History of US Prison - Essay Example

dear client, please do not submit this yet to your I will still double check everything, from the in-text citations, reference page, to the main content. I will inform you once it is ready for submission. Anyway, I still have time to revise. Thank you =) Name of Student Course Title Name of Professor Date of Submission Prison System in the United States Up until the 1780s, punishment by imprisonment was unknown in Europe or the European colonies. The common jail dates back to antiquity, but was used solely as a means of detention, a temporary abode for the prisoner until acquitted, fined, or subjected to corporal punishment. Corporal punishment was inflicted almost exclusively on the lower classes, since the rich were usually able to pay fines instead. All crimes not considered capital were punishable through public torture, mutilation, or embarrassment (McCorkle 321). Flogging was common. Branding with a hot iron was frequently practiced in Britain and sometimes in the British Colonies in North America. The stocks or the pillory were used for lesser crimes (McCorkle 321-2). Numerous crimes or repeat offenses were considered capital crimes, and executions were public events. The death penalty was the final solution offered to compensate for all the other defects of the criminal justice system. The Massachusetts Assembly in 1736 issued a decree that a thief, on the first conviction, be fined or whipped. On the second, the offender would pay triple the fines and be forced to sit on the gallows platform with a noose around his (or her) neck, followed by thirty lashes at the whipping post (Miller 66). For the third offense, the culprit was taken to the gallows and publicly hanged. In his book The London Hanged (1992), Peter Linebaugh notes that those hanged for capital offenses in eighteenth century London were overwhelmingly from the working class, and particularly from trades experiencing the onset of craft-destroying manufacturing (Miller 42). History of US Prison The rise of capitalism had resulted in substantial increases in pauperism and petty thievery, which became rampant all through Europe with the decline of the feudal system. In England, steps were taken as early as 1557 to address this problem through the construction of houses of correction or workhouses, the first of which was Bridewell in London. This type of institution quickly spread throughout Britain and the Continent. Unruly apprentices, beggars, “strumpets,” vagrants, and rogues were sent to the houses of corrections, where they were manacled, flogged, and forced to carry out hard labor (Parker 105). These institutions were widely regarded as successes. But they were primarily places of detention for minor offenders. Convicted felons were tortured, mutilated, deported, or executed. The idea of using prisons as the main means of punishment, building on the workhouse model, had been promoted by the English reformer John Howard in The State of the Prisons in England and Wales (1777). But the first such institutions were to arise, not in Britain, but in the former British colonies in America. The Quakers, who had settled in Pennsylvania under the leadership of William Penn, had long opposed both capital punishment and corporal punishment in general, arguing instead for the creation of a system of long-term imprisonment (Parker 105-7). This attack on corporal punishment was further spurred by the American Revolution, which carried with it a widespread rejection of the British colonial system of justice. The most prominent figure in this revolt in the revolutionary states of America was Dr. Benjamin Rush, a Pennsylvania surgeon and one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. In his pamphlet An Enquiry into the Effects of Public Punishments Upon Criminals and Upon Society (1787) he proposed the introduction of “houses of repentance” as the chief means of punishing criminals (Edge 83). In a later, no less influential pamphlet, Considerations on the Injustice and Impolicy of Punishing Murder By Death (1792), Rush wrote (Edge 83-84): Kings consider their subjects as their property: no wonder, therefore, they shed their blood with as little emotion as men shed the blood of their sheep or cattle. But the principles of republican governments speak a very different language…. An execution in a republic is like a human sacrifice in religion. It is an offering to monarchy, and to that malignant being, who has been styled a murderer from the beginning, and who delights equally in murder, whether it be perpetrated by the cold, but vindictive arm of the law, or by the angry hand of private revenge. By 1786, Pennsylvania had eliminated the death penalty for robbery and burglary and in 1794 restricted it to first-degree murder. In 1796 New York, New Jersey, and Virginia reduced their list of capital crimes. Other states followed, so that by 1820 almost all states had abolished the death penalty, except in cases of first-degree murder, or had restricted it to a handful of the most severe crimes (Gale & Chapman 92). These reforms in criminal penalties, however, created the immediate problem of what was to be substituted for execution. Here Pennsylvania also led the way in 1789 with the transformation of the old Walnut Street Jail in Philadelphia into the first penitentiary (a term taken from the concept of “penitence”). In the early decades of