There have been numerous studies conducted to measure the effect in which police patrol methods have on crime prevention and intervention. One of the most well-known studies is the Kansas City Prevention Patrol Experiment.

Read the article titled “The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment” located here. You may also view the article here.

Write a two to three (2-3) page paper in which you:

1. Summarize the main purpose and the result of Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment.
2. Compare and contrast the fundamental similarities and differences of the police presence and random patrol as regard to the tactics of crime prevention.
3. Differentiate between reactive beats and concentrated presence as they relate to adjoining proactive beats. Support your response.
4. Use at least two (2) quality academic resources as references, such as journal articles, newspapers, magazines, and publications from law enforcement associations. Note: Wikipedia, blogs, and similar websites do not qualify as quality academic resources.

Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:

• Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
• Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.

ASSIGNMENT MUST BE 1 TO 2 PAGES IN LENGTH.  ATTACHED ARE RESOURECES TO ASSIST WITH ASSIGNMENT

Prior to beginning work on this assignment, read Chapters 1 and 2 from your textbook, watch the video Overcrowded: The Messy Politics of CA’s Prison Crisis, and review pages 2513-2533 only from the article Whom Should We Punish, and How? Rational Incentives and Criminal Justice Reform.  This assignment includes an outline described below. The outline’s  purpose is for you to prepare a foundation for your approach to your  Week 2 assignment.

Including a minimum of two scholarly and/or credible resources,  please prepare an outline of issues in corrections that briefly  addresses, in approximately one paragraph each, the following:

• Explain the issue(s) in at least one U.S. Supreme Court Case  published within the past 10 years that addresses the balance between  constitutional rights of incarcerated persons and administrative  functions in corrections. (Approximately one paragraph) 
  • To assist you with this part, note that the issue(s) in a U.S.  Supreme Court case typically refers to the main challenge or claim that  the court ultimately addresses in its ruling. For example, in Brown v. Plata  (2011) (discussed in your textbook), a major issue was whether  overcrowded conditions for correctional populations violates the Eighth  Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. Although you may choose any  relevant U.S. Supreme Court case published within the past 10 years, you  may find it helpful to select a case from Table 5.1 of Chapter 5in  your textbook.
• Determine how the constitutional rights of incarcerated persons have  been addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case published within the  past 10 years (for your selected case above). (Approximately one  paragraph) 
  • To assist you with this part, consider how the decision addresses  the balance between constitutional rights of incarcerated persons and  administrative functions, drawing on factors considered by the U.S.  Supreme Court in your selected case.
• Examine at least one cultural sensitivity issue and at least one diversity issue in corrections. (Approximately one paragraph) 
  • To assist you with this part, you may explore articles or state or  federal websites that address cultural sensitivity and diversity in  corrections. Use at least one scholarly or credible source.

*Note: You are encouraged to integrate any feedback from your instructor and upload the assignment to your ePortfolio.

The Issues and Constitutional Rights in Corrections paper

• Must be one to two double-spaced pages in length (not including  title and references pages) and formatted according to APA style as  outlined in the Ashford Writing Center’s APA Style (Links to an external site.) and Outlining (Links to an external site.)
• Must include a separate title page with the following:
  • Title of paper
  • Student’s name
  • Course name and number
  • Instructor’s name
  • Date submitted

    Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to

    ▪ Describe punishment in premodern times. ▪ Identify features of punishment in colonial America. ▪ Identify ideas developed during the 18th century that influenced American corrections. ▪ Discuss the history of incarceration as punishment up to the early part of the 19th century in America. ▪ Describe the role played by the rehabilitative ideal in American corrections in the 20th century.

    The Historical Relationships Between Punishment,

    Incarceration, and Corrections

    1

    Everett Collection/SuperStock

    © 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

     

     

    Section 1.1Punishment in Premodern Times

    Introduction Over the past 3 decades, demands for tighter, more restrictive sentences, the abolition of parole, the massive construction of new prisons, and a get-tough attitude toward offenders have reflected a general shift among public officials regarding the strategic use of punish- ment. Awash in dramatic portrayals of serious crime by the news media and entertainment industry, many in American society look for answers to serious criminal activity in punish- ment mechanisms. If serious crime persists or increases, some think that criminal sentences, prisons, and punishment-related agencies must be failing to work. These attitudes are not unique to today’s criminal justice landscape. Such reactions to crime and punishment can be found in any period of human history. Not only have societies critically questioned the effectiveness of punishment in the past, but many of the current concerns about punish- ment are rooted in that past. This chapter presents information about the history of pun- ishment. After briefly discussing the history of punishment from Europe’s medieval period through the American colonial period, we will explore the development and evolution of pris- ons and rehabilitation in the United States. In addition, we will explore how various correc- tional aims have influenced punishment practices throughout history. You should get a sense of the difficulty of designing an effective system of punishment in any society, the cyclical nature of penal reform, and the variation in attitudes toward strategies of punishment in the United States.

    1.1 Punishment in Premodern Times Prior to the 18th century, punishment was a natural part of everyday life. In fact, social pun- ishments were devised to help order society. Punishment developed in a nonlinear way, beginning with physical torture in premodern societies, moving through imprisonment and fines during the industrial revolution, and evolving toward rehabilitation and treatment dur- ing the Progressive period (1890–1920), which resulted in a search for alternatives to these models in the 1890s and forward. Methods of punishment emerged and subsided, changed and stabilized, and took a variety of forms, depending on what social, political, and economic changes were occurring in society. No single punishment method dominated any given his- torical period.

    Prisons were used in ancient times, along with fines, public humiliation, and corporal pun- ishments (that cause pain to the body, such as whipping). Rome, France, Germany, and other countries sentenced offenders to prison as early as the 6th century. In one form or another, prisons existed in England from at least the 5th century and “by the fifteenth cen- tury were an important instrument in the maintenance of public order” (Rothman, 1971, p. 162). By the end of the 13th century, every town in England had built jails. Additional prison space was needed by the end of the 14th century, and more sentences were issued during this time than in previous centuries. Although the general purpose of the prison was to hold offenders for trial, that purpose gradually changed to imprisoning offenders for punishment (Rothman, 1971).

    Reasons why prisons changed from being used for custody to being used for punishment are complex. It became a standard practice that someone suspected of criminal activity or trea- son would be imprisoned. Statutes defining certain crimes such as arson, escape from jail,

    © 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

     

     

    Section 1.1Punishment in Premodern Times

    and treason did not provide for, or even explicitly forbid, issuance of bail, and thus execution or imprisonment became the standard sentences for these crimes. Also, crimes began to be seen as a threat to the king’s peace, in addition to the harm done to individuals by the specific act (such as larceny, assault, etc.). An increasing number of laws emerged that had precisely defined prison sentences for perpetrators of certain crimes (Rothman, 1971).

    Imprisonment was also a common tool used by church officials. Church clerks accused of felonies were imprisoned by the Catholic Church, which used its monasteries as penal insti- tutions. By the 14th century the church had developed its own penal system and legal phi- losophy that was independent of the laws and prisons of the state. This parallel legal system was based on religious as well as political considerations. The church wanted its subjects punished by God, not the state, and it wanted political control over its subjects and its expanding empire.

