9 Punishment and Corrections

Overview

The chapter on punishment and corrections offers a comprehensive examination of the principles, historical contexts, and contemporary practices within the criminal justice system. It begins by delving into the philosophical foundations that shape sentencing approaches, including retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and societal protection. These philosophies guide the allocation of punishment and aim to strike a balance between justice, accountability, and social order.

The chapter then investigates the evolution of early forms of punishment, from ancient practices such as corporal punishment, banishment, and exile to the establishment of more formalized systems of justice and punishment. It highlights the transition from informal and often brutal methods of punishment to the development of legal frameworks and institutions designed to administer justice more systematically.

Capital punishment emerges as a focal point of discussion, examining its historical prevalence, moral implications, and contemporary controversies. The chapter explores debates surrounding the effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent, its compatibility with evolving societal values, and the ethical considerations surrounding state-sanctioned execution.

Transitioning through correctional eras, the chapter traces the shifting paradigms in the treatment of offenders. It explores the emergence of punitive approaches during certain historical periods, followed by movements towards rehabilitation and restorative justice. These shifts reflect changing attitudes towards crime, punishment, and the goals of the criminal justice system.

Finally, the chapter examines the landscape of modern jails and prisons, including their design, functions, and challenges. It addresses issues such as overcrowding, recidivism, rehabilitation programs, and the disproportionate impact of incarceration on marginalized communities. By analyzing the complexities of contemporary correctional systems, the chapter aims to provide insight into the broader societal implications of sentencing and punishment practices.

9.1 Introduction to Punishment

In the realm of criminal justice, punishment is the imposition of a penalty or consequence for an individual’s violation of established laws. Broadly defined, punishment denotes the application of consequences to individuals who have been found guilty of committing a crime in a legal framework, such as a court of law. This legal sanction, or penalty, is administered by an authorized governing body in response to actions that contravene established laws or societal norms. Punishment serves multiple purposes, including as a means of retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, or incapacitation, functioning as a mechanism for maintaining social order, adhering to societal standards, fostering justice, promoting accountability, and upholding the rule of law within society.

The forms of punishment are diverse and encompass measures such as incarceration , fines, probation , community service, restitution , and participation in rehabilitation programs. The severity and nature of the punishment determined during sentencing are contingent on several factors, including the type, nature, and severity of the offense, legal statutes, mitigating circumstances and aggravating circumstances , as well as relevant laws and guidelines within the specific jurisdiction .

In the context of criminal justice, the principles of punishment encompass deterrence, rehabilitation, retribution, incapacitation, and restoration. Deterrence seeks to dissuade individuals from engaging in criminal conduct by illustrating the repercussions of unlawful actions. Rehabilitation aims to reform offenders through education, therapy, and other interventions, with the intention of facilitating their successful reintegration into society. Retribution , often perceived as the moral rationale for punishment, centers on the concept of just deserts —the belief that offenders should face consequences commensurate with the harm they have inflicted. Incapacitation focuses primarily on preventing further criminal behavior and safeguarding society from harm with physical or legal restrictions on the offender, typically through incarceration or capital punishment. Restoration is also an integral component of punishment that addresses the offender’s transgressions, promotes accountability, and facilitates their reintegration into the community. Effective punishment within the framework of the criminal justice system strives to achieve a balance among these objectives while adhering to principles of fairness, proportionality , and reverence for human dignity.

A solid grasp of the principles underlying punishment is essential, especially given its profound implications for Constitutional rights. For instance, in Smith v. Doe (2003), the U.S. Supreme Court held that mandating sex offenders to register and disclose their residences publicly did not meet the criteria for punishment. Likewise, in Kansas v. Hendricks (1997), the Court ruled that civil commitment does not constitute punishment. Consequently, individuals can complete a prison sentence and then be civilly committed without contravening the double jeopardy clause or the Eighth Amendment (U.S. Const. amend. VIII).

9.1.1 Philosophical Perspectives

Philosophical perspectives on punishment are crucial for shaping the ethical and moral foundations of legal systems, as well as guiding societal perceptions of justice and rehabilitation. By examining the underlying principles and rationales of punishment, philosophical perspectives provide a framework for evaluating the fairness, efficacy, and legitimacy of punitive measures. Furthermore, these perspectives serve as a cornerstone for policy formulation, informing decisions concerning the structure of criminal justice systems, the determination of sentencing guidelines, and the allocation of resources towards rehabilitation initiatives.

Understanding the philosophical roots of punishment facilitates critical reflection on societal values, moral obligations, and the nature of wrongdoing. It prompts meaningful dialogues for obtaining an appropriate balance between accountability and compassion, deterrence and rehabilitation, as well as individual rights and social cohesion. Ultimately, philosophical perspectives on punishment foster deeper inquiries into the essence and purpose of justice, aiding in the development of a more enlightened and morally grounded approach to addressing crime and advancing the welfare of individuals and communities.

While various definitions of punishment abound across philosophical and scholarly works, this chapter primarily focuses on the legal interpretation. According to criminal law, in Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd ed.), punishment encompasses “any pain, penalty, suffering, or confinement inflicted upon a person by the authority of the law and the judgment and sentence of a court, for some crime or offense committed by him, or for his omission of a duty enjoined by law” (as cited in The Law Dictionary, para. 1).

9.1.1.1 Herbert Packer

Herbert Packer, a renowned legal scholar, offers a distinctive perspective on punishment, as outlined in his seminal 1968 work The Limits of the Criminal Sanction, he rejects the idea of rehabilitation, emphasizing instead the preventative and retributive aspects of criminal punishment. Packer’s philosophical framework delineates three fundamental elements of punishment delineated in the list below.

Herbert Packer’s Fundamental Elements of Punishment (1968, p. 33):

1. The presence of an offense;
2. The infliction of pain on account of the commission of the offense;
3. A dominant purpose that is neither to compensate someone injured by the offense nor better the offender’s condition but to prevent further offenses or to inflict what is thought to be deserved pain on the offender.

In essence, the first component in Packer’s elements of punishment (1968) acknowledges the existence of the offense, while the second mandates that there must be the imposition of suffering to the wrongdoer as a consequence of committing the offense. Lastly, Packer asserts that the primary objective of punishment is neither to compensate the injured party nor improve the offender’s circumstances, but rather deter future offenses or administer what is deemed appropriate punishment to the offender. Ultimately, within Packer’s paradigm, the overarching purpose of punishment is to inflict appropriate suffering on the wrongdoer in a manner that serves to dissuade them from engaging in future acts of criminal conduct.

9.1.1.2 H. L. A. Hart

H. L. A. Hart, a distinguished legal philosopher, elucidated his perspective on punishment primarily in his seminal work Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law (1968). Within his writings, Hart places the essence of punishment at the core of the legal system, underscoring its paramount role in maintaining social order and fostering stability. He argued that punishment serves as a mechanism for upholding societal norms and deterring individuals from actions that transgress these norms. While inclined towards a retributive stance, Hart emphasized the importance of ensuring that punishment aligns with the gravity of the offense, underscoring his dedication to fairness and justice within legal frameworks. Moreover, Hart recognized the intricate nature of punishment, asserting that it must be administered within the boundaries of the rule of law, employing fair and impartial legal procedures to guarantee equitable treatment for all individuals under the law.

H. L. A. Hart’s Five Elements of Punishment (1968, p. 5):

1. It must involve pain or other consequences normally considered unpleasant;
2. It must be for the offense against legal rules;
3. It must be an actual or supposed offender for his offense;
4. It must be intentionally administered by other human beings than the offender;
5. It must be imposed and administered by an authority constituted by a legal system against which the offense is committed.

Hart’s principles of punishment, outlined in the list above, continue to exert a significant influence on discussions about criminal justice in the United States (1968). The first element necessitates that punishment has inclusion of discomfort or repercussions typically regarded as undesirable. The second component asserts that punishment must be in response to a violation of legal regulations or rules; without such transgression, the state’s actions cannot be deemed punishment. For example, mandatory quarantine due to having contracted a contagious disease would not meet this criterion and, therefore, would not be considered punishment. However, whereas formally sanctioned house arrest imposed as a consequence for the commission of a criminal offense fulfills the requirements to be considered punishment. The third component contends that punishment must be directed towards an individual who is either the actual perpetrator or perceived to be responsible for the offense committed. Recently, this matter has sparked debate, especially concerning cases involving juvenile offenders and the idea of holding a parent criminally accountable for their child’s actions (see news about People of Michigan v. Jennifer Lynn Crumbley). Lastly, the fourth and fifth components posit that punishment must be deliberately administered and executed by an authority established by a legal system against which the offense has been committed. Therefore, informal sanctions or other consequences such as job loss or physical injuries sustained during the commission of a crime, such as a broken leg resulting from evading police arrest, should not be considered by the judge when determining punishment sentencing.

9.1.2 Early Forms of Punishment

Figure 9.1

Early forms of punishment in the U.S. were characterized by harsh and often brutal methods intended to deter crime and maintain social order. In Colonial America, these punishments were deeply rooted in religious and moral ideologies that served to preserve societal norms and Christian values (Friedman, 1993). To achieve these objectives, punitive measures, such as stocks, tarring and feathering, pillories, whipping, and flogging, were typically conducted in public view. These public spectacles were intended not only to serve as punishment but also to publicly humiliate and denounce wrongdoers, as well as to prompt open confessions of guilt and expressions of remorse for wrongful actions.