the nineteenth century there arose two competing models of prison discipline in the United States (Gale & Chapman 92-3). One was the “separate” or “solitary” system employed in Pennsylvania, as exemplified by Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia. In this system each prisoner occupied a separate cell (an innovation in prison design introduced in the new penitentiaries) and was kept as much as possible in total solitude. The prisoner would eat, sleep and labor in isolation in this single cell for the duration of the sentence (Miller 109). The competing model was the “silent” or “congregate” system developed in New York, and exemplified by the Auburn and Sing Sing penitentiaries. Here workers were assigned separate cells to sleep in, but ate meals and labored during the day together with other prisoners—but under a rule of complete silence rigidly enforced by guards. Both systems were supposed to rehabilitate the prisoners and each had its separate supporters in the 1820s and ‘30s (Miller 109-112). These two U.S. penitentiary systems were admired and copied in Europe. Numerous European notables traveled to the United States to see how the systems worked, to study the architecture that made them possible, and to determine the relative merits of one system over the other. In 1831, two young Frenchmen, Gustave de Beaumont and Alexis de Tocqueville, traveled to the United States, under the commission of the French Minister of the Interior, to study U.S. penitentiaries and write a report on their findings (Stanko et al. 117). It was during this trip that Tocqueville carried out the observations for his most famous work, Democracy in America. But together with Beaumont he also authored a report based on their detailed investigations in U.S. prisons, entitled On the Penitentiary System in the United States and its Application in France (1833). Charles Dickens was another visitor to examine the U.S. penitentiary system (Stanko et al. 117-8). Growth of the Prison Population and Factors that Affect the Population “Too many Americans go to too many prisons for far too long, and for no truly good law-enforcement reason” (Farrington 72). The person who said that was neither a defense lawyer, nor prisoners’-rights advocate, nor a European looking down his nose across the Atlantic. It was instead America’s top law-enforcement official, Eric Holder, the attorney general. On Monday Mr. Holder announced several changes to federal prison policy, the most important of which was that federal prosecutors will no longer charge low-level, non-violent drug offenders with crimes that trigger “draconian” mandatory-minimum sentences. But how did America’s prison population become so unmanageably huge? (Farrington 72-74). America has around 5% of the world’s population, and 25% of its prisoners. Roughly one in every 107 American adults is behind bars, a rate nearly five times that of Britain, seven times that of France and 24 times that of India. Its prison population has more than tripled since 1980. The growth rate has been even faster in the federal prison system: from around 24,000—its level, more or less, from the 1940s until the early 1980s—to more than 219,000 today (Parker 96). Probably the biggest driver of this growth has been ever-harsher drug penalties. In response to the crack epidemic of the 1980s, Congress and state legislatures began passing laws that meted out mandatory-minimum sentences for drug-related crimes. These were intended to help nab major traffickers, but the sentences were triggered by the possession of tiny quantities of drugs: five grams of crack, for instance, resulted in a mandatory-minimum sentence of five years (Parker 96-98). Conspiracy laws made everyone involved in a drug-running operation legally liable for all of the operation’s activities: a child hired for a few dollars a day to act as a lookout at the door of a crack house was on the hook for all the drugs sold in that house and all the crimes associated with their sale. These sorts of laws kept America’s prison population growing even as its crime rate declined (Toch 86). The tide began to turn around ten years ago when, in classic Nixon-to-China fashion, hang-’em-high Texas passed a law sending low-level, non-violent drug offenders to treatment rather than prison. The reform movement gained steam when the financial crisis hit: incarcerating people is expensive (Toch 86-87). Since 2007 more than half of America’s states have enacted some form of criminal-justice reform, and since 2008 the number of Americans behind bars has dipped slightly. How much of a dent Mr Holder’s policy shift will make remains unclear: it applies only to federal prisons, and around 90% of incarcerated Americans are in state and local lockups (Edge 128). But it’s a good start. Types of Prisons Most state correctional systems are overcrowded. As a result, their prisons currently hold more men or women than their legal population capacities allow. In such institutions, prisons officials often double-bunk cells, move four prisoners into two person rooms, or installs beds or simply mattresses on the floor along cellblock corridors or hallways. They also turn recreational and program space into ad hoc dormitories, with beds placed in gymnasiums and classrooms (Edge 46). In some prisons, with the hallways lined with beds, there may be no space for prisoners to exercise indoors or participate in