    The Middle Ages The Middle Ages lasted from about the 6th century to the beginning of the 16th cen- tury and featured a very complex mix of punishments. Originally, imprisonment was used to hold individuals for trial, and by the later Middle Ages (14th to 16th century), it had become a popular means of punishment.

    Although many people believe that physi- cal torture was the norm for this period, the most favored type of punishment involved economic sanctions, such as fines. This is not to say that corporal pun- ishment did not exist; mutilation, dis- memberment, and branding were com- mon punishments for individuals who committed murder, rape, theft, adultery, or prostitution. The use and persistence of corporal punishment can be explained by the purpose it served for small communi- ties. Sentencing an offender to a corporal punishment, such as the stocks, pillories, or public whipping, both punished the offender for the crime and deterred others from committing it, because townspeople all knew each other. An offender’s physical pain and social embarrassment were observed by all residents of the community (Newman, 1978).

    The Later Middle Ages There is no record describing a precise philosophy of punishment for the later Middle Ages. The variety of punitive measures available indicates that a punishment depended greatly on the political interest being served. Monarchs preferred to punish using fines or executions,

    Silvio Fiore/SuperStock Various punishments were used during the Middle Ages, including both imprisonment and corporal punishment, like dismemberment. Corporal punishment is rare today, but what is your opinion of it?

    © 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

     

     

    Section 1.1Punishment in Premodern Times

    given their interest in controlling and deterring threats to their rule and/or contributing to their treasury. In some cases executions served both interests; if an offender was executed by proper judicial procedure, all of his possessions transferred to the king. On the other hand, poor victims probably had more interest in retribution and thus relied on physical torture as a means of punishment. The church favored penance but also justified its use of corporal punishment on the basis of retribution. Intertwined through all these forms of punishment was imprisonment, and by the later Middle Ages, prisons were quite common. The popularity of each form of punishment varied from place to place and time to time, depending on social, political, and economic conditions (Bellamy, 1973).

    The 17th Century By the end of the 16th century, the deteri- oration of the feudal system, the Protes- tant Reformation, and the growth of cities heralded significant social and economic changes. Expanding middle classes and transient working-class populations cre- ated new pressures on social control mechanisms, including punishment (Eriksson, 1976).

    In response to a rapidly growing popula- tion of vagrants and beggars that seemed undeterred by the threat of corporal punishment, Europe sought other penal solutions. The first houses of corrections emerged in the 16th century, beginning with bridewells in England and followed by the rasphouses (Rasphuis) for male criminals and spinhouses (Spinhuis) for female crimi- nals in Amsterdam that quickly spread throughout Europe. Based largely on the work ethic of the Reformation, these correctional houses operated along the twin dimensions of work and discipline. The bridewell model introduced the idea that offenders should be put to work. Similarly, the Amsterdam model expanded the dimension of punishment to include the idea that prisoners should not merely be penalized but also be taught good work habits, self-dis- cipline, and the benefits of contributing to society—in other words, they should be rehabili- tated. These two principles would serve as the cornerstones for the treatment of prisoners for centuries to come (Eriksson, 1976; Spierenburg, 1984). Although called houses of correc- tions, these early solutions had all the characteristics of prisons.

    There is no record of mass resistance or opposition to the use of incarceration, either in conjunction with fines or restitution or as a sole means of punishment. Thus it appears that imprisonment was one accepted method of punishment in medieval society and gradually became a primary method by the end of the 17th century. However, the emerging reliance on prison as a primary symbol of the state’s power to punish came under severe criticism as the 18th century advanced. In the context of this period, the cliché “yesterday’s reforms became today’s problems” holds true. The focus of the new penal reform movement could be attributed to the intellectual revolution of the 18th century known as the Enlightenment, or the age of reason.

    Mary Evans/Peter Higginbotham Collection/Everett Collection Bridewell Prison was established in a former palace of Henry VIII in London. From 1555 it provided punishment and hard labor for vagrants, idlers, and prostitutes.

    © 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

     

     

    Section 1.2Punishment in the 18th Century

    1.2 Punishment in the 18th Century The science of crime emerged slowly during a very unreasonable period of European his- tory. The general state of criminal law and its administration in 18th-century Europe was repressive, uncertain, disorganized, arbitrary, and barbaric. The hodgepodge of laws that had accumulated over centuries covered almost every facet of human behavior, included exces- sive physical punishments for minor offenses, and exhibited widespread duplication. These characteristics, along with class-based political conditions, allowed criminal justice officials to abuse their authority through corruption, brutality, and unchecked avarice.

    Conditions in 18th-century Europe allowed for the arbitrary use of punishment and exhibited criminal justice officials’ complete lack of accountability. Public officials had the power to deprive persons of their freedom, property, and even life without following any type of due process. Investigators and judges used torture to gain confessions from the accused; secret trials ended with prison sentences and more torture, based on the flimsiest evidence. Courts issued sentences based on the power, wealth, and status of the convicted, and the severity of the sentence often depended on how much wealth one was willing to hand over to govern- ment officials. The death penalty was given for a wide variety of minor and major offenses, including treason, which was so broadly defined that any political utterance fell under its authority. Courts and prison officials made no distinction between accused and convicted, young and old, male and female, murderer and forger. Large cells housed people from all of these groups together, where they intermingled. The administration of justice was chaotic, justice was arbitrary, and punishment was uncertain (Monachesi, 1973). From this tumultu- ous period, however, a revolutionary way to think about crime was born.

    The Classical School of Criminology A new wave of intellectual development provided the foundation for what became known as the classical school of criminology. Cesare Beccaria (1738–1794) has been credited with leading the emergence of this school. Born in Milan, Italy, to aristocratic parents who had no exceptional political power, Beccaria did not show any early signs of his potential to reshape the social perspective on criminal law. Yet encouraged by intellectual friends, Beccaria tackled the conditions of criminal law during his time and wrote his now famous essay, Dei delitti e delle pene, which came to be recognized as the foundation of the classical school (and was translated into English under the title On Crimes and Punishments).

    Beccaria rested his philosophy of punishment on the social contract theory of society espoused by Montesquieu. This theory is based on the willingness of free and independent individuals to unite and form a society by giving up some of their individual freedom for the benefit of everyone’s security and tranquility. The society (the state), recognizing the need to prevent individuals from infringing on one another’s freedoms as defined by the terms (laws) of the social contract, then has the right to punish. Punishment is thus necessary to protect the rights and liberties of all people in the society from usurpation by individuals within it (Monachesi, 1973).

    Using this philosophical base, Beccaria addressed the chaotic condition of criminal law in the 18th century. He believed that the authority to punish—and to identify what types of punish- ments are appropriate—should be defined only by the law. Furthermore, laws should be applied equally to all members of society, regardless of someone’s status or power. He argued

    © 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

     

     

    Section 1.2Punishment in the 18th Century

    that the severity of a punishment must be related to the extent that it prevents crime. This latter point is a principle cornerstone of the classical school—the punishment should fit the crime. The purpose of pun- ishment is not to torment offenders but rather to prevent offenders and the rest of society from committing crimes. To be effective, punishment must be prompt, unwavering, and applied equally.

