/Inf (2015) 44, 15 December 2015, para 5.

PRI (2012), Ten-Point Plan to Reduce Prison Overcrowding, p. 1.

Loc. cit . ; CDPC, White Paper on prison overcrowding, PC-CP (2015) 6 rev 7, 30 June 2016, paras 10–11 and 20; European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS), The Cost of Non-Europe in the area of Procedural Rights and Detention Conditions, PE 611.008, December 2017, p. 126; UNODC supra note 21, p. 8.

CDPC supra note 26, para 10; European Parliament supra note 18, para 5; European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (2019), Criminal detention conditions in the European Union: rules and reality, pp. 17–19.

CDPC supra note 26, para 11; UNODC supra note 21, p. 8; Aebi and Tiago ( 2021 ), p. 70.

UNODC supra note 21, p. 8.

Fédération des Associations Réflexion-Action, Prison et Justice (FARAPEJ) (2018), Contre-rapport : Pour en finir vraiment avec la surpopulation carcérale, pp. 11–15.

Moolenaar ( 2019 ).

Lappi-Seppälä ( 2010 ), p. 44.

This is also a requirement flowing from Rule 18.3 of the European Prison Rules (EPR).

Chung ( 2000 ), pp. 2362–2366 and Albrecht ( 2012 ), p. 6.

For an overview of the domestic standards in the European Union see FRA supra note 27. The relevant global international standards are set out in the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Resolution of the UN General Assembly, A/RES/70/175, 8 January 2016 – Nelson Mandela Rules).

Dumitru-Tudor Dorobantu case C-128/18, 15 October 2019.

This is often forgotten when juxtaposing the Muršić approach and other CoE materials. For instance, Pinto de Albuquerque and Ciuffoletti ( 2016 ).

CDPC supra note 26, paras 10–11.

CPT supra note 24, paras 21–23.

This is the following: (1) 6 sq. m. of living space for a single-occupancy cell and sanitary facility; (2) 4 sq. m. of living space per prisoner in a multiple-occupancy cell and fully partitioned sanitary facility; (3) at least 2 m. between the walls of the cell; (4) at least 2.5 m. between the floor and the ceiling of the cell.

Liddell ( 2019 ).

ECtHR, Vinter and Others v the United Kingdom [GC], Application no. 66069/09 et al., judgment of 9 July 2013.

See further, for instance, van Zyl Smit et al. ( 2014 ), van Zyl Smit and Appleton ( 2019 ).

See Daily Mail supra note 17.

See, by contrast, Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171, and Article 5(6) of the American Convention on Human Rights, Costa Rica, 22 November 1969. Note, however, that the Convention contains a detailed list of guarantees relating to the deprivation of liberty (Article 5) and regulates certain issues concerning the work in prison (Article 4(3)(a)). Note also that the Convention system explicitly prohibits imprisonment for debt in Article 1 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention (Protocol No. 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, securing certain rights and freedoms other than those already included in the Convention and in the first Protocol thereto (ETS No. 046, 16 September 1963).

Note, however, that soon after the Second World War the proper management of prisons—influenced, inter alia , by the concern for human dignity—became a preoccupation of international law. See United Nations, Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, 30 August 1955.

Liddell ( 2019 ), pp. 492–493.

Ibid ., p. 505.

See further Kamber ( 2020 ), pp. 470–473.

ECtHR, Kalashnikov v Russia , Application no. 47095/99, judgment of 15 July 2002.

ECtHR, Ramirez Sanchez v France [GC], Application no. 59450/00, judgment of 4 July 2006.

ECtHR, Khoroshenko v Russia [GC], Application no. 41418/04, judgment of 30 June 2015.

ECtHR, Enea v Italy [GC], Application no. 74912/01, judgment of 17 September 2009.

ECtHR, Stummer v Austria [GC], Application no. 37452/02, judgment of 7 July 2011.

ECtHR, Tomov and Others v Russia , Application nos. 18255/10 et al., judgment of 9 April 2019.

ECtHR, Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v Russia [GC], Application nos. 60367/08 et al., judgment of 24 January 2017.

ECtHR, Hirst v the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], Application no. 74025/01, judgment of 6 October 2005, paras 69–70.

ECtHR, Klibisz v Poland , Application no. 2235/02, judgment of 4 October 2016, para 354.

See ECtHR, Valašinas v Lithuania , Application no. 44558/98, judgment of 24 July 2001, and Kalashnikov supra note 50 (where the Court found a violation of Article 3).

The Court does not systematically process detailed statistics concerning the conditions of detention cases. The information on the number of violations found has been extracted from HUDOC and is not necessarily precise. The number of pending cases was obtained from the relevant Registry services. An earlier overview of the statistics is provided in O’Leary ( 2019 ).

According to the latest available statistics, there are 65,800 applications pending before the Court. The information is available at www.echr.coe.int .

On pilot judgment procedures see further, for instance, Leach et al. ( 2010 ) and Haider ( 2013 ). See also Information note issued by the Registrar on the pilot judgment procedure, available at www.echr.coe.int .

ECtHR, Orchowski v Poland , Application no. 17885/04, judgment of 22 October 2009; Norbert Sikorski v Poland , Application no. 17599/05, judgment of 22 October 2009.

ECtHR, Ananyev and Others v Russi a, Application nos. 42525/07 et al., judgment of 10 January 2012.

ECtHR, Torreggiani and Others v Italy , Application nos. 43517/09 et al., judgment of 8 January 2013.

ECtHR, Neshkov and Others v Bulgaria , Application nos. 36925/10, judgment of 27 January 2015.

ECtHR, Varga and Others v Hungary , Application nos. 14097/12 et al., judgment of 10 March 2015.

ECtHR, Rezmiveș and Others v Romania , Application nos. 61467/12 et al., judgment of 25 April 2017.

ECtHR, Sukachov v Ukraine , Application no. 14057/17, judgment of 30 January 2020.

ECtHR, Mandić and Jović v Slovenia , Application nos. 5774/10, judgment of 22 October 2011; ECtHR, Štrucl and Others v Slovenia , Application nos. 5903/10, judgment of 20 October 2011.

ECtHR, Samaras and Others v Greece , Application no. 11463/09, judgment of 28 February 2012; ECtHR, Tzamalis and Others v Greece , Application no. 15894/09, judgment of 4 December 2012; ECtHR, Al. K. v Greece , Application no. 63542/11, judgment of 11 December 2014.

ECtHR, Vasilescu v Belgium , Application no. 64682/12, judgment of 25 November 2014.

ECtHR, Shishanov v the Republic of Moldova , Application no. 11353/06, judgment of 15 September 2015.

ECtHR, Petrescu v Portugal , Application no. 23190/17, judgment of 3 December 2019.

ECtHR, J.M.B. and Others v France , Application nos. 9671/15 et al., judgment of 30 January 2020.

Cliquennois and Birch ( 2020 ) and Roets ( 2021 ).

See, for instance, Favuzza ( 2017 ) and Graziani ( 2018 ).

See further Kamber ( 2020 ), pp. 478–479.

See, for instance, Campos ( 2015 ). See further the follow-up decisions to the cited pilot judgments: ECtHR, Łomiński v Poland (dec.), Application no. 33502/09, 12 December 2010; ECtHR, Shmelev and Others v Russia (dec.), Application nos. 441743/17 et al., 17 March 2020; ECtHR, Stella and Others v Italy (dec.), Application nos. 4169/09, 16 September 2014; Atanasov and Apostolov v Bulgaria (dec.), Application nos. 65540/16 and 22368/17, 27 June 2017; ECtHR, Domján v Hungary (dec.), Application no. 5433/17, 14 November 2017; ECtHR, Dîrjan and Ştefan v Romania (dec.), Application nos. 14224/15 and 50977/15, 15 April 2020, and ECtHR, Polgar v Romania , Application no. 39412/19, 20 July 2021.

Ruffin v Commmonwealth – 62 Va 790 (1871), 1026–1027. This doctrine would suggest that the prisoner is in a state of ‘penal servitude’ and that the state freely decides how to treat him or her. Moreover, according to this understanding, any bill of rights does not apply to him or her. The only rights that prisoners may have are those which the law of the state ‘in its benignity accords to them, but not the rights of freemen’. See further, for the evolution of the Convention law on this point, ECtHR, Golder v the United Kingdom , Application no. 4451/70, judgment of 21 February 1975, and infra Sect. 4.2 .

See further Muršić supra note 7, paras 16 and 18–20.

Ibid ., para 21.

CPT supra note 24.

Sicilianos supra note 5.

Muršić supra note 7, paras 142–143. See also ECtHR, Ulemek v Croatia , Application no. 21613/16, judgment of 31 October 2019.

If not specifically indicated otherwise, this analysis concerns the Muršić Grand Chamber judgment.

See, for instance, ECtHR, Idalov v Russia [GC], Application no. 5826/03, judgment of 22 May 2012, paras 96–102, principally dealing with the manner of calculation of the length of pre-trial detention for the purposes of Article 5(3) of the Convention. See also ECtHR, Georgia v Russia (I) [GC], Application no. 13255/07, judgment of 3 July 2014, paras 192–205, concerning various events arising out of the political tensions between Russia and Georgia.

See further Mavronicola ( 2012 ).

Muršić supra note 7, para 97.

See supra Sect. 3 .

Muršić supra note 7, para 98. Note that the Muršić judgment relies on ECtHR, Bouyid v Belgium [GC], Application no. 23380/09, judgment of 28 September 2015, where the concept of human dignity was used to relativise any relevance of the minimum threshold of severity in instances where conduct of law-enforcement officers vis-à-vis an individual diminishes that individual’s human dignity (such as in instances of the use of force which is not strictly necessary).

Muršić supra note 7, para 99.

On possible other forms of responsibility see Rogan ( 2012 ).

The same is provided in Rule 4 EPR.

See for instance, ECtHR, Karalevičius v Lithuania , Application no. 53254/99, judgment of 7 April 2005, para 36; ECtHR, Apostu v Romania , no. 22765/12, 3 February 2015, para 79.

ECtHR, Varga and Others supra note 67 para 76.

This included the pre- Muršić pilot and quasi-pilot judgments referred to in Sect. 3 , and the Grand Chamber Idalov case (supra note 87). See further Muršić supra note 7, para 107.

See further ECtHR, Ananyev and Others supra note 64, para 145.

See, for instance, ECtHR, Cotleţ v Romania (no. 2) , Application no. 49549/11, judgment of 1 October 2013, paras 34 and 36.

Supra Sect. 2 .

The EPR (see Rule 18.3) and the Nelson Mandela Rules (see Rule 13) do not contain any provision on the number of square metres that should be allocated to a detainee. There is also no EU legislation on the matter. At the same time, the standards of the monitoring bodies differ: the CPT devised its “rule of thumb” of a minimum of 4 sq. m of personal space (CPT supra note 24, 39–40), while, for instance, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) set that standard at 3.4 sq. m (see ICRC (2013) Water, Sanitation, Hygiene and Habitat in Prisons, p. 18).

The FRA study ( supra note 27, pp. 17–19) has found that sixteen EU member States have laws or regulations specifying national standards of minimum cell space per detainee. These standards range from 3 to 6 sq. m. In France, only a maximum cell space per prisoner of 11 sq. m is specified.

See supra note 97.

See supra note 24, 39–40 and 101.

Muršić supra note 7, paras 109–110.

Idalov case supra note 87, para 101.

The distinction drawn in Muršić between the role of the CPT and the Court, and the consequential effect of that distinction as regards the minimum standard of personal space, was the central point of criticism of the judgment by the dissenting Judges Sajó, López Guerra, Wojtyczek, Lazarova Trajkovska, De Gaetano, Grozev and Pinto de Albuquerque. On the role of the CPT, including its relationship with the Court, see Murdoch ( 2006 ), and Bicknell et al. ( 2018 ).

Muršić supra note 7, paras 114–115.

On this point, the Court followed the relevant CPT methodology (see further CPT supra note 24).

See further Muršić supra note 7, paras 116–121.

See supra Sect. 2 .

Muršić supra note 7, paras 122–126.

On the distribution of the burden of proof between the parties in this context see Muršić paras 127–128.

The requisite minimum standard on the freedom of movement is set out in Muršić para 133.

It is important to note that in this context the Court referred not only to its case-law but also to the relevant international standards as established in the EPR and the Nelson Mandela Rules, as well as in the work of the CPT and the ICRC (see Muršić para 134).

Ibid ., para 138.

Ibid. , paras 139–140.

See further ECtHR, Rezmiveș and Others supra note 68 para 77; ECtHR, Petrescu supra note 74 para 100; ECtHR, Sukachov supra note 69 para 86; ECtHR, J.M.B. and Others supra note 75 para 255.

The relevant numbers are drawn from a HUDOC analysis. There are, however, no specific statistics available for this particular group of cases.

CDPC CM(2020)17-add2, pp. 9–10.

CPT 26th General Report, CPT/Inf(2017)5-part, 20 April 2017, para 56.

See, for instance, CPT Ukraine: Visit 2017, CPT/Inf (2018) 41, 27 July 2018, para 57; CPT North Macedonia: Visit 2016, CPT/Inf (2017) 30, 20 March 2017, para 23.

Supra note 36.

On the principles of the CJEU case-law relating to conditions of detention and the EAW cooperation see Korenica ( 2016 ).

Dumitru-Tudor Dorobantu , paras 70–79 and 85.

See supra note 9.

See further Armstrong ( 2018 ).

For the moment there does not appear to be a political will to engage with any legislative initiative at the EU level; see Council of the European Union, Outcome of 3816th Council meeting, 12574/21, 7 October 2021, p. 3.

