A bold agenda for criminal justice reform based on equal parts pragmatism and idealism, from the visionary director of the Center for Court Innovation, a leader of the reform movement Everyone knows that the United States leads the world in incarceration, and that our political process is gridlocked. What can be done right now to reduce the number of people sent to jail and prison? This essential book offers a concrete roadmap for both professionals and general readers who want to move from analysis to action. In this forward-looking, next-generation criminal justice reform book, Greg Berman and Julian Adler of the Center for Court Innovation highlight the key lessons from these programs—engaging the public in preventing crime, treating all defendants with dignity and respect, and linking people to effective community-based interventions rather than locking them up. Along the way, they tell a series of gripping stories, highlighting gang members who have gotten their lives back on track, judges who are transforming their courtrooms, and reformers around the country who are rethinking what justice looks like. While Start Here offers no silver bullets, it does put forth a suite of proven reforms—from alternatives to bail to diversion programs for mentally ill defendants—that will improve the lives of thousands of people right now. Start Here is a must-read for everyone who wants to start dismantling mass incarceration without waiting for a revolution or permission. Proceeds from the book will support the Center for Court Innovation’s reform efforts.
This book is a clear, succinct, well-researched and honest look at prison reform.
In it the author talks about programs and reforms that are currently being attempted to halt mass incarceration. Without going into gory detail, he uses a familial tone which includes the basic premise of the idea, stats which support it, opposition, and some anecdotal evidence.
The book doesn’t extend into problems in society and how poverty leads to a life of crime though it’s touched upon in the stories. Though it was nice that it was limited in scope.
I was pleased to read that states, even conservative ones, are now attempting reform. I would have liked a look at it state by state for a chapter. But the book is a good primer and highly digestible in sharing ideas. I would Love to read a similar one on education reform...
A solid quick read with lots of aspirational examples of how to solve the mass incarceration issue. No quick fixes, lots of minds to change and long financial commitments make a lot of the suggestions impractical in the current political climate. But lots of use cases in micro environments that demonstrate the ideas have merits.
This was a really good, succinct book with tons of data to back it up. It's more of a policy guidance book than a handbook for activists. That's cool, but I'm struggling to discern how I, as an individual, can possibly enact any of the recommendations in the book. I wish all our politicians would read this.
Lots of great positive examples and case studies of how mass incarceration can be reduced. Even in the reddest States, this movement is happening. It's not easy. There are no silver bullets. But it can be done and has been done. A good quick read.
pretty good and very informative. even though I don’t agree with all of the points made, I think that the main approach to curbing incarceration is a good one. quick read too
In an effort to appeal to “both sides of the aisle” these two white boys from New York have missed the mark. This is a good introduction to what community-based alternatives to incarceration can look like through an exploration of pilot projects meant to address the overpopulation of prison across the US. They seem to think that the first step of this process of deincarceration is “understanding who is behind bars“ when they’ve missed a fundamental understanding of WHY people are behind bars - the history and context within which prisons, police, and the justice system were used to maintain systems of white supremacy. And shockingly - or maybe not given who they are? - they believe “it is not necessary to solve the problems of poverty or racism or inequality in order to achieve significant change within the justice system.“ THEY ACTUALLY SAY THAT. I just can’t even with these two.