FBI\u27s Ten Most Wanted Fugitives: 60th anniversary, 1950-2010

Includes a chronological listing of the FBI’s Ten most wanted fugitives March 14, 1950-March 1, 2010

2004 Annual Parole Survey

Blank parole data survey containing a series of questions related to the parole population in a particular location, with instructions for filling out the survey

2012 Annual Probation Survey

Blank probation data survey containing a series of questions related to the probationary population in a particular location, with instructions for filling out the survey

2007 Annual Parole Survey

Blank parole data survey containing a series of questions related to the parole population in a particular location, with instructions for filling out the survey

2010 Annual Parole Survey

Blank parole data survey containing a series of questions related to the parole population in a particular location, with instructions for filling out the survey

2011 Annual Parole Survey

Blank parole data survey containing a series of questions related to the parole population in a particular location, with instructions for filling out the survey

FBI Presentation on Mortgage Fraud

Special Agent in Charge was Keith Slotter and this document was presented during the FDIC\u27s Interagency Accounting Conference

Imprisonment and internment: Comparing penal facilities North and South

Recent references to the ‘warehouse prison’ in the United States and the prisión-depósito in Latin America seem to indicate that penal confinement in the western hemisphere has converged on a similar model. However, this article suggests otherwise. It contrasts penal facilities in North America and Latin America in terms of six interrelated aspects: regimentation; surveillance; isolation; supervision; accountability; and formalization. Quantitatively, control in North American penal facilities is assiduous (unceasing, persistent and intrusive), while in Latin America it is perfunctory (sporadic, indifferent and cursory). Qualitatively, North American penal facilities produce imprisonment (which enacts penal intervention through confinement), while in Latin America they produce internment (which enacts penal intervention through release). Closely entwined with this qualitative difference are distinct practices of judicial involvement in sentencing and penal supervision. Those practices, and the cultural and political factors that underpin them, represent an interesting starting point for the explanation of the contrasting nature of imprisonment and internment