Aebi MF, Tiago MM (2021) SPACE I - 2020 – Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics: prison populations. Council of Europe, Strasbourg

Google Scholar  

Aebi MF et al (2019) Prisons in Europe 2005-2015 – volumes 1 and 2. Council of Europe, Strasbourg

Albrecht HJ (2012) Prison overcrowding – finding effective solutions: strategies and best practices against overcrowding in correctional facilities. Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, Freiburg

Arden M (2019) Dignity and rights: should these concepts be linked up? In: Sicilianos L-A et al (eds) Intersecting views on national and international human rights protection: liber amicorum Guido Raimondi. Wolf Legal Publishers, Tilburg, pp 23–33

Armstrong S (2018) Securing prison through human rights: unanticipated implications of rights-based penal governance. HJCJ 57(3):401–421

Bicknell C, Evans M, Morgan R (2018) Preventing torture in Europe. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg

Campos A (2015) Le Conte de deux cités ou la responsabilité partagée dans l’application de la Convention : l’exemple Torreggiani. In: López Guerra et al (eds) El Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos: una visión desde dentro: en homenaje al Juez Josep Casadevall. Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia, pp 191–197

Chung SY (2000) Prison overcrowding: standards in determining eighth amendment violations. FLR 68(6):2351–2400

Cliquennois G, Birch P (2020) Prison overcrowding: examining the problem through the prism of the European Court of Human Rights. In: Birch P, Sicard LA (eds) Prisons and community corrections: critical issues and emerging controversies. Routledge, London, pp 43–56

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Coyle A (2009) A human rights approach to prison management: handbook for prison staff, 2nd edn. International Centre for Prison Studies, London

Daw C (2020) Justice on trial: radical solutions for a system at breaking point. Bloomsbury, London

Dreyer E (2017) Un an de droit européen des droits de l’homme en matière pénale : (janvier - décembre 2016). JurisClasseur 29(4):18–23

Dünkel F (2017) European penology: the rise and fall of prison population rates in Europe in times of migrant crises and terrorism. EJC 14(6):629–653

Falxa J (2015) Traitement inhumain ou dégradant : présomption en cas de surpopulation pénitentiaire. Recueil-Dalloz 191(15):866

Favuzza F (2017) Torreggiani and prison overcrowding in Italy. HRLR 17(1):153–173

Graziani F (2018) Prison overcrowding in Italy: the never ending story? RJSS 1:53–68

Haider D (2013) The pilot-judgment procedure of the European Court of Human Rights. Brill, Leiden

Book   Google Scholar  

Haney C (2012) Prison effects in the era of mass incarceration. TPJ:1–24

Harding RM (1998) In the belly of the beast: a comparison of the evolution and status of prisoners’ rights in the United States and Europe. GJICL 27(1):3–56

Howard J (1777) The state of the prisons in England and Wales. William Eyres, Warrington

Kamber (2020) Remedies for breaches of prisoners’ rights in the European Prison Rules. NJECL 11(4):467–488

Keiber S (2016) Anhaltung in Zellen mit unter 3 m 2 an Raum pro Häftling: Muršić gg. Kroatien, Urteil vom 20.10.2016, Grosse Kammer, Bsw. Nr. 7334/13. NLMR 25(5):406–411

Korenica F (2016) No more unconditional “mutual trust” between member States: an analysis of the landmark decision of the CJEU in Aranyosi and Căldăraru. EHRLR 5:542–555

Lappi-Seppälä T (2010) Causes of prison overcrowding. In: Twelfth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, Workshop on Strategies and Best Practices against Overcrowding in Correctional Facilities, Conference proceedings, p 44

le Roux-Kemp A (2013) Overcrowding in prisons: a health risk in need of (re)consideration. HLR 21(2):33–38

Leach P (2017) Taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Leach P et al (2010) Responding to systemic human rights violations: an analysis of ‘Pilot Judgments’ of the European Court of Human Rights and their impact at national level. Intersentia, Antwerp

Liddell R (2019) Are the Convention’s authors turning in their grave: European judges and prisoners’ rights? In: Sicilianos L-A et al (eds) Intersecting views on national and international human rights protection: liber amicorum Guido Raimondi. Wolf Legal Publishers, Tilburg, pp 491–505

Maculan A et al (2013) Prison in Europe: overview and trends. Antigone, Rome

Mavronicola N (2012) What is an absolute right’? Deciphering absoluteness in the context of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. HRLR 12(4):723–758

Mears DP (2008) Accountability, efficiency, and effectiveness in corrections: shining a light on the black box of prison systems. CPP 7(1):143–152

Moolenaar D (2019) Correlation between crime rates and imprisonment, presentation at the high-level conference on prison overcrowding. Council of Europe

Murdoch J (2006) The impact of the Council of Europe’s ‘Torture Committee’ and the evolution of standard-setting in relation to places of detention. EHRLR 2:158–179

Nussberger A (2019) Three square meters of human dignity? In: Sicilianos L-A et al (eds) Intersecting views on national and international human rights protection: liber amicorum Guido Raimondi. Wolf Legal Publishers, Tilburg, pp 669–686

O’Brein P (1998) The prison on the continent. In: Morris N, Rothman DJ (eds) The Oxford history of the prison: the practice of punishment in western society. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 178–201

O’Leary S (2019) Conditions of detention in the case-law of the two European courts. In: Highlevel Conference on prison overcrowding, Conference proceedings

Pinto de Albuquerque P, Ciuffoletti S (2016) A question of space. Overcrowding, dignity and resocialization from Strasbourg to Italy. In: European Prison Litigation Network, The protection of prisoners’ rights in Europe, Conference proceedings, pp 80–103

Roets D (2021) Conditions de détention en France : double ricochet de l’arrêt J.M.B. et autres c. France : (obs. sous Cass. (fr.) (ch. crim.), 8 juillet 2020 (2 arrêts) et Cons. const. (fr.), décision n° 2020-858/859 QPC, 2 octobre 2020). RTDDL 32(125):141–152

Rogan M (2012) Dealing with overcrowding in prisons: contrasting judicial approaches from the USA and Ireland. IJ 47:195–202

Schönteich M (2013) The overuse of pre-trial detention: causes and consequences. Crim Justice Matters 92:18–19

Sicilianos L-A, Kostopoulou M-A (2019) The individual application under the European Convention on Human Rights. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg

Simon D (2018) Droits fondamentaux dans l’Etat d’émission : note. JurisClasseur 28(10):25–27

Snacken S, Beyens K (1994) Sentencing and prison overcrowding. EJCPR 2:84–99

Sudre F (2016) 3 m2 ou l’espace vital minimum par détenu : CEDH, gr. ch., 20 oct. 2016, n° 7334/13, Mursic c. Croatie. JCP 90(46):2085

Tulkens F (2017) Cellule collective et espace personnel : un arrêt en trompe-l’oeil (obs. sous Cour eur. dr. h., Gde Ch., arrêt Muršić c. Croatie, 20 octobre 2016). RTDH 28(112):989–1004

Turner WB (1971) Establishing the rule of law in prisons: a manual for prisoners’ rights litigation. SLR 23(2):473–518

van Zyl Smit D (2010) Regulation of prison conditions. Crime Justice 39:503–563

Article   Google Scholar  

van Zyl Smit D, Appleton C (2019) Life imprisonment: a global human rights analysis. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

van Zyl Smit D, Snacken S (2011) Principles of European prison law and policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford

van Zyl Smit D, Weatherby P, Creighton S (2014) Whole life sentences and the tide of European Human Rights Jurisprudence: what is to be done? HRLR 14(1):59–84

Vander Beken T (2016) The role of prison in Europe: travelling in the footsteps of John Howard. Palgrave Macmillan, London

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, France

Krešimir Kamber

Ghent University, Faculty of Law and Criminology, Ghent, Belgium

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Krešimir Kamber .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Programme for Studies on Human Rights in Context, Human Rights Centre, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Clara Burbano Herrera

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Kamber, K. (2022). Prison Overcrowding and the Developing Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights. In: Burbano Herrera, C., Haeck, Y. (eds) Human Rights Behind Bars. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 103. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11484-7_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11484-7_4

Published : 09 October 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-11483-0

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-11484-7

eBook Packages : Law and Criminology Law and Criminology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Do overcrowding and turnover cause violence in prison.

• 1 Division of Prison Health, Geneva University Hospitals and University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
• 2 Department of Forensic Psychiatry, Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
• 3 Adult Psychiatry Division, Department of Mental Health and Psychiatry, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
• 4 Division of Tropical and Humanitarian Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals and University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

Violence is common in prison and its individual risk factors are well documented. However, there is a mixed evidence on the relationship between prison violence and institutional factors, such as overcrowding and turnover, and recent research suggested that these factors may not be important or relevant. This study investigated the association between prison violence and institutional factors in a Swiss pre-trial prison between 2013 and 2018. Measures included violence (assaults requiring immediate medical attention) as well as the annual overcrowding and turnover rates. Using a meta-regression, the results showed that prison violence was higher when overcrowding and turnover increased. Overall, our study highlighted that institutional prison factors might have notable detrimental effects on prison life. Reduction of prison overcrowding and turnover appear critical to reduce prisoners’ vulnerability. Turning prison into safe places designed to promote desistance would probably not be achievable without considering these crucial factors.

Introduction

Prison overcrowding, when the number of prisoners exceeds the prison capacity, is an important concern worldwide. In 2018, overcrowding remained one of the most important issues in prison ( 1 ), with 27 countries operating at 150% to 200% ( 2 ). Turnover, the rate at which the prison population is renewed, has been less extensively studied ( 3 , 4 ), but may also have detrimental consequences for prisoners ( 4 ). Both can undermine the ability of prison systems to meet human needs, including access to appropriate accommodation, timely health care, and access to rehabilitation programs and educational or vocational activities ( 5 ).

However, in a recent empirical study, Fazel, Ramesh & Hawton ( 3 ) underscored the importance of individual over institutional factors. In their multicentric study conducted in 24 high-income countries, there was no significant association between prison suicide and two major institutional factors, namely overcrowding and turnover. These findings resulted in a call to focus on individual and relevant ecological factors ( 3 ). This mixed evidence also applies to prison violence: A meta-analysis to conclude that future policies should focus on “more important predictors” than overcrowding to predict (violent) misconduct ( 6 , p. 409), even if overcrowding has long been described as a potential risk for prison violence ( 7 ).

These conclusions have risen legitimate fears of misinterpretation and neglect of critical institutional factors ( 8 ). Besides, very recent prison studies highlighted significant associations between overcrowding, turnover, and self-harm ( 4 ); and between overcrowding and violent misconduct ( 9 , 10 ). Another recent study also reported that institutional infractions were more likely to happen a few months after entry ( 11 ). As turnover is associated with an increased number of prison entries, it may lead to increased levels of misconduct, infractions, and violence.

This study focused on violence against others, as there is a paucity of empirical studies investigating the association between institutional factors and this kind of violence. Prison violence has been most often investigated using assaults registered in official prison records (i.e., “violent misconduct”) ( 6 , 7 ). In addition, to our knowledge, previous studies on prison violence focused on overcrowding and turnover has been neglected. We hypothesized that institutional factors would lead to increased levels of violence, and thus, that these factors should not be neglected in empirical prison studies and health policy.

Materials and Methods

Prison-level data were collected between 2013 and 2018 in a Swiss pre-trial prison located in Geneva (Champ-Dollon). This prison is mainly a pre-trial prison, but there are also sentenced detainees. In this prison, prisoners spend 23 h a day in their cell. The prison capacity was 376 (with 22 additional places in 2017 and 2018). Nurses are present in the prison 24/7 in a prison medical unit. This prison has been repeatedly criticized by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) for chronic overcrowding and detention setting, including lack of activities ( 12 ). Data were collected using prison-level statistics and prison nurses’ records. Since we used anonymous quality control data, ethical approval was not required.

Prison Overcrowding

The annual overcrowding rate was computed by dividing the annual mean daily population by the prison capacity. It was extracted from the statistics available each year for the whole prison, upon request to the direction of the prison.

Turnover Ratio

The turnover rate was computed using the number of releases divided by the number of entries plus the average prison population of the previous year ( 3 ). It was also extracted from the statistics available each year for the whole prison, upon request to the direction of the prison.

Nurses recorded systematically and anonymously each assault requiring medical attention immediately after its occurrence, in accordance with the guidelines of a previous study on prison violence, recommending a systematic statistical recording of routine data on prison violence, to standardize injury surveillance ( 13 ).

Statistical Analyses

We tested the association between violence, overcrowding, and turnover using a fixed-effect multivariate meta-regression. Each year was considered as a separate sample (too few events to consider months as separate samples). Analyses were performed with R 3.5.1 (package metaphor 2.0.0).

Over the study period, the average rate of overcrowding was 175.4% and the turnover rate 73.2%. This meant that the prison was overcrowded, as the number of prisoners exceeded its official capacity (100%). However, there is no official definition of what constitutes overcrowding ( 5 ). The turnover rate was also high, with on average 73.2% of the prison population entirely reviewed each year. On average, there was 9.1% of cases of violence/population of inmates over the study period. The meta-analytic prevalence estimate for prison violence over the study period was 8.5% (95% confidence interval: 7.6%–9.3%).

There were significant effects of both overcrowding (b = 0.001, p < .001) and turnover (b = 0.009, p < .001) on prison violence. Increased overcrowding and turnover were associated with increased prevalence estimates of violence. When overcrowding increased of one point (on a one hundred percent scale), prison violence increased of 0.1 point of percentage. Figure 1 shows that increased levels of overcrowding were associated with higher prevalence estimates of prison violence. When turnover increased of one point (on a one hundred percent scale), prison violence increased of 0.9 point of percentage. The pattern was less clear in the forest plot depicted in Figure 1 , but the effect was nonetheless significant.

Figure 1 Forest plot of the effect of overcrowding and turnover on prison violence, sorted by overcrowding rate. 95% CI: 95% confidence intervals. Whiskers represent 95% CI for the prevalence estimate of each year. Prevalence estimates are reported for assaults requiring immediate medical attention. Overcrowding and turnover are reported as percentages.

In our study, there was a meta-analytic percentage of 8.5% of assaults requiring immediate medical attention. This percentage ranged between previous estimates, from 0.8% for assaults classified as violent misconduct in official prison reports ( 9 ) to 23.5% of assaults (including assaults against staff) classified as disciplinary offences in official prison reports ( 10 ). As these studies used very different measures to assess prison violence and were conducted in different settings, comparisons are not possible.

Our study showed that institutional prison factors were significantly associated with prison violence (i.e., assaults requiring immediate medical attention). This result replicated recent empirical findings focusing on overcrowding in the US and using official misconduct reports ( 9 , 10 ). Our study extended these results in a European country and with data not necessarily recorded in the official prison reports. It followed recent guidelines for systematic statistical recording of violence ( 13 ). In addition, to our knowledge, this study was the first to examine the association between turnover and prison violence, highlighting that this institutional factor also led to increased levels of prison violence.

Overall, our study highlighted that institutional prison factors might have notable detrimental effects on prison life and adjustment to prison life. Reduction of prison overcrowding and turnover appear critical to reduce prisoners’ vulnerability and they should not be neglected. These detrimental effects may be even worse for especially vulnerable people living in detention (e.g., those in bad health or having severe psychiatric disorders, older people). Even if these factors are not easily modifiable, future prison policies should be developed to promote prisoners’ health and rehabilitation. Indeed, (violent) misconduct is associated with increased recidivism ( 14 ).

