Perpetual Incarceration Machine: Structural Impediments to Postprison Success
Abstract
The prison system is a perpetual incarceration machine growing on failure. This article explores structural impediments that contribute to parole failure and recidivism. Prisoners exit prison with few material resources and many obligations. Upon arrival at the work release centers, they are subjected to the demands of “collection counselors.” They complain about deductions from their employment checks, including restitution, court costs, fees for public defenders, and rent for work release beds. The correctional system perpetuates itself: Failures in work release, probation, and parole account for the majority of new prison admissions. Recommendations are provided for effective prison release programs.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Child support debt can lead to unpaid bills.
“unpaid bills (Richards & Jones, 1997)”
From Debt, Incarceration, and Re-entry: a Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as Richards & Jones, 1997
People who owe LFO and child support debt also have unpaid bills.
“People who owe LFO and child support debt also have unpaid bills”
From Debt, Incarceration, and Re-entry: a Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as Richards & Jones, 1997
People who owe LFO and child support debt borrow from social networks.
“borrow from social networks (Cook, 2014; Page et al., 2019; Richards & Jones, 1997)”
From Debt, Incarceration, and Re-entry: a Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as Richards & Jones, 1997
Debt from LFOs, including bail, results in cutting back on essentials and falling behind on bills.
“cutting back on essentials and falling behind on bills (Cook, 2014; Harris et al., 2010; Richards & Jones, 1997)”
From Debt, Incarceration, and Re-entry: a Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as Richards & Jones, 1997
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Incarceration and inmates’ self perceptions about returning home
Visher, C. A., & O’connell, D. J. (2012) · Journal of Criminal Justice · doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.06.007 · Cited by 133 · see citing works
Debt, Incarceration, and Re-entry: a Scoping Review
Harper, A., Ginapp, C., Bardelli, T., Grimshaw, A., Justen, M., Mohamedali, A., Thomas, I., & Puglisi, L. (2021) · American Journal of Criminal Justice · doi:10.1007/s12103-020-09559-9 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
The Use of Incarceration in the United States
Austin, J., Bruce, M., Carroll, L., Mccall, P., & Richards, S. (2001) · Critical Criminology · doi:10.1023/a:1013111619501 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Self-citationNo Place Like Home: A Qualitative Investigation of Social Support and Its Effects on Recidivism
Breese, J. R., Ra'el, K., & Grant, G. (2000) · doi:10.1023/a:1010103821490 · Cited by 63
Prisoners’ Positive Illusions of Their Post-Release Success
Dhami, M. K., Mandel, D. R., Loewenstein, G., & Ayton, P. (2006) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9040-1 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
The Electronic “Scarlet Letter”: Criminal Backgrounding and a Perpetual Spoiled Identity
Murphy, D. S., Fuleihan, B., Richards, S., & Jones, R. S. (2011) · Journal of Offender Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/10509674.2011.560548 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
“In the long run, blocking offender opportunities does not ensure public safety, but guarantees instead a continual flow of outcast, frustrated, and stigmatized group of people between prisons and the community (see Richards & Jones, 1997, 2004).”
BackgroundSelf-citationJones, R. S., Ross, J. I., Richards, S., & Murphy, D. S. (2009) · doi:10.1177/0032885509334744 · Cited by 48
“…the structural impediments to successful reentry that results in a revolving-door criminal justice system (Maruna & Immarigeon, 2004; Richards, 2003; Richards & Jones, 1997, 2004). as defined (see Richards & Ross, 2001, p. 180; Ross & Richards, 2003, p. 6), CC represents the work of convicts or…”
Self-citationPrison Research From the Inside
Newbold, G., Ross, J. I., Jones, R. S., Richards, S., & Lenza, M. (2014) · Qualitative Inquiry · doi:10.1177/1077800413516269 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Self-citationReentry to What? Theorizing Prisoner Reentry in the Jobless Future
Hallett, M. (2012) · doi:10.1007/s10612-011-9138-8 · Cited by 38
Too early is too soon: lessons from the Montana Department of Corrections early release program
Wright, K. A., & Rosky, J. (2011) · Criminology & Public Policy · doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2011.00765.x · Cited by 38 · see citing works
A Convict Perspective on the Classification of Prisoners
Richards, S., & Ross, J. I. (2003) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2428265 · Cited by 31
“How has the reclassification of prisoners created the “perpetual incarceration machine” (Richards and Jones, 1997,2003), where prisoners are recycled from prison to parole and back to prison?”