Common punishments for minor criminal offenses included variations of additional work, fines, or whipping, whereas forms of punishment for vice crimes and sins generally consisted of an assortment of public shaming, stocks, pillories, and whipping (Friedman, 1993). More serious offenses, ranging from theft to blasphemy, were typically punished with mutilation and branding of the forehead and other body parts to indelibly mark these individuals as more serious sinners. In New Hampshire, women adulteresses were placed on the gallows, severely whipped, and compelled to wear a letter A on their clothing as labeled reminders and publicly shame their indiscretions. Additionally, Colonial punishments frequently incorporated banishment and exile as means of removing undesirable more serious criminal offenders as well as undesirable individuals from communities. Over time, these early forms of punishment evolved into more structured and institutionalized systems, laying the groundwork for modern approaches to criminal justice.

The use of execution was a prevalent form of punishment, particularly under English Common law where all felony offenses were punishable by death, encompassed crimes such as murder, arson, larceny, robbery, burglary, rape, treason, and petty treason. However, by 1822, England had expanded the list of felonies to a total of 263 offenses (Holdsworth, 1952). Although, in comparison to English execution standards at the time, Colonial America was relatively moderate and restrained in its approach to executions, largely adhering to the common law practice, designating only a small number of felonies (typically 10-13) as capital crimes.

9.1.3 Capital Punishment

Capital punishment, commonly referred to as the death penalty, involves the state-sanctioned execution of an individual as a formal penalty for a typically grave crime. It has been employed for a range of offenses considered the most severe by society, marking a practice entwined in intricate legal, moral, and societal discussions. Throughout the history of the U.S., capital punishment has served as a deterrent to crime, a pursuit of justice, and a means of upholding societal order. Methods of execution include more historical practices like hanging and firing squads to contemporary approaches such as electrocution and lethal injection, mirroring shifts in societal norms, cultural perspectives, and technological advancements.

Figure 9.2

Although rooted in historical practices dating back to colonial times, the death penalty continued to be implemented in the U.S. through the 18^th, 19^th, and early 20^th centuries until the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a nationwide moratorium on the death penalty in 1967. The moratorium became official in 1972 with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Furman v. Georgia (1972). The 5-4 decision declared the current application of the death penalty as unconstitutional due to its arbitrary and capricious nature. In other words, the issuance of the death penalty by states exhibited bias, where the likelihood of receiving the death penalty was influenced more by socioeconomic or racial demographic factors rather than the nature of the crime itself. In response, states adjusted their death penalty laws to make them more specific and equitable. For example, some states improved the appeals process for death penalty cases, while others instituted a bifurcated jury process, where one jury determines guilt and another decides whether the defendant should receive the death penalty.

After implementing these adjustments, the death penalty was reinstated four years later by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Gregg v. Georgia (1976) ruling. However, over the next three decades, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on multiple death penalty cases, limiting the overall use of capital punishment (see Table 9.1 below).

Table 9.1

Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Rulings on Capital Punishment

The landmark Supreme Court rulings outlined in Table 9.1 have reshaped the legal landscape surrounding capital punishment in the U.S. These alterations to the parameters of capital punishment laws have addressed issues of arbitrariness, proportionality, and due process.

9.1.3.1 Capital Punishment Today

One of the notable characteristics of contemporary U.S. capital punishment is its variation among various states. Despite intermittent nationwide moratoriums and legal disputes, the death penalty persists as a legal practice in the majority of states, thereby significantly intensifying the severity of punishment for heinous crimes beyond life imprisonment—a consequence subject to considerable variability depending on jurisdiction. In the period spanning from 1930 and 2021, a total of 5,393 individuals underwent legal execution, with 1,540 executions taking place between 1977 and 2021, as reported by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (Snell, 2023) and illustrated in Figure 9.3 below.

Figure 9.3

As illustrated in Figure 9.3 above, there has been a decreased use of the death penalty over the past 20 years. Despite this decline, 27 states, the federal government, and the U.S. military presently maintain statutes allowing use of the death penalty for certain crimes (Snell, 2023), while other states have either abolished it entirely or implemented moratoriums on its application. At the close of 2021, there were 2,382 state and federal prisoners on death row. Notably, three states—California (29%), Florida (14%), and Texas (8%)—accounted for more than half of the total population of prisoners under a sentence of death. However, despite the 2,382 inmates on death row in 2021, executions are infrequently administered. For instance, in 2022, a total of 18 inmates were executed in six states: Oklahoma (5), Texas (5), Arizona (3), Missouri (2), Alabama (2), and Mississippi (1), seven more than the 11 executed in 2021, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (Snell, 2023).

This patchwork of approaches to capital punishment across the U.S. mirror the profound divisions and continuing debates in the nation surrounding the ethical, moral, and practical dimensions of this practice. Overall, modern U.S. capital punishment remains a deeply divisive and complex issue that reflects broader societal attitudes towards justice, punishment, and human rights. As the country continues to grapple with questions of fairness, morality, and effectiveness in its approach to criminal justice, the future of capital punishment in the United States remains uncertain and subject to ongoing debate and reform efforts.

9.1.3.2 Methods of Execution

First introduced in 1982 in Texas, lethal injection has emerged as the predominant method of execution in the United States. As of the end of 2021, all states permitting capital punishment, as well as the federal government, have adopted lethal injection as one of their execution methods (Snell, 2023). Additionally, eight states still employ the electric chair, four resort to firing squads, three utilize nitrogen hypoxia, and one relies on hanging (Death Penalty Information Center, n.d.-b)

Figure 9.4

The Rare Dual-Seat Gas Chamber at the Retired Missouri State Prison

The most recent addition to these methods is nitrogen hypoxia, which Alabama first implemented in 2024 during the execution of Kenneth Smith, following a failed attempt to execute him by lethal injection 14 months prior (Bogel-Burroughs, 2024). Alongside the evolving landscape of execution methods, concerns about the constitutionality of certain execution methods, such as lethal injection, have sparked legal challenges and debates regarding the ethical implications of state-administered executions.

9.1.3.3 Issues with Capital Punishment

The use of the death penalty is not without controversy, as the utilization of capital punishment is fraught with numerous contentious issues. Several of the most pressing concerns stem from potential bias and human error, including wrongful convictions, racial bias, and arbitrariness. A prominent issue regards the high prevalence of wrongful convictions, where individuals are mistakenly sentenced to death due to errors or flaws in the legal system. Furthermore, racial bias remains a pervasive problem, with studies consistently revealing disparities in sentencing based on race, often resulting in disproportionately harsh outcomes for minority defendants. The arbitrariness of the death penalty is another significant issue, as its application can vary widely depending on factors such as jurisdiction, prosecutorial discretion, and jury composition, leading to inconsistencies and unpredictability in sentencing. Likely the largest concern is the irreversible nature of death as a punishment, further compounding issues like wrongful convictions, racial bias, and arbitrariness, as well as raising critical ethical concerns. Many countries and international organizations oppose the death penalty, viewing it as a violation of human rights and an outdated form of punishment. Critics also argue that the death penalty violates fundamental human rights, such as the right to life and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Additionally, there are concerns about the execution of individuals with mental illness or intellectual disabilities, as it raises questions about their culpability and moral justification for punishment.

Numerous concerns persist with the use of capital punishment and its implementation, rendering it a deeply divisive issue. Proponents of capital punishment argue for its necessity as a deterrent to crime and as a form of justice for victims and their families. Conversely, opponents raise concerns about its morality, risk of wrongful convictions, racial disparities in its application, and its disproportionate impact on marginalized communities, effectiveness as a deterrent, and exorbitant financial costs. Consequently, capital punishment in the U.S. persists as a deeply divisive and intricate issue at the intersection of law, ethics, and social justice.

Those who advocate for the use of capital punishment typically ground their stance in a retributive philosophy. Although deterrence is also discussed by death penalty proponents, extensive research and scholarly debate persist regarding its effectiveness as a deterrent to crime, with conflicting evidence on its impact. For example, research from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (Snell, 2023) found that in 2021, there were 2,382 inmates on death row, and their average time spent on death row was 20.2 years. In 2021, those who were executed had spent an average of 19.4 years incarcerated prior to their execution. In fact, death row inmates are more likely to die from natural causes and suicide than execution. In 2021, a total of 11 death row inmates were executed while 32 death row inmates died of natural causes, two died from suicide, one was murdered, and one died from an unspecified cause during that same year. The limited probability of execution among inmates on death row undermines the deterrence argument often put forth by those in favor of capital punishment as well as illuminates the considerable financial costs associated with death penalty cases.

9.1.3.3.1 Financial Costs

In addition to the considerable expenses associated with long-term incarceration, the extensive legal processes and appeals involved in capital punishment cases result in financial burdens that far surpass those of life imprisonment. This makes capital punishment significantly more expensive than life imprisonment cases. For instance, between 1978 and 2011, California’s death penalty system incurred costs exceeding $4 billion more than if the state had replaced capital punishment with life without parole (Alarcón & Mitchell, 2012).