Meanwhile, adequate prevention measures to reduce violence in overcrowded prisons are needed. It should include adequate occupational activities as well as screening and treatment for psychiatric disorders targeting specific needs; as well as enhancement of social skills, social relationships, and social support using relevant psychosocial programs ( 13 , 15 ). Such need for adjustments in prison policy is regularly emphasized in the legal literature as well ( 16 , 17 ).

This study has some limitations. A first limitation was the lack on individual data, such as personal risk factors for prison violence. However, the prison population of Champ-Dollon was stable over time [e.g., rates of psychiatric treatments and socio-demographic profiles, ( 18 )] so we could be confident that the changes in prison violence was mostly related to the institutional factors. Second, the results were probably related to the specific characteristics of the prison, namely the lack of freedom of movement and activities. However, the 23-h confinement period per day and the lack of access to a workplace are comparable in most pre-trial prisons in Switzerland ( 17 ). Furthermore, Champ-Dollon is especially overcrowded ( 12 ). Another shortcoming was that we used an operationalization of prison violence (i.e., assaults requiring immediate medical attention) which did not allow comparisons with other studies. Our study missed less severe cases of violence (not requiring immediate medical care), but it used a less restrictive operationalization of prison violence in comparison with some previous studies relying exclusively on official prison reports. In addition, given its retrospective design, we were unable to collect information on violence against staff members. Future multicentric studies should include prisons’ characteristics, and especially time spent locked up in cells and available pro-health, pro-social, and occupational activities ( 4 ), as well as individual-level factors and all kinds of violence, including those against staff members. Further studies should also develop assessments of prison violence that allow comparisons between prisons and include less severe forms of violence. Finally, prison violence can also mean psychological violence, such as harassment, bullying, or sexual violence ( 19 ). Future studies should also investigate this kind of violence.

To conclude, we believe that institutional factors should not be neglected in prison research and future prison policies. Overcrowding and turnover have an important impact on prisoners’ health, prison life, and adjustment to prison life; even if these effects depend on the specific characteristics of the prison under study. Distress and misconduct in prison should be considered as the interplay between individual and institutional factor, and not only as something prisoners import in prison ( 8 ). Turning prison into safe places designed to promote desistance would probably not be achievable without considering these crucial factors.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation, to any qualified researcher.

Ethics Statement

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation was not required for this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements. Since we used anonymous quality control data, ethical approval was not required.

Author Contributions

SB conceived the study’s objective, drafted the manuscript, and performed the statistical analyses. NP participated in data collection. PH, LG, ML, and HW made substantial contributions in the interpretation of the data. NP, PH, LG, ML, and HW revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content. All authors approved the final version to be published and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work related to its accuracy and integrity.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

1. MacDonald M. Overcrowding and its impact on prison conditions and health. Int J Prison Health (2018) 14(2):65–8. doi: 10.1108/IJPH-04-2018-0014

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Penal Reform International. Health in prisons. Penal Reform International. (2018).

Google Scholar

3. Fazel S, Ramesh T, Hawton K. Suicide in prisons: an international study of prevalence and contributory factors. Lancet Psychiatry (2017) 4(12):946–52.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

4. Baggio S, Gétaz L, Tran NT, Peigné N, Chacowry Pala K, Golay D, et al. Association of overcrowding and turnover with self-harm in a Swiss pre-trial prison. Int J Environ Res Public Health (2018) 15(4):601.

5. Penal Reform International. Ten-point plan to reduce prison overcrowding. (2012).

6. Franklin TW, Franklin CA, Pratt TC. Examining the empirical relationship between prison crowding and inmate misconduct: a meta-analysis of conflicting research results. J Crim Justice (2006) 34(4):401–12.

7. Farrington DP, Nuttall CP. Prison size, overcrowding, prison violence, and recidivism. J Crim Justice (1980) 8(4):221–31.

8. Bartlett A, Frater A, Hyde S. Suicide and the criminal justice system: a more complete picture. Lancet Psychiatry (2018) 5(2):106–7.

9. Glazener E, Nakamura K. Examining the link between prison crowding and inmate misconduct: evidence from prison-level panel data. Justice Q (2018) 0(0):1–23. doi: 10.1080/07418825.2018.1495251

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

10. Kurzfeld J. Prison crowding and violent misconduct. SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network (2017) 2017/11/15/. Report No.: ID 2994546.

11. Gonçalves LC, Dirkzwager AJE, Martins C, Gonçalves RA, Van der Laan P. Institutional infractions among young prisoners: a longitudinal study. Prison J (2016) 96(3):462–84. doi: 10.1177/0032885516635777

12. CPT. Rapport au Conseil fédéral suisse relatif à la visite effectuée en Suisse par le Comité européen pour la prévention de la torture et des peines ou traitements inhumains ou dégradants (CPT) du 13 au 24 avril 2015. Strasbourg, France: European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) (2016) 2016. Report No.: 18.

13. Pont J, Stöver H, Gétaz L, Casillas A, Wolff H. Prevention of violence in prison - The role of health care professionals. J Forensic Leg Med. (2015) 34:127–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jflm.2015.05.014

14. Cochran JC, Mears DP, Bales WD, Stewart EA. Does inmate behavior affect post-release offending? Investigating the misconduct-recidivism relationship among youth and adults. Justice Q (2014) 31(6):1044–73.

15. Auty KM, Cope A, Liebling A. Psychoeducational programs for reducing prison violence: a systematic review. Aggress Violent Behav (2017) 33:126–43. doi: 10.17863/CAM.7554

16. Dünkel F. Resozialisierung im Strafvollzug und internationale Menschenrechtsstandards. Europe in Crisis: Crime, Criminal Justice and the Way Forward. Essays in Honour of Professor Nestor Courakis . Sakkoulas Publications: Athen (2017). 2017.

17. Künzli J, Frei NK, Schultheiss MR. Menschenrechtliche Standards der Haftbedingungen in der Untersuchungshaft und ihre Umsetzung in der Schweiz. Jusletter (2015) 5.

18. Skar M, Lokdam N, Liebling A, Muriqi A, Haliti D, Rushiti F, et al. Quality of prison life, violence and mental health in Dubrava prison. Int J Prison Health (2019) 15(3):262–72.

19. Wolff H, Casillas A, Perneger T, Heller P, Golay D, Mouton E, et al. Self-harm and overcrowding among prisoners in Geneva, Switzerland. Int J Prison Health (2016) 12(1):39–44. doi: 10.1108/IJPH-04-2015-0009

Keywords: health policy, forensic, institutional factor, misconduct, public health, prison

Citation: Baggio S, Peigné N, Heller P, Gétaz L, Liebrenz M and Wolff H (2020) Do Overcrowding and Turnover Cause Violence in Prison? Front. Psychiatry 10:1015. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.01015

Received: 26 June 2019; Accepted: 20 December 2019; Published: 24 January 2020.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2020 Baggio, Peigné, Heller, Gétaz, Liebrenz and Wolff. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Stéphanie Baggio, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

Criminal Justice

IResearchNet

Academic Writing Services

Prison overcrowding and its consequences.

This comprehensive article delves into the multifaceted issue of prison overcrowding within the United States criminal justice system. Beginning with an overview of the U.S. criminal justice system, the article examines the root causes of overcrowding, encompassing legislative policies, the War on Drugs, and a dearth of alternative sentencing options. The subsequent exploration of consequences sheds light on the adverse effects on inmate well-being, the strain on correctional staff, and the concerning correlation between overcrowding and elevated recidivism rates. Proposing potential strategies to address this crisis, the article advocates for sentencing reform, increased investment in rehabilitation programs, and the exploration of community-based alternatives. Throughout, the discussion is grounded in formal scientific language and supported by meticulous in-text citations in APA style. This article, with its meticulous examination of causes, consequences, and solutions, serves as a crucial resource for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers committed to addressing and rectifying the pervasive issue of prison overcrowding in the United States.

Introduction

The United States criminal justice system, a complex and multifaceted entity, serves as the bedrock of societal order and safety. This introductory section provides a succinct overview of this intricate system, highlighting its key components and functions. Within this overarching framework, the article specifically focuses on the critical issue of prison overcrowding, a pervasive challenge that has garnered increasing attention within the field of criminal justice studies. Prison overcrowding, as defined herein, refers to the situation wherein the number of incarcerated individuals surpasses the capacity of correctional facilities, leading to a myriad of systemic issues. Recognizing the significance of this concern, this article aims to elucidate the causes and consequences of prison overcrowding, employing formal scientific language and adhering to APA style. As the following sections unfold, the analysis will center on legislative policies, the War on Drugs, lack of alternatives, impacts on inmate well-being, strain on correctional staff, and potential strategies for alleviation. This exploration culminates in a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted implications of prison overcrowding within the broader context of the U.S. criminal justice system.

Causes of Prison Overcrowding

The intricate web of laws and policies within the United States has played a pivotal role in the proliferation of high incarceration rates, a central factor contributing to prison overcrowding. This section engages in a comprehensive discussion of legislative policies that have fueled the surge in the prison population. Of particular focus are mandatory sentencing laws, which have prescribed inflexible and often severe penalties, diminishing judicial discretion and disproportionately affecting certain demographic groups. Additionally, an analysis of three-strikes laws, designed to impose harsher sentences on repeat offenders, unveils their impact on the burgeoning prison population, prompting a critical evaluation of their efficacy and unintended consequences.

The second causative factor, the War on Drugs, has left an indelible mark on the landscape of prison populations in the United States. This subsection undertakes an exploration of the far-reaching consequences of the nation’s aggressive stance against drug offenses. The article delves into the impact of the War on Drugs on the disproportionate incarceration of individuals involved in non-violent drug-related activities. Moreover, a meticulous analysis of sentencing disparities for drug offenses sheds light on the disparities in punishment, revealing a complex interplay of factors such as race, socioeconomic status, and geography that contribute to the overrepresentation of certain demographics within the prison system.

The third facet contributing to the crisis of prison overcrowding is the stark absence of effective alternatives to traditional incarceration. This section critically examines the limitations of current alternative measures, such as probation and parole, designed to divert individuals from imprisonment. An overview of the challenges and shortcomings inherent in these alternative strategies provides insight into their insufficient capacity to address the root causes of criminal behavior. As the discussion unfolds, a nuanced examination of probation and parole reveals systemic hurdles, ranging from inadequate resources to limited programmatic offerings, further underscoring the urgency of comprehensive reform to alleviate the strain on correctional facilities and enhance the criminal justice system’s effectiveness.

Consequences of Prison Overcrowding

The ramifications of prison overcrowding extend far beyond the confines of correctional facilities, profoundly impacting the well-being of incarcerated individuals. This section initiates a detailed discussion of the physical and mental health consequences experienced by inmates subjected to overcrowded conditions. The article examines the challenges inherent in providing adequate healthcare services within crowded prison environments, shedding light on the compromised medical care that often results from strained resources and overextended facilities. Furthermore, the exploration of rehabilitation services reveals the additional hurdles faced by inmates seeking to reintegrate into society, emphasizing the urgent need for comprehensive healthcare and reintegration programs to address the detrimental effects of overcrowding on inmate well-being.

Prison overcrowding places an immense burden on the dedicated personnel tasked with maintaining order and facilitating rehabilitation within correctional facilities. This subsection conducts a thorough analysis of the increased workload and stress experienced by correctional staff. The article elucidates the multifaceted challenges stemming from overextended facilities, ranging from limited resources to heightened tensions among inmates. Moreover, the discussion delves into the implications for both staff and inmate safety, revealing the intricate interplay between overcrowded conditions and the potential for increased violence, self-harm, and strained interpersonal dynamics within the prison setting.

A critical consequence of prison overcrowding lies in its correlation with elevated recidivism rates, perpetuating a cycle of reoffending and reincarceration. This part of the article systematically evaluates the intricate relationship between overcrowding and the likelihood of individuals returning to the criminal justice system. The discussion not only highlights the heightened stressors within overcrowded prisons that contribute to recidivism but also scrutinizes the limited resources available for rehabilitation programs. The examination of these resource constraints underscores the challenges faced by correctional systems in effectively addressing the root causes of criminal behavior and fostering lasting rehabilitation, emphasizing the imperative for systemic reforms to break the cycle of recidivism exacerbated by prison overcrowding.

Strategies to Address Prison Overcrowding

The imperative for addressing prison overcrowding necessitates a comprehensive reevaluation of sentencing practices. This section initiates a thoughtful discussion on potential reforms aimed at reducing the prevalence of mandatory minimum sentences, which have contributed significantly to the ballooning prison population. The article critically examines the implications of such reforms, considering the restoration of judicial discretion and the potential for a more individualized, rehabilitative approach to sentencing. Furthermore, an exploration of alternative sentencing approaches is undertaken, encompassing innovative models that prioritize restorative justice principles and diversion programs, ultimately fostering a paradigm shift towards more equitable and effective sentencing practices.

A crucial component of alleviating prison overcrowding lies in a strategic and substantial investment in rehabilitation programs. This subsection delves into the importance of education, vocational training, and mental health initiatives within correctional facilities. The article critically examines the transformative potential of these programs in addressing the underlying factors contributing to criminal behavior and reducing the likelihood of recidivism. Through an analysis of successful rehabilitation models, the discussion highlights evidence-based practices that have demonstrated positive outcomes in fostering inmates’ personal growth and preparing them for successful reintegration into society.

A shift towards community-based alternatives presents a promising avenue for mitigating the challenges associated with prison overcrowding. This segment explores alternatives such as probation, parole, and electronic monitoring as viable options for diverting individuals away from incarceration while maintaining community safety. The discussion critically evaluates the potential benefits of community-based solutions, including enhanced support networks, increased opportunities for rehabilitation, and the preservation of familial and community ties. Simultaneously, the article engages in a nuanced discussion of the challenges inherent in implementing such alternatives, such as ensuring accountability, addressing public safety concerns, and securing necessary resources for effective community supervision.

In amalgamating these strategies, a comprehensive and balanced approach can be forged to address the root causes of prison overcrowding, promote rehabilitation, and foster a criminal justice system that is both just and effective.

In summation, this article has meticulously examined the complex issue of prison overcrowding within the United States criminal justice system. The exploration commenced with an overview of the U.S. criminal justice system, laying the groundwork for a focused analysis on the causes and consequences of overcrowded prisons. Legislative policies, the War on Drugs, and the lack of viable alternatives were scrutinized as primary contributors to the pervasive problem. The consequences of overcrowding, ranging from the compromised well-being of inmates to the heightened strain on correctional staff and elevated recidivism rates, were discussed with a keen eye on the interconnected challenges facing the system.

