# 202607122258 Smart Prisons - distributed custody research prompt
Use this as the research directive. It is designed to force assistants beyond the already identified public programs and into **archival naming lineages, pilot projects, euphemistic program vocabularies, technical-assistance networks, doctrinal quotations, procurement records, and institutional bridges**.
Conduct a deep, source-driven investigation into the possibility that the United States developed, tested, discussed, or partially implemented forms of **custody, rehabilitation, crime prevention, or behavioral supervision without conventional prison walls**—systems in which a person could remain physically present in ordinary society while their mobility, information, relationships, housing, employment, credit, services, privileges, and opportunities were adaptively expanded or contracted according to a personalized risk, needs, trust, compliance, or predicted-behavior model.
The research must not begin by assuming that one secret national program existed. Treat this as an **institutional-lineage and systems-architecture investigation**. Search for separate programs, research traditions, pilot projects, euphemisms, code names, consulting frameworks, procurement categories, technical-assistance initiatives, grant families, and doctrinal statements that may together describe the same operational form under different names.
The target architecture is:
**observe or receive reports about a person → resolve identity → classify risk, needs, dangerousness, vulnerability, responsivity, trust, or predicted conduct → assign interventions and human contacts → expand or contract specific affordances → monitor response → update the classification → repeat**
Search for systems in which the effective perimeter is **administrative, informational, economic, relational, technological, therapeutic, or social rather than architectural**.
The central question is:
> Did American justice, reentry, crime-prevention, behavioral-health, homeland-security, public-health, threat-assessment, community-policing, faith-based, social-service, or research institutions ever explicitly describe a future in which people could be supervised, corrected, rehabilitated, contained, diverted, incapacitated, or behaviorally redirected while remaining physically “free,” perhaps without fully perceiving the total architecture governing their environment?
## Search first for the missing names
Identify all plausible names, predecessor names, successor names, internal labels, grant titles, project acronyms, demonstration programs, pilot initiatives, technical-assistance programs, research consortia, strategic frameworks, procurement categories, and euphemisms associated with:
- prisons without walls;
- virtual prisons;
- invisible prisons;
- open prisons;
- prisons in the community;
- custody in the community;
- community custody;
- community corrections;
- noncustodial corrections;
- noninstitutional confinement;
- extramural custody;
- distributed custody;
- digital custody;
- networked supervision;
- virtual incarceration;
- electronic incarceration;
- home as a correctional facility;
- incarceration in place;
- custody without walls;
- ambient supervision;
- remote supervision;
- graduated freedom;
- graduated sanctions and incentives;
- responsive supervision;
- adaptive supervision;
- personalized supervision;
- differential supervision;
- precision corrections;
- predictive corrections;
- preventive corrections;
- preventive detention by risk management;
- behavioral threat management;
- pre-crime prevention;
- anticipated offending;
- crime prevention through social intervention;
- community-based incapacitation;
- therapeutic surveillance;
- supported surveillance;
- control through care;
- control with alliance;
- coercive care;
- benevolent control;
- social control through service delivery;
- distributed guardianship;
- guardianship networks;
- volunteer guardians;
- community guardians;
- natural surveillance;
- capable guardianship;
- collective efficacy;
- informal social control;
- community intelligence;
- human sensor networks;
- citizen reporting networks;
- suspicious activity reporting;
- “see something, say something” as distributed sensing;
- wraparound supervision;
- whole-person supervision;
- total-person reentry;
- integrated case management;
- person-centered risk management;
- predictive case management;
- behavioral modification through environmental design;
- choice architecture in corrections;
- nudging in probation, parole, or reentry;
- gamified rehabilitation;
- earned autonomy;
- earned freedom;
- earned privileges;
- progressive custody;
- privilege ladders;
- incentive-based supervision;
- behavioral credit;
- compliance scoring;
- trust scoring;
- reputational supervision;
- social-credit equivalents;
- risk-based access control;
- conditional access to society;
- algorithmic eligibility;
- dynamic permissions;
- individualized affordance provisioning;
- differential velocity of permission;
- social damping and social acceleration;
- environmental rehabilitation;
- ecological supervision;
- adaptive social environments;
- personalized rehabilitation ecosystems.
Do not limit the search to these terms. Use discovered vocabulary to recursively expand the search.