The high costs of death penalty cases are largely attributed to several factors, including the costly trial process, automatic appellate court review, and subsequent appellate costs. Moreover, corrections costs can escalate due to the need for isolation among death row inmates, which is considerably more expensive than housing inmates in the general population. The prolonged delay between sentencing and execution further exacerbates these financial burdens.

9.1.3.3.2 Wrongful Conviction

In recent years, the modern U.S. capital punishment system has undergone increasing scrutiny and faced numerous legal challenges. High-profile cases of wrongful convictions, advancements in forensic science casting doubt on previous convictions, and a growing awareness of systemic biases within the criminal justice system have fueled calls for reform or abolition of the death penalty in many circles.

The significant prevalence of wrongful convictions, in particular, has sparked a profound reassessment of the utilization of the death penalty. According to the Death Penalty Information Center (n.d.-a), between 1973 and 2023, 197 former death-row inmates were exonerated from all charges. Research suggests that approximately 4.1% of all inmates sentenced to death row between 1977 and 2004 were victims of erroneous convictions (Gross et al., 2014). In 2016, among the 116 death row exonerations listed on the National Registry, 18% involved false confessions, 26% included false or misleading forensic evidence, 70% implicated perjury or false accusations, and 76% cited instances of official misconduct (Garrett, 2020). These staggering statistics underscore the profound flaws and risks inherent in the death penalty system and need for reassessment.

9.1.3.3.3 Racial Bias

Racial discrimination and the use of the death penalty have been topics of concern for many decades. Studies consistently show that race plays a significant role in determining who receives the death penalty, with minorities often facing disproportionate sentencing compared to white defendants. For instance, a study evaluating the effects of race on jury decisions in capital offenses in Washington State found that juries were four times more likely to impose the death penalty for Black defendants than for White defendants (Beckett & Evans, 2016).

However, the defendant’s race is not the only racial variable influencing the likelihood of receiving the death penalty. Research indicates that the victim’s race also plays a critical role. Of the 1,441 executions between 1976 and 2016, 76% of the murder victims were White, 15% were Black, 7% were Hispanic, and 2% were of other races (Death Penalty Information Center, 2016). In Louisiana, the odds of receiving the death penalty were 97% higher when the murder victim was White compared to when the victim was Black (Pierce & Radelet, 2011). Similarly, in California, murderers who killed Whites were more than three times as likely to receive the death penalty as those who killed Blacks, and over four times as likely as those who killed Latinos (Pierce & Radelet, 2005).

9.2 Eras and Evolution of Corrections

Figure 9.5

The history of American corrections spans distinct eras, each characterized by evolving philosophies and unique approaches to managing offenders. These eras reflect shifts in societal attitudes, legislative changes, and advancements in correctional theory and practice. From the early penitentiary systems of the 18th and 19th centuries, emphasizing solitary confinement and reflection, to the rehabilitative efforts of the mid-20th century focused on education and treatment, the landscape of corrections has continuously evolved. The emergence of the tough on crime approach in the late 20th century, emphasizing punishment and deterrence, marked another significant era that cast remarkable influence and lasting impacts on corrections and society. Today, there’s a growing recognition of the need for evidence-based practices, restorative justice principles, and alternatives to incarceration, shaping the current era of corrections. Understanding these distinct eras reflects the zeitgeists that shape the political dynamics of the time, providing valuable insight into the complexities of the American criminal justice system as a whole. This knowledge enables us to better inform policies that facilitate more meaningful outcomes for both offenders and society.

9.2.1 The Penitentiary Era (1790s-1860s)

During the American Colonial period, corrections were heavily influenced by the English penal styles and punishment practices (Blomberg & Lucken, 2010). Despite England’s long history of using incarceration as a form of punishment, it was rarely employed for punitive purposes in colonial America. This was primarily due to the small population of Europeans residing in Colonial America during the early colonial period, which was so minute it would be unable to fill even a single modern-day large college football stadium. Early colonialists lived in small, isolated settlements with insufficient resources to incarcerate lawbreakers. Therefore, formal punishments such as banishment and corporal punishment , including whipping, branding, and mutilation, as well as capital punishment , were common practices.

After the American Revolutionary War, the newly formed America was determined to establish itself as a civilized society (Blomberg & Lucken, 2010). During the early 1800s, two competing penitentiary systems emerged: the Pennsylvania system and the Auburn system . The Pennsylvania system mandated that inmates remain silent and reside in their individual cells at all times (Kann, 2005). Advocates of this system argued that the time of isolation allowed inmates adequate time to reflect on their transgression and repent. They also contended maintaining inmates’ isolation minimized the need for discipline, thereby requiring minimal training for guards (Rothman, 1990). In contrast, the Auburn system only separated inmates overnight. However, this system enforced silence at all times, and during the daytime, inmates congregated for work, prayer, and meals. Supporters of the Auburn system claimed that its use of congregate work and smaller cells was more practical, cost-effective, and humane.

9.2.1.1 The Pennsylvania (Eastern) System

In the late 1780s, Benjamin Rush, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, alongside the Philadelphia society and the Religious Society of Friends (also known as Quakers), advocated for more humane and rehabilitative approaches to punishment, favoring incarceration over corporal or capital punishment (Eastern State Penitentiary Task Force of the Preservation Coalition of Greater Philadelphia, & Marianna Thomas Architects, 1994). By 1790, their efforts proved successful as Philadelphia legislators supported funding to transform Walnut St. Jail into the first U.S. penitentiary. The penitentiary was designed to isolate each inmate, providing a space for reflection and penitence, hence the name “penitentiary,” derived from the Latin word meaning “repentance” or “penance.” However, the penitentiary quickly became overpopulated, leading to the approval of the construction of two new state prisons: Western State Penitentiary in Pittsburgh and Eastern State Penitentiary near Philadelphia.

While Western State Penitentiary in Pittsburgh was opened in 1826, its poor architectural design necessitated its demolition and subsequent reconstruction in 1833 (Barnes, 1927). Eastern State Penitentiary, which opened in 1829 in Cherry Hill, Pennsylvania, just outside of Philadelphia, became the model for the Pennsylvania system, sometimes referred to as the Eastern system. The penological approach of the Pennsylvania system was centered on many Quaker principles, particularly hard work and rehabilitation through repentance. The Pennsylvania system introduced the practice of “silence and separation,” where inmates lived and worked in isolation and were required to remain silent at all times. The prison was designed in a radiating fashion, resembling a wagon wheel.

Figure 9.6

Robert Vaux, a member of the Philadelphia Society, and a key contributor to the planning of the penitentiary, provided five key principles of the Pennsylvania System (as cited in Eastern State Penitentiary Task Force of the Preservation Coalition of Greater Philadelphia, & Marianna Thomas Architects, 1994, pp.18-19):

1. Prisoners should be treated not vengefully but in ways designed to convince them that through hard and selective forms of suffering they could change their lives;
2. to prevent the prison from being a corrupting influence, solitary confinement of all inmates should be practiced;
3. in his seclusion the offender was to have an opportunity to reflect on his transgressions so that he might repent;
4. solitary confinement is a punishing discipline because man is by nature a social being; and
5. solitary confinement is economical because prisoners do not need long periods of time to benefit from the penitential experience; fewer keepers are required, and the costs of clothing are reduced. The strong faith in reformation coupled with deterrence is very evident.

While supporters of the Pennsylvania system were vocal about its success, within a few years, reports emerged of excessive punishment leading to serious injury, prisoner deaths, embezzlement, and sexual improprieties with female inmates (Thibaut, 1982). Additionally, there were concerns regarding inmate mental illness stemming from the use of solitary confinement. Ultimately, the Pennsylvania system, with its emphasis on isolation and silence, fell out of favor by the end of the 19th century due to its high cost and the negative effects of inmate isolation.

9.2.1.2 The Auburn (New York) System

The Auburn Penitentiary in Auburn, NY, opened in 1818. Unlike the isolation and silent approach of the Pennsylvania system, the Auburn Penitentiary adopted a slightly different approach. It utilized a congregate approach . While inmates still slept in isolation and were expected to maintain silence, they worked together, attended mandatory prayer services together, and ate together during the day (Foucault, 1975/1977).

One significant difference between the Auburn Penitentiary and the Eastern State Penitentiary lies in their architectural design. Instead of employing the more expensive 12′ by 7.5′ single-cell radial design, Auburn Penitentiary arranged 7′ by 4′ cells back-to-back in the center of a large building, spanning five tiers high. Additionally, there were designated areas for large groups of inmates to congregate for work, dining, and recreation. Unlike the Pennsylvania system, where inmates both worked and slept in their large single cells, the Auburn system was designed so that inmates used their small cells solely for sleeping and spent their waking hours in other areas of the prison. This design necessitated strict scheduling, enforced through corporal punishment or even solitary confinement. However, Auburn’s use of solitary confinement quickly came under scrutiny and was discontinued in 1822 after multiple reports of mental illness and high suicide rates among inmates subjected to solitary confinement (Eastern State Penitentiary Task Force of the Preservation Coalition of Greater Philadelphia, & Marianna Thomas Architects, 1994).