Central to this discourse is the imperative for strategic intervention. The strategies presented, including sentencing reform, investment in rehabilitation programs, and the exploration of community-based alternatives, offer a roadmap for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers to navigate toward solutions. Sentencing reform holds the promise of more equitable and effective judicial practices, while investment in rehabilitation programs addresses the root causes of criminal behavior. Community-based alternatives provide a viable means of reducing incarceration rates without compromising public safety.

In closing, the urgency of addressing prison overcrowding cannot be overstated. As the system grapples with the challenges outlined herein, a call to action echoes through these pages. Policymakers are implored to enact meaningful reforms, practitioners urged to implement evidence-based strategies, and researchers encouraged to pursue further investigations into the multifaceted nature of this issue. Only through collaborative efforts can the criminal justice system evolve into a fair, effective, and rehabilitative institution, steering away from the pitfalls of overcrowding and towards a more just future. The responsibility lies with all stakeholders to heed this call and actively contribute to the realization of effective solutions that will shape the future trajectory of the criminal justice system in the United States.

Bibliography

• Albonetti, C. A. (1997). Sentencing under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Effects of Defendant Characteristics, Guilty Pleas, and Departures on Sentence Outcomes for Drug Offenses, 1991–1992. Law & Society Review, 31(4), 789-822.
• Blumstein, A., & Cohen, J. (Eds.). (2013). The Crime Drop in America. Cambridge University Press.
• Frase, R. S. (2018). Structuring the Sentencing System: From Punitive Populism to Democratic Desuetude. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 14, 163-180.
• Garland, D. (2001). The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. University of Chicago Press.
• Nagel, I. H., & Schulhofer, S. J. (1992). Cognitive Heuristics in Legal Decision Making. Law and Society Review, 26(3), 457-496.
• Reitz, K. R. (2018). The Globalization of Supermax Prisons. New York University Press.
• Roberts, J. V., & Cole, G. F. (2019). Criminal Justice in America. Routledge.
• Steffensmeier, D., Ulmer, J. T., & Kramer, J. H. (1998). The Interaction of Race, Gender, and Age in Criminal Sentencing: The Punishment Cost of Being Young, Black, and Male. Criminology, 36(4), 763-798.
• Tonry, M. (Ed.). (2009). The Oxford Handbook of Crime and Criminal Justice. Oxford University Press.
• Zimring, F. E. (2017). The City That Became Safe: New York’s Lessons for Urban Crime and Its Control. Oxford University Press.

The impact of overcrowding

International Journal of Prisoner Health

ISSN : 1744-9200

Article publication date: 21 September 2012

MacDonald, M. , Greifinger, R. and Kane, D. (2012), "The impact of overcrowding", International Journal of Prisoner Health , Vol. 8 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijph.2012.62108aaa.001

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2012, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Article Type: Editorial From: International Journal of Prisoner Health, Volume 8, Issue 1

All prisoners are vulnerable to a certain degree. When the liberty of a group of individuals is restricted and they are placed under the authority of another group of people, and when this takes place in an environment which is to a large extent closed to public scrutiny, the abuse of power has proven to be widespread. Even where no abuse exists, prison conditions themselves in a large majority of countries worldwide are harmful to the physical and mental well-being of prisoners, due to overcrowding, violence, poor physical conditions, isolation from the community, inadequate prison activities and health care (UNODC, 2009, p. 4).

Overcrowding in prison can impact significantly on prisoners’ health, access to education and training. In turn, this impacts on their ability to access the services and treatment vital to managing their throughcare to the community. Staff who are working in overcrowded prisons are also at risk in a range of ways.

In excess of 10.1 million people are held in penal institutions worldwide, mostly as pre-trial detainees/remand prisoners or as sentenced prisoners. Walmsley’s ninth edition of the World Prison Population List (2012) states that:

Prison population rates vary considerably between different regions of the world, and between different parts of the same continent. For example:

In Africa the median incarceration rate for western African countries is 47.5 per 100,000 population, whereas for southern African countries it is 219.

In the Americas the median rate for south American countries is 175 whereas for Caribbean countries it is 357.5.

In Asia the median rate for south central Asian countries (mainly the Indian sub-continent) is 42 whereas for eastern Asian countries it is 155.5.

In Europe the median rate for western European countries is 96 whereas for the countries spanning Europe and Asia (e.g. Russia and Turkey) it is 228.

In Oceania (including Australia and New Zealand) the median rate is 135.

Prison populations are growing in all five continents. Updated information on countries included in previous editions of the World Prison Population List shows that prison populations have risen in 78 per cent of countries (in 71 per cent of countries in Africa, 82 per cent in the Americas, 80 per cent in Asia, 74 per cent in Europe and 80 per cent in Oceania) (Walmsley, 2012, p. 1).

As prison populations rise, prison administrations struggle to maintain or guarantee humane conditions that meet international standards and guidelines. Overcrowding means that prisons are more difficult to manage effectively. Pressure is placed on all resources resulting in limited, or in some cases, no space to provide educational, rehabilitation, cultural, recreation and/or religious activities. Overcrowding also reduces staff morale and creates security and control difficulties due to increased levels of conflict and violence. Staff and prisoners health and wellbeing are put at risk.

Prison overcrowding, as defined by the English and Welsh Prison Service, is where a prison contains more prisoners than the establishments:

“certified normal accommodation” or CNA. This is the level which represents the good, decent standard of accommodation that the service aspires to provide all prisoners. In January 2012, the Ministry of Justice reported that the prison population overall stood at 112 per cent of in use CNA. The fifteen most overcrowded prisons were holding a population of more than 150 per cent of CNA (Criminal Justice Alliance, 2012, p. 4).

It is not always easy to define overcrowding. Internationally, many prison administrations adopt standards and procedures that result in measurement of prison capacity and, from this, definitions of overcrowding that refer:

…basically to a number of prisoners actually imprisoned exceeding the number of prison cells/beds which has been set as the maximum to be held in a prison. Definitions of overcrowding thus require first of all the establishment of a maximum number of prisoners, which can be accommodated in a prison facility. The maximum number must be established on the basis of criteria consistent with human rights and minimum standards issued by the United Nations or regional bodies. Definitions of overcrowding, however, will differ among world regions and will be dependent partially on whether single cell accommodation is adopted as a rule or communal cells. … Prison capacity therefore has been assumed to be a “slippery concept” which expresses the need for elasticity and can be used to make overcrowding more or less apparent (Albrecht, 2010, p. 67).

It is important to consider why prisons are overcrowded in many regions. The reasons for increasing prison populations worldwide are numerous and vary from region to region and from country to country. Overcrowding can be attributed to changes in the law and economic factors, prison policy, sentencing policies and practices, underfunding of prison building programmes and the lack of prison places due to age and deterioration.

The causes of overcrowding in many European countries can be explained by the following factors: first, a lack of investment in prison facilities to enable rehabilitation activities and insufficient prevention measures to resource social and mental health care. Second, lack of investment in non-custodial measures such as electronic tagging and community sentences and third, over use of and lengthy pre-trial detention coupled with tough sentencing for non-violent offenders and for vulnerable prisoners such as those with problematic drug and/or alcohol use, those with mental health problems and those with learning disabilities (European Federation of Public Service Unions, 2008).

It is much easier to find consensus on the impact of overcrowding on both prisoners’ health and wellbeing and on prison staff. Prisoners may face:

Deterioration of living conditions.

Lack of access to education, training and work in a prison population where there are high levels of illiteracy and innumeracy and where many prisoners have no vocational qualifications. The opportunity to work reduces substantially in overcrowded prisons.

Difficulty in accessing mental health treatment and support due to the pressure caused by overcrowding on health care facilities.

Lack of support to address drug and alcohol dependence where prison systems have high numbers of prisoners with drug and alcohol problems and where high levels of re-offending amongst this group also suggests that the treatment available in many prison systems is inadequate.

Lack of throughcare interventions leading to high social cost and potential reoffending and difficulties in accessing key support in such things as housing when released.

While the main issue resulting from prison overcrowding is the negative impact on prisoners, overcrowding can also adversely affect staff. Lack of staff to provide supervision and escorts for both prisoners to activities, and for visiting NGOs and service providers from the community, can increase tension between prisoners and staff. Similarly, frustration and potential violence are possible outcomes when prisoners are confined in their cells for long periods. Additionally, there are fewer opportunities for rehabilitative work in overcrowded prisons due to a lack of supervision.

Prison staff may experience some deterioration in their working conditions and face increasing levels of stress in situations where they have limited time to deal with problems and less time to spend with individual prisoners to ensure that they complete educational and rehabilitation programmes. Staff may find that they are overstretched as they try to maintain a safe and rehabilitative prison environment. Medical staff may find it difficult to provide health care that is equivalent to that in the community. Other professional staff (educators, psychologists, social workers, etc.) may be unable to provide meaningful interactions to meet the needs of prisoners in an overcrowded prison. As a result, staff may become the target for frustrated and angry prisoners, making the working lives of prison staff both more dangerous and stressful.

Prison overcrowding is a major contributor to a wide range of problems. This raises the question of what can be done to improve conditions in overcrowded prisons. Prison overcrowding can be reduced first and most obviously by reducing the number of people sent to prison by using diversion schemes, for example, using alternatives to prison for offenders with mental illness. Second, by reducing the amount of time offenders spend in prison on remand by speeding up court procedures and by reducing the length of sentences (van Ness, 2008). Prison Fellowship International (ND) suggests a number of long-term solutions that require both careful work and strong political will through creative measures such as:

Mobile judges travelling to prisons to hold court hearings. This reduces the number of remand prisoners.

Use of probation and community service as an alternative to prison.

Legislative sentencing reform to reduce the length of sentences.

Parole board authority to provide early release for prisoners who pose little danger to society (Prison Fellowship International, ND).

In summary, prison overcrowding impacts negatively on both prisoners and prison staff. Prisoner health and wellbeing are compromised by overcrowding. There is an urgent need for countries to re-assess the criminal justice policies that pose risk of harm so as to ensure that vulnerable prisoners can access health care equivalent to that in the community and that international standards that govern prisons and human rights are met.

In this issue we have an interesting selection of papers from England, the USA, India and Italy that cover a range of key issues of importance to prisoner health. In our first paper, Laura Caulfield and Hannah Twort discuss the experiences of staff implementing changes to prison mental health care in England and Wales. The findings from their study indicate that while many of their respondents felt there had been improvements in prison mental health care, they also acknowledged that it was difficult to implement new ways of working and that there is still some way to go towards providing offenders in prison with effective and appropriate care.

In our second paper, Michael W. Ross and Amy Jo Harzke report on the TECH model and its application in developing a “healthy prison”. The steps required to achieve the “healthy prison” are described in the TECH domains: testing for and treating infectious diseases and vaccination; environmental modification to prevent disease transmission; chronic disease identification and treatment and health maintenance and education. Under each of these domains are tasks to achieve a “healthy prison”. The authors argue that this model is specially designed so that it can be implemented in both resource-poor as well as resource-rich correctional settings.

Vikram Bansal, Girish M. Sogi, Koratagere L. Veeresha, Adarsh Kumar and Shelly Bansal explore prison dental health in Haryana, India. Their study indicates that long term prisoners require a major input of dental treatment to meet their level of need.

The impact of overcrowding is continued in our final article where Maurizio Esposito notes that it is one of several factors that impacts on how prisoners access health care services in Italian prisons. Esposito, using in-depth interviews with male prisoners in three Italian prisons, explores how imprisonment impacts on the health of prisoners who are HIV positive or living with AIDS and how they perceive their quality of life. The results from his study indicate that life in prison for prisoners with HIV is experienced as a kind of double burden of loss of freedom and health limitations that leads them to exhibit fatalism towards the future, a sense of alienation and marginalisation as well as fear of the consequences of living with HIV or AIDS.

Morag MacDonald, Robert Greifinger, David Kane

Albrecht, H. (2010), “Prison overcrowding: finding effective solutions. Strategies and best practices against overcrowding in correctional facilities”, available at: www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/Congress_2010/13Hans-Jorg_Albrecht.pdf (accessed 29 June 2012)

Criminal Justice Alliance (2012), “Crowded out? The impact of prison overcrowding on rehabilitation”, available at: www.criminaljusticealliance.org/Crowded_Out_CriminalJusticeAlliance.pdf (accessed 29 June 2012)

European Federation of Public Service Unions (2008), “EPSU Fact Sheet 4: the statistics of prison overcrowding in the EU”, available at: www.epsu.org/r/377 (accessed 29 June 2012)

Prison Fellowship International (n.d.), “Improving conditions in overcrowded prisons”, available at: www.pfi.org/cjr/downloads/ten-keys-to-improving-conditions-in-overcrowded-prisons (accessed 29 June 2012)

UNODC (2009), Handbook on Prisoners with Special Needs , available at: www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/Prisoners-with-special-needs.pdf (accessed 29 June 2012)

van Ness, D.W. (2008), “Prison overcrowding briefing paper – 1 updated version of a paper titled “Trends in Prisons around the World and in Latim America”, paper presented at Seminario-Taller: Análisis y Perspectivas del Sistema Penitenciario en Panamá, Panamá City, 24 May 2000, available at: www.pfi.org/cjr/human-rights/prison-conditions/prison-overcrowding-1/ (accessed 29 June 2012)

Walmsley, R. (2012), World Prison Population List , 9th ed., available at: www.idcr.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/WPPL-9-22.pdf (accessed 29 June 2012)

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

• Study Protocol
• Open access
• Published: 25 July 2023

The impact of imprisonment on individuals’ mental health and society reintegration: study protocol

• Olga Cunha 1 , 2 ,
• Andreia de Castro Rodrigues 3 ,
• Sónia Caridade 4 ,
• Ana Rita Dias 1 ,
• Telma Catarina Almeida 5 ,
• Ana Rita Cruz 6 &
• Maria Manuela Peixoto 7  

BMC Psychology volume  11 , Article number:  215 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

26k Accesses

1 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

Prison sentences are a particular type of penalty that aim to reintegrate individuals into society. Nonetheless, research suggests that prison sentences have a null or a criminogenic effect on recidivism and a critical impact on inmates’ mental health, negatively interfering with their successful reintegration into society and recidivism. Prevalence rates of mental health disorders among individuals who commit crimes are high, but little is known about how incarceration perpetuates and/or worsens mental health symptoms. In the Portuguese context, no studies focused on understanding the impact of imprisonment on prisoners’ mental health. Thus, this project aims to understand incarceration’s mental health and well-being impact on male and female individuals convicted to prison, both while incarcerated and after release.