    Beccaria argued against the death pen- alty because it was neither legitimate nor necessary; no individual willingly gives to another the right to take his life. Relying on the social contract theory, he claimed that the reason to form a society was to protect life, not to take it. The death pen- alty is also unnecessary, he said, because it has no deterrent effect. The spectacle of an execution is horrible indeed, but it is of short duration and leaves no lasting impression on the witnesses. Beccaria asserted that only penalties that are con- tinuous (such as imprisonment) are effec- tive as a deterrent.

    Finally, Beccaria argued that even if the law authorizes the execution of an indi- vidual, it is an act of violence and barbar- ity that has no place in a civilized society. Beccaria also opposed the use of torture at any point in the administration of jus- tice. He opposed secret accusations and argued for public trials by one’s peers (Monachesi, 1973).

    Beccaria criticized the existing way criminal justice was administered; he recommended change that was grounded in humanitarianism and influenced by concepts related to the rela- tionship of the citizen and the state. His analysis was not based on a scientific approach, nor was he interested in developing a scientific model of punishment. Yet his influence throughout Europe and the United States helped establish an intellectual foundation for criminal justice.

    A Utilitarian Approach to Punishment Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) continued this tract of reform by developing a systematic cat- egorization of crime and punishment. Bentham’s approach to the problem of controlling crime was practical, not theoretical. Although he was an armchair criminologist—formulat- ing his models in the abstract—he devised a crime prevention model focused on the practical problem of eliminating, or at least decreasing, crime. He relied on the ethical principle of utilitarianism, a philosophy that emphasizes that humans are rational and will choose

    National Library of Catalonia/© AISA/Everett Collection Ideas about criminal justice began to change in the 18th century, thanks to the influence of Beccaria’s Dei delitti e delle pene. Do you think Beccaria was considered a sentimentalist in his day?

    © 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

     

     

    Section 1.2Punishment in the 18th Century

    positive or pleasurable consequences over negative or painful consequences, and that the purpose of punishment should be desirable social aims, such as deterrence. In its simplest terms, this principle is often described as prioritizing “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.” Ben- tham reduced all human action to one motivation: “The pursuit of pleasure and the concomitant avoidance of pain.” Ben- tham saw the necessity for checks or sanc- tions to control behavior. Without the pos- sibility of pain (punishment), he worried that individuals might learn to seek plea- sure from uncontrolled criminal behavior. He saw society’s infliction of punitive pain as a means to balance the individual’s unbridled pursuit of happiness with the larger interests of society. He also believed that the majority of people must view legal sanc- tions as legitimate and acceptable in order for those sanctions to be effective and that law was only one form of social control (Geis, 1973).

    Following Beccaria’s perspective, Bentham claimed that the function of law was to prevent crime, not to achieve vengeance. He developed a complex mathematical formula that aimed to state the exact amount of punishment necessary to deter a specific act. Punishment should fit the crime, and in Bentham’s formula, punishment must be sufficiently severe and outweigh the benefits that could be derived from committing a crime. However, the human element was lost on Bentham. He focused on the facts and changing characteristics of each situation, but did not consider the variability across those committing crime (Geis, 1973). Although he has been criticized for viewing human behavior from a rigid and overly simplistic perspective, Bentham was unrivaled in his analysis of the pragmatic uses of various punishments.

    Bentham argued that the twin goals of punishment are to prevent recidivism and to deter oth- ers from committing crime. He did not separate these two goals for analysis, and he failed to develop a workable model for each. However, he is in good company in this error; even today criminologists have not succeeded in developing application models that separate these two goals. Nevertheless, Bentham articulated a series of sophisticated criticisms and perspectives that remain inadequately recognized. He claimed that the less certain the punishment, the more severe it must be in order to have a deterrent effect. (For example: What impact does an inefficient police force or plea bargaining have on punishment today?) In other words, if there is a low expectation that one will actually receive a punishment, then when that punish- ment is inflicted, it must be severe (Geis, 1973). Consider the application of this principle to, say, the long prison sentences imposed on convicted criminals in the contemporary United States. Bentham would be displeased with the excessive delay between when a crime is com- mitted, the resulting trial, and the subsequent plea bargaining process, which is common in the United States. Both conditions violate the requirements of swift adjudication and certain punishment that serve as a foundation for Bentham’s model of punishment.

    Bentham noted that while a punishment should fit the crime in terms of balancing the social threat and the amount of pain necessary to deter, he cautioned against falling into the trap

    Mary Evans Picture Library/Everett Collection This prison was conceived by Jeremy Bentham, whose goal was that prisoners would receive just punishment while developing an appreciation of labor. Do you think Bentham’s methods were too radical?

    © 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

     

     

    Section 1.3Punishment in Colonial America

    of believing that identical punishments are equal. He allowed that the amount of pain (for instance, a fine) for one individual (who was wealthy) would not be the same for another (who was poor). He also warned against a rapid application of punishment without consider- ing its effect. Consider, for example, if death penalty sentences were carried out immediately. What if you had the wrong person? What about consideration of other mitigating factors, such as age or self-defense, that might lessen the accused’s responsibility for the crime? Obvi- ously, we still have not entirely come to grips with these principles, even today.

    Against this backdrop of a cruel administration of justice and an emerging criticism of that cruelty, American criminal law and its associated forms of punishment emerged as the Ameri- can colonies were being settled.

    1.3 Punishment in Colonial America The colonists borrowed heavily from their English heritage when they settled in North Amer- ica in the 17th and 18th centuries, so it is unsurprising that their criminal codes established capital punishment (the death penalty) for a wide variety of offenses “as different as murder and arson, horse stealing and children’s disrespect for parents” (Roth- man, 1971, p. 15).

    Eighteenth-century punishments were harsh, even cruel, and public. The colo- nists used a variety of punishments sin- gularly or in combination, such as fines, corporal punishments, executions, ban- ishment, and psychological torment through shame. Imprisonment was rare and never used alone. Local jails housed individuals awaiting trial or their punish- ment or those who were guilty of failing to pay their debts. Jails were not the pri- mary means of controlling deviants. In the 18th century colonists relied on mecha- nisms other than penal institutions for punishment.

    Punishment as Deterrent The most common penalty was a combi- nation of fines and whippings. Those who could afford the fine paid it, and those who could not received the sting of the whip. Whipping was a cheap, swift, and useful way to punish the nonpropertied class. Another common penalty was to confine

    ClassicStock.com/SuperStock Punishment in colonial America was often severe and humiliating. What do you think contributed to colonists’ harsh methods of punishment?

    © 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

     

     

    Section 1.4Punishment in the 19th Century

    offenders in wooden devices (stocks and pillories) that had holes for the head and arms (and in some cases legs). Offenders sat or stood painfully for hours in the public square, meaning that their punishment combined physical pain with psychological shame and humiliation. A third common penalty was whipping followed by banishment, particularly of strangers (Rothman, 1971).