The founders of both the Auburn and Pennsylvania penitentiaries preached that convict labor would aid in reformation and even deterrence (Pillsbury, 1989). However:

The penitentiary goals set forth by the founders (punishment, reformation, and social control) became compromised as administrators attempted to heighten prisons’ self-sustainability and profit. Soon thereafter, prisons became more remunerative, using prison employment as a mechanism of control and profit, not reform. (Maier, 2018, p. 11)

In the early years of the penitentiary, the public account system was utilized. In this work system, inmates conducted unpaid labor, manufacturing goods in the prison that could be sold on the open market, with the revenue returning to the state. However, this shift towards the market economy had negative repercussions for businesses and workingmen, who voiced concerns about their inability to compete with free prison labor (Pillsbury, 1989). Consequently, by the late 19th century, states began transitioning away from this approach, opting instead for the more profitable contract system . In contrast to having penitentiary administrators exclusively oversee inmate labor and manufacturing, the contract system enabled private companies to pay a set fee to utilize prisoners for labor within the confines of the penitentiaries. These manufacturing operations were entirely supervised and managed by these private contractors.

9.2.1.3 The South

In the late 19th century, the use of penitentiaries became widespread across the country. Many penitentiaries in the South adopted the convict leasing system , leasing out inmates for work outside the prison walls. While Black inmates were disproportionately represented in Northern prisons – making up 26.66% of the inmates at Eastern Penitentiary in 1830, compared to only 2.84% of the Pennsylvania total population (Hershberg, 1971-1972) – very few inmates in the South were Black before the American Civil War. This disparity can be attributed to the prevalence of slavery and the prevailing belief that Black individuals inherently possessed criminal traits, making rehabilitation seem impossible and posing a perceived risk of corrupting White inmates (Hindus, 2012; Kann, 2005).

While almost all prison inmates in the South were white prior to the American Civil War, following the conflict, 90% of inmates were black, leading to a significant shift in prison inmate demographics and correctional facility dynamics (Colvin, 1997). Despite the notable increase in incarcerated individuals after the Civil War, most Southern states refrained from constructing new prisons. Instead, they leased out predominantly black inmates for labor in places such as plantations, cotton mills, and coal mines. This forced labor by imprisoned Black Americans bore striking similarities to the previous era of enslavement.

Figure 9.7

Soon after the Civil War, the convict leasing system became widespread in the South. Under this system, states leased inmates to private businesses for labor, with the lessees compensating the state for their use. Managed by private businesses, the conditions endured by inmates in the leasing system were often harsher than those experienced under slavery, where individuals were owned rather than leased (Oshinsky, 1997). The extremely severe conditions of the leasing system led to numerous prisoner deaths. For instance, in Alabama, 41% of inmates died in 1870, and it was estimated in 1880 that most inmates would perish within three years (Colvin, 1997).

Unfortunately, the deaths of inmate laborers were deemed unimportant to both the state and the lessees. Since the state could easily arrest more blacks for petty crimes such as vagrancy, gambling, or disorderly conduct, there was an abundance of potential inmate laborers. This led to the devaluation of all inmate labor, allowing for their abhorrent treatment, grueling labor, and inhumane living conditions (Oshinsky, 1997). This philosophy is illustrated in the correlation between conviction rates and local business needs, as Stein (2012) observed: “Conviction rates eerily reflect the ebb and flow of small local business’ needs” (p. 256).

The convict leasing system fell out of favor due to objections from businesses and laborers who were unable to compete financially with the free labor provided by the state. This economic disparity highlighted the inherent injustice of exploiting incarcerated individuals for profit, prompting criticism and condemnation from some quarters. As a response to mounting pressure from labor unions, advocacy groups, and concerned citizens, some states began to reassess their approach to inmate labor. Instead of leasing prisoners to private entities, several states opted to utilize inmates solely for work on state-owned plantations and farmland. This shift was seen as a compromise between maintaining a source of labor for agricultural activities while addressing the ethical concerns surrounding convict leasing. However, it was increasingly recognized that this practice still perpetuated exploitation and failed to uphold the dignity and rights of incarcerated individuals. As a result, by 1928, convict leasing systems were banned in all state operated prisons, reflecting a significant step forward in the reform of the penal system and the recognition of prisoners’ rights and welfare (Howell, 2016).

9.2.2 The Reformatory (1860s-1930s)

The aftermath of the American Civil War marked a significant juncture in the evolution of penological practices in the North as well (Blomberg & Lucken, 2010). During this period, from 1867 to 1869, Enoch Wines and Theodore Dwight conducted a comprehensive examination of American penitentiaries. Their investigation uncovered egregious practices, including instances of torture, decrepit infrastructure, and appalling living conditions within correctional facilities (Pisciotta, 1994). The findings of their report were discussed at the 1870 National Congress in Cincinnati, precipitating urgent calls for reform. As a response, the Congress formulated a set of foundational principles to guide the transformation of penitentiaries (for further details, see Declaration Principles). The principles outlined in the declaration emphasized the paramount importance of rehabilitation and reformation in the treatment of offenders, reflecting a growing recognition of the need for humane and effective approaches to criminal justice (Wines, 1873). Besides the establishment of fundamental principles for penitentiary reform, the assembly also gave rise to the American Prison Association. This organization, later renamed the American Correctional Association in 1954, became instrumental in advocating for progressive reforms in the correctional system.

9.2.2.1 The Elmira Reformatory

The two most significant events in the early reformatory movement in the U.S. were the National Congress meeting in Cincinnati in 1870 and the opening of the Elmira Reformatory in New York in 1876 (Putney & Putney, 1962). Zebulon Brockway, Elmira’s first Superintendent , modeled the new adult reformatory after the principles established at the 1870 Cincinnati meeting, leading scholars of the time, and Alexander Maconochie’s mark system . The mark system revolved around the concept of indeterminate sentencing , where inmates would earn marks for good behavior, gradually leading to increased responsibilities and freedoms.

Brockway adhered to the late 19th-century positivism movement in criminology, which posited that much criminal behavior was hereditary and therefore genetic. Nonetheless, Brockway implemented a system where every inmate entering the reformatory underwent evaluation to determine their individual rehabilitation needs. He emphasized the importance of socializing offenders through treatment programs such as schooling and vocational training. However, reflecting the prevailing beliefs of the time regarding criminality, many inmates, particularly Black individuals, were perceived as genetically predisposed to criminal behavior–beliefs that have since been widely discredited by subsequent research and advancements in criminology (Young, 2011).

Brockway implemented a basic three-grade classification process for inmates. Upon entry, all inmates would be assigned to grade two. Those who accumulated enough good behavior merits would then transition to grade one, granting them special dining and conversation privileges. Conversely, inmates who exhibited bad behavior would receive demerits and eventually be placed in grade three, resulting in a loss of privileges and separation from grade one and two inmates (Putney & Putney, 1962). Once an inmate accrued sufficient good behavior merits, they could apply for parole , which was then reviewed by the parole board and either accepted or denied.

Figure 9.8

Brockway actively marketed and promoted the new penological approach, contributing significantly to the adoption of reformatories across the country (Pisciotta, 1994). By the 1890s, many states in the North and West began constructing reformatories modeled after Elmira. However, by the mid-1890s, Elmira Reformatory faced issues of overcrowding and reports of abuse of mentally disabled inmates emerged. Consequently, Brockway lost political support, ultimately leading to his resignation in 1900.

9.2.3 Twentieth Century Corrections (1930-Present)

During the 1920s, another significant transformation took place in the field of corrections as psychology and rehabilitation became central to penological reform. Instead of solely emphasizing punitive punishment, there was a growing focus on addressing offenders’ psychological or physiological issues. This approach, known as the medical model , advocated for the creation of individual treatment plans for each inmate and facilitated the involvement of professionals in guiding inmates’ rehabilitation toward becoming productive, law-abiding citizens. This rehabilitative approach aligned well with indeterminate sentencing policies and parole practices, leading to widespread adoption of this approach by the federal government and 46 of the 48 states by 1925 (Friedman, 1993).

In the 1940s and 1950s, the medical model and rehabilitative approaches dominated penological philosophies. In 1954, the American Prison Association changed its name to the American Correctional Association, and around this time, it recommended that prisons should be utilized as correctional centers rather than prisons or penitentiaries. However, the arbitrary and discriminatory nature of indeterminate sentencing policies and parole release during this period resulted in increasing prison sentence lengths rather than their reduction (Rotman, 1995). Furthermore, several therapeutic and counseling approaches encountered challenges due to inadequate program implementation and the involvement of unqualified staff. For instance, counseling sessions were often led by correctional officers who lacked the necessary qualifications for therapeutic treatment (Blomberg & Lucking, 2010).

By the 1960s, support for individual treatment and rehabilitation correctional approaches began to wane. Following the scathing 1967 report by the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice , which highlighted the futile and degrading environment in U.S. prisons, it became evident that a new approach to corrections was necessary (Rotman, 1995).

In addition to concerns about the improbability of achieving complete rehabilitation through isolating inmates from society, rising crime rates and prison overpopulation began to emerge as significant issues. To address some of the shortcomings of the medical model, prisons initiated a transition in their rehabilitation philosophy to a community corrections approach.