The study will follow a quantitative cross-sectional design of male and female individuals in prison and parole, aiming to assess different samples at different moments of the prison sentence. It will also follow a longitudinal design in a subsample of male and female individuals sentenced to prison and on parole who will be followed for one year.

This study intends to have a meaningful impact on the understanding of imprisonment effects, giving important clues for developing and implementing evidence-based prevention and intervention strategies to address prisoners’ and ex-prisoners’ mental health and improve their ability to successfully reintegrate into society and reduce recidivism.

Peer Review reports

In many contexts worldwide, penal sanctions aim to reintegrate individuals into society, and prison sentences are one such sanction. However, research has found that imprisonment has a weak or null effect, or even a criminogenic effect on recidivism rates [ 1 ], as well as a detrimental impact on inmates’ mental health and well-being [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ], which, in turn, may significantly impact their successful reintegration into society and reoffending/recidivism rates [ 5 ]. This impact on individuals’ mental health poses considerable challenges to the Criminal Justice System (CJS), including the higher use of prison healthcare services and increasing institutional costs [ 4 ].

Psychopathology among prisoners has been linked to violence, self-harm, suicide, victimization, and reduced willingness or ability of individuals to participate in daily activities and prison programs, which may impact their well-being and rehabilitation [ 2 , 4 , 5 ]. In addition, research points to considerable rates of mental health disorders among those who committed crimes and were imprisoned and higher comorbidity between mental illness and substance misuse [ 2 , 3 , 5 ]. From a trauma deprivation perspective, prison can have even more severe detrimental effects on women’s mental health than men’s [ 6 ]. Also, compared to their male counterparts, women have higher rates of psychiatric disorders (e.g., depression and drug dependence) [ 7 ].

Nonetheless, little attention has been paid to how incarceration fosters the onset of psychological symptoms or perpetuates and worsens previous psychological symptoms. A key issue in this field is the direction of causality for the high prevalence of mental disorders in prisons - whether the increased rates are caused by prison or imported into prison [ 3 , 5 , 7 ]. This debate is rooted in a theoretical framework considering importation versus deprivation models. From the importation approach, different studies suggested that pre-prison adversities (e.g., illiteracy, child abuse, homelessness, mental illness) contribute to subsequent mental illness among some prisoners. From the deprivation approach, the research found that some prisoners develop a mental illness due to the prison environment [ 7 ]. Although how people react to imprisonment varies from person to person, incarceration is associated with poor mental health outcomes [ 2 , 5 ].

Several personal risk factors have been identified, like female gender, White race, socioeconomic and academic/occupational deficiencies, traumatic experiences, reduced social support, coping style, substance use, and brain injuries. In addition, pre-existing mental illness may worsen mental health in prison [ 4 ]. Studies showed that imprisonment has more iatrogenic than deterrent effects on offenders [ 2 ], considering that individuals face different barriers and constraints while in prison. In addition to personal variables, factors related to the prison environment and aspects of the correctional climate negatively impact prisoners’ mental health. The prison environment can be inherently damaging to mental health due to the consequent disconnection from family, society, and social support, loss of autonomy, diminished meaning and purpose of life, fear of victimization, increased boredom, the unpredictability of surroundings, overcrowding and punitiveness, experiencing and witnessing violence, negative staff-prisoner interaction, and other aversive experiences [ 2 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 ].

The effect of incarceration also depends on other factors, such as the time served in prison and the period related to imprisonment and release. For instance, the first weeks of imprisonment and the period following release are associated with a higher risk of suicide [ 10 ]. Longer sentences are also related to increased healthcare needs [ 11 ].

In line with the transactionist theory of prisoners’ adjustment [ 12 ], environmental characteristics, in interaction with individual ones, may act as a source of pressure for prisoners’ behaviour. Prisoners seem to import trauma’s negative and detrimental effects into prison – importation - but when imprisoned, it is common for prisoners to experience additional traumas (e.g., violence) – deprivation [ 5 ]. Trauma adverse effects are cumulative; thus, prisoners are at-risk for developing or aggravating mental illness. In this sense, mental illness in prison could be attributable to importation and deprivation. Incarceration can also lead to post-incarceration syndrome, a syndrome like posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD); even after serving the prison sentence, many individuals continue to suffer its mental effects [ 13 ]. Some effects may include institutionalized personality traits, such as distrusting others or difficulty maintaining relationships, social-sensory disorientation, and social-temporal alienation.

According to the General Strain Theory (GST), individuals may experience three types of strain: (i) the failure to achieve positively valued goals, (ii) the removal of positively valued stimuli, and (iii) the presence of negative stimuli [ 14 ]. These stressors lead to negative emotions like anger and frustration. Individuals without adequate coping mechanisms to relieve these feelings may turn to criminal pathways. Poor mental health may act as a strain that includes all three domains of stressors [ 15 ]: when an individual has poor mental health, (s)he may not be able to achieve desired goals; poor mental health may lead to the loss of positively valued stimuli; and mental health problems are noxious stimuli that may cause the person discomfort [ 15 ]. All these conditions make the individual more prone to use maladaptive behaviours while imprisoned or after release.

Although the effects of imprisonment on inmates’ mental health have been documented in international research, in Portugal, as far as we know, there are no studies focused on examining the effects of imprisonment on inmates’ mental health, both during incarceration and after release. The current project aims to examine the mental health status of male and female individuals convicted of prison sentences, both while incarcerated and after release. The following specific aims were defined: (a) to assess the impact of incarceration on male and female prisoners’ mental health; (b) to examine the impact of sentence length and period on male and female prisoners’ mental health; (c) to examine changes in prisoners’ mental health symptoms during incarceration and after release; (d) to examine differences between male and female prisoners’ mental health during the time they were serving their sentence and while in parole; (e) to analyse the factors/variables (sociodemographic, criminological, personal, prison environment) that are linked to mental health impairments during imprisonment, in men and women; (f) to analyse the possible mediation and/or moderation effects of the personal and prison environment factors on male and female prisoners’ mental health; (g) to examine the impact of mental health on prisoners’ prison misconduct; and (h) to examine the impact of mental health on male and female individuals’ adjustment to the community after release.

Methods/design

This project includes two studies with two different methodological designs: a cross-sectional design (study 1) and a longitudinal design (study 2).

Participants

The sample was determined according to the universe of male (N = 11,507) and female individuals (N = 901) in prison, and male (N = 2632) and female (N = 196) individuals on conditional release and the following criteria: significance (i.e., the number of sample’s effective) and representativeness (i.e., sample’s quality guaranteed by the sampling method). Sample significance was calculated using the Krejcie and Morgan (1970) formula. Thus, a minimum of 375 male and 269 female participants in prison and 338 male and 132 female participants on conditional release will be recruited.

As a longitudinal study, it will be based on a convenience sample of individuals in prison and in conditional release. We expect to recruit a minimum of 100 men and 80 women in prison and 60 men and 40 women in conditional release. A priori power calculations revealed that the sample size is adequate to conduct the analyses (effect size = 0.30, power = 0.95, number of latent variables = 1, number of observed variables = 5, N  = 100) [ 16 ].

After obtaining approval from the Host Institution’s Ethics Committee, authorization to recruit and assess male and female individuals who are in prison and conditional release (studies 1 and 2) will be obtained from the General Directorate of Reintegration and Prison Services–Ministry of Justice (DGRSP-MJ). Then, different national Prisons and Social Reintegration Teams (from the North to the South of the country) will be contacted to define the data collection procedures for studies 1 and 2.

All the individuals will sign an informed consent in which the main objectives of the research, the voluntary and anonymous nature of their participation, and the fact that no risks or benefits (e.g., financial, legal, or others) are expected from participating will be explained. Data will be collected in a paper-and-pencil format (i.e., presential).

Study 1 uses a cross-sectional design of male and female individuals in prisons and conditional release. Inclusion criteria included adult male and female individuals in prison and on conditional release of Portuguese nationality and older than 18 years. Since this study aims to assess different samples at different moments of the prison sentence, five matched groups of male and female individuals convicted of prison will be assessed: a group of individuals at the beginning of the prison sentence (1–2 weeks at a maximum); a group of individuals six months after the beginning of the prison sentence; a group of individuals at the end of the prison sentence; a group of individuals 1–2 weeks after the prison release; and a group of individuals one year after prison release. To ensure the sample’s representativeness, information about individuals older than 18, distributed by sex and age from the different national Prisons and Social Reintegration Teams, will be requested from the DGRSP-MJ. Participants will be selected randomly.

Study 2 uses a longitudinal design in a subsample of adult male and female individuals in prisons and conditional release. Inclusion criteria include (a) adult male and female individuals (i.e., 18 years or more); and (b) individuals who recently entered prison (1–2 weeks in maximum) and individuals who were recently released from prison (1–2 weeks in maximum).

Male and female individuals who participated in study 1 and who were integrated into the group of individuals at the beginning of the prison sentence (1–2 weeks at a maximum) and into the group of individuals 1–2 weeks (at a maximum) after the prison release will be invited to participate in the longitudinal study. Confidentiality of data will be guaranteed. However, an alphanumeric code will be attributed to each participant and maintained until the last data collection moment (12 months) to match the participants and anonymize the participation. At the end of the data collection, all the codes will be deleted, and no personal information will be maintained.

As it will be a longitudinal study, after the baseline assessment, individuals will be followed and assessed at routine intervals of three months for one year - three months, six months, nine months, and one year.

Sociodemographic and Juridical-Penal Questionnaire will be used to collect data on sociodemographic (e.g., age, sex, marital status, educational level, socioeconomic level, etc.) and juridical-penal variables (e.g., sentence length, crime committed, recidivism, etc.).

Adverse Childhood Experiences Scale (ACEs) [ 17 , 18 ] is a brief self-report measure with ten items for assessing ten types of childhood adversities: physical, verbal, and sexual abuse, physical and emotional neglect, exposure to domestic violence, alcoholic parent, a family member in jail, a family member with a mental disorder, and parents’ divorce.

Benevolent Childhood Experiences Scale (BCEs) [ 19 , 20 ] is a 10-item self-report tool for assessing supportive and positive experiences from birth to 18 years of age.

Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) [ 21 , 22 ] is a screening tool for assessing the risk level for alcohol, smoking, and other substance abuse and dependence and the main consequences of alcohol, smoking, and other substance abuse.

Prison Environment Inventory (PEI) [ 12 , 23 ] is a 48-items self-report tool for assessing the prisoner’s perception of the prison environment, including eight dimensions: privacy, safety, structure, support, emotional feedback, social stimulation, activity, and freedom.

Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales − 21 (DASS-21) [ 24 , 25 ] is a 21-items self-report measure for assessing depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms. Higher scores indicate more severe symptomatology.

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) [ 26 , 27 ] is a self-report measure with 20 items that allow it to assess the 20 DSM-5 PTSD symptoms. Higher scores indicate more severe symptomatology.

Suicide Behaviours Questionnaire-Revised (SBQ-R) [ 28 , 29 ] is a very brief screening of suicidal behaviours, with higher scores indicating more frequent suicidal behaviours and greater suicide risk.

Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale-Short Form (DERS-SF) [ 30 , 31 ] is a 18-items self-report assessment tool that assesses six dimensions of difficulties in emotion regulation: awareness; clarity; goals; impulse; non-acceptance; and strategies. Greater scores indicate more severe difficulties in the emotion regulation process and strategies.

Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire – Short Form (BPAQ-SF) [ 32 , 33 ] is a very brief self-report instrument with 12 items for assessing aggression through four main dimensions: physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger, and hostility. Higher scores suggest greater levels of aggressiveness.

Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) [ 34 , 35 ] is a brief measure with five items developed for assessing global and overall satisfaction with one’s life. Greater scores describe a greater perception of satisfaction with life.

Social Support Satisfaction Scale (ESSS) [ 36 ] is a 15-items measure for assessing satisfaction with social support, including with family, friends, and community. Higher scores on the scale indicate greater satisfaction with social support.

Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) [ 37 ] is a brief self-report tool with six items for assessing resilience and recovering from stress. Higher scores suggest a greater ability to recover from stress and be resilient.

Delinquency Questionnaire (D-CRIM) [ 38 ] is a 12-items self-report measure to assess criminal behaviours (violent and non-violent) that occurred in the last 12 months or lifetime.

Social Network Index (SNI) [ 39 ] is an assessment tool for measuring the degree of participation of an individual in 12 different types of social relationships and networks (e.g., intimate partner, parents, children, family members, neighbours, friends, and workmates).

Individual files of participants will also be examined to extract information related to criminological variables (e.g., length of the sentence), institutional misconduct (e.g., number of infractions), mental health services use, medication, and number of visits in prison.

Information regarding the different prisons will be collected, such as prison size, security level, and overcrowding.

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics using the IBM SPSS version 28.0 will be conducted to characterize the sample and the main variables. Univariate, bivariate, and multivariate analysis will be conducted, along with mediation and moderation analysis using PROCESS macro 4.2 for IBM SPSS software.

Mixed-effects models will be performed using IBM SPSS version 28.0, combining two levels to a single framework, with Level 1 for repeated measurements nested within Level 2. Longitudinal Structural Equation Modelling will also be used to examine causal inferences through moderation and mediation effects using AMOS IBM SPSS.

Despite international decarceration movements and the decrease in male incarceration rates in the last years, in Portugal, 12,408 individuals were in prison on 15 April 2023. Incarceration’s personal, judicial, societal, and financial costs are burdensome. Each prisoner costs the Portuguese State €49 per day on average. According to international data, this figure doubles if mental health expenses are added to daily expenses. However, the costs of not preventing or intervening in prisoners’ mental health problems can be even more damaging for individuals and the entire society than not treating them. Incarceration is definitively linked to poor health, and upon release from prison, many individuals experience difficulties in maintaining good health [ 6 ]. In addition, the combination of better mental health in prison and increases in mental health post-release is associated with a reduced likelihood of reoffending [ 6 ]. Consequently, reductions in recidivism lead to reductions in the prison population [ 40 ]. Considering the costs of imprisonment, reduced recidivism will lead to financial impacts on the CJS. There is also evidence of cost-effectiveness in providing mental health interventions and treatment during incarceration and post-incarceration [ 41 ]. Providing mental health services and programs in prison and after release is a legal (societal and humanitarian) imperative and a way to improve individuals’ skills and coping strategies to increase their successful reintegration into society after prison release (and, therefore, decrease reoffending and recidivism rates).