    The goal of punishment was to deter the offender, not others in society, by reforming the deviant. Being whipped at the local whipping post or being physically abused while locked in the stocks in the town square served to make clear that if the deviant did not conform to the community’s standards, he or she could expect further, more severe punishment. Clearly, the colonists relied on societal retribution as the basis for punishment and viewed the exe- cution of punishment as society’s right to protect itself and condemn individual sin. Devi- ance was the fault of the offender, not the result of a breakdown in society or the community (Rothman, 1971).

    Banishment One particularly unique penalty involved the banishment of strangers from the community’s borders. The goal was to control vagabond strangers, and towns prevented these strangers from entering their communities. They used settlement laws to keep strangers out or to send them on their way. The objective was to insulate the town from deviancy, much like a quar- antine against disease. Banishment exorcised the external threat of strangers from the close- knit community (Rothman, 1971). Clearly, colonists viewed threats to their peace and tran- quility as emanating from outside sources. In addition, smaller, less economically developed communities did not need, nor could they afford, large prisons to punish their deviants.

    Capital Offenses Prisons did not play a significant role even in the punishment of what colonists considered serious crimes. The colonies had identified numerous capital crimes (crimes for which the sanction could be death). A third-time offender received a sentence of hanging. There was no middle range of sentences between whipping and fines and the gallows. Penal institutions were uncommon, while jails “held persons waiting for trial or awaiting sentence or unable to discharge contracted debts” (Rothman, 1971, p. 53). They were not more broadly used because of the colonists’ dependence on the family model of society; a model that relied on state institutions simply did not fit into their view of society. Thus, the colonists’ Calvinist view of deviant behavior as sin and their belief in the family precluded them from seeing the jail or prison as an institutional mechanism for individual reform or rehabilitation. For them, reform came from God’s benevolence expressed through the family. The system used by the colonists was effective for the time and place but was quickly replaced.

    1.4 Punishment in the 19th Century Eighteenth-century views of crime, deviance, and punishment did not carry into the 19th century. The Enlightenment doctrines of freedom, political independence, and republican- ism—bolstered by the colonists’ success in applying them during the Revolution—gave

    © 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

     

     

    Section 1.4Punishment in the 19th Century

    Americans an opportunity to reevaluate the social basis of order. Rejecting ties to the British, they quickly blamed the harshness of the colonial criminal codes for the persistence of deviant behavior and sought solutions other than cruel punishments.

    The influence of Beccaria’s On Crimes and Punishments was clearly evident in this endeavor. John Adams quoted passages from it in 1770 “in defense of the British soldiers implicated in the Boston Mas- sacre” (Rothman, 1971, p. 59). Beccaria’s argument that severe punishments were ineffective and should be replaced with simple and moderate forms became part of the rhetoric for criminal law reform in Pennsylvania, Virginia, New York, and other new states. Death penalties were abolished or limited to a few specific crimes, and cor- poral punishment was all but eliminated. In its place, new criminal laws called for incarcera- tion. State after state appropriated funds to build prisons. For Americans this represented the first break from the punishments of the past (Rothman, 1971).

    However, this effort focused on reforming criminal law, not prisons. The new goal was to eliminate the cruelty of corporal punishment—prisons at this point were merely a means to provide an alternative form of punishment and reform the law, not the individual. Later, in the 19th century, another shift in focus occurred that placed the individual at the center of reform, which brought prisons into the forefront of penal developments (Rothman, 1971).

    By the mid-1920s every state in the union had built a penitentiary or had begun construc- tion on one. Initially, this was to be a facility in which inmates would repent for their acts and reform (hence the term penitentiary), and it emphasized separation from the rest of society in order to encourage this process. The focus had shifted from reforming criminal law to reform- ing the individual’s relationship to society. The earlier 19th-century changes in criminal law, designed around the idea of certain and humane punishment, did not seem to stem the flow of deviancy, nor did the changes seem to contribute to an orderly community or protect soci- ety from criminals (Rothman, 1971).

    The penitentiary seemed to be a logical solution to this redefined social problem. The think- ing now was that the root of deviance was not in the individual (as in the Calvinist view), nor was it in the legal system, specifically criminal law (as in the post-Revolution Enlightenment view). It was instead rooted in corruptions within the community and in the inadequacy of the family and other social and religious institutions. To protect the offender against temptations, the prison would isolate him or her in a well-structured, orderly environment. Thus, the focus shifted from reforming factors external to the individual (such as the law) to reforming the individual. Doing so meant concentrating on the internal regimen of the human-made envi- ronment of the penitentiary. Convicts came to be viewed as not inherently criminal but rather improperly trained to resist social corruptions. By placing such people in a well-ordered and structured environment, they could be retrained and rehabilitated.

    Everett Collection/SuperStock Nineteenth-century punishment focused on the penitentiary with a disciplined lifestyle aimed toward rehabilitation. How is this philosophy still utilized in penitentiaries today?

    © 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

     

     

    Section 1.4Punishment in the 19th Century

    The Auburn System Versus the Pennsylvania System Given the emphasis on the penitentiary’s internal environment, it should not be surprising that there was heated debate when two different penitentiary models emerged (Johnson, Dobrzanska, & Pala, 2006). New York developed the congregate system of prison organization between 1816 and 1823 at its state penitentiary in Auburn. Pennsyl- vania, meanwhile, had created the sepa- rate system for its penitentiary in Pitts- burgh (1826) and its prison in Philadelphia (1829). The debate focused primarily on the merits of the two competing systems, not on whether the prisons met their rehabilitative goals. Advocates of each sys- tem agreed, however, that, in order to rehabilitate an individual, prisons must isolate inmates from society, as well as each other, and must subject them to a routine of discipline.

    The differences between the two systems centered on how to isolate and discipline. Although both models employed a massive cell block structure, in the Auburn system, or congregate system, prisoners slept alone in individual cells but labored together in prison shops during the day, marched in a lockstep shuffle, and ate their meals together in central dining halls— though they were forbidden to communicate with each other at all times. Maintaining the silent congregate system required excessive controls, which in turn resulted in the use of cruel punishments to secure obedience. Whipping became commonplace, and other punishments featured the ball and chain, water tortures, iron gags, and other unusual methods. The Penn- sylvania system, or separate system, featured a greater degree of isolation—prisoners were confined to their own individual cells where they worked, ate, slept, and prayed alone. Only one state, Pennsylvania, modeled its penitentiary on the separate system. All other states— except for states in the South, which followed a farming-oriented plantation model—copied the congregate model.