## Trace the full institutional lineage
Begin with the already identified public spine, then search above, below, beside, before, and after it:
- Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts;
- PricewaterhouseCoopers;
- IBM;
- federal probation and pretrial-services strategic redesign;
- PCRA;
- Risk-Need-Responsivity;
- STARR;
- motivational interviewing;
- CNVC or related integrated supervision systems;
- Second Chance Act;
- Federal Interagency Reentry Council;
- White House Domestic Policy Council;
- Eric Holder;
- Loretta Lynch;
- Cecilia Muñoz;
- Office of Justice Programs;
- Bureau of Justice Assistance;
- Bureau of Prisons;
- National Institute of Justice;
- National Reentry Resource Center;
- Council of State Governments Justice Center;
- Justice Reinvestment Initiative;
- Smart Probation;
- Smart Supervision;
- Smart Reentry;
- Innovations in Supervision;
- Innovations in Reentry;
- Statewide Recidivism Reduction;
- Transition Accountability Plans;
- Sequential Intercept Mapping;
- Reentry Coordination Council;
- Federal Interagency Council on Crime Prevention and Improving Reentry;
- White House Office of American Innovation;
- Jared Kushner;
- First Step Act;
- PATTERN;
- Alternatives and Reentry Committee;
- Executive Order 14074;
- community reentry networks;
- faith-based and community initiatives;
- mentoring networks;
- chaplaincy volunteer systems;
- halfway houses;
- residential reentry centers;
- home confinement;
- electronic monitoring;
- CARES Act home confinement;
- digital corrections;
- prison tablets;
- smart prisons;
- Finland’s Smart Prison project;
- Pia Puolakka;
- EuroPris;
- Council of Europe CM/Rec(2024)5.
Search for predecessor and parallel programs going back to at least 1960, including:
- deinstitutionalization;
- community treatment;
- therapeutic communities;
- community mental health;
- diversion;
- pretrial services;
- problem-solving courts;
- drug courts;
- mental-health courts;
- community courts;
- restorative justice;
- reparative justice;
- intensive supervision probation;
- day reporting centers;
- house arrest;
- electronic monitoring;
- broken-windows policing;
- community policing;
- Weed and Seed;
- Project Safe Neighborhoods;
- Ceasefire;
- focused deterrence;
- violence interruption;
- threat assessment;
- fusion centers;
- suspicious activity reporting;
- countering violent extremism;
- targeted violence prevention;
- behavioral intervention teams;
- wraparound services;
- Housing First;
- social-impact bonds;
- pay for success;
- outcome-based contracting;
- predictive policing;
- place-based policing;
- social-network analysis in violence prevention;
- public-health approaches to violence;
- social determinants of crime;
- crime prevention through environmental design.
Determine whether any of these traditions explicitly proposed replacing prison with **continuous community management of behavior, opportunity, association, or environment**.
## Search for explicit quotations
Locate direct quotations from policymakers, judges, correctional officials, criminologists, consultants, technologists, futurists, psychologists, social workers, public-health officials, or program designers expressing ideas such as:
- prison is not a place but a status;
- the home can function as a correctional facility;
- the community can become the prison;
- walls are unnecessary if movement and access can be controlled;
- supervision can follow a person everywhere;
- technology can create a prison without bars;
- liberty can be graduated or dynamically provisioned;
- confinement can be achieved through electronic or administrative means;
- the ideal correctional system would keep people in society while controlling their choices;
- people may be more effectively rehabilitated while working, living with family, and remaining in the community;
- treatment and supervision should be woven into everyday life;
- informal community actors can serve as eyes and ears;
- everyone in the community can participate in crime prevention;
- risk management should begin before an offense occurs;
- services can be used to prevent predicted criminal conduct;
- opportunities and privileges should be adjusted according to risk or compliance;
- sanctions and incentives should be immediate, certain, and graduated;
- a person’s environment should be deliberately structured to produce behavioral change;
- the system should make the desired behavior easier and undesired behavior harder;
- supervision should be invisible, seamless, ambient, normalized, or embedded;
- control should be achieved through alliance, support, or personalization;
- the subject should experience the system as help rather than coercion;
- the most effective supervision is the supervision the subject internalizes;
- the person should be encouraged to generate the institutionally desired account of their own transformation.
