The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners Show The above standard is also known as the ‘Nelson Mandela Rules’ and is a landmark update of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners first adopted in 1955 and the result of five years of negotiations among Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs), including UNODC, civil society groups and independent experts and consultants. Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders The United Nations Rules for the treatment of women prisoners and offenders - commonly known as the Bangkok Rules - were adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 21 December 2010. Guiding Principles for Corrections in Australia The Guiding Principles for Corrections in Australia constitute outcomes or goals to be achieved by correctional services, rather than a set of absolute standards or laws to be enforced. The guidelines represent a statement of national intent, around which each Australian State and Territory jurisdiction must continue to develop its own range of relevant legislative, policy and performance standards that can be expected to be amended from time to time to reflect 'best practice' and community demands at the state and territory level. Indigenous Strategic Framework The Indigenous Strategic Framework guides the management of Indigenous prisoners and offenders in Corrections across Australia and New Zealand. It was developed by the Corrective Services Administrators' Council (CSAC) Indigenous Issues Working Group and endorsed by the Corrective Services Ministerial Council (CSMC) in July 2016. It should be used in conjunction with the above Guiding Principles for Corrections in Australia. Correctional Management Standards for Prisons (Men and Women) The Correctional Management Standards for Men’s Prisons in Victoria and the Standards for the Management of Women Prisoners in Victoria establish the minimum requirements for correctional services in Victorian prisons. The Standards provide a basis for ensuring accountability and a consistent level of service delivery across the system. Correctional Management Standards for Community Correctional Services The Correctional Management Standards for Community Correctional Services establish the minimum requirements for community corrections in Victoria. They serve as a benchmark against which the performance of the system can be monitored and thus provide the basis for ensuring accountability and a consistent level of service delivery across the system. Correctional Management Standards for Women Serving Community Correctional Orders The Correctional Management Standards for Women Serving Community Correctional Orders provide a reference point for staff and offer specific guidance to those staff working with women in a Community Correctional Service (CCS) environment. They also ensure consistency in service delivery across Victoria’s CCS locations and provide a benchmark against which the system can be monitored. These standards complement the Correctional Management Standards for CCS, which establish the minimum requirements for community corrections in Victoria. Correctional Management Standards for the Post-Sentence Supervision and Detention of Serious Sex Offenders The Correctional Management Standards for the Post-Sentence Supervision and Detention of Serious Sex Offenders establish the minimum requirements for the management of serious sex offenders on post-sentence orders in Victoria. They support the organisational governance arrangements for this cohort by Corrections Victoria and align with the standards relevant to the prison system and Community Correctional Services, allowing for continuity and consistency in sex offender management across the whole of the correctional system. Commissioner's Requirements set out high level requirements in respect of operational matters. They are issued when specificity is required to ensure consistency and/or continuity of correctional practice across the whole of the prison system, encompassing both publicly and privately managed prisons. Sentence Management Manual Provides guidance to all those who are involved in the sentence management functions. This includes assessment and classification, prisoner management and prisoner transfers. This manual ensures that staff conduct their duties consistently and in line with legal requirements and the principles enshrined in the Offender Management Framework.
Which federal, state, and local policymakers have taken meaningful steps to protect people in prisons and jails from COVID-19, and what exactly did they do? We created this COVID-19 policy tracker at the beginning of the pandemic to help the public understand what was — and wasn’t — being done to depopulate crowded prisons and jails and make them safer.
 The big picture that this policy tracker reveals is grim: Lawmakers have failed to reduce prison and jail populations enough to slow down the spread of the coronavirus, causing incarcerated people to get sick and die at a rate unparalleled in the general public. However, some individual state and local policymakers have recognized the urgency of the situation, and taken actions that show how we can release a large number of people from prison — a necessary step to ending mass incarceration. And some policy changes made during the pandemic — like eliminating cruel copays for incarcerated people — are ones we should demand be extended permanently. Read on for our curated list of the most significant criminal justice policy responses during the pandemic. And check out our main COVID-19 page for our research and analysis on the virus behind bars. Prisons increasing releasesWe reported early in the pandemic that prisons were releasing almost no one. Almost 2 years later, it’s still true: We found that the moderate drops in prison populations in 2020 were the result of fewer admissions, not more releases. And shockingly, most parole boards granted fewer paroles during 2020 than 2019. The result? As of December 2020, 19 state prison systems were still at 90% capacity or higher. And yet state prisons are filled with people with preexisting medical conditions that put them a heightened risk for complications from COVID-19. So far, we are aware of these state officials taking steps to reduce the prison population in the face of the pandemic: State legislation
Governor executive orders and commutationsPolicy changes in correction departments and parole boardsCourt ordersPrisons reducing admissionsWe published a short report showing that prison population cuts since the beginning of the pandemic are mostly due to states reducing prison admissions — not releasing people. And while reductions in admissions help slow down the virus in prisons themselves, they also cause jails — where people are held after being sentenced — to see populations go up. Governor executive orders
Correctional department policy changes
Jails increasing releasesJails and prisons house large numbers of people with chronic diseases and complex medical needs who are more vulnerable to COVID-19. At the beginning of the pandemic, jails cut their populations by as much as 30%, helping to protect many of these people. But states and counties abandoned their efforts to keep jail populations low as the pandemic wore on. Some of the most significant actions taken by courts, jail administrators, sheriffs, and prosecutors to release people during COVID-19 are: Court ordersActions by jail administrators and sheriffsProsecutor discretionJails reducing admissionsCourt orders
Changes in policingActions by jail administrators and sheriffsProsecutor discretion
City and county ordinances
Other policy changes we're tracking in prisons and jailsEliminating medical co-paysIn most states, incarcerated people are expected to pay $2-$5 co-pays for physician visits, medications, and testing in prisons. Because incarcerated people typically earn 14 to 63 cents per hour, these charges are the equivalent of charging a free-world worker $200 or $500 for a medical visit. The result is to discourage medical treatment and to put public health at risk. In 2019, some states recognized the harm and eliminated these co-pays in prisons. We’re tracking how states are responding to the COVID-19 pandemic:
Vaccine availability and uptakeIncarcerated people should have ranked high on every state’s priority list for the COVID-19 vaccine given the extremely high case and death rates in prisons. But we found that only 10 states put incarcerated people in phase 1 of vaccine distribution — and 8 states didn’t list them in any vaccine phase at all (see the table below for more detail). In May 2021, we aggregated data showing that scarcely 50% of people in prisons nationwide had received even one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. By our most recent count in July 2021 (part of our 50-state report States of Emergency), 15 states had still vaccinated less than 60% of incarcerated people. Early in the pandemic, prison systems throughout the country began publishing COVID-19 data, lifting a tiny corner of the veil of secrecy that usually shields prisons from public scrutiny. But, as the Omicron variant began to threaten the country, we found most states provided very little data about the accessibility of vaccinations and booster shots behind bars.
Reducing the cost of communicationMost federal prisons, state prisons and many local jails decided to drastically reduce or completely eliminate friends and family visitation to reduce the risk of COVID-19. But only a few made an effort to supplement this loss by waiving fees for phone calls and video communication. Here are three notable examples: |
The tier system of prisoners was first introduced as part of the ____________________ system.
Pos Terkait
Copyright © 2024 ketiadaan Inc.