With this project, we expect to demonstrate that imprisonment has a pernicious effect on inmates’ mental health and well-being that lasts even after prison release, which, in turn, might significantly impact individuals’ reintegration into society and reoffending. However, we expect to find changes in mental health adjustment during the prison sentence and the conditional release. We expect to expand the current knowledge on the effects of incarceration using an innovative design. We also intend to challenge the prevailing view about prison sentences and their impact on individuals’ rehabilitation, claiming attention to the damaging effects of such penalties, both to the individual and the entire society. This study will also give us important clues for developing and implementing more effective and evidence-based prevention and intervention strategies to address mental health disorders among prisoners and ex-prisoners and, therefore, improve their ability to successfully reintegrate into society and reduce recidivism.

Improving the understanding of inmates’ mental health conditions and how imprisonment impacts mental health and well-being is relevant, considering pre-imprisonment factors and being able to develop effective strategies to prevent and reduce its occurrence. Specifically, results from this study will inform the development of prevention and intervention efforts to identify those at risk early and improve their abilities and skills to successfully adapt to imprisonment and reintegration into society, breaking the cycle of release-recidivism-reimprisonment. Finally, this project is aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) as it will contribute to ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being among prisoners, reducing inequalities for those affected by imprisonment, and promoting peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, providing access to justice for all, and building effective accountable and inclusive institutions.

Data Availability

Available upon request to the corresponding author.

Abbreviations

Adverse Childhood Experiences Scale

Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test

Benevolent Childhood Experiences Scale

Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire ? Short Form

Brief Resilience Scale

Criminal Justice System

Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales - 21

Delinquency Questionnaire

Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale-Short Form

General Directorate of Reintegration and Prison Services?Ministry of Justice

Social Support Satisfaction Scale

General Strain Theory

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5

Prison Environment Inventory

Posttraumatic stress disorder

Suicide Behaviours Questionnaire-Revised

Sustainable Development Goals

Social Network Index

Satisfaction with Life Scale

Petrich DM, Pratt TC, Jonson CL, Cullen FT. Custodial sanctions and reoffending: a meta-analytic review. Crim Justice. 2021;50. https://doi.org/10.1086/715100 .

Edgemon TG, Clay-Warner J. Inmate mental health and the pains of imprisonment. Soc Ment Health. 2019;9:33–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/215686931878542 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Fazel S, Hayes AJ, Bartellas K, Clerici M, Trestman R. Mental health of prisoners: prevalence, adverse outcomes, and interventions. Lancet Psychiatry. 2016;3:871–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(16)30142-0 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Gonçalves LC, Endrass J, Rossegger A, Dirkzwager AJE. A longitudinal study of mental health symptoms in young prisoners: exploring the influence of personal factors and the correctional climate. BMC Psychiatry. 2016;16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-016-0803-z .

Gabrysch C, Fritsch R, Priebe S, Mundt AP. Correction: Mental disorders and mental health symptoms during imprisonment: a three-year follow-up study. PLoS ONE. 2020;15:e0231593. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213711 .

Wallace D, Wang X. Does in-prison physical and mental health impact recidivism? SSM – Popul Health. 2020;11:100569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2020.100569 .

Armour C. Mental health in prison: a trauma perspective on importation and deprivation. Int J Criminol Soc Theor. 2012;5:886–94.

Google Scholar  

Van der Laan A, Eichelsheim V. Juvenile adaptation to imprisonment: feelings of safety, autonomy and well-being, and behaviour in prison. Eur J Criminol. 2013;10:424–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370812473530 .

Cesaroni C, Peterson-Badali M. Understanding the adjustment of incarcerated young offenders: a canadian example. Youth Justice. 2010;10:107–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225410369290 .

Bukten A, Stavseth MR. Suicide in prison and after release: a 17-year national cohort study. Eur J Epidemiol. 2021;36:1075–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-021-00782-0 .

Yang S, Kadouri A, Révah-Lévy A, Mulvey EP, Falissard B. Doing time: a qualitative study of long-term incarceration and the impact of mental illness. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2009;32:294–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2009.06.003 .

Wright KN. Developing the prison environment inventory. J Res Crime Delinq. 1985;22:257–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427885022003005 .

Liem M, Kunst M. Is there a recognizable post-incarceration syndrome among released “lifers”? Int J Law Psychiatry. 2013;36:333–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2013.04.012 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Agnew R. Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminol. 1992;30:47–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01093.x .

Semenza DC, Grosholz JM. Mental and physical health in prison: how co-occurring conditions influence inmate misconduct. Health Justice. 2019;7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-018-0082-5 .

Soper DS. A-Priori Sample Size Calculator for Structural Equation Models [Software]. 2020.

Felitti VJ, Anda RF, Nordenberg D, Williamson DF, Spitz AM, Edwards V, et al. Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: the adverse childhood experiences (ACE) study. Am J Prev Med. 1998;14:245–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8 .

Silva SSP, Maia A. Versão Portuguesa do Family ACE Questionnaire (Questionário da história da adversidade na infância). Braga: Psiquilíbrios Edições; 2008.

Narayan AJ, Rivera LM, Bernstein RE, Harris WW, Lieberman AF. Positive childhood experiences predict less psychopathology and stress in pregnant women with childhood adversity: a pilot study of the benevolent childhood experiences (BCEs) scale. Child Abuse Negl. 2018;78:19–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.09.022 .

Almeida TC, Guarda R, Cunha O. Positive childhood experiences and adverse experiences: psychometric properties of the Benevolent Childhood Experiences Scale (BCEs) among the portuguese population. Child Abuse Negl. 2021;120:105179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105179 .

World Health Organization Assist. The Alcohol, smoking and substance involvement screening test (ASSIST) manual for use in primary care. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.

Mostardinha AR, Bártolo A, Bonifácio J, Pereira A. Validação do the Alcohol, smoking and substance involvement screening test (ASSIST) em estudantes universitários. Acta Med Port. 2019;32:279–88. https://doi.org/10.20344/amp.10650 .

Gonçalves LC, Endrass J, Rossegger A, Dirkzwager AJ. A longitudinal study of mental health symptoms in young prisoners: exploring the influence of personal factors and the correctional climate. BMC Psychiatry. 2016;16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-016-0803-z .

Henry JD, Crawford JR. The short-form version of the Depression anxiety stress scales (DASS-21): construct validity and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. Br J Clin Psychol. 2005;44:227–39. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466505X29657 .

Pais-Ribeiro J, Honrado A, Leal I. Contribuição para o estudo da adaptação portuguesa das escalas de ansiedade, depressão e stress (EADS) de 21 itens de Lovibond e Lovibond. Psic Saúde Doenças. 2004;5:229–39.

Weathers FW, Litz BT, Keane TM, Palmieri PA, Marx BP, Schnurr PP. The PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5). 2013. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/t02622-000 .

Carvalho T, da Motta C, Pinto-Gouveia J. Portuguese version of the posttraumatic stress disorder checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5): comparison of latent models and other psychometric analyses. J Clin Psychol. 2020;76:1267–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22930 .

Osman A, Bagge CL, Guitierrez PM, Konick LC, Barrios FX. The suicidal Behaviors Questionnaire-Revised (SBQ-R): validation with clinical and nonclinical samples. Assess. 2001;5:443–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/107319110100800409 .

Campos RC, Holden RR. Portuguese version of the suicidal Behaviors Questionnaire-Revised: Validation Data and the establishment of a cut-score for Screening Purposes. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2019;35:190–5. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000385 .

Kaufman EA, Xia M, Fosco G, Yaptangco M, Skidmore CR, Crowell SE. The difficulties in emotion regulation Scale Short Form (DERS-SF): validation and replication in adolescent and adult samples. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2016;38:443–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-015-9529-3 .

Gouveia P, Ramos C, Brito J, Almeida TC, Cardoso J. The difficulties in emotion regulation scale – short form (DERS-SF): psychometric properties and invariance between genders. Psicol: Reflex Crit. 2022;35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-022-00214-2 .

Bryant FB, Smith BD. Refining the architecture of aggression: a measurement model for the Buss-Perry Questionnaire. J Res Pers. 2001;35:138–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.2000.2302 .

Cunha O, Peixoto M, Cruz AR, Gonçalves RA. Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire: factor structure and measurement invariance among portuguese male perpetrators of intimate Partner violence. Crim Justice and Behav. 2022;49:451–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548211050113 .

Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The satisfaction with life scale. J Pers Assess. 1985;49:71–5. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13 .

Simões A. Ulterior validação de uma escala de satisfação com a vida (SWLS). Rev Port Pedagog. 1992;3:503–15.

Pais-Ribeiro JL. Escala de Satisfação com o Suporte Social (ESSS). Anal Psicol. 1999;3:547–58.

Smith BW, Dalen J, Wiggins K, Tooley E, Christopher P, Bernard J. The brief resilience scale: assessing the ability to bounce back. Int J Behav Med. 2008;15:194–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705500802222972 .

Basto-Pereira M, Miranda A, Ribeiro S, Maia Â. The Psychometric Properties of a Questionnaire for Measuring Delinquency and Crime (D-CRIM). Av Psicol Clin. 2015:856–67.

Cohen S, Doyle WJ, Skoner DP, Rabin BS, Gwaltney JM. Social ties and susceptibility to the common cold. JAMA. 1997;277:1940–4.

Richardson J, Walker L. The cost of recidivism: a dynamic systems model to evaluate the benefits of a restorative reentry program. Justice Eval J. 2022;6. https://doi.org/10.1080/24751979.2022.2123746 .

Knapp M, Wong G. Economic evaluations of mental health interventions in criminal justice. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2023;33:139–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.2286 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This work was funded by the Foundation for Science and Technology – FCT (Portuguese Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education), under the grant UIDB/05380/2020.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

HEI-Lab: Digital Human-Environment Interaction Labs, Lusófona University, Porto, Portugal

Olga Cunha & Ana Rita Dias

Faculty of Psychology, Education, and Sports, Lusófona University of Porto, Rua Augusto Rosa, 24, Porto, 4000-098, Portugal

William James Center for Research, ISPA – Instituto Universitário de Ciências Psicológicas, Sociais e da Vida, Lisbon, Portugal

Andreia de Castro Rodrigues

Research Center of Psychology, School of Psychology, Minho University, Braga, Portugal

Sónia Caridade

Egas Moniz Center for Interdisciplinary Research (CiiEM), Egas Moniz School of Health & Science, LabPSI – Laboratório de Psicologia Egas Moniz, Almada, Portugal

Telma Catarina Almeida

HEI-Lab: Digital Human-Environment Interaction Labs, Lusófona University, Lisbon, Portugal

Ana Rita Cruz

Center for Psychology at University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

Maria Manuela Peixoto

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

OC conceptualized the study and wrote the first draft of this manuscript. ACR, SC, ARD, TCA, ARC, and MMP revised the study and edited the manuscript. All authors certify responsibility for this manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olga Cunha .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Cunha, O., Castro Rodrigues, A., Caridade, S. et al. The impact of imprisonment on individuals’ mental health and society reintegration: study protocol. BMC Psychol 11 , 215 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01252-w

Download citation

Received : 01 July 2023

Accepted : 18 July 2023

Published : 25 July 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01252-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Mental health
• Conditional release
• Social reintegration

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Prison Overcrowding Research Paper

Introduction, what is overcrowding in prisons, how big is the problem of overcrowding in prisons, solutions to the problem of overcrowding in prisons.

This paper is based on the topic of overcrowding in prisons. It seeks to explore the topic by looking at ways of solving the problem of overcrowding in prisons. It is argued that the problem cannot be solved by building more prisons alone but rather, building more prisons is just one of the many solutions to the problem. The paper uses the United States (US) as an example to provide figures and facts about the topic. Various sources are used such as books, websites, and journals.

It refers to a situation in which there is a higher supply of prisoners than the capacity of the prisons in a given country. When prisoners are convicted, they are sentenced for a certain period of time, after which they are released. They may also be released on other grounds such as presidential pardoning, old age or on medical grounds.

Under normal circumstances, the rate at which prisoners are released should be the same as the rate at which new prisoners are convicted. However, it is not usually the case since in many cases; the rate at which prisoners are released is far much lower than the rate at which others are convicted. The end result is usually overcrowding in prisons.

Overcrowding leads to poor sanitation and lack of healthcare in prisons. Other problems related to overcrowding include increased violence among inmates and stress both to inmates and prison staff. Overcrowding also means that governments spend more of tax payers’ money in keeping the prisoners in the prisons, a situation which negatively affects the economy.

Many people tend to think that overcrowding in prisons is caused by increase in crime rates. However, this kind of thinking is far from the truth because research has shown that overcrowding comes as a result of various failures by the criminal justice systems. Such failures may mean that the criminal justice systems are reactive instead of being proactive. When they are reactive, they only respond to problems when they occur.

Various studies have been done on the problem of overcrowding in prisons. Most of them have found that the problem is actually a global one because it cuts across all the economies, the poor and the rich alike. The reason why the problem is so serious is because many governments do not do proper analysis of the problem and how it may affect their countries.

Actually, majority of governments are preoccupied with protection of citizens to the extent of failing to balance between the cost of protecting citizens and the cost of overcrowding in prisons. If governments do a proper analysis of the problem, then they could be able to handle it in a sober manner and bring it to an end once and for all.

To illustrate how big the problem of overcrowding in prisons is, I will use the US as a case study. In the US, research has shown that majority of prisoners are convicted of nonviolent drug related offenses. The US is considered as a super power of the world in terms of military, political, economic, and cultural prowess.

It is not known for inability to solve problems. However, when it comes to the problem of overcrowding in prisons, the US is among countries which are adversely affected by the problem. The problem is so serious that in 2007, the state of California declared it as a state of emergency (Taylor, 2008).

In 2013, over seven of the 52 states had over 25% above their normal capacity in their prisons with some states like Alabama registering over 190% above their capacity. If these statistics are anything to go by, then the problem should not only be seen as a regional but as a global problem just like terrorism and economic recession. The real solution to the problem therefore is not to build more prisons but to understand, analyze, and interpret the problem correctly.

It is only then a lasting solution could be found because countries would be able to assist each other in dealing with the problem. However, that is not to mean that there are no solutions to the problem. Many researchers have investigated the issue of overcrowding in prisons especially in the US and have provided various solutions which if properly implemented could reduce the problem with a huge percentage.

As mentioned in the introduction, building more prisons is just one of the many solutions to the problem of overcrowding in prisons. If the government could expand the capacity of prison beds and space, then it may succeed albeit in a small way to deal with the problem. Having more prisons means that the government should not only acquire more land to build new prisons but it should also convert space which is idle into prisons.

Another suggestion is to consider redesigning the prisons by converting them to tall buildings. By so doing, governments may be able to maximize the available land and reduce congestion in the prisons.