education, vocational training, counseling, or prerelease programs (Forsyth 80). The old reformatories, built in the early 1900s, were built to be “junior penitentiaries” with cellblocks of cages, industrial workshops, and some vocational and educational programs. There are two styles of new construction mediumsecurity institutions. The first style (e.g., Green River Correctional Complex in Kentucky) is built of steel and concrete, with a yard and separate buildings for administrative offices, factories, recreation and programs, and housing convicts (Edge 48). The housing units are separate buildings, with individual “pods” that house a few hundred prisoners each and are usually one or two floors tall. These units organize prisoners into disciplinary steps, with each building representing a different level of privilege. For example, there may be a building for reception and departure (R&D), a unit for new prisoners, and additional units prison may have special cellblocks, called “administrative segregation” or “special housing units” (SHU) for disciplinary violators (“the hole”), protective custody (PC), medical prisoners, gang isolation, or drug therapy (Edge 48-50). Prisoners are moved from one unit to another as they are evaluated, disciplined, or isolated as decided by the prison administration. Maximum-security prisons can be divided into three separate categories: the old “big house” penitentiaries (e.g., Kentucky State Penitentiary), New Generation facilities (e.g., California State Prison, Corcoran), and super maximum institutions (e.g., Wisconsin Secure Program Facility). The big house penitentiaries (e.g., Attica in New York, Jackson in Michigan, Joliet and Statesville in Illinois, Waupun Correctional Institution in Wisconsin), many of them built in the late 19th or early 20th century, are fortress-like structures, enclosed by walls 30 to 50 feet high, with buildings made of stone, brick, concrete, and steel, containing massive cellblocks, some five tiers high (Miller 127). These ancient prisons are still operating, even as they are supplemented by the construction of modern penitentiaries. Prison Management and Management Techniques According to Morris (1963) of Moldova in Eastern Europe, “the training of penitentiary staff directly influences the efficiency of a prison system and the observance of human rights in places of detention” (p. 102); in addition, he writes, “the need for training of the penitentiary staff is more than obvious for at least two reasons: firstly, the diverse educational background of newcomers in the prison systems and secondly, permanent changes in the philosophy, tasks, and management of the prison systems” (Morris 102-3). A continuous cycle of education and training opportunities is important for prison agents so that these individuals will be able to stay up-to-date on the latest research and strategies for effective prison management. In addition, education allows for a change in mentality and attitudes toward inmates. This is extremely important in stimulating and mandating changes to more effectively treat and house offenders. Edge (2009) cites changing mentalities as the most difficult barrier to prison reform. Often the shifting of mindsets is not recognized as the basis of effective changes in correctional institutions. Instead, the focus often turns to security issues and the renovation of or addition of more correctional facilities. In fact, Edge (2009) found that only 10-15% of trainings were “related to managerial issues, ethical context, communication skills, working in a team, human contact, how to control anger, mediation of conflicts, post-detention care” and other similar, communication-based topics (p. 20).  Below, Edge (2009) writes of why the mindset of prison agents is incredibly instrumental in regards to effective prison management (Edge 200-202): Detainees’ and public trust in the penitentiary system is based on the quality of performance of the tasks by the prison staff. Quality requires knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The training of penitentiary agents is directly linked with all aspects of the daily activities of the prison system. The prison staff has to work multi-dimensionally involving diverse educational, cultural, religious, legal, psychological aspects with highly vulnerable human beings, with a range of personal problems, or in some cases, dangerous persons ( Every action of the penitentiary personnel could take an educational dimension and impact: respect of the individual, respect for dignity, respect for rights, etc…The success of the training is dependent on the attitudes of the staff; at least the staff should not treat detainees as enemies. As can be seen from Edge’s (2009) astuteness, prison agents have multiple opportunities to be change agents in the effort to increase prison morale, not only within themselves, but also within offenders residing in correctional facilities. However, this process can be disrupted by multiple factors. Often correctional facilities are located in areas of small population, limiting the number and type of applicants for various prison positions. Other employees may settle for correctional positions due to their inability to achieve employment elsewhere. When prison staff is comprised of individuals who were not initially interested in employment at correctional facilities, there is a possibility for resistance