At the onset of the criminal justice process, the community corrections approach prioritized diverting offenders to community programs and parole to mitigate stigmatization and overly punitive punishments. Meanwhile, during the subsequent stages of the criminal justice process, the community corrections strategy focused on the reintegration of inmates. This involved promoting vocational training and higher education programs within prisons, which garnered public support as crucial tools for facilitating inmates’ successful reintegration into society.

The correctional system also began to implement more intermediate sanctions , such as halfway houses, work release programs, and house arrest, to deal with individuals who committed less serious crimes. Prior to the adoption of these intermediate sanctions, the criminal justice system was constrained to an “all or nothing” approach, forced to choose between incarcerating the offender or issuing no punishment whatsoever. Although one of the primary goals of intermediate sanctions was to lower the prison population, it inadvertently led to an increase, placing substantial strain on the correctional system.

By the 1980s, rising crime rates, popular punitivism [/GL:], political factors, and concerns over discrimination and subjectivity inherent in indeterminate sentencing and parole boards prompted a shift in penological approach from the community corrections model to the crime control approach . In 1982, President Ronald Reagan declared a War on Crime, advocating for the U.S. to combat this perceived threat with overly punitive sanctions, the elimination of indeterminate sentences, the implementation of mandatory minimums, and the construction of more prisons.

The emerging penological crime control approach, grounded in incapacitation, deterrence, and retribution philosophies, dismissed rehabilitative efforts as futile and deemed them an inefficient allocation of fiscal resources. While U.S. incarceration rates remained stable at around 100 per 100,000 between 1920 and 1970, by 1980, the rate had risen to 221 per 100,000, and by 2008, it had soared to 762 per 100,000 (Western & Pettit, 2010). Problematically, this approach contributed to the issue of mass incarceration , resulting in a 700% increase over a 40-year span. Figure 9.9 below demonstrates this drastic increase in incarcerations rates among both federal and state prisons between 1978 and 2009.

Figure 9.9

Number of Prisoners Under State or Federal Correctional Authorities by Year

The surge in incarceration rates in the U.S. during the early 21st century presented significant challenges, with roughly 1 in every 100 American adults incarcerated in either jail or prison by 2008 (Pew Charitable Trusts, 2008). Despite accounting for only about 5% of the global population during this period, the U.S. accounted for a staggering 25% of the world’s prison population (Committee on Causes and Consequences of High Rates of Incarceration et al., 2014). The rapid increase in incarceration rates led to significant challenges, including prison overcrowding, which forced states to embark on construction of more prisons. The rising costs associated with constructing new prison facilities and accommodating the growing inmate population began to strain state resources. State expenditures on corrections skyrocketed by 257% between 1982 (amounting to $15 billion) and 2010 (reaching $53.5 billion) (Kyckelhahn, 2012). However, the onset of the Great Recession in 2008 compelled states to make deep budget cuts, with reductions in corrections spending becoming a primary focus. Additionally, factors such as declining crime rates and a shift away from excessively punitive drug sentencing also contributed to the decrease in corrections expenditures by 2010.

9.2.4 Women In Prison

Historically, both women and men faced similar punishments such as public shaming, whipping, hanging, and burning at the stake (Cooper, 1993). However, women often endured harsher penalties for non-violent offenses, particularly those that contravened societal norms of sexuality (Belknap, 2007). Throughout the Middle Ages and Colonial America, women consistently faced disproportionately severe punishments compared to men for offenses such as adultery and other sexual transgressions (Feinman, 1983).

As the U.S. transitioned towards the use of incarceration as a form of punishment in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, influential figures like Benjamin Rush, a leader of the penitentiary movement, contended that imprisoning women was unnecessary, as they were not seen as posing a significant threat to society (Kann, 2005). Additionally, there was a prevailing belief that there would be low numbers of female prisoners, leading to impractical staff-to-inmate ratios in all-female prisons. These entrenched sexist beliefs resulted in women being incarcerated alongside men in the same facilities. Prior to the American Civil War, only one prison separated female inmates from male correctional facilities: the Mount Pleasant Female Prison, established in New York State in 1839 (Friedman, 1993).

It was only in the late 19th century that the Eastern United States began the practice of separating female inmates from male correctional institutions, while it took until the 20th century for the Western United States to adopt this approach (Belknap, 2007). During the 19th and early 20th centuries, incarcerated women endured appalling treatment in prisons, often subjected to sexual exploitation by male staff and typically forced to perform menial tasks such as cooking for inmates, cleaning the facility, and mending male prisoners’ clothing and bedsheets (Butler, 1999; Cooper, 1993). Between the 1920s and 1970s, women prisoners were compelled to acquire skills perceived as gender-specific. Furthermore, these rehabilitation initiatives were marred by sexism and discrimination, as white women were coerced into conforming to traditional gender roles as “proper ladies,” while Black women were often segregated and assigned to perform menial labor tasks (Collins, 1997). Unfortunately, the skills imparted to incarcerated women—like cooking, cleaning, sewing, and conforming to gender stereotypes—failed to equip them with any tools necessary for attaining financial independence after release.

Figure 9.10

Historically, the majority of incarcerated women were imprisoned for non-violent offenses such as prostitution, crimes against chastity, and theft. Female incarceration rates remained relatively low until the 1970s when the United States initiated the War on Drugs . This campaign significantly contributed to the surge in female incarceration rates, and between 1980 and 2010, the rate of female incarceration increased 699%, which is twice the growth rate observed in male incarceration during the same period (Monazzam & Budd, 2023). Although incarceration rates declined during 2010 and 2021, the number of incarcerated women in 2021 remained 525% higher than it was in 1980. Today, incarcerated women are often overlooked and typically have disproportionate access to correctional programs compared to their male counterparts.

9.3 Modern Jails and Prisons

Although people often use the term jails and prisons interchangeably, they actually serve different purposes. Jails primarily serve two primary functions. First, they act as short-term holding facilities for individuals who have recently been arrested or are awaiting trial. Second, jails are used to incarcerate individuals who have been sentenced for misdemeanors and less serious crimes for periods typically lasting less than a year. In contrast, prisons are utilized to punish offenders who have committed more serious crimes, usually with sentences exceeding one year.

Figure 9.11

The Old Licking County Jail and Sheriff’s Residence in Newark, Ohio

9.3.1 Jails

Most jail jurisdictions operate at the county level, where they are overseen by the elected sheriff. However, some jails are under the authority of police chiefs, county or city administrators, the state, or are privately operated. While jails primarily operate as housing inmates convicted of minor crimes, they also serve as holding facilities for persons awaiting trial, conviction, or sentencing. Additionally, jails accommodate individuals on probation or parole, absconders, and bail violators. In certain cases, jails may also detain juveniles or individuals with mental illness until they can be transferred to the appropriate facility. Furthermore, jails play a role in housing persons for the U.S. Marshals Service and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agencies.

In some instances, counties, especially those with small populations, may opt to utilize regional jails . Regional jails are often employed as cost-saving measures. For example, two neighboring counties with low populations may decide to combine financial resources to create a single jail larger, more efficient, and capable of offering more programs than two smaller, separate jails. However, one issue with regional jails is when there becomes ideological conflict between the two counties on how the jail should operate and how resources should be utilized.

9.3.1.1 Jail Inmate Demographics

At the end of the year 2021, local jails held 636,300 individuals (Zeng, 2022). Of these, 29% were either convicted and serving their sentence or awaiting sentencing from the court, while the remaining 71% had not been convicted and were awaiting trial or held for other reasons, such as civil infractions. Zeng (2023) estimated that in 2022, 76% of all jailed inmates were held for felony offenses, which was a higher percentage compared to 69% during 2017. However, the average daily population of jail inmates held for felonies in 2017 was similar to that in 2022, suggesting that the percentage change was due to a reduction in individuals held for misdemeanor charges. Policy changes, such as the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana, the elimination of bail, shifting social perspectives on mental illness, and even the impact of a major current event, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, could be factors contributing to the decrease in incarceration of misdemeanor offenders.

As demonstrated on Figure 9.12 below, the racial and ethnic composition of jailed individuals in 2022 was 48% White, 35% Black, 14% Hispanic, 1% Asian, and 1% Native American or Alaska Native (Zeng, 2023). These proportions have remained relatively consistent over the previous decade. When compared to the overall demographic distribution of the total U.S. population, it is evident that Black Americans are disproportionately represented in the U.S. Jail system. For example, Black U.S. residents are jailed at a rate 3.4 times higher than that of White U.S. residents.

Figure 9.12

In 2022, the majority, comprising 62%, of the jailed population fell within the age range of 25 and 44 years old. Moreover, men constituted the vast majority of the jail population, at 86%, while women comprised only 14% (Zeng, 2023). Although there remains a significant discrepancy between the percentage of men and women incarcerated in jails, this disparity has continued to gradually narrow over the past four decades.

9.3.1.2 Issues with Jail Management

Insufficient resources often poses challenges for jail management. Many jail facilities encounter constraints such as limited space, which substantially hampers staff’s ability to implement more comprehensive risk-assessment classification structures, similar to those commonly utilized by prisons. These limitations can lead to potential issues, particularly when segregating special populations or effectively managing rival gangs. Moreover, jails typically lack rehabilitation and reintegration programs compared to prisons. This deficiency stems from resource constraints and the short duration of inmate stays, which averaged 33 days in 2021 (Zeng, 2022).

