Criminal Sanctions and Mass Incarceration in Wisconsin: It’s Time for Real Reform

An analysis of the Wisconsin criminal justice system, and what can be done to improve it

---

Published March 14th, 2026

Written by Carter Lurvey

Wisconsin’s criminal sanctions system is long overdue for the kind of reform that matches the realities and the inequities of modern justice. The Wisconsin justice system suffers from overcrowded institutions and fails to effectively address the issue, leaving incarcerated individuals to suffer the consequences. In fact, Wisconsin incarcerates more people per capita than most countries in the world, including the United States as a whole according to the Wisconsin Watch. For meaningful reform, the Wisconsin justice system needs stronger efforts to reduce the prison population in Wisconsin and prioritize the human rights of incarcerated individuals.

In the last 10 years, mass incarceration has been accepted as the norm in Wisconsin, as observed by the Federal Sentencing Reporter. According to the FSR, from the 1970s to 2005, the population of incarcerated individuals in Wisconsin grew ninefold and has continued to grow sharply each year since. Mandatory minimums, harsh sanctions for vice and drug crimes and long sentences drive this result. As people's convictions and time in prison increase, overcrowding of prisons also increases. Additionally, the FSR explains that incarcerated individuals in Wisconsin prisons are already being held in institutions that are old, poorly taken care of and unable to provide adequate living conditions. Mass incarceration only furthers these poor conditions. These circumstances often force many individuals to be squeezed into smaller rooms and spaces. The consequences that fall onto incarcerated individuals provide a humanitarian incentive to address the flaws in the Wisconsin criminal justice system that lead to this result.

Another factor contributing to mass incarceration in Wisconsin is the “revolving door” of recidivism and extended supervision, as described by the Badger Institute. In Wisconsin, the justice system is set up to make it easy for individuals convicted of crimes to reenter the system. In particular, the Badger Institute explains that a focus on incapacitation and punishment following violations of strict extended supervision policies rather than a focus on rehabilitation and treatment is largely contributing to the revolving door of recidivism in Wisconsin - and consequently the overcrowding of Wisconsin prisons. 

 This is especially significant due to the large number of people who are under extended supervision in Wisconsin, consisting of roughly 63,200 people as measured by the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin. According to the Badger Institute, 25% of people who are admitted to prison are people who are already under community supervision, and about 38% of people who are released from prison are convicted of another crime within three years of their release. The Badger Institute writes that Wisconsin relies on face-to-face meetings to determine the success of community supervision rather than focusing on actually adjusting behavioral patterns or reducing recidivism. This model prioritizes compliance over rehabilitation and creates structural barriers to success such as transportation or housing instability which might lead to technical violations and re-incarceration. 

The evidence is clear: the criminal justice system is not set up for people to succeed. The current “progressive” forms of alternative corrections are not enough to fight mass incarceration. A largely used example in Wisconsin is prison educational programs, which have little research to evaluate their effectiveness and have not yet been sufficiently shown to reduce mass incarceration according to the Badger Institute.

Article 1, Section 6 of the Wisconsin Constitution protects residents from cruel and unusual punishment. If we subject our incarcerated individuals, especially those who have committed lesser crimes or misdemeanors, to arguably unlivable conditions, are we not violating their constitutional rights? If we subject those who have committed multiple misdemeanors to sentencing for a felony, isn’t this also a violation of rights? These questions demonstrate that there are legitimate concerns about the rights of incarcerated individuals in our state. Upholding our constitution should be enough to push Wisconsin toward effective reform, and there is much that can be done.

For example, more rehabilitative or comprehensive approaches that consider context to criminal conduct may be more effective in addressing mass incarceration. One example of such an effort is the principle of collaborative decision-making. According to the Justice System Journal, an institutionalized combination of evidence-based decision-making in trial, pretrial strategies that prioritize minimizing time held in an institution, more problem-solving courts and further treatment-based corrections could effectively address prison populations through collaborative decision-making. 

Wisconsin can lead by example; according to the Albert Cobarrubias Justice Project in San José, California, a collaborative model where families and community members work alongside public defenders (called participatory defense), has addressed the issue of mass incarceration in California by leading to reduced charges, shortened sentences, and alternative corrections. Evaluations of the model show large amounts of time and money saved compared to expected incarceration time when community participation influences criminal sanctions, illustrating how collaborative decision-making or rehabilitative models can produce tangible reductions in incarceration outcomes.

Regardless of which strategies Wisconsin chooses, it is clear that the call for reform and reducing mass incarceration is louder than ever. Every passing day without more impactful efforts is a day where incarcerated people in our institutions are suffering the consequences, and another day that their promised rights are being compromised. Prioritizing rehabilitative, collaborative and context-based approaches could be one step in the right direction, but this is an issue that will take great time and effort to properly address. We need to start now.

---