Prioritize quotations using phrases such as:
- “without walls”;
- “prison without bars”;
- “community as prison”;
- “home is a facility”;
- “facility designation”;
- “custody in the community”;
- “control in the community”;
- “less restrictive conditions”;
- “graduated sanctions”;
- “graduated incentives”;
- “earned autonomy”;
- “continuum of control”;
- “continuum of care and custody”;
- “seamless supervision”;
- “invisible supervision”;
- “natural guardians”;
- “eyes and ears”;
- “capable guardians”;
- “working alliance”;
- “therapeutic leverage”;
- “coerced treatment”;
- “mandated treatment”;
- “behavioral contract”;
- “contingency management”;
- “environmental control”;
- “choice architecture”;
- “responsivity”;
- “dosage” of supervision or treatment;
- “dosage probation”;
- “dosage-based supervision”;
- “precision community supervision”;
- “risk-based supervision”;
- “targeted interventions”;
- “individualized pathway”;
- “dynamic risk”;
- “prosocial modeling”;
- “social control through informal networks”;
- “collective efficacy”;
- “community guardianship”;
- “distributed guardianship”;
- “behavioral ecosystem.”
Provide the exact quotation, speaker, date, document, institutional role, original source, and surrounding context. Do not rely on quotation aggregators.
## Search for the volunteer and human-sensor layer
Investigate programs that recruit or structurally depend on:
- mentors;
- clergy;
- congregations;
- employers;
- landlords;
- neighbors;
- peer specialists;
- formerly incarcerated guides;
- social workers;
- clinicians;
- educators;
- community navigators;
- neighborhood watches;
- violence interrupters;
- case managers;
- citizen volunteers;
- AmeriCorps;
- Corporation for National and Community Service;
- faith-based intermediaries;
- nonprofit subcontractors;
- restorative-justice volunteers;
- court-appointed volunteers;
- probation volunteers;
- community accountability boards;
- community justice panels;
- volunteer probation officers;
- volunteer correctional officers;
- auxiliary police;
- reserve officers;
- citizen corps;
- community emergency-response teams;
- suspicious-activity reporting partners;
- fusion-center liaison officers;
- school behavioral intervention teams;
- workplace threat-assessment teams.
Search for organizational charts, manuals, training materials, memoranda of understanding, grant solicitations, technical-assistance guides, volunteer handbooks, data-sharing agreements, reporting forms, case-note procedures, referral protocols, escalation pathways, and language describing volunteers as:
- eyes and ears;
- guardians;
- monitors;
- reporters;
- prosocial models;
- accountability partners;
- community supports;
- informal social controls;
- extensions of supervision;
- trusted messengers;
- behavioral reinforcers;
- sources of collateral information;
- community intelligence;
- human sensors.
Determine how observations from volunteers or community participants could enter official or semi-official systems. Search for pathways such as:
- probation collateral contacts;
- case notes;
- mentor reports;
- employer verification;
- landlord reports;
- treatment-provider updates;
- child-welfare referrals;
- school reports;
- suspicious-activity reports;
- wellness checks;
- hotline reports;
- incident reports;
- fusion-center submissions;
- platform moderation reports;
- law-enforcement liaison reports;
- multidisciplinary-team records;
- coordinated-entry databases;
- homeless-management information systems;
- threat-assessment records;
- public-health reporting systems.
Distinguish carefully among formal reporting, semi-formal referral, informal reputational propagation, and undocumented human influence.
## Search for predictive intervention before conviction
Investigate systems concerned with people who have not committed a new crime but are classified as likely to do so, including:
- pretrial risk assessment;
- preventive detention;
- civil commitment;
- sexually violent predator laws;
- threat assessment;
- targeted violence prevention;
- behavioral threat assessment and management;
- school threat-assessment teams;
- workplace violence prevention;
- countering violent extremism;
- terrorism prevention;
- gang risk assessment;
- focused deterrence;
- social-network violence intervention;
- public-health violence prevention;
- predictive policing;
- repeat-offender prediction;
- child and family risk scoring;
- youth risk assessment;
- juvenile diversion;
- at-risk youth programs;
- predictive analytics in child welfare;
- homelessness vulnerability indices;
- opioid-overdose risk scoring;
- mental-health crisis prediction;
- suicide risk scoring;
- domestic-violence lethality assessment;
- algorithmic fraud detection;
- “prevention through services.”