9.3.1.2.1 Mental Illness Among Jail Inmates

One of the most prominent issues affecting Jails in the late 20th and early 21st centuries is the high number of inmates dealing with mental illness. While the incarceration of mentally ill individuals has always been a concern in both jails and prison, it wasn’t until the onset of deinstitutionalization of mental hospitals in the 1950s that jails began to encounter significant difficulties with an influx of persons with mental illness (Torrey et al., 2010). Major medical advancements in antipsychotic drugs in the 1960s and 70s provided individuals with the alternative opportunity to remain in society rather than being institutionalized in mental hospitals, thereby reducing the need for occupancy. Subsequently, states quickly recognized the cost-effectiveness of reducing the number of mental hospital beds, leading to a significant shift in the management and availability of mental health care. Politicians such as Ronald Reagan and Goodwin Knight advocated for the closure of mental hospitals around the 1960s and 1970s, accelerating deinstitutionalization, which gained momentum in the 1980s (Torrey et al., 2010). By 1994, only 12% of the estimated 560,000 state-operated mental hospital beds in 1955 remained open.

In the 1980s and 1990s, it became evident that while deinstitutionalization was initially well-intentioned, it was poorly planned and executed. The lack of available resources and beds in mental hospitals left few alternatives, forcing communities to rely on jails and prisons to manage individuals with mental illness, thereby transitioning mental illness from a public health concern into a criminal issue. Current reports indicate that 26%—or 1 in 4—jailed inmates meet the threshold for serious psychological distress (Bronson & Berzofsky, 2017), a rate 420% higher than the general population. Additionally, only 36% of jailed inmates showed no signs of mental health problems. At present, jails and prisons detain more mentally ill individuals than both private and public mental hospitals combined. While all states incarcerate a greater number of seriously mentally ill individuals compared to those housed in mental hospitals, states like Texas and Nevada incarcerate eight to 10 times the number of seriously mentally ill people compared to those housed in mental hospitals (Torrey et al., 2010). Unfortunately, despite the obvious need among their inmate population, as of 2019, only 26% of all U.S. local jails provided any mental health or psychiatric services (Zeng & Minton, 2021).

9.3.1.2.2 Drug and Alcohol Abuse Among Jail Inmates

Drugs have presented a significant challenge in the criminal justice system for centuries. According to the 2007-2009 National Inmate Survey, 60% of female inmates and 54% of male inmates reported drug use in the month preceding their current offense (Bronson et al., 2017). Based on the DSM-IV criteria used by psychologists, it was found that 72% of female sentenced jail inmates and 62% of male sentenced jail inmates met the criteria of drug dependence or abuse, a rate 15 times higher than that of the general public not under correctional supervision. Problematically, only 17% of local U.S. jails offered drug treatment services, with 16% of these services specific to alcohol treatment, thus, overlooking the need for other drug treatment and rehabilitation services (Zeng & Minton, 2021).

Preexisting drug dependency and addiction issues among inmates persist upon incarceration, leading to a demand for illegal drugs within jail facilities. Due to the heightened difficulty of accessing drugs in jail, they are often sold at significantly inflated prices. This increased value incentivizes inmates to resort to various methods to smuggle drugs into the facility. Creative approaches include enlisting outsiders to use drones for drop drugs or soaking letters in substances like LSD or fentanyl. The presence of drugs in jail environments can worsen inmate behavior issues, compromise facility security, and elevate the risk of violence, homicide, and overdoses among inmates.

9.3.1.2.3 Jail Inmate Mortality Rates

Effective management of inmate mortality within jails presents a significant challenge for both jail staff and administration. In 2019, a total of 1,200 inmate deaths occurred in local jails (Carson, 2021). Among these fatalities, suicide was the leading cause, responsible for 30% of deaths, emphasizing the critical need for mental health support and suicide prevention measures within correctional facilities. Other illnesses, constituting 26%, and heart disease, comprising 25%, collectively accounted for over half of all inmate deaths, highlighting the importance of providing adequate healthcare services and addressing underlying health conditions among incarcerated individuals. Additionally, drug and alcohol intoxications accounted for 15% of inmate mortality, signaling the necessity for substance abuse treatment and prevention programs within jails. Accidents and homicide each contributed 2% to the total deaths, underlining the ongoing importance of safety protocols and security measures within jail environments. This breakdown of inmate mortality statistics underscores the multifaceted challenges faced by jail facilities in ensuring the well-being and safety of incarcerated individuals.

9.3.1.2.4 Improving Jail Management

It is crucial for jail staff and administrators to prioritize the safety and well-being of inmates, in addition to safeguarding society and themselves. Identifying inmates with drug abuse issues, mental illness, gang affiliation, or suicidal tendencies is essential for maintaining jail safety. Typically, these issues are identified during the initial screening process, which involves fingerprinting, photographing, and inventorying the individual’s personal belongings, as well as conducting pat-downs or body searches. Officers are also responsible for conducting medical screenings, which include questionnaires about the inmate’s physical and mental health. This initial assessment helps officers understand the inmates’ basic risks and needs. If an inmate is experiencing mental health issues, they are referred to the jail’s mental health professional to assess their needs. In instances where a new inmate is dependent on drugs or alcohol, staff must devise a strategy to support them through the detoxification process. It is essential to recognize that individuals addicted to substances such as alcohol or heroin face a risk of death during detoxification while incarcerated. To mitigate this risk, the jail may administer medication to help the individual safely taper off these addictive substances.

Figure 9.13

9.4 Prisons

Unlike jails, which typically house individuals for shorter periods, prisons are designed to accommodate longer-term sentences. Within the realm of prisons, there exists a spectrum of facilities, including state-operated, federally managed, and privately operated institutions. Additionally, military prisons cater specifically to criminal offenses committed by members of the armed forces. Over time, prisons have developed diverse structures to meet the varying security needs and inmate populations they serve. This includes the classification of prisons into different security levels, such as minimum, medium, maximum, and super-maximum security, each tailored to address the unique threat levels posed by incarcerated individuals. These distinctions play a critical role in managing and maintaining security within the prison system while also ensuring the safety of both inmates and staff.

9.4.1 Prison Types

Prisons serve as crucial components of the criminal justice system, designed to confine individuals convicted of serious offenses for varying lengths of time. Within the prison landscape, there exist diverse types of facilities, each with its own distinct characteristics and operational frameworks. These encompass state-run institutions, federally operated facilities, and privately managed prisons, each playing a unique role in the incarceration process. Additionally, military prisons cater to the specific needs of armed forces personnel who commit criminal acts. Understanding the differences among these prison types is essential for comprehending the complexities of the corrections system and its impact on both inmates and society at large.

9.4.1.1 State Prisons

State prisons accommodate the majority of incarcerated individuals within the United States. In 2022, out of the total 1,230,143 prison inmates, 1,070,834 (87%) were housed in state prisons (Carson & Kluckow, 2023). While the oversight of each state’s prison system falls under the purview of the respective state’s executive branch, the organizational structures of these systems can vary. At the helm of each prison facility is a Warden or Superintendent , who assumes responsibility for its overall operations. Supporting the Warden or Superintendent are multiple Deputy Wardens or Assistant Superintendents, each tasked with overseeing specific divisions such as management, custody, programs, and industry. These divisions comprise both program personnel , responsible for implementing various rehabilitative programs, and custody personnel , including correctional officers tasked with maintaining security within the facility.

Since its peak in 2009, the overall prison population has experienced a significant decline. However, between 2021 and 2022, there was a notable uptick in state prison populations, with a 2% increase observed across 42 states (Carson & Kluckow, 2023). As illustrated in Figure 9.14 below, males constituted the overwhelming majority, comprising 93% of the state prison population, while females made up only 7%. The racial and ethnic composition of the inmate population was diverse, with 36% identifying as Black, 34% as White, 26% as Hispanic, and smaller proportions identifying as Asian or Native American/Alaska Native, as demonstrated in Figure 9.14.

Figure 9.14

Among state inmates, the primary offenses leading to incarceration were violent crimes, constituting 63% of convictions (Carson, 2022), as depicted in Figure 9.14. These offenses encompassed a range of serious acts, including murder, manslaughter, assault, rape, and robbery. Property crimes and drug offenses were the next most common types of offenses, each accounting for 13% of convictions. Property crimes involve offenses such as theft, burglary, and vandalism, while drug offenses encompass drug possession, trafficking, and related offenses. Public order crimes, including DUI/DWI and weapon charges, constituted the remaining percentage of convictions.

Furthermore, a demographic breakdown of state inmates in 2021 (Carson, 2022) revealed that 93% were male and only 7% were female, as illustrated in Figure 9.14. Findings regarding the ethnic composition of state inmates showed that 36% were Black, 34% were White, 26% were Hispanic, 2% were Asian, and 2% were American Indian/Alaska Native. Additionally, 91% of the inmates were under the age of 60. Within this age range, individuals in their 30s comprised the largest proportion at 32%, followed by those in their 40s at 23%, and those aged 18-29 at 21%. These statistics provide insights into the demographic composition and nature of offenses among state prison populations, highlighting the ongoing challenges and complexities within the criminal justice system.