in regard to positive, effective change in prison management. In addition, many military-style institutions do not require their high-ranking officials to participate in training (McCorkle et al. 323). This can create an issue because many mandates often come from the top down and if high-ranking officials are not educated through training, there will be discord between staff ranks. “The best prison administrators have long recognized that the key to prison management does not lie in being excessively strict or excessively liberal as circumstances suggest. Instead, it lies in being consistent in the application of a set of professional standards” (Stanko et al. 138). Another issue in implementing effective management occurs when prison staff members do not feel their efforts are being reciprocated. This can mean reciprocation from other staff members, administration, or inmates. An additional barrier to effective training and implementation can occur when trainees are unable to interact with other trainees or trainers (Edge 2009). Also, training groups can sometimes become so large that the training’s effectiveness is reduced—a phenomenon that can also happen with inmate training and treatment. Lastly, few prison staff members and administrators are well-versed on international codes for inmate treatment and prison management (Stanko et al. 94). Use of Private Prisons A small but increasing amount of attention over the past decade is being paid to the increased use of private prisons in the U.S. Statistics are now showing that locking people up for profit is overriding the concept of jailing people in the name of justice. A recent Associated Press Investigation has determined one of the causes for a sharp increase in private prisons is the rise in the number of people locked up on immigration charges (Stanko et al. 96-98). In reaction to the 9/11 attacks, the country made changes to immigration laws that made it easier to detain more people and ended up being a major source of increased revenue for the country’s private prison companies.  The federal government uses contractors to keep nearly half of the 400,000 people being held on immigration charges. The AP also reports that “nearly every aspect” of a huge budget increase to house those charged with immigration violations in 2005 was given to private prison companies (Miller 144).  There exists a “mutually beneficial and evidently legal relationship between those who make corrections and immigration policy and a few prison companies,” (Miller 144-5) the report concluded, adding that there’s essentially no cost savings being achieved, the main selling point used by those advocating for private prisons. The cost to house a prisoner being held by U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement has risen from $80 per person, per day in 2004 to $166 today, with the government refusing to provide details explaining the difference (Miller 145). According to the AP report, “A decade ago, more than 3,300 criminal immigrants were sent to private prisons under two 10-year contracts the Federal Bureau of Prisons signed with worth $760 million. Now, the agency is paying the private companies $5.1 billion to hold more than 23,000 criminal immigrants through 13 contracts of varying lengths” (Parker 74). Three companies receive the bulk of the prison contracts in the U.S.: Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), The GEO Group, and Management and Training Corp. Private prison companies now house about half of the country’s prisoners, up from only about 10% a decade ago. The money these companies have spent on lobbying and campaign donations are estimated to be at least $45 million over the last decade, the AP found (Parker 74-5). The result has been hundreds of millions of dollars in yearly profits. Despite industry assurances to the contrary, a report from the Justice Policy Institute (JPI) last year indicated that lobbying efforts and campaign donations by private prison companies and their employees are done in order “to make money through harsh policies and longer sentences” (Parker 75). Similar to the conclusion of the AP investigation about the relationship between lawmakers and private prison companies, the JPI report concludes “the relationship between government officials and private prison companies has been part of the fabric of the industry from the start” (Edge 118). A primary fear of this kind of relationship—a direct connection between those with power to send people to prison and the prisons themselves— has already happened. In Pennsylvania a judge has been given 17 years in prison for sentencing juveniles to a private facility in a “cash for kids” scandal. Many of those sent to private facilities were locked up for minor offences not normally subject to incarceration (Edge 138). Compare and Contrast Federal and State Prisons Such a simple beginning for such a complex industry seems contradictory but considering how the growth occurred it is not.  In the late 19th Century the majority of Americans took for granted the States’ Rights aspect of the Constitution for few questioned the sovereignty of the several states.  As a result, each state developed a prison system similar to its neighbors yet decidedly different.  