    Some historians believe that the Auburn model was popular because prisons that adopted it were less expensive to build and operate than those that featured the separate system. Because prisoners worked in shops, cells did not need to be large; furthermore, the congre- gate work arrangement allowed convict labor to produce goods, which generated increased revenue for the prison. Forced labor was also tied to the reform model because most people regarded idleness as related to criminal activity. Legislators saw convict labor as a way to alleviate the cost of penitentiary operations and were willing to support arrangements to use prison labor. Thus the reformers’ “doctrines of separation, obedience, and labor became the trinity around which officials organized the penitentiary” (Rothman, 1971, p. 105) and helped render the Auburn model cheaper and more efficient (Rothman, 1971; Johnson, 2002). The expansion of the congregate system westward attests to its attractiveness to the vast majority of state legislatures (Conley, 1980).

    This philosophy of work as discipline opened the door for a variety of convict labor models tied to the prison environment. Prison industries became major elements of the prison in the

    Historical/©Corbis Illustration of prisoners lined up at Auburn state penitentiary, circa 1840. What were the benefits and drawbacks of the Auburn system?

    © 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

     

     

    Section 1.4Punishment in the 19th Century

    late 19th and early 20th centuries in the United States. Most states’ prison industries used four open-market systems during this period and one closed-market system after 1940. Under the lease system, the state relinquished all responsibility for the care of inmates and received a stipulated sum for their labor. This was the most abused system, and reform groups effec- tively forced the states to abandon it by the end of the 1920s. The contract system allowed the state to retain control over prisoners but sold their labor to private firms or individuals for a specified daily fee per inmate. This system resulted in much corruption, and prisoners were still abused by the contractors. The piece-price method of production was a variation of the contract system in which the contractor supplied the materials and paid the state a stipulated price for each unit of production. Under the state account system, the state went completely into the manufacturing business, buying all raw materials, setting up factories, marketing the product, and assuming all financial risks. The closed-market system relied on the state-use method, which limited the sale of prison goods to state and local government agencies and nonprofit organizations (Rothman, 1971).

    Regional Variations It is important to note that not all regions of the United States relied on the massive cell block model found in the northeastern states. Because of varying social and economic condi- tions around the country, the nature of punishment and the role of prisons departed from the Auburn and Pennsylvania models in some places.

    For example, the southern states had no tradition of relying on the state to provide custody for criminals or of modeling prisons after a factory. Southern states had economies built on an agrarian, plantation-based infrastructure fueled by slave labor. White criminals were pun- ished with the lash, but Black criminals were punished by their owners on the plantation. Jails and prisons did not play a large or important role in the southern states. Whatever mod- est movement toward prison construction was made in the South in the early 19th century was halted by the devastating effect of the Civil War on the South’s economy. The post–Civil War South was more concerned with rebuilding its infrastructure, such as roads, railroads, and cities that had been destroyed by the war. The economically strapped South relied on its own traditions and developed prisons more akin to the old slave system than those massive fortresses in the North.

    As in the South and East, social and economic conditions in the West shaped the response to penal needs. The migration of settlers from the East naturally linked the western states to the penal traditions found at Auburn. But the vast distances, mountain chains, and different conditions of settlement on the American frontier served to weaken the links to eastern prac- tices of punishment. As a result, western states and territories in the late 19th and early 20th centuries carved out a penal system different from either the South or the East.

    In the mid-19th century, the federal territories of Michigan, Oklahoma, Oregon, and other western areas had little time or money to erect massive institutions of punishment. Prior to statehood, western territories built log houses as jails to hold offenders until the circuit court convened. These new states were already struggling to establish societies under the harsh frontier conditions, and as a result, penal systems were not high on their list of priorities.

    Initially, those in the new states viewed their needs in terms of larger jails. Given the increasing cost of maintaining prisoners, the states searched for alternatives to appropriating massive

    © 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

     

     

    Section 1.5Punishment in the 20th Century

    amounts of capital to build prisons. At first, new states contracted with older states or with the federal government to house and care for their convicts. This method was inexpensive and easily managed. For example, it cost 50 cents per day per inmate for Oklahoma to send its prisoners to Kansas. County sheriffs transported the prisoners for a fee, and both the county and the state saved money on building and maintaining large prisons (Conley, 1981).

    As the western states stabilized their economic base and their governments became more mature, they invested in their own penal systems. They borrowed from the Auburn model but did not duplicate it. For example, western states copied the design of the prisons but operated them differently. They took a more pragmatic approach, focusing primarily on the economic issues related to prison administration and secondarily, if at all, on rehabilitative issues. Pris- ons were administered by boards of charities and corrections, which had the primary respon- sibility of making sure that prisons were efficiently managed and served the interests of the state. As a result, prison factories in western states tended to supply needed goods and equip- ment for farmers and ranchers. Convict labor was contracted to private industries, but the work was performed in state prisons (Conley, 1981).

    1.5 Punishment in the 20th Century By the end of the 19th century, it became apparent to anyone familiar with penal develop- ment that prisons had failed to meet the expectations of prison reformers. Prisons did not maintain a rigid discipline within a controlled environment; discipline was lax, and brutality was the norm (Rothman, 1980). In fact, investigations from the late 19th to the early 20th cen- tury consistently found excessive corporal punishment and widespread corruption in prisons across a number of states. Punishments such as hanging by the thumbs; whippings; beatings; water torture; solitary confinement in cramped, dark dungeons; and starvation diets of bread and water were commonplace. These punishments and general prison conditions harkened back to the cruelty of the preprison days in medieval society.

    The Progressive Period Historians have labeled the first 2 decades of the 20th century as the age of reform. Also known as the Progressive era, this period is characterized by a reform movement that attempted to address a variety of social problems, including crime and prisons. Advocates sought to apply science to corrections, focusing on individual casework. These reformers were largely college-educated, White, middle-class individuals who were optimistic about the potential of benevolent programs for the lower classes and advocated for wider government involvement in administering them. New programs implemented during this period included the indeter- minate sentence (a sentence without a definite duration, such as “5 to 10 years”); probation (under which the offender is managed and supervised in the community under both general and specific conditions); parole (the release of an offender, prior to the completion of a sen- tence, into the community under general and specific conditions); prisoner classification; and individualized treatment based on a case history of the offender (Rothman, 1980).

    The Progressives viewed the prison as a community, a place in which they envisioned a “faith- ful replication” (Rothman, 1980, p. 118) of society. Prisons began to implement programs such as the following:

    © 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

     

     

    Section 1.5Punishment in the 20th Century

    • Classification: The separation of prisoners into categories based on a diagnostic analysis of each one’s personal history and treat- ment needs, which resulted in minimum, medium, and maxi- mum security distinctions for prisons.

    • Normalization: The design of programs inside the prison that would place the inmates within a community environment that was controlled but not oppressive.

    • Education: The implementation of school programs for all grades in order to combat illiteracy, which was perceived as contributing to criminal behavior.

    • Vocational training: The imple- mentation of labor-intensive work programs that focused on training inmates to function in the job market once released from prison.

    Individualized Justice The cornerstone of the Progressives’ philosophy of criminal justice reform was individual- ized justice. They viewed their ability to change behavior as unchallengeable—an optimism buttressed by the as yet unchallenged promise of the emerging social sciences. Punishment would be treatment oriented, which was highly individualistic and based on the scientific models of social work and psychiatry. Treatment programs would be based on a case his- tory of the offender, and the social worker, probation officer, and prison staff would serve as benevolent supporters. Each justice employee would have wide discretion in deciding on and administering treatment (Schlossman, 1977).