9.4.1.2 Federal Prisons

Federal prisons are funded by the federal government and operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. As of the end of 2022, federal prisons housed 159,309 individuals, constituting 13% of the total U.S. prison population (Carson & Kluckow, 2023). Inmates in federal prisons have been convicted of federal crimes and originate from diverse regions, including various states across the nation and other countries. Notably, the demographic and offense characteristics of federal prisoners often considerably differ from those in state prisons, as illustrated in Figure 9.15.

Figure 9.15

A significant proportion of federal inmates, as depicted in Figure 9.15, are incarcerated for drug crimes, accounting for 47% of convictions among the federal prison population (Carson, 2022). This statistics underscore the prevalence of drug-related offenses within the federal correctional system, highlighting the importance of addressing substance abuse and implementing effective rehabilitation programs. Public order crimes represent the next highest category at 42%, followed by violent crimes at 8%, and property crimes at 4%.

Interestingly, federal inmates tend to have a slightly higher average age compared to those in state prisons (Carson, 2022). The largest age cohort among federal corrections facilities is individuals aged 30-39, comprising 32% of the total inmate population. Following this, individuals aged 40-49 make up 23% of the population. The next largest age group consists of individuals aged 18-29, accounting for 21% of federal inmates. Those aged 50-59 represent 15% of the inmate population, while individuals aged 60 or older constitute 9%. These age distributions provide insights into the demographic composition of federal inmates, indicating the need for age-specific programming and healthcare services within federal correctional facilities.

Similar to state prisons, the racial and ethnic composition of federal inmates is diverse (Carson, 2022). Black inmates comprise the largest proportion at 36%, followed closely by Hispanic and White inmates, each at 30%. Additionally, Asian and American Indian/Alaska Native inmates each account for 2% of the federal prison population. Moreover, consistent with state prisons, females represent a small percentage, comprising only 7% of federal inmates, while males constitute the overwhelming majority at 93%. These inmate demographics provide valuable insights into the characteristics of individuals within the federal correctional system and underscore the need for tailored interventions and policies to address the diverse needs of incarcerated individuals at the federal level.

9.4.2 Prison Structures

Prison design structures are integral components of correctional facilities, strategically engineered to address security needs and facilitate the management of incarcerated populations. These structures encompass a variety of architectural layouts and features tailored to different security levels and operational requirements. As illustrated in Figure 9.16, the notable prison designs are radial, telephone-pole, courtyard, campus, and panopticon layouts. Each design structure serves specific security and operational objectives, reflecting the evolving approaches to incarceration and rehabilitation within the corrections system. Understanding these design concepts is integral to effective prison management and the promotion of safety and security within correctional facilities.

Figure 9.16

9.4.2.1 Radial Design

The radial design was a prevalent architectural approach in 19th-century prisons, with notable examples including Pennsylvania’s Eastern Penitentiary, as depicted in Figure 9.16 above. This design aimed to enhance efficiency in surveillance and control within correctional facilities. Characterized by a central control center resembling a hub, multiple cell blocks extended outward like spokes on a wheel, providing unobstructed views for officers stationed in the control center. Additionally, this layout enabled officers to isolate specific units from the rest of the facility without necessitating a lockdown of the entire penitentiary. However, despite its advantages, the radial design posed challenges such as potential congestion during inmate movement and privacy concerns among inmates. Furthermore, this design presented obstacles to the implementation of rehabilitation programs within the facility.

9.4.2.2 Telephone-Pole Design

As depicted in Figure 9.16 above, the telephone-pole design features a long central corridor intersecting all cross sections of the facility, allowing for direct observation and quick response by staff. Each cross section serves a distinct purpose, such as housing, classrooms, or industries. This layout facilitates continuous surveillance by officers patrolling the central corridor, although it requires a larger staff compared to the radial design. Despite this, officers can isolate specific sections without disrupting overall operations. Moreover, the design minimizes congestion issues, making it particularly suitable for maximum-security institutions focused on maintaining custody and order.

9.4.2.3 Courtyard Design

As shown in Figure 9.16, the courtyard design is characterized by buildings arranged around a spacious central open area, typically in a square or rectangular configuration. Unlike layouts where all inmate movement occurs indoors, the courtyard design allows inmates to traverse from one unit to another through the central courtyard. Additionally, this open space serves as an area for outdoor recreational and social activities for inmates. The design incorporates open spaces within cell blocks, fostering natural light and outdoor access for inmates while maintaining security. By providing ample access to natural light and fresh air, the courtyard design creates a more humane prison environment. Furthermore, the courtyard design offers flexibility to accommodate various security levels within the facility.

9.4.2.4 Campus Design

The Campus design resembling college campuses, features decentralized facilities and shared common areas, promoting a less restrictive environment and fostering a sense of community conducive to rehabilitation within the prison environment. This design is commonly utilized in minimum-security units and juvenile detention centers, prioritizing rehabilitation and community-building. Illustrated in Figure 9.16 above, this layout comprises multiple buildings spread across a spacious area, facilitating a sense of camaraderie while maintaining security and control. Moreover, campus designs afford inmates greater freedom and fewer restrictions compared to other layouts.

Figure 9.17

9.4.2.5 Panopticon

The panopticon is a prison architectural concept developed by the 18th-century English philosopher and social theorist Jeremy Bentham (1791), heavily influenced by deterrence theory. The term “panopticon” is derived from the Greek words “pan,” meaning all or everything, and “opticon,” meaning observe or see. As illustrated in Figure 9.17, the design features a centralized surveillance and control tower, enabling a single officer to visually monitor all inmates. Surrounding the central tower are multiple tiers of inmate cells, each equipped with either windows or barred doors, allowing the officer in the control tower to maintain constant visual contact with the inmates while remaining unseen. The fundamental principle behind the panopticon design was that the mere perception of being under constant observation would deter inmates from engaging in misconduct. However, challenges such as construction and maintenance difficulties, psychological effects resulting from continuous surveillance, and a shift towards rehabilitation-focused approaches have led to a decline in the popularity of panopticon designs in penitentiaries.

9.4.3 Prison Security Levels

Federal and state prison systems employ various security levels to address the diverse needs and risks associated with incarcerated individuals. Both risk assessments and needs assessments play crucial roles in determining the security level and program placement of new inmates, topics that will be discussed in more detail in the following chapter. Security level placement is based on a multitude of factors, including criminal history, behavior during incarceration, escape risk, gang affiliation, and history of violent behavior, among other considerations. Accurately classifying inmates into appropriate security levels enhances safety for both staff and inmates, while also improving the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs and operational efficiency.

9.4.3.1 Minimum-Security Prisons

Minimum-security prisons , often referred to as “camps,” house inmates considered to pose the lowest risk to public safety. These facilities are characterized by a relatively relaxed environment, with fewer security measures and more freedom of movement among inmates compared to facilities with median and maximum-security levels. Typically, the staff-to-inmate ratio is lower compared to more secure facilities, reflecting the lower risks posed by the inmates (Federal Bureau of Prisons, n.d.). Rehabilitation and reintegration services, such as education, vocational training, and work release programs, are commonly offered. Inmates must meet specific eligibility criteria to be housed in minimum-security facilities. While some low-risk inmates are placed in minimum-security prisons upon entry, others must demonstrate good behavior during incarceration, have a low risk for violence or escape, or be nearing the end of their sentence and capable of benefiting from rehabilitation programs and the gradual transition to independence.

9.4.3.2 Medium-Security Prisons

Medium-security prisons are designed to accommodate inmates who pose a moderate risk to the public safety, prison staff, or other inmates.These facilities implement stricter security measures compared to minimum-security prisons but maintain a level of restriction lower than that of maximum-security facilities. In medium-security facilities, a highly structured daily routine is enforced, allocating specific times for meals, recreation, work, education, and other activities. Additionally, movement within the facility is strictly regulated to uphold order and security. Although rehabilitation and other programs remain integral components of medium-security facilities, the emphasis on security and safety is heightened compared to minimum-security facilities due to the moderate risk level. Consequently, medium-security facilities typically maintain a higher staff-to-inmate ratio than minimum security facilities to ensure effective supervision and safety measures.

9.4.3.3 Maximum-Security Prisons

Maximum-security prisons, also known as closed security prisons, are highly secure facilities designed to hold inmates who pose an exceptionally high risk to public safety, correctional staff, or other inmates. These facilities feature stringent perimeter security, often characterized by imposing stone or concrete walls, guard towers, and razor wire fencing, all aimed at preventing escape and deterring any violent incidents within the premises. Inmates spend the majority of their time confined to individual secure cells, with minimal contact with the outside world. This includes restricted visitation rights, limited phone calls, and moderated postal mail privileges. Compared to lower security facilities, maximum-security prisons usually maintain a higher staff-to-inmate ratio to ensure safety and security (Federal Bureau of Prisons, n.d.). However, this strong focus on safety and security significantly curtails inmates’ opportunities to access rehabilitation programs.

9.4.3.4 Supermax Prisons

While a maximum-security prison represents the highest security level in many states, several states and the federal government operate supermax prisons . Also known as administrative maximum units, these facilities were constructed to house the most notorious and dangerous criminals. The primary objective of supermax prisons is incapacitation, with inmates residing in single-cell units where they endure isolation for 23 or even 24 hours a day, substantially hindering rehabilitation program opportunities. Additionally, supermax prisons typically maintain a significantly high staff-to-inmate ratio resulting from the prioritization of security measures in these facilities (U.S. Department of Justice, 2007).