Over time, these differences have been studied, expanded upon, rejected, and ridiculed (Parker 73); in most cases, Department of Corrections’ officials eliminate what does not work while keeping what does. One interesting study was recently published showing a possible causal link between the security level a prisoner is assigned to and the likelihood of recidivism. This study is important because as the system developed both state and federal prisoners are assigned to a facility according to an assessed security-level.  If the study is correct, however, this could create considerable difficulties for prison officials.  Here is how the current system functions (Parker 73-75): 1. Both State and Federal prison systems have a first-level security risk – minimum.  In both cases, prisoners are not considered a flight risk and are given considerable latitude for movement within and without the perimeter of the facility.  In the case of state prisoners, some are trustees permitted to work outside the fences whereas others are those sentenced to half-way houses and work-release programs. 2. Low-Security is the next level and again, both the State and Federal systems are similar.  Security is heightened, with a reduced ratio of convicts to guards; fencing is generally doubled or improved in some similar fashion. 3. Medium-Security prisons in both cases begin to resemble secure locations:   These, house fewer prisoners per guard and the perimeter is sure to be far more secure.  Guards may be mounted along the fence and inmate movement is greatly limited. 4. High-Security prisons are considered more traditional prisons.  These are the ones seen in movies and books with the high stone walls and guard towers with spotlights and rifles.  With a far narrower gap between the guard to inmate ration, such prisons are clearly more expensive to operate.  This helps one to understand how careful criminal justice officials need to be in assigning cases to one prison or another.  Budgets are involved. 5. Finally, both State and Federal systems use a Maximum-security level.  In the case of both systems, lifers and death row inmates are sent to such prisons.  In the case of the Federal, an AdMax prison takes care of certain federal prisoners of special interest to the United States Government.  Infamous bomber Timothy McVeigh was sentenced to such a prison in Terre Haute, Thus the State and Federal prisons complex has developed haphazardly on an as-need basis.  As the public and policy-makers saw a need for more or differing prisons, the need was addressed.  It would be as if building a structure, then having generation after generation add to it as they saw fit—After many generations, the structure would look nothing like its ancestor.  The same could be said of how both the State and Federal Prisons system developed.  The system today, for better or worse, looks nothing like the system imagined or believed could be developed. Conclusion State prisons now incarcerate more than 1.2 million men and women. Life inside these penal institutions is generally harsh, brutal, and dull. Many states devote few resources to rehabilitation or reformation of prisoners while in prison or reintegration of ex-felons when they return home to the community. Given that approximately 97% of those currently incarcerated will one day be released, the problems within the nation’s state correctional facilities are destined to be passed onto the broader community. Prisoners in the United States may be held in county jails, state prisons, or federal facilities. County jails are used primarily to hold defendants during court proceedings and those who have been sentenced to a period of less than a year. State prisons usually house people who have been found guilty of state felonies and are sentenced to prison to serve a year or more. Federal prisons incarcerate persons found guilty of violating federal or military law. State prisons are also sometimes referred to as “penitentiaries,” “correctional institutions,” “reformatories,” “detention centers,” or “work camps.” Works Cited Edge, Laura. Locked Up: A History of the U.S. Prison System. New York: Twenty-First Century Books, 2009. Print. Farrington, D.P. Delinquent and Criminal Behaviour. In Gale, A. & Chapman, J. (Eds.), Psychology and Social Problems: An Introduction to Applied Psychology. Wiltshire: Wiley, 1993. Print. Forsyth, D. R. Group Dynamics (2nd edn), Pacific Grove CA, Brooks/Cole, 1990. Print. Gale, A. & Chapman, J. Eds. (1993) Psychology and Social Problems: An Introduction to Applied Psychology, Wiltshire: Wiley, 1993. Print. McCorkle, R. C., Miethe, T. D. and Drass, K. A. The roots of prison violence: A test of the deprivation, management, and “not-so total” institution models, Crime and Delinquency 41 (1995): 317–31. Print. Miller, D. Quentin. Prose and Cons: Essays on Prison Literature in the United States. New York: McFarland, 2005. Print. Morris, P. (1963) Pentoville: A Sociological Study of an English Prison. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963. Print. Parker, M. Dynamic Security: The democratic therapeutic community in prison, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2007. Print. Stanko, Stephen, Wayne Gillespie, & Gordon Crews. Living in Prison: A History of the Correctional System with an Insider’s View, 2004. Print. Sykes, G. The Society of Captives, Princeton NJ, Princeton University Press, 1958. Print. Toch, H. Mosaic of Despair: Human Breakdown in Prison. Washington, DC: Americal Psychological Association, 1992. Print. Read More