Liman Report: Solitary Confinement on Texas’s Death Row
The Arthur Liman Public Interest Program publishes a newsletter that reports
on the activities of its fellows and the activities of the Program. All are
in PDF format.
Isolation and Reintegration: Punishment Circa 2014
Hope Metcalf, Judith Resnik, Megan Quattlebaum (January 6, 2015)
On April 3-4, 2014 the Liman Program hosted Seventeenth Annual Liman Colloquium, Isolation and Reintegration: Punishment Circa 2014 , which was devoted to remedying the harms of incarceration. The assembled group included several directors of state prison systems, as well as lawyers who bring lawsuits against prisons, judges who respond to such lawsuits, and professionals from diverse disciplines and from the non-profit world. This collection of materials, which was provided as a starting point for the discussion, describes current patterns of incarceration and explores interventions designed to reduce the degree to which correctional facilities maintain order through the isolation of prisoners, both through the locating of prison facilities and the placement of people within them.
Liman Statement on Women in Detention: The Need for National Agenda
Johanna Kalb, Judith Resnik, Megan Quattlebaum with the assistance of Yale Law Students Emma Kaufman, Devon Porter, Jennifer Jun (December 9, 2014)
The Liman Program submitted this statement focusing on the civil and human rights of incarcerated women to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights. Drawing on the Liman program’s recent research and advocacy, the statement brings into focus the specific challenges faced by women prisoners with respect to classification, placement, health, safety, and work.
Liman Senate Statement Reassessing Solitary Confinement
Hope Metcalf, Judith Resnik (February 2014)
The statement written on the basis of the findings of the Liman Program’s 2013 Administrative Segregation, Degrees of Isolation, and Incarceration: A National Overview of State and Federal Correctional Policies and details how corrections departments define the criteria for placement in administrative segregation, the processes for determining who falls within those criteria, some of the rules governing contact while in isolation, and the provisions for exit.
Administrative Segregation, Degrees of Isolation, and Incarceration: A National Overview of State and Federal Correctional Policies
Hope Metcalf, Jamelia Morgan, Samuel Oliker-Friedland, Judith Resnik, Julia Spiegel, Haran Tae, Alyssa Work, Brian Holbrook (June 2013)
The report, conducted with the assistance of the Association of State Corrections Administrators (ASCA), surveyed the policies on administrative segregation that were in effect in 2013 in 46 states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The Report concludes that administrative segregation throughout the United States shares the same basic features: criteria for placement give broad discretion to decision-makers; detention generally is open-ended, rather than for a fixed duration; confinement is close and restrictive; and access to contact with visitors and to activities is very limited. Looking at the rules sheds light on why the practice of administrative segregation has become so prevalent. The policies provide relatively little guidance about which concerns and what risks necessitate segregation, and under which circumstances or by which criteria an inmate should be returned to general population. Thus, the rules do not reflect how segregation is actually used, either in the jurisdictions where isolation remains commonplace or in those that, in recent years, have reduced their segregation populations.
Senate Judiciary Committee Bureau of Prisons Oversight Hearing
Judith Resnik, Hope Metcalf, Megan Quattlebaum (November 2012)
The statement discusses how, upon learning about the BOP’s proposal to limit placement opportunities for women in the Northeast, the Liman Program began efforts to map where facilities for federal prisoners were and to identify the roles that gender and jurisdictions of sentencing play when considering options for placements of incarcerated individuals. Second, we provide a brief overview of research demonstrating that incarcerated individuals who have opportunities for education and who can maintain ties with their families and communities are more successful while in prison and upon release.
Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey
Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz, and Aaron Littman (November 2012)
This Report, produced in collaboration with the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) includes a fifty-state survey of prison visitation regulations.. The report provides a window into the variety of policies in each state. Topics include the number of visitors permitted; the duration and frequency of visits; rules on persons eligible to visit; the procedures for obtaining authorization; and provisions for family visitation; and programs allowing “virtual visitation” via videoconference.
Overcriminalization and Excessive Punishment: Uncoupling Pipelines to Prison
Hope Metcalf, Sia Sanneh (July 2012)
This report was developed from a workshop co-sponsored by the American Bar Association and John Jay College of Criminal Justice. In December 2011, a group of approximately forty officials, scholars, and practitioners gathered to discuss the phenomenon commonly referred to as “mass incarceration.” The conversation focused on three areas, all of which are fueling rising prison populations: (1) over-criminalization through the erosion of intentionality; (2) criminalizing adolescent misbehavior in schools and on the streets; and (3) excessive punishment and control of those convicted of criminal behavior.
Why the Local Matters: Federalism, Localism, and Public Interest Advocacy (2009)
On March 6 and 7, 2008, the Arthur Liman Public Interest Program at Yale Law School hosted the Eleventh Annual Liman Public Interest Colloquium, Liman at the Local Level: Public Interest Advocacy and American Federalism. Scholars, advocates, students, judges, and government officials explored the role of actors at all levels of governance across the history of public interest advocacy in the United States and transnationally.4 This volume widens the conversation and brings the in-person discussions at the Colloquium to a broader audience in print form.