Search for explicit language about changing a person’s environment, associates, opportunities, treatment, access, mobility, or supervision **before the predicted event occurs**.
Identify where prediction authorizes present intervention.
## Search for personalized up-ranking and down-ranking
Investigate systems that reward or penalize persons through differential provisioning rather than formal sentencing.
Search for:
- graduated rewards;
- graduated sanctions;
- behavioral incentives;
- privilege levels;
- earned credits;
- earned autonomy;
- trusted-status systems;
- compliance tiers;
- risk tiers;
- responsivity tiers;
- supervision dosage;
- contact standards by risk level;
- reduced reporting;
- increased reporting;
- access to housing;
- access to employment;
- access to education;
- access to family contact;
- access to digital services;
- access to treatment;
- travel permissions;
- curfew changes;
- geographic restrictions;
- information access;
- social-network restrictions;
- association restrictions;
- financial incentives;
- vouchers;
- contingency management;
- token economies;
- point-and-level systems;
- behavioral contracts;
- loyalty or trust systems in correctional environments.
Use the control-theory language:
**dampening** = increased friction, reduced opportunity, delayed access, narrowed choices, greater observation, greater verification, restricted mobility, diminished trust.
**acceleration** = reduced friction, earlier release, expanded movement, increased trust, richer information access, employment and housing opportunities, reduced reporting, greater autonomy.
Search for documents describing these effects even where the terms “dampening” and “acceleration” are not used.
## Search for possible code-name lineages and renamed program families
Build a chronological name graph. For every relevant program, identify:
- original name;
- predecessor name;
- successor name;
- pilot name;
- demonstration-grant name;
- statutory name;
- executive-order name;
- public-facing brand;
- internal acronym;
- technical-assistance contractor;
- funding opportunity number;
- administering office;
- sunset date;
- reauthorization;
- name changes after presidential transitions.
Pay special attention to recurring words:
- Smart;
- Safe;
- Secure;
- Second Chance;
- Opportunity;
- Innovation;
- Transformation;
- Reintegration;
- Resilience;
- Responsibility;
- Accountability;
- Evidence-Based;
- Community;
- Whole Person;
- Wraparound;
- Continuum;
- Pathway;
- Navigation;
- Guardianship;
- Prevention;
- Intervention;
- Stability;
- Readiness;
- Responsivity;
- Transition;
- Reinvestment;
- Recovery;
- Restoration;
- Redemption;
- Home;
- Freedom;
- Independence;
- Self-Sufficiency.
Search federal grant archives, archived agency pages, Federal Register notices, Grants.gov solicitations, SAM.gov contracts, GAO reports, CRS reports, inspector-general reports, university research centers, foundation grants, technical-assistance websites, conference proceedings, dissertations, and Wayback Machine captures.
The purpose is to determine whether one operational function repeatedly disappeared under obsolete names and reappeared under new ones.
## Search the university and research-institute layer
Identify universities, institutes, laboratories, centers, and foundations that served as:
- instrument developers;
- validators;
- evaluators;
- technical-assistance providers;
- behavioral-science advisers;
- data-system designers;
- simulation laboratories;
- social-network analysts;
- correctional-technology researchers;
- community-supervision researchers;
- public-health violence researchers;
- threat-assessment researchers;
- digital identity or reputation researchers;
- gamification researchers;
- persuasive-technology researchers;
- human-machine-system researchers.
Begin with but do not limit the search to:
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign;
- University of Illinois Chicago;
- National Institute of Justice research partners;
- Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts research partners;
- Federal Judicial Center;
- RAND;
- Urban Institute;
- MDRC;
- RTI International;
- Abt Associates;
- Mathematica;
- Westat;
- MITRE;
- CNA;
- Institute for Intergovernmental Research;
- Council of State Governments Justice Center;
- Crime and Justice Institute;
- Pew Charitable Trusts;
- Arnold Ventures;
- MacArthur Foundation;
- Laura and John Arnold Foundation;
- Vera Institute of Justice;
- Center for Court Innovation;
- National Center for State Courts;
- American Probation and Parole Association;
- National Criminal Justice Association;
- Correctional Leaders Association;
- Georgetown Center for Security and Emerging Technology;
- Carnegie Mellon;
- Penn criminology;
- Rutgers;
- Cincinnati corrections research;
- George Mason Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy;
- University of Maryland criminology;
- Harvard Kennedy School;
- Berkman Klein Center;
- Stanford behavioral design laboratories;
- DARPA or IARPA programs involving prediction, human behavior, social simulation, or trust;
- DHS Centers of Excellence;
- NSF programs in human-machine belief sharing, attention, social computing, and population monitoring.