    Failure The Progressive programs failed. Normalization did eliminate some elements, such as the lockstep shuffle and rules of silence, but prisons remained oppressive institutions with little treatment programming. Some prisons established school programs, but they were not well designed and did not have professional teaching staff. Job training very quickly took a back- seat to institutions’ maintenance needs or contractors’ labor requirements. In short, all these programs failed to be fully implemented and did not achieve the objectives sought by the reformers (Rothman, 1980).

    Progressive reformers, social workers, psychiatrists, and criminologists all believed that indi- vidual rehabilitation was the key to community safety. One result of this belief was that they were willing to study and diagnose behavior but were unable to prescribe programs for suc- cess. As a result, the Progressive period of prison reform is replete with diagnostic analysis and weak on programmatic models. In addition, the reformers focused on the individual and neglected the institution. In essence, the reformers focused their attention on casework and

    Everett Collection/SuperStock The Progressive period focused on rehabilitation, such as teaching skills inmates could use upon integration back into society. Do you think this sort of program is beneficial or too lenient?

    © 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

     

     

    Section 1.5Punishment in the 20th Century

    pulled back from daily involvement in prison administration, leaving prisons to the wardens and guards to manage (Rothman, 1980).

    The Reformatory Movement Even as prisons were being built, however, a complementary movement was underway in penal development that focused heavily on a convict’s rehabilitation. Some reformers had witnessed the harsh conditions and brutal effects prisons had on inmates and had become disillusioned with prisons as a means of rehabilitation. The alternative was the reformatory, an institution that was designed along prison lines but featured internal education and train- ing programs.

    The reformatory model, which made education and work training the cornerstones for reforming youthful offenders, was aimed at young adults and designed to be an industrial training school. It allowed reformers and policy makers to use the “new” institutional model as a symbol of reform and as a practical solution to overcrowding. The reformatories were

    Applying Criminal Justice: The Progressives and the Rehabilitative Ideal

    The Progressives concerned with corrections sought to operationalize and implement an ideal. They wanted to use the tools and concepts of the emerging social sciences to address the causes of an offender’s criminality, thus treating and “correcting” it. They did this as the parallel ideas of the classical approach to criminality (that people prefer pleasure over pain and will act rationally to maximize their self-interests and ensure consequences that are not painful) held sway. The classical approach and the science-based positivist approach con- tinue to dominate our thinking.

    Though the Progressives’ venture failed in several ways, many of its features, such as clas- sification and individualized casework, continue as elements of the corrections menu. The Progressives could not find a common way to effectively deal with offenders’ crimes. As you read further through this brief history, you will encounter periodic cycles of emphasis on the rehabilitative ideal. These cycles are among the indicators that the corrections menu is influenced by efforts over time. Some of the options emphasized in one time period die away, while some continue, and others become more prominent.

    When the French philosopher Michel Foucault (1975/1995) wrote Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison in 1975, he applied a genealogical analysis to explore why some strategies and programs continue (in this case, forms of punishment) and some drop away. He suggested that the ones that continue serve the interests of those powerful enough to retain them.

    Think about this as you learn more of the history of corrections. Consider why things hap- pen in the ways they do. Also, consider whether the answer is as simple or neat as Foucault describes. Think of how corrections, punishment, and imprisonment have changed over the past 100 years. Have we “advanced” from where we were when the Progressives brought forth their ideas? Is it valuable to adopt a “history of ideas” approach when exploring where we are today?

    © 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

     

     

    Section 1.5Punishment in the 20th Century

    designed as industrial training schools to provide job training for inmates. States began build- ing reformatories as another place to send offenders, not as an alternative to prisons (McK- elvey, 1977).

    Pedagogical Penology This period of reformatory development has been labeled the period of pedagogical penology because reformatories emphasized schools and industrial training programs. The reforma- tory at Elmira, New York, under the leadership of Zebulon Brockway, was the prototype of the reformatory movement, setting the model for reformatories around the nation. Elmira was a humanitarian institution, built on the promise of the social sciences, that “treated” offend- ers with educational and vocational programs. Elmira was the forerunner to the treatment “hospital” for deviants, which criminologists later labeled the “medical model” of corrections. Elmira accepted only first-time felony offenders aged 16 to 30. Sentences were indetermi- nate, allowing reformatory officials to decide when an inmate was ready to be released. The reformatory’s programs had an educational focus; a system of marks and grade levels was used to reward improvement. Although these characteristics distinguished reformatories from prisons, the reformatories quickly developed environments identical to prisons, and the educational and reward systems became cornerstones of discipline and control, rather than rehabilitation (McKelvey, 1977).

    Through Brockway’s aggressive leadership, Elmira served as a model for the nation, but other states merely imitated certain aspects of it, preventing them from contributing innovations to the model. States continued to mix old offenders with young offenders, and repeat offenders with first-time offenders. Also, while Elmira served initially as a model, Brockway relied heav- ily on corporal punishment, and the abuse of inmates later embroiled him and the institution in scandal (Johnson, 2002). By the early 1920s, the reformatory movement was in full swing, but the environment of the reformatories succumbed to the pressure of the increasing inmate population and the practical needs of custody and discipline. Rehabilitation still was not a realistic expectation for reformatory inmates. Yet Elmira’s reformatory model was copied in dozens of states, based on its favorable but unchallenged reputation for success in training offenders to reenter society as cooperative, participating members.

    Elmira was a reflection of the social forces of Evangelicalism and temperance of the period. These social movements generated a considerable amount of coercive social policies in an attempt to control and change behavior. Elmira was supposed to reform criminals into law- abiding, upright citizens, and therefore it did not break with the penitentiary model or become an alternative. The reformatory was an extension of the penitentiary and served to expand the distributive power of the state to punish.

    The Big House The term Big House, made popular by the 1940s prison movies starring James Cagney, was used to differentiate among the variety of penal institutions, such as houses of corrections and reformatories. These were early 20th-century maximum security prisons characterized by tight security and an emphasis on custody and warehousing inmates. The Big House was generally a state’s main prison, such as the massive institutions at Columbus, Ohio; Waupun, Wisconsin; Auburn Prison and Sing Sing in New York; “Big Mac” at McAlester, Oklahoma; and Alcatraz in San Francisco Bay. These institutions were built between 1860 and 1930, with

    © 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

     

     

    Section 1.5Punishment in the 20th Century

    additions constructed well into the 1970s as inmate populations increased. Buildings fea- tured massive stone cell blocks and high brick walls with gun turrets. Save for capital punish- ment, these institutions symbolized the “state’s most extreme form of punishment” (Irwin, 1980, p. 5).