However, the challenge could arise when there are no funds for expansion or when the expansion is not a priority. In such cases, there is need for the civil society to be vigilant and force governments to expand the prisons so as to safeguard the rights of inmates and enable them to enjoy a good environment during incarceration (Hough, Allen & Solomon, 2008).

As mentioned earlier, the huge percentage of prisoners in the US are those charged with drug related offenses. However majority of the cases are usually nonviolent in nature and as such, they do not necessarily require the offenders to be put behind bars. Since the year 1980, the number of prisoners who were jailed in US federal jails increased from 25,000 to over 200,000 in 2013. Over half of these were jailed for drug offenses. That is to mean if the number of inmates convicted of drug offenses was to be reduced by half, then it would reduce the number of prisoners by a quarter.

There is also the need of sentencing nonviolent drug offenders for shorter jail terms so that they do not overstay in prisons. But the 1986 law requires judges to sentence drug offenders to jail terms not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years.

However, before the law came into force, many drug offenders used to be given shorter jail terms or were jailed on probation basis where they would work in the community and report to the authorities on regular basis. If the law is reversed, then judges would be encouraged to sentence majority of drug offenders to serve their jail terms out of prisons and as a result, congestion in the prisons would be reduced.

Another way to deal with the problem of overcrowding in prisons is to change the law on “truth-in-sentencing”. This law requires all convicted offenders to serve at least 85% of their jail terms before they can be released. As per the law, it means that no prisoner can be released under any grounds without serving at least 85% of his or her jail term.

The implication is that prisoners live for long periods in prisons and as a result, the population in prisons keeps on increasing. However, if the law could be changed to require prisoners to serve at least 65% of their jail terms before they can be released, then it would mean that more prisoners, especially those who commit minor offenses could be released before the end of their jail terms and by so doing, more space would be created in the prisons for new inmates.

Research has also shown that about 54,000 prisoners in US federal prisons are not citizens of the US. The same applies to many countries both in the developed and developing world. What it means is that the US for instance incurs high costs in maintaining prisoners who are not its citizens.

The non citizen prisoners end up occupying the space which is supposed to be occupied by US prisoners. If the government of the US could strengthen and streamline the international program of transferring prisoners, then it would reduce congestion in its prisons by a good percentage which could go a long way in reducing overcrowding in the prisons.

Research has also shown that many elderly people overstay in federal prisons for no good reasons. The study of human growth and development suggests that people are unlikely to commit crime if they are released from prison after the age of 55 years. The reason is that majority usually lack the energy and motivation to engage in crime, especially after being jailed for engaging in crime.

However, despite these studies, the US federal prisons held over 17,000 inmates who were past the age of 55 years in 2013. If 75% of prisoners who attain the age of 55 years in prison are released and placed under probation or rehabilitation, then the US government would create more space for much younger offenders and give the elderly prisoners an opportunity to enjoy their old age in peace.

Another strategy which can ease congestion in US federal prisons is the effective and efficient use of the rehabilitation programs. According to the 1986 law, there is a provision for drug related offenders to have their jail terms reduced by some years if they fully participate in the drug treatment and rehabilitation programs. However, there are very few such programs yet the number of drug related offenders account for more than half of prisoners in US federal prisons.

Due to the limited number of drug treatment and rehabilitation programs, only a few drug offenders get the opportunity to participate in those programs and eventually have their jail terms reduced. It means that a good number of drug related offenders overstay at the prisons which worsens the problem of congestion in the prisons.

There is therefore the need for the federal government to wake up to the reality and expand the drug treatment and rehabilitation programs and give at least three quarters of all drug related offenders an opportunity to participate in the drug treatment and rehabilitation programs and have their jail terms reduced.

It is also a requirement under the 1986 law that prisoners who fully undergo through the drug treatment and rehabilitation programs get a one year off their jail terms. But due to the high rates of overcrowding in the prisons and the few number of the drug treatment and rehabilitation programs, very few prisoners do benefit by that provision.

On the contrary, majority of those who graduate from the drug treatment and rehabilitation programs do so when their jail terms are almost over and as a result, they are denied the opportunity to be released one year earlier.

If the programs could be streamlined and expanded, then more prisoners would be able to undergo through them and get released earlier. The streamlining and expansion of the programs would also ensure that many drug offenders come out of prisons with life skills which would reduce the number of people who go back to drugs after they are released due to lack of guidance, counseling, and empowerment.

Another area which has a potential of reducing congestion in the federal prisons in the US is reviewing the application of the 1980 sentencing law which was passed by the US congress. According to this law, crack and powder cocaine users were liable for different jail terms, with crack users facing a longer jail term than powder cocaine users.

However, many criminal justice advocates have put the argument that the law was discriminatory because it seemed to target the nonwhites who were more likely to use crack since it was cheaper than powder cocaine. As a result, since there was a big population of nonwhites in the US, many of them ended up behind bars and stayed there for longer periods than the whites.

The lobbying by the criminal justice advocates culminated in the change of the law in 2010 to treat the users of both crack and powder cocaine equally, meaning that from 2010, the users of both were sentenced to equal number of years behind bars. However, there is an opportunity to decongest the federal prisons further using this law by applying it to those who were sentenced before 2010. If that could be the case, many crack prisoners would end up out of jail and as a result, more space would be created (Knafo, 2014).

Under the current sentencing law, judges have a limited authority when it comes to exercising leniency to drug offenders because they are only allowed to give minimum sentencing to drug offenders with no criminal record. However, there are some drug offenders who have some criminal record but they are not necessarily a threat to public safety.

Such offenders do not qualify for minimum sentencing due to their criminal record. But since they are not a threat to the public, then the judges should also give them the minimum sentencing just like drug offenders with no criminal record.

Judges should also be given the permission to give other types of offenders such as white color offenders the minimum sentencing. Under the current law, only drug offenders qualify for the minimum sentencing. If the bracket could be expanded to include all other types of offenders, then many prisoners would qualify for the minimum sentencing and ease the congestion in the federal prisons in the US.

Another effective strategy for solving the problem of overcrowding in prisons is to invest heavily in prevention of crime. Prevention of crime is wide and includes economic and social empowerment of potential offenders, provision of social welfare services to the low income earners, investing in sports to target the idle youth, and creation of more job opportunities for young people.

The cost of preventing crime may seem high but when compared to the number of years wasted in jail especially by productive people, then it becomes better to prevent than to hold such people in jail. People who are economically and socially empowered are less likely to engage in crime than those who are not and therefore, countries which invest in prevention of crime are able to reduce congestion in their prisons by being proactive instead of being reactive.

In some cases, the cost of justice is above reach by many people both in the developed and developing countries. As a result, many people end up being convicted and imprisoned at the pre-trial stages. If the cost of justice could be brought down, then many people would afford to hire a lawyer and as a result, they would not be convicted at the pre-trial stages and therefore, their chances of being acquitted would be increased. The US government may also bring down the cost of justice by providing legal aid to low income earners or by cutting the cost of justice by half so that many people are able to hire advocates to represent them (Maschi, 2013).

The government may also reduce congestion in prisons by having alternative forms of sentencing for special groups such as children and mothers with small children. These groups occupy a good percentage of prison space without any good reasons. For instance, the government could pass a law to sentence such groups at their homes altogether and by so doing, more space would be created in the prisons.

Another solution to the problem lies in making the justice system efficient. By efficient, I mean that there should be no delays in the prosecution and determination of cases. In some instances, some offenders stay for a long time before their cases are heard and determined. Such long periods deny them justice since justice delayed is the same as justice denied.

Suspects who stay for long time before their cases are heard and determined contribute to the problem of overcrowding in prisons. If the justice systems are made efficient, then the number of suspects in the prisons would reduce significantly because no suspects would be held in prisons without having their cases heard and determined except for the serious cases such as murder or robbery with violence which need more time to investigate (Tella & Schargrodsky, 2013).

Another viable option for reducing congestion in the prisons the world over is to use other case resolution mechanisms such as dialogue, the churches or even traditional mechanisms. Using such alternatives may reduce the number of people who are convicted under the judicial systems and as a result, the number of people in prisons would be reduced by a good margin.

Such alternatives not only reduce congestion in prisons but they also create a more cohesive society because they are far much better than the judicial systems. When people take each other to the courts and some get jailed, the possibility of creating enmity becomes high as opposed to when they use these alternatives (Great Britain Parliament, 2005).

The problem of overcrowding in prisons is a global one just like terrorism and economic recession, meaning that it affects all nations of the world irrespective of their socioeconomic status. In many cases, the problem is caused by failure by judicial systems to be proactive.

As a result, they respond to the problem only when it happens and in most cases, the interventions are aimed at managing the problem not on stopping it altogether. Overcrowding in prisons has serious effects such as poor hygiene and increased violence in prisons as well as declining health of the inmates and prison officers. Building more prisons is just one of the many strategies of dealing with the problem of overcrowding in prisons.

The US is one of the countries most affected by the problem of overcrowding in prisons. Its government has tried many ways of dealing with the problem but it has not been successful in many occasions. However, if it focuses on expanding the drug treatment and rehabilitation programs and increasing the number of prisoners sentenced on probation basis, it would be in a position to reduce congestion in the prisons by a good margin.

Great Britain Parliament. (2005). Rehabilitation of prisoners: first report of session 2004-05. London : Stationery Office.

Hough, J.M., Allen, R., & Solomon, E. (2008). Tackling prison overcrowding: Build more prisons? Sentence fewer offenders? . Bristol: Policy Press.

Knafo, S. (2014). America’s federal prisons are in trouble . Web.

Maschi, T. (2013). The high cost of the international aging prisoner crisis: well-being as the common denominator for action. The Gerontologist, 53 (4), 543-554.

Taylor, A. (2008). The prison system and its effects : wherefrom, whereto, and why?. New York : Nova Science Publishers.

Tella, R.T., & Schargrodsky, E. (2013). Criminal recidivism after prison and electronic monitoring. Journal of Political Economy, 121(1), 28-73.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 20). Prison Overcrowding. https://ivypanda.com/essays/prison-overcrowding/

"Prison Overcrowding." IvyPanda , 20 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/prison-overcrowding/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Prison Overcrowding'. 20 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Prison Overcrowding." February 20, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/prison-overcrowding/.

1. IvyPanda . "Prison Overcrowding." February 20, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/prison-overcrowding/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Prison Overcrowding." February 20, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/prison-overcrowding/.

• Prison Overcrowding: A Persistent Problem
• Prison Overcrowding: Catalysts and Solutions
• The Justice System: Prison Congestion
• Has Proposition 36 Relieved Prison Overcrowding in California’s Prisons?
• Jail Overcrowding, Its Causes and Alternatives
• War on Drugs and Prison Overcrowding Analysis
• American Prison Overcrowding and Its Future
• Reforms to Ease Overcrowding in US Prisons
• Sentencing and Punishment in the US
• Prison Overcrowding in the United States
• Criminal Law: Violence Against Disadvantaged Societies
• Death Penalty - Criminal Law
• Sould the Death Penalty Be Abolished?
• Crime Issues: Objectives of Punishment and Sentencing
• Realms of Restorative Justice and Wrongful Conviction

I've Been Incarcerated For 22 Years — And I've Never Seen Prisons This Out Of Control

Guest Writer

When the wooden cane smacked the prisoner’s head, its curved end snapped off and slid 20 feet to my prison-issued sneakers. It was the Saturday after Thanksgiving, and I was writing a poem about my friend’s recent bachelor party in prison when it happened. I looked up and saw blood streaming down the victim’s face as he latched on to the cane in desperation.

Prisoners peeked out of their cell windows. After a tense two-minute standoff, two prisoners stepped in to break up the fight. One locked the assailant in a shared bathroom. The other accompanied the bleeding victim to the front of the block and banged on a Plexiglas window, trying to get the attention of one of the few correctional officers working the morning shift.

Like all prisons in North Carolina, Nash Correctional Institution — the medium-custody men’s prison where I’m housed — is short-staffed most days. This means that our safety is always in jeopardy. I’ve been incarcerated long enough to know that this isn’t how prison should be.

In 2002, I was convicted of murder and sentenced to life without parole. Although I’ve never been cited for violence while incarcerated, I’m as familiar with human brutality as a shellshocked combat veteran. Until recently, I had never considered understaffing a contributor to violence and recidivism. I do now.

When Derek Chauvin, the disgraced former police officer convicted in the 2020 killing of George Floyd, was stabbed 22 times in a federal prison last year, staffing was found to be an issue at the facility . The same was true at the correctional institutions where mob boss James “Whitey” Bulger was killed in 2018 and accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide a year later. Such polarizing cases raised public concern, but only we — the incarcerated — know what it’s like to live in fear, not knowing whether there will be enough correctional officers on staff to stop someone from bashing in your head with a wooden cane.

Nash is just one institution, but it illustrates how this nationwide understaffing nightmare has gotten out of control.

Since 2017 , every state in the U.S. has reported prison staff shortages. On the high end, there are Georgia, Mississippi and Maine with an average vacancy rate of 50% .

States have responded to understaffing differently. One facility in Wisconsin instituted an indefinite lockdown , until prisoners sued. Before Florida raised wages for correctional officers, Gov. Ron DeSantis activated the state’s National Guard. Colorado reassigned teachers and case managers already employed by its prisons to fill in as guards. Despite these efforts, staffing shortages continue in all states.

In the mid-’90s, Nash was built to house 600 men in single cells. But in 2009, the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction, or NCDAC, closed seven of the state’s 79 prisons in an effort to save $22 million. I was one of about 350 prisoners transferred to Nash in early 2010, increasing the prison’s population by nearly 60%. This led to significant overcrowding in every cellblock.

At the time, a spokesperson for the NCDAC said that officials moved us to Nash because of the prison’s 7,900-square-foot cellblocks, describing them as “big, open dayrooms” and us as “a little spoiled” because of them. But when assessing the size of our cellblocks, officials didn’t subtract unlivable space, like communal areas or the officer’s station. And with 120 men using one microwave, two TVs, one hot water pot, four phones, four showers and four bathrooms, we certainly didn’t feel “spoiled.”

Luckily, the overcrowding didn’t last. The 350 additional bunks were removed in 2013, leaving a manageable population size — and the 32 correctional officers who had been hired to manage the initial overcrowding.

But a decade later, North Carolina was suffering from severe understaffing, which forced the prison’s population to balloon again. Between 2020 and 2023, the vacancy rate of correctional officers in North Carolina spiked from 15% to 42%. Thirty-one of the state’s prisons were forced to close entire housing units because they had insufficient staff to operate them.