Search for unexpected overlaps in personnel, grants, advisory boards, vendors, validation contracts, conferences, and technical vocabularies.
## Search for cross-domain managerial and consulting lineages
Follow the managerial ontology from public administration into corrections and social systems through:
- PwC;
- IBM;
- Deloitte;
- Accenture;
- KPMG;
- EY;
- Infosys;
- Booz Allen Hamilton;
- McKinsey;
- Gartner;
- CGI;
- Maximus;
- Conduent;
- Tyler Technologies;
- Palantir;
- SAS;
- Thomson Reuters;
- LexisNexis Risk Solutions;
- TransUnion;
- Equifax;
- Experian;
- CoreLogic;
- FICO;
- NICE;
- Verint;
- Securus;
- ViaPath;
- BI Incorporated;
- Sentinel;
- SCRAM Systems;
- Tyler Supervision;
- Northpointe/Equivant;
- Multi-Health Systems;
- Orbis Partners;
- Journal Technologies;
- Salesforce public-sector case management;
- ServiceNow public sector;
- Microsoft justice and public-safety systems;
- Amazon public-sector data systems;
- Google public-sector analytics.
Search for phrases such as:
- end-to-end offender management;
- justice ecosystem;
- integrated justice;
- person-centered case management;
- single view of the offender;
- 360-degree subject view;
- unified client record;
- master person index;
- predictive case management;
- next-best action;
- risk-based workflow;
- intelligent case routing;
- public-safety cloud;
- digital justice platform;
- integrated eligibility;
- whole-person data;
- human-services analytics;
- citizen 360;
- offender 360;
- behavioral analytics;
- social-network risk;
- cross-agency data fusion;
- justice information sharing;
- interoperable justice;
- integrated service delivery;
- outcome-based government;
- evidence-based government;
- digital twin of the citizen;
- digital twin of the offender;
- persistent identity;
- life-event management.
Identify direct contractual relationships and distinguish them from merely similar marketing language.
## Search legal and constitutional discussions
Find cases, law-review articles, judicial opinions, agency briefs, and constitutional scholarship discussing:
- whether home confinement is imprisonment;
- whether electronic monitoring constitutes custody;
- whether geographic restriction without walls is incarceration;
- whether parole or probation is a form of custody;
- whether algorithmic restrictions create liberty interests;
- whether invisible or digital restraints trigger due process;
- whether government-created reputational damage plus loss of opportunity constitutes a constitutional injury;
- “stigma plus” doctrine;
- compelled treatment;
- coerced consent;
- unconstitutional conditions;
- constructive custody;
- civil disabilities as continuing punishment;
- collateral consequences as invisible punishment;
- banishment through zoning, registries, or exclusion zones;
- digital banishment;
- geofenced liberty;
- algorithmic due process;
- secret evidence;
- watchlists;
- no-fly lists;
- gang databases;
- terrorism screening databases;
- predictive risk and preventive intervention;
- reputational blacklisting;
- private actors performing state functions;
- volunteers or contractors as state actors;
- delegation of correctional power to nonprofits or vendors.
Search specifically for legal language recognizing that a person can be functionally confined without physical incarceration.
## Investigate “prison while free” as an explicit intellectual tradition
Search criminology, sociology, philosophy, cybernetics, surveillance studies, and political theory for explicit formulations of:
- carceral society;
- carceral continuum;
- carceral archipelago;
- prison society;
- disciplinary society;
- control society;
- open-air prison;
- open prison;
- prison beyond prison;
- incarceration outside walls;
- invisible punishment;
- civil death;
- collateral consequences;
- digital prison;
- algorithmic prison;
- data prison;
- reputational prison;
- platform prison;
- bureaucratic confinement;
- administrative captivity;
- soft incarceration;
- social incapacitation;
- virtual incapacitation;
- risk-based citizenship;
- actuarial justice;
- new penology;
- preventive justice;
- preemptive governance;
- security dispositif;
- governmentality;
- modulation;
- dividuals;
- societies of control;
- therapeutic state;
- pastoral power;
- responsibilization;
- coercive benevolence;
- nudging and libertarian paternalism;
- adaptive governance;
- cybernetic governance.