    These prisons had little, if any, rehabilitative programming. They were operated by the combined authority of prison staff and inmate factions, and they featured pervasive brutal- ity. “Activities served no purpose other than to maintain order” (Johnson et al., 2006, p. 30). However, it is not very informative to use a label like Big House to connote such a distinc- tion, because in most cases the 20th-century reformatories and Big Houses were not distinct either in terms of their programmatic environment or their function, which was primarily punishment and custody in a warehousing atmosphere (Johnson, 1987).

    A Renewed Focus on Rehabilitation From 1940 well into the 1960s, penal development once again embraced the rehabilitative philosophy espoused by the reformers of the Progressive period, and with a renewed vigor. A new breed of postwar professionals emerged in medicine, social work, psychology, and penol- ogy, and they began to permeate state penal systems as administrators. This influx of new leaders brought with them a renewed commitment to rehabilitation, but within a new con- ceptualization of the prison—the correctional institution. These new institutions were differ- ent—in degree, not in kind. They had more educational and therapeutic programs for inmates, less harsh discipline, and more privileges, and they were probably more tolerable. But many of these changes were superficially implemented, either because of administrative ignorance about how to establish rehabilitative programs or a lack of resources.

    The legacy of corrections may have offered inmates more control over their daily lives and given them more access to the outside world. However, it left maximum security institutions with a level of vio- lence that was not unlike that found in previous decades, save for the violence was now administered by inmates rather than prison administrators. Such violence was clearly used for control (of inmates over other inmates) and lacked any link to rehabilitation or reintegration. (This will be discussed further in Chapter 4.)

    These new reformers, however, crys- tallized a set of assumptions about the causes of criminal behavior and its treat- ability. They assumed that the causes of individual criminal behavior could be measured precisely and treated in a scientific manner. Based on the three tenets of indeterminate sentencing, classification, and treatment, they set about building new prisons to meet the goals of what became known as the rehabilita- tive ideal, which proposed that offenders could be diagnosed, the problems leading to their criminality could be determined, programs or interventions to resolve those problems could

    Steve Ruark/Associated Press Prison violence among inmates is a relatively common occurrence. Do you have any ideas that would be helpful in reducing this problem in prisons?

    © 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

     

     

    Section 1.5Punishment in the 20th Century

    be implemented, and the offenders could become law-abiding citizens. These “reforms” were not totally new, but because of their powerful appeal to reformers and their acceptance by society in general, they became clear objectives for state prison systems. Once again prisons were redefined, this time as correctional institutions (Irwin, 1980; Allen, 1964).

    Community-Based Corrections During the late 1960s and 1970s, there was pronounced attention to community correc- tions. Implementing correctional efforts within a community was not a new idea, especially for less serious crimes and as an alternative to incarceration for more serious ones. The larg- est and most identifiable elements of corrections in the community—probation and parole— had been developed in the 19th century. Efforts such as diversion, pretrial release, restitu- tion programs, community service programs, work release, study release, furloughs, halfway houses, and a variety of residential programs were also promoted beneath the community corrections umbrella.

    Community corrections involved elements and members of the community other than those who were formally a part of penal system, and they supported reintegration as the system’s central aim. Reintegration is typically interpreted as when an individual adjusts to a law-abid- ing lifestyle and makes use of the opportunities available in the community. The “community” collaborates, in that efforts are directed at providing the individual with opportunities, such as employment, and assistance. The offender is expected to adopt new attitudes and beliefs as the process continues and to translate these into law-abiding behavior.

    By the 1990s advocates added restorative justice as another central aim of community correc- tions. Restorative justice programs and efforts center on repairing the harm a crime inflicts on victims and the community. This notion also includes restoring the offender to the com- munity, as the offender takes responsibility for the crime and becomes a law-abiding and acceptable member of the community (Braithwaite, 1989).

    Community corrections is a broad term that covers an array of efforts, including preconviction efforts (such as diversion and pretrial release, among others) and postconviction efforts (such as probation, “third-level alternatives” like electronic monitoring and house arrest, parole or extended supervision, and restitution, among others). Chapter 7 discusses community cor- rections, reintegration, restorative justice, and relevant programs in more detail.

    Despite its popularity, community corrections did not supplant incarceration as the dominant strategy for dealing with serious crimes (with the exception of Minnesota, which pursued community corrections as a state-level strategy beginning in the 1980s and through the pres- ent). Rather, increasing emphasis on corrections in the community (not “community correc- tions,” as advocates intended) set the stage for the net of correctional control to undergo enormous expansion. The introduction of electronic monitoring in the 1980s added to the array of options, and well into the 2000s there was an unprecedented increase in the con- struction of prisons and the general use of incarceration. “Community corrections” remains an ideal image, realized to some degree in certain locales, but not well defined operationally nor realized as its advocates envisioned.

    © 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

     

     

    Section 1.6Corrections Today

    1.6 Corrections Today Nationally, the increase in serious crime, changes in political ideology, the war on drugs, the determinate sentencing movement, and related factors have combined to result in Americans paying greater attention to incarceration and the expansion of prison capacity. From the early 1980s through the early 2000s, the entire corrections net widened, but the nation’s expanded capacity to incarcerate was the most dramatic and visible development. In 1980 there were approximately 319,000 adults (age 18 and older) in America’s prisons and approximately 182,000 adults in its jails on any given day (Snell, 1995). The national incarceration rate was 139 adults per 100,000 (Greenfeld, 1990). By 2010 these numbers had jumped to approxi- mately 1.6 million adults in prison and approximately 748,000 adults in jails, with a national incarceration rate of 500 adults per 100,000 (Glaze, 2011).

    During the same time period, the approximate number of people on probation grew from 1.1 million to 4.05 million. In addition, the number of people on parole or extended release supervision increased from 220,000 to 840,000, and the total number under correctional authority changed from 1.8 million to 7.07 million. In all, 1 in 48 adult Americans were under some form of correctional supervision in 2010 (Glaze, 2010; Snell, 2011). For many states and for the federal system, corrections budgets have increased dramatically.

    Applying Criminal Justice: Strategies and Effects

    In the United States penal strategy centrally features the use of imprisonment. Over 1.5 mil- lion adults were incarcerated in America’s prisons on any given day in 2016, and the nation’s imprisonment rate was 450 inmates per 100,000 residents, with the rate for males 1,108 per 100,000 and for females 82 per 100,000 (Kaeble & Cowhig, 2018). Imprisonment falls disproportionately on the nation’s minorities and those from America’s inner cities. Data for 2016 show that the rate of imprisonment for Whites was 274 inmates per 100,000, for Blacks 1,608 per 100,000, and for Hispanics 856 per 100,000 (Kaeble & Cowhig, 2018).

    Looking at numbers rather than rates shows a more accurate picture of the nation’s prison population. As of December 31, 2016, out of the 1.5 million incarcerated Americans, 439,800 were White, 486,900 were Black, and 339,300 were Hispanic (Kaeble & Cowhig, 2018). There were approximately 43 million Blacks in the United States in 2016, the population of which was approximately 323 million. That means that while only 13% of the total U.S. pop- ulation in 2016 was Black, the proportion of the prison population that was Black was nearly 33%. That reflects a staggering number of people from a single segment of society removed from their communities. There may be many contributing factors to this data, but it is not our purpose here to argue those.