Across the state, 6,200 prison beds were eliminated because of understaffing. And according to what I’ve seen, by 2023, hundreds of these prisoners were transferred to Nash.

New arrivals to Nash described how correctional institutions across North Carolina housed men inside uninhabitable gymnasiums — like at Scotland Correctional, which was so packed that people on suicide watch reportedly lived in 5-by-5-foot holding cages unfit for housing. An email from an anonymous corrections employee at Scotland mentioned how this had created “a situation where the offenders — who FAR outnumber us — are becoming increasingly irate, and staff are suffering burnout.”

But the negative effects of understaffing only get worse. Low staffing in prisons often forces essential services to be canceled, like rehabilitative programs, higher education classes, recreation time and therapy. A shortage of mental health professionals may have contributed to a rise in suicides among North Carolina prisoners in recent years. Behavioral management classes that teach us skills like communication and parenting only have room for about 12 students, excluding the majority. Jobs are few and far between, leaving the unassigned in communal cages with only a TV or prison-issued tablet to keep them busy. This type of idleness can lead to violence.

I can’t blame the crisis of understaffing on prison workers, administrators or even the secretary of the NCDAC. They are forced to make the best of insufficient ranks. Incarcerated people notice when officers are called in on their off days or stay late, sacrificing rest and family time to cover for vacancies. They work when ill. Many perform duties outside of their job description. And they are first responders to most emergencies. Maintaining order in prisons is a hard job, and its difficulty is magnified by understaffing. I don’t consider this an “us against them” issue — understaffing is detrimental for people on both sides of the wall. If given a choice, I think correctional personnel would avoid overcrowding to remedy understaffing in prisons because it worsens conditions for everyone, not just the imprisoned.

North Carolina’s governor and legislature are the only entities that can eliminate understaffing in state prisons.

Gov. Roy Cooper can grant clemency to older prisoners who pose no threat to society. He can also grant conditional release to those who have served over 20 years — in other words, those who have aged out of crime. It’s not an unreasonable ask, and he holds the sole power to do it.

In 2021, Cooper agreed to release 3,500 prisoners following a settlement with advocacy groups who sued about overcrowding during the COVID-19 pandemic. But we shouldn’t have to file lawsuits to compel a commonsense mass release to address the understaffing epidemic.

Additionally, North Carolina’s conservative-led legislature should consider returning to a system of parole that allows incarcerated people to earn their way out of prison. Our current mandatory minimum sentencing scheme obstructs rehabilitation by removing incentives, such as early release, that help compel broken people to seek paths of repair. Only North Carolina’s legislature can create meaningful change in this way, but they have not overcome their partisan differences to convert state prisons into institutions of change from the dungeons of despair that most are now.

In 2020, I co-authored t he Prison Resources Repurposing Act with Timothy Johnson, another incarcerated person. If passed, the PRRA would make parole possible to some who are serving life without parole after the completion of rigorous educational, vocational and behavioral requirements over a 20-year period. While the PRRA would not open the proverbial floodgates to release thousands of lifers, it would show mercy to a deserving few who are willing to earn a second chance through hard work.

The PRRA hasn’t passed yet, because of a lack of conservative support in the North Carolina legislature. In fact, no criminal sentencing reform laws have been taken seriously in North Carolina for three decades, unless they ultimately oppressed incarcerated people more.

As a result, in 2018, the state paid correctional officers $45 million for working overtime, while its prisons remain dangerously understaffed and overcrowded.

What if lawmakers could have invested that $45 million into prison programming, like higher education, drug treatment or anger management? Not only would prisons be safer, but society would be too, because formerly incarcerated people would be set free with the tools needed to live prosperous lives.

Prison violence should concern everyone, because most incarcerated people reenter society. How they are treated in prison determines how they later deal with authority, how they react to adversity, and if they will resort to violence as a means of survival.

When overcrowding limits access to the basic building blocks of personal change, prisons can only serve as faulty foundations of recidivism.

When I think of the man who struck another with that wooden cane, I think that if he doesn’t find change in prison, he might do the same to someone else upon his release.

Readers interested in helping North Carolina reach a sensible prison agenda for the betterment of society should contact the state’s legislators and encourage them to support prison reform legislation, such as the Prison Resources Repurposing Act.

Phillip Vance Smith II has been incarcerated for 22 years. As a member of the Society of Professional Journalists (Prison Journalism Project chapter), his writing has been published in Slate, Logic(s) and the North Carolina Law Review, among others. Read historian David Cecelski’s review of Phillip’s collection of poetry on the realities of incarceration, “ Life: Learning Instructions for Everyone...in Prison & Out ,” published by BleakHouse Publishing and available wherever books are sold.

In response to a request for comment on understaffing at Nash Correctional Institution, a representative for the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction emailed HuffPost the following statement:

Maintaining the safety and security of correctional staff, offenders and the public remains our primary responsibility. Like so many employers in both the public and private sectors, the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction (NCDAC) is struggling to fill critical staff vacancies. Within the correctional field, prison systems nationwide are contending with the same issue. To compensate for staffing shortages, while ensuring the highest levels of safety and security in our correctional facilities, we have closed housing units at several short-staffed facilities and transferred offenders to facilities with higher staff-to-offender ratios. Making our facility-specific staffing issues even more acute has been a much-anticipated systemwide initiative to retrofit our older facilities with air-conditioning, which requires temporary unit closures. As of February 2024, the last month for which we have complete data, 39% of our 8,100 correctional officer (CO) positions were vacant. Having closed vacant housing units and reassigned 445 COs associated with those units, and having contracted for about 400 non-certified private security staff to monitor prison perimeters, we have an overall effective CO vacancy rate of 29%. Nash Correctional Institution, where the author is currently incarcerated, has a CO vacancy rate of 27.9%. CO vacancies do not comprise the entire story. Accounting for critical nursing and maintenance positions, as well as behavioral health and other frontline correctional positions, NCDAC’s overall vacancy rate is around 26%. We have seen a consistent increase in applications for CO jobs since January 2022, when North Carolina’s correctional system implemented salary increases and a step pay plan for veteran correctional officers. We’ve also implemented a staff retention bonus program as well as salary increases targeting hard-to-fill positions in an effort to reduce staff separations. We have begun to see successes in that area, having reversed a trend of losing more COs than we can hire each month. In January 2023, we lost 107 COs and hired 64 new ones. Just over a year later, in February 2024, we hired the same number of new COs, 64, but lost only 12. NCDAC has also become even more active in recruiting and marketing the agency. In addition to holding hundreds of job fairs and prison hiring events (620 in 2023 alone), we run broadcast ads across the state, on online platforms and on billboards and vehicles to recruit new correctional officers. We have streamlined the state hiring process by making conditional offers of employment to qualified applicants at the time of their interviews. Our staffing shortages did not occur overnight. They predate the pandemic and the so-called “Great Resignation.” Even with these challenges, the Department remains committed to its mission to protect the public by collaboratively focusing on rehabilitation, protection, innovation, accountability and professionalism. We will continue to place great emphasis on recruitment and retention efforts to address our staffing needs.

Do you have a compelling personal story you’d like to see published on HuffPost? Find out what we’re looking for here and send us a pitch at [email protected] .

Support HuffPost

Our 2024 coverage needs you, your loyalty means the world to us.

At HuffPost, we believe that everyone needs high-quality journalism, but we understand that not everyone can afford to pay for expensive news subscriptions. That is why we are committed to providing deeply reported, carefully fact-checked news that is freely accessible to everyone.

Whether you come to HuffPost for updates on the 2024 presidential race, hard-hitting investigations into critical issues facing our country today, or trending stories that make you laugh, we appreciate you. The truth is, news costs money to produce, and we are proud that we have never put our stories behind an expensive paywall.

Would you join us to help keep our stories free for all? Your contribution of as little as $2 will go a long way.

Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.

As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.

Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.

Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.

Dear HuffPost Reader

Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.

The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. Would you consider becoming a regular HuffPost contributor?

The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. If circumstances have changed since you last contributed, we hope you’ll consider contributing to HuffPost once more.

Already contributed? Log in to hide these messages.

Popular in the Community

From our partner, more in huffpost personal.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Immigrant Detention Should Have No Place in Our Society

By Ana Raquel Minian

Dr. Minian is a professor of history at Stanford who has written extensively about immigration to the United States.

In May 2018, Fernando Arredondo and his 12-year-old daughter, Andrea, reached the U.S.-Mexico border. The two had fled Guatemala after gang members killed his son, Marco, and threatened the rest of the family.

Weeks earlier, the Trump administration had introduced the zero-tolerance policy: Adult migrants who were caught crossing the border without permission were to be prosecuted and imprisoned, and the children traveling with them taken away and detained separately.

Mr. Arredondo was not aware of the new policy, but it should not have mattered. He did not cross the border illegally. He and Andrea walked to a Border Patrol processing center in Laredo, Texas, and asked for asylum, a right guaranteed by U.S. law. Still, an immigration official took Andrea from Mr. Arredondo and placed them in different cells. Hours later, the officials lined up a group of children, including Andrea, and drove them away without explanation.

The next day, Mr. Arredondo was transported to a different facility. When he arrived, his eyes fell on the vastness of the complex, which was surrounded by razor wire and policed by guards. Even though he had not broken the law, he now found himself at the Rio Grande Detention Center, a holding facility for men that was run by the GEO Group, a private prison corporation.

The United States was founded on the notion that it welcomes “huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” but it is also a nation of prisoners. Mr. Arredondo’s story sheds light on how immigrant detention overlaps with America’s prison system.

In theory, the purposes of detention and imprisonment are distinct. Unlike people held by the criminal justice system, detained immigrants are not being penalized for breaking the law; they are being held while they wait for permission to enter the country or until they are removed or deported. Nonetheless, the nation’s detention and prison systems have grown side by side, buttressed by the same logic and practice.

In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which barred Chinese labor immigrants from entering the country. At the time, there were no federal immigrant detention centers to hold immigrants whose eligibility was in question or who were slated for deportation. In San Francisco — where a significant portion of Chinese immigrants landed — some were detained in the county jail.

These immigrants — many of whom had the right to enter the United States — were caged while they waited for inspectors to decide whether they could enter the country. Their race, rather than their actions, determined whether they spent time behind bars.

Ellis Island opened its doors a decade later. While it is commonly thought of as the gateway to America, the site also detained immigrants for health or legal reasons. By then, immigration law prohibited entry not only to Chinese laborers but to multiple groups of “undesirable people” among whom were those deemed “insane,” “idiots” or “likely to become a public charge.” Some were held in overcrowded, lice-infested compartments that had wire for walls and windows that were boarded shut.

Immigrant detention changed dramatically in 1980, after the arrival of nearly 125,000 Cubans from the port of Mariel. Thousands of Cubans were placed in military bases while they waited to be processed. Approximately 400 men who could not find sponsors willing to take financial responsibility for them while they settled into life in the United States were sent to the maximum-security federal penitentiary in Atlanta.

Others, like Pedro Prior-Rodriguez, ended up in the prison for reasons that would be incomprehensible to most Americans. Soon after he arrived, he was mugged and severely beaten on the streets of Rochester, N.Y. During the attack he lost one of his eyes and ended up in the hospital. But when it became clear that Mr. Prior-Rodriguez “required a treatment not available,” immigration officials revoked his parole and instead sent him to the Atlanta penitentiary.

The Reagan administration used immigrant detention to expand the prison system. In 1982 the deputy attorney general, Edward C. Schmults, recommended the construction of both an immigration detention center and a federal prison by stating that the Cuban exiles “put great additional pressure on our already overcrowded federal prison system.” Legislators upheld the idea that more facilities were needed because of Mariel Cubans.

Immigrant detention also played a key role in the development of one of the most criticized parts of the carceral system: its reliance on private prisons. In 1984 the Corrections Corporation of America opened the first completely privately run prison in the United States. It was a detention center. Today the Corrections Corporation, rebranded as CoreCivic, is one of the largest private prison contractors in the United States. Along with other for-profit prison companies, it has spent large sums in lobbying and campaign distributions .

In 2022, 8 percent of state and federal prisoners were caged in private prisons. As of July 2023, more than 90 percent of people detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement were held in facilities owned or operated by private prison corporations.

Like the nation’s prisons, immigrant detention centers tend to be located far from urban hubs, beyond the easy reach of scrutiny. As such, few Americans are aware of the terrible abuses that happen inside some of these facilities. Reports written by experts hired by the Department of Homeland Security found that detainees were held in unsanitary and unsafe conditions, received negligent medical care and were subject to racist abuse.

Immigrant detention does not make us safer. Rather than caging migrants and refugees, the government should allow them to reside with friends, family or community members in the United States while it examines their cases.

Mr. Arredondo and Andrea now live in Los Angeles with the rest of their family. They were lucky; not only was the family reunited, but they have also been granted asylum. But he and his family deserved better. So do all those who are currently entrapped in our vast detention system. Immigrant detention should have no place in our society.

Ana Raquel Minian is a professor of history at Stanford. This essay has been adapted from their new book , “In the Shadow of Liberty.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Exploding West Virginia prison population causing overcrowding

A mid overcrowding and unsafe conditions in West Virginia jails, state lawmakers introduced bills that would allow judges to take a 'second look' at an individual's original sentence.

If a court determines they no longer pose a threat to the community, the person could be released, placed on supervision, or receive a shortened sentence.

Sara Whitaker - criminal legal policy analyst with the West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy - said West Virginia is one of the few states that has seen its prison population balloon over the past decade, despite declining crime.

She noted that as of last month, more than 500 people in the state were in jail awaiting transfer to a prison.

"As a result, eight out of 10 of the regional jails in the state were beyond capacity," said Whitaker, "with hundreds of people assigned to sleeping on the floor."

The bills failed to advance this session , but Whitaker said advocates are hopeful lawmakers will consider them next year.

The state's jails remain among the deadliest in the country, with at least 91 people losing their lives while incarcerated in the past few years.

According to the West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy, jail bills cost counties $45 million in 2022.

Nationwide, long sentences have led to growth in the number of older people behind bars.

Whitaker pointed out that 'Second Look' legislation could help the state avoid turning its prisons into nursing homes, and said the number of elderly people in prison has tripled in the past two decades.

"In 2019, West Virginia had to open a dementia unit in one of its prisons," said Whitaker. "There are hospice units across multiple prisons. And experts predict that this is just only going to get worse."

Whitaker added that 'Second Look' policies also offer a way to correct past racial injustice in the criminal legal system.

Black people incarcerated in West Virginia are four times more likely than white people to be serving a life sentence with the possibility of parole, and five times as likely to be serving a life-without-parole sentence.

West Virginia News Service