Include foundational authors where directly relevant—Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, Malcolm Feeley, Jonathan Simon, David Garland, Bernard Harcourt, Loïc Wacquant, Stanley Cohen, Nikolas Rose, Pat O’Malley, Shoshana Zuboff, Virginia Eubanks, Ruha Benjamin, Sarah Brayne, Simone Browne—but focus on documentary bridges to actual institutions and programs.
## Required output structure
Produce the final report in these sections:
### 1. Executive finding
State whether the research found:
- a single named program;
- a family of renamed programs;
- several converging institutional lineages;
- only conceptual parallels;
- or insufficient evidence.
### 2. Candidate program-name and code-name table
For every plausible program or initiative include:
- name;
- acronym;
- dates;
- agency or institution;
- predecessor;
- successor;
- function;
- population;
- human-participant layer;
- data or scoring layer;
- affordance effects;
- documentary confidence.
### 3. Direct quotations
Present the strongest quotations concerning prisons without walls, custody in the community, invisible or electronic supervision, gradual liberty, community guardianship, preventive intervention, and control through support.
### 4. Institutional hierarchy
Map:
**federal policy → grant or procurement office → technical-assistance intermediary → state or local implementer → contractor or nonprofit → volunteer or human contact → subject-level effect**
### 5. Reporting and feedback channels
Explain exactly how an observation can become a case note, flag, score, referral, restriction, incentive, or expanded opportunity.
### 6. Up-ranking and down-ranking mechanisms
Identify concrete systems that accelerate or dampen specific domains of life.
### 7. Pre-crime and predicted-risk systems
Document where anticipated behavior, rather than adjudicated conduct, authorizes intervention.
### 8. Volunteer and community sensing
Quantify scale where possible and describe information compartmentalization.
### 9. Renaming and sunset lineage
Show how names, councils, and programs appeared, expired, and reappeared.
### 10. Universities, institutes, and consultants
Identify the research, validation, design, and integration layer.
### 11. Constitutional and legal analysis
Explain when invisible or digital restraints become custody, punishment, or deprivation of liberty.
### 12. Evidence matrix
For every major proposition classify it as:
- directly documented;
- strongly supported inference;
- structural equivalence;
- plausible but unverified;
- unsupported.
### 13. Missing-record recommendations
List precise FOIA targets, archives, contract numbers, grant records, email custodians, advisory committees, conference proceedings, or datasets most likely to resolve the remaining gaps.
## Research standards
Use primary sources wherever possible:
- statutes;
- executive orders;
- Federal Register notices;
- agency manuals;
- official guidance;
- procurement documents;
- grant solicitations;
- contracts;
- GAO and inspector-general reports;
- court opinions;
- litigation briefs;
- congressional hearings;
- archived government pages;
- academic papers;
- dissertations;
- official conference presentations;
- organizational reports;
- technical documentation.
Use secondary journalism only to identify leads or explain context.
Do not infer coordination merely because organizations share vocabulary.
Do not characterize a directory appearance, professional adjacency, conference participation, LinkedIn connection, or shared follower as evidence of operational involvement.
Do not assume that volunteers knowingly understood the full system.
Do not claim that any specific person was secretly placed inside an invisible prison unless direct documentary evidence establishes it.
Do not spend the report denying irrelevant possibilities. Preserve rigor by distinguishing the evidentiary status of each connection.
Search aggressively for unexpected vocabulary. The target system may not use the words “prison,” “custody,” “social credit,” “surveillance,” or “control.” It may appear under the language of:
**care, opportunity, safety, resilience, prevention, reintegration, navigation, wellness, accountability, support, guardianship, stabilization, responsivity, readiness, risk management, trust, incentives, community, whole-person service, or evidence-based practice.**
The deepest objective is to determine whether a historically traceable American architecture exists in which **physical freedom and functional confinement can coexist**—where a person remains in open society while a distributed institutional and human network continuously adjusts the speed, cost, visibility, and availability of their life pathways according to predicted merit, danger, compliance, or rehabilitative progress.
Search for the names we have not yet found.
#SmartPrisons