    In corrections imprisonment is one strategy among many, not a given outcome that must happen. However, it is used disproportionately among a segment of persons in our society. This disparity leads us to ask some serious questions: Are the current correctional strate- gies we fund as taxpayers achieving our national priorities and the correctional results we intend? More basically, what results do we wish to achieve? Is there a case to be made for having a serious national dialogue about what we intend to achieve, what effects our strate- gies are producing, and whether these are the effects we want to see continue?

    © 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

     

     

    Conclusion

    By the early 2000s, the increase in prison and jail capacity had significantly slowed, and increases in the total correctional population had flattened. For example, the Bureau of Jus- tice Statistics reported the total correctional population in 2010 to be slightly less than what it was in 2006 (Glaze, 2010). It is not clear whether this pattern will continue. What is clear, however, is that the cyclical nature of penal reform is intact, and we may simply be in the trough of a cycle.

    Conclusion The history of punishment, incarceration, and corrections tells a fascinating and complex story. We do not yet have a complete understanding of how society’s shifting definition of order and the punishment apparatus developed to control those people who challenge that order. We do know that a society’s most powerful elements (such as kings), those with vested economic interests, the middle class, and reformers all share in the benefits generated by whatever punishment apparatus is used. Experts are still exploring to what extent these ele- ments directly influence the design, development, and implementation of punishment models.

    Beccaria and Bentham wrote and published treatises that criticized the barbaric and dys- functional punishment mode of their time. But what direct impact did their efforts have on the implementation of punishment? Remember that their writings were not distributed by international publishing houses or disseminated throughout society via mass media. At best, their ideas circulated through a small group of intellectuals. Most prison administrators and guards were illiterate and had probably never heard of these great thinkers. The link between reform ideas and practice, then, is a tenuous one.

    Keep this in mind as you consider the penal reforms and practices outlined in this text. The history of punishment in the United States has largely been a history of the prison; indeed, American society appears to equate prison with punishment. Much of the history you read in this chapter illustrates the pivotal role prisons play in our punishment apparatus.

    Key Ideas • Prisons were used in ancient times, along with fines, public humiliation, and corpo-

    ral punishments. • The most favored types of punishments during the Middle Ages were economic

    sanctions. • During the later Middle Ages, the preferred punishment appears to have depended

    on the political interest served. • The first houses of corrections appeared in England, and shortly after in Amsterdam,

    during the 16th century. These operated on the dimensions of work and discipline. • During the 18th century Cesare Beccaria argued that the punishment should fit the

    crime. Jeremy Bentham argued that the goals of punishment are to prevent recidi- vism and to deter others from committing crime.

    • The most common punishments in colonial America were fines and whipping. • The Auburn and Pennsylvania prison systems were developed in America during the

    early 19th century, with the Auburn system prevailing as the favored type of prison organization.

    • During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Progressives advocated the appli- cation of scientific approaches to diagnose and treat offenders. The Progressives’ philosophy was individualized justice.

    © 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

     

     

    Conclusion

    • During the mid-20th century, the term Big House was applied to prisons where there was little if any rehabilitative programming. These were the state’s most extreme form of punishment, except for capital punishment (where that was possible).

    • From the 1940s into the 1960s, penal development once again embraced the reha- bilitative ideal promoted by the Progressives.

    • The concept of “community corrections” drew pronounced attention during the late 1960s and 1970s and has received attention to the present, with the pri- mary underlying aims of (initially) reintegration and (from the 1990s onward) restorative justice.

    • The number of persons under all forms of correctional authority increased dramati- cally from the 1980s into the 2000s. This increase flattened during the early 2000s and has steadily declined from 2006 through 2016 (Kaeble & Cowhig, 2018). It is not clear whether this trend will continue.

    Critical-Thinking Questions 1. What has been the historic role of prisons in the punishment process? 2. What influence did Beccaria and Bentham have on modern corrections? 3. Explain the principles of Progressive reform and discuss problems of implementing

    these ideals within corrections. 4. What are the key differences between the Auburn and Pennsylvania penitentiary

    systems? What elements of the congregate system have helped it prevail? 5. What was the focus of late 20th-century “community corrections”? Why hasn’t this

    emphasis supplanted imprisonment as the dominant focus for corrections as the 21st century has begun?

    Key Terms banishment In colonial America, settle- ment laws used to keep people from enter- ing the community or to remove them from it.

    Big House Early 20th-century maximum security prisons, characterized by tight security and emphasis on custody and ware- housing of inmates.

    capital punishment The death penalty.

    classification The separation of prison- ers into categories based on a diagnostic analysis of an individual’s personal history and treatment needs, which resulted in minimum, medium, and maximum security distinctions for prisons.

    community corrections The array of pro- grams found in the community to address crime and offenders.

    congregate system A penitentiary system developed in Auburn, New York, in which prisoners slept alone in individual cells, labored together during the day, marched in a lockstep shuffle, and ate their meals in central dining halls but were forbidden to communicate with each other.

    corporal punishment Any punishment, such as whipping, that causes pain to the body.

    parole An administrative release deci- sion by a correctional authority to allow an offender to be placed in the community during the latter part of his or her sentence under general and specific conditions.

    penitentiary A facility in which inmates were to repent for their acts and reform; separation was encouraged.

    © 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

     

     

    Conclusion

    probation A sentence in which the offender resides in the community under general and specific conditions.

    Progressive era The time period (late 1800s and early 1900s) in which advocates sought to bring science to corrections, focus- ing on individual casework.

    reformatory model Initiated during the late 1800s, this model made education and work training the cornerstones for changing youthful offenders.

    rehabilitative ideal The related concepts that offenders could be diagnosed, the prob- lems leading to their criminality could be

    determined, programs or interventions to resolve those problems could be imple- mented, and the offenders could become law-abiding citizens.

    separate system A penitentiary system developed in Pennsylvania that isolated each prisoner in a single cell, where they worked, ate, slept, and prayed alone.

    utilitarianism A philosophy emphasizing that humans are rational and will choose positive or pleasurable consequences over negative or painful ones and that the pur- pose of punishment should be desirable social aims, such as deterrence.

    Web Resources This is the website of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. https://www.bop.gov/

    This site presents information on the history of American prisons. http://www.prisonsociety.org/history

    This site presents information on the history of the Louisiana State Penitentiary. http://www.angolamuseum.org/?q=History

    This website provides historical information on the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Facilities_Locator/FSP.html

    This site presents information on the history of New York state corrections. http://www.correctionhistory.org/html/chronicl/state/html/nyprisons.html

    Additional Resources This book presents a genealogical analysis of the 19th century.

    Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York, NY: Vintage.

    This is the most comprehensive book on the topic of prisons from an international perspective.

    Norval, M., & Rothman, D. J. (Eds.). (1995). The Oxford history of the prison. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    This book covers various topics on the history of American prisons.

    McShane, M. D., & Williams, F. P. (Eds.). (1996). Encyclopedia of American prisons. New York, NY: Garland.

    © 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.