BackgroundSelf-citationThe New School of Convict Criminology Thrives and Matures
Richards, S. (2013) · Critical Criminology · doi:10.1007/s10612-013-9194-3 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
“…Criminology Group members have also published pieces on the death penalty (Lenza et al. 2005), prisoner reentry to the community (Richards 1995; Richards and Jones 1997, 2004; Ross and Richards 2009; Leyva and Bickel 2010; Richards et al. 2011, 2012), the mass incarceration movement in the…”
BackgroundSelf-citationConvict Criminology and the Struggle for Inclusion
Ross, J. I., Jones, R. S., Lenza, M., & Richards, S. (2016) · Critical Criminology · doi:10.1007/s10612-016-9332-9 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
“These included having no money, no job, or a place to live (Richards, 1995; Richards & Jones, 1997).”
BackgroundSelf-citationRichards, S. (2008) · doi:10.1177/0032885507310529 · Cited by 24
“…or criminal justice and write from a “convict criminology” perspective (Mobley, 2003; Murphy, 2003; Richards, 1990, 1995, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c; Richards & Jones, 1997, 2004; Richards & Ross, 2001, 2003a, 2003b; Richards, Terry, & Murphy, 2002; Ross & Richards, 2002, 2003; Terry, 1997, 2003).”
BackgroundSelf-citationKentucky's Perpetual Prisoner Machine: It's about Money1
Richards, S., Austin, J., & Jones, R. S. (2004) · Review of Policy Research · doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.2004.00060.x · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Self-citationFilling in the Holes: The Ongoing Search for Self Among Incarcerated Women Anticipating Reentry
Hunter, V. L., & Greer, K. R. (2011) · doi:10.1080/08974454.2011.584462 · Cited by 19
“Richards and Jones (1997) consequently argued for staged releases (e.g., the implementation of work release programs or opportunities for furloughs) and better communication between the correctional system and the community.”
BackgroundThinking About Prison Release and Budget Crisis in the Blue Grass State
Richards, S., Austin, J., & Jones, R. S. (2004) · doi:10.1007/s10612-004-3895-6 · Cited by 19
Self-citationSmith, J. M., & Kinzel, A. (2020) · Critical Criminology · doi:10.1007/s10612-020-09538-w · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Medical Care in the Federal Bureau of Prisons: Fact or Fiction
Murphy, D. S. (2005) · doi:10.32398/cjhp.v3i2.1761 · Cited by 11
Rapid rehousing of formerly homeless jail and prison inmates
Hignite, L. R., & Haff, D. (2017) · Housing Care and Support · doi:10.1108/hcs-06-2017-0015 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Rowell-Cunsolo, T. L., Hu, G., & Haile, R. (2020) · Health & Justice · doi:10.1186/s40352-020-00108-4 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Johns, D. (2015) · Critical Criminology · doi:10.1007/s10612-014-9262-3 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Denton, M. (2014) · The University of Queensland · doi:10.14264/uql.2014.381 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Le travail prisonisé Le point de vue des détenus
Kalica, E. (2015) · Déviance et Société · doi:10.3917/ds.392.0189 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Beyond Punishment: Perpetuating Difference from the Prison Experience1
Terry, C. M. (2000) · Humanity & Society · doi:10.1177/016059760002400202 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Lôtter, C. (2023) · Phronimon · doi:10.25159/2413-3086/13232 · Cited by 2
“This “perpetual incarceration machine” (Richards and Jones 1997) ensures that there are always plenty of bodies for the crime management industry to process, in order that its vested interests, such as Bosasa’s corrupt relationship with the DCS stretching back for at least a decade (Agrizzi and…”
BackgroundFonseca, J. R. S. (2015) · International Journal of Public Administration · doi:10.1080/01900692.2014.955197 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“…inmates should be separated from the primary offenders, (ii) modern prisons should be small, with populations of 100 or less, which is stressed by Richards and Jones (1997), because small facilities provide the staff with an opportunity to get to know the prisoners, to know their names, their…”
BackgroundMurphy, D. S., Terry, C. M., Newbold, G., & Richards, S. (2007) · doi:10.1016/0047-2352(87)90082-1
Self-citation
- Authors
- RICHARDS, S. C., & JONES, R. S.
- Affiliations
- Northern Kentucky University (US)
- Marquette University (US)
- ORCID
- JONES, RICHARD S.
- Venue
- Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1997-02
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 4-22
- ISSN
- 1043-9862 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-5406
- OpenAlex
- W2013759441
- Cited by
- 45
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 3.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice (publishedVersion)
- e-Publications@Marquette (Marquette University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Law and Policy
- Keywords
- recidivism, work release, restitution, court costs, probation, prison admissions, prisoner reentry
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