9.4.4 Issues with Prison Management

Effective prison management presents a myriad of complex challenges involved in properly addressing the wide-ranging needs of a highly diverse inmate population. Neglecting the needs of these populations can lead to exacerbated health issues, an increased risk of victimization, and challenges in rehabilitation efforts. To address these issues, comprehensive policies, programs, strategies, and interventions tailored to the unique needs of each population are essential. These efforts must prioritize safety, support, and rehabilitation for all inmates while implementing proactive measures to maintain a secure and humane prison environment.

9.4.4.1 Prison Gangs

Prison gangs create a hostile and dangerous environment within correctional facilities, which can significantly disrupt facility operations and functionality. The existence of prison gangs during the 20th century is subject to debate, however, the first officially recognized U.S. prison gang was the Gypsy Jokers, established in 1950 in Washington State prisons (Orlando-Morningstar, 1997). Subsequently, other gangs such as the Mexican Mafia, originating in 1957, and Texas Syndicates, founded in 1958, began to emerge in prisons around the country. The proliferation of prison gangs by the 1970s and 1980s prompted the Criminal Justice Institute to commission a national study on prison gangs and their impact on correctional operations (Camp, 1985).

Currently, there are numerous prison gangs, each characterized by its unique culture and set of rules. Men’s prison gangs typically adhere to a hierarchical structure comprising members from a single race or ethnicity (Pyrooz et al., 2011). The presence of prison gangs represents a major concern as it undermines safety and security within correctional facilities. These gangs frequently engage in various illicit activities, including violence, drug trafficking, and extortion, both within correctional facilities and beyond, thereby posing a significant threat to both staff and inmates. To mitigate conflicts between gangs, prison administrators and staff often implement measures to keep rival gangs segregated, ensuring that members of one gang are not in proximity to members of rival gangs. According to the National Drug Intelligence Center (2008), some of the largest national prison gangs include the Aryan Brotherhood, Ñeta, Sureños, and Norteños.

The Aryan Brotherhood (AB), predominantly composed of Caucasian males, is most active in the Southwest and Pacific regions (National Drug intelligence Center, 2008). The AB primarily funds its operations through the smuggling and sale of drugs, including methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, and marijuana. Notoriously violent, the AB is also known to engage in murder-for-hire operations within correctional facilities.

Ñeta, a gang originating in Puerto Rico, has expanded its presence into correctional facilities across the U.S. (National Drug intelligence Center, 2008). As one of the largest and most violent gangs, Ñeta generates revenue through the sale and distribution of powder and crack cocaine, heroin, marijuana, as well as LSD, MDMA, and PCP. While inmates who join Ñeta while incarcerated are not obligated to maintain their membership upon release, Ñeta street gangs do exist throughout the East Coast of the United States.

Figure 9.19

The Sureños (Southerners), pictured in Figure 9.19 above, and Norteños (Northerners) are branches of the Mexican Mafia. In the mid-20th century, divisions within the Mexican Mafia led to the emergence of the Sureños (Southerners) and Norteños (Northerners). Around this time, members of the Mexican Mafia in Southern California began to perceive their Northern California counterparts as weak, the majority of whom hailed from rural, agricultural areas. Consequently, around the 1960s, these Southern members separated themselves from the Mexican Mafia, forming the Sureños faction. Soon after, the Norteños emerged as a distinct gang. Despite their common origin, the Sureños and Norteños are sworn enemies. Both gangs heavily enforce a “fight on sight” policy, requiring intensive physical altercation with any members of their rival gang upon initial encounter. This mandated aggression necessitates correctional facilities to employ heightened security measures, compelling their separation to prevent conflict. Moreover, both gangs are deeply involved in drug trafficking, including substances such as cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamines. Unfortunately, the influence of these gangs transcends beyond correctional facilities, with operations infiltrating and negatively impacting communities along the West Coast (National Drug intelligence Center, 2008).

Please visit the U.S. Department of Justice’s page on National-Level Street, Prison, and Outlaw Motorcycle Gang Profiles for more information on national and regional prison gangs, such as the Black Guerrilla Family and Texas Syndicate.

9.4.4.2 Pseudo-Families

Inmate culture within women prison facilities differs significantly from that of male prisons. One notable distinction is the reduced emphasis on race within women’s prisons compared to men’s facilities, where racial dynamics play a lesser role in social interactions among female inmates (Owen, 1998). Instead of forming large, violent gangs like their male counterparts, female inmates often establish pseudo-families, also known as prison-based kinship networks (Belknap, 2007). These pseudo-families typically consist of two inmates assuming parental roles, which tend to be occupied by elder inmates with more extensive prison experience (Dillavou et al., 2022). It’s important to note that the relationships between the parental figures within pseudo-families are not romantic or sexual in nature (Belknap, 2007). In addition to parental figures, pseudo-families also encompass inmates who adopt a more childlike role, often assumed by younger individuals with limited experience with the prison system. The prevalence and nature of pseudo-families are subjects of ongoing debate, with discussions revolving around whether they serve as consensual support structures to cope with familial loss during incarceration or if they emerge as non-consensual arrangements driven by coercion and the need for protection (Dillavou et al., 2022).

9.4.4.3 Vulnerable Inmate Populations

Within correctional facilities, certain inmate populations face elevated levels of risk and vulnerability, necessitating increased attention and support. These vulnerable groups comprise a diverse range of individuals, including the elderly, individuals with mental illness, those with disabilities, and transgender inmates, among others. Each of these populations encounters unique challenges and risks while incarcerated, ranging from heightened susceptibility to victimization, such as physical assault, sexual abuse, and mental health issues, including suicide. Moverover, they can experience limited access to essential healthcare and support services, particularly in correctional facilities with limited resources.

Addressing the safety and well-being of these individuals poses significant challenges for prison administrators and staff, requiring them to navigate complex issues related to security, healthcare, and social support. Effectively meeting the unique needs of vulnerable inmate populations necessitates comprehensive policies that prioritizes safety, well-being, and access to appropriate resources and services, along with specialized training for staff. However, doing so while upholding inmates’ rights and dignity requires careful consideration of logistical and ethical concerns. Balancing security imperatives with the provision of compassionate care and support remains an ongoing challenge in ensuring the fair treatment and protection of all inmates within correctional environments. Furthermore, fostering a culture of respect, inclusivity, and support is crucial for creating a safe and humane environment for all inmates, regardless of their vulnerabilities

9.4.4.3.1 Elderly Inmates

Recent data from the Census Bureau indicates a notable rise in the median age of the U.S. population, reaching 38.9 years—an increase of three and a half years over the past 23 years (Zeng, 2022). Concurrently, the aging trend is even more pronounced within our prison systems, with older adults constituting a growing segment of those arrested and incarcerated annually. This demographic shift in the prison population is attributed to a series of detrimental policy choices spanning approximately the last fifty years, encompassing policing, sentencing, and reentry strategies (Widra, 2023). Moreover, while correctional facilities pose health risks for individuals of all ages, the dangers faced by older adults in these environments are particularly acute, potentially leading to severe consequences, including fatalities.

Older adults, defined as individuals aged 55 and above, are increasingly becoming entangled in various stages of the criminal justice system, including arrests, pretrial detention, and incarceration (Widra, 2023). In the year 2000, only 3% of all adult arrests involved individuals aged 55 or older; however, by 2021, this demographic accounted for 8% of all adult arrests. Recent data on local jails in the United States, covering the period from 2020 to 2021—a time marked by the COVID-19 pandemic, which posed significant risks for older adults—reveals a notable trend. During this period, the proportion of the jail population aged 55 and older expanded by 24%, surpassing the average increase of 15% observed across all other age groups (Zeng, 2022).

Meanwhile, the representation of older individuals within the prison population has surged over the past three decades. Between 1991 and 2021, the percentage of individuals aged 55 or older in state and federal prisons nationwide skyrocketed from 3.4% (Harlow, 1994) to a staggering 15.3% (Zeng, 2022). This trend is even more pronounced when considering individuals serving life sentences: as of 2020, 30% of those serving life sentences were at least 55 years old, with over 61,400 older adults facing the prospect of spending the remainder of their lives behind bars.

Figure 9.20

The perils associated with aging in prison are profound. While prisons are inherently detrimental environments for individuals of any age, the risks are particularly heightened for older adults. Extensive research indicates that incarceration itself hastens the aging process, leading to an increased prevalence of chronic and life-threatening illnesses at an earlier stage of life than would typically occur outside of prison (Kaiksow et al., 2023). Research indicates that incarcerated individuals often exhibit geriatric conditions typically found in non-inmates who are 15 years older (Greene et al., 2018). This encompasses elevated rates of cognitive impairment, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, urinary incontinence, and mobility issues, among others (Kaiksow et al., 2023). The decline in both physical and mental capabilities can lead to various forms of harm, including injury, assault, sexual violence, and even death.

Furthermore, physiological indicators of aging manifest in individuals at younger ages than anticipated. Additionally, a conservative estimate suggests that over 44,000 individuals aged 45 and above experience solitary confinement in state prisons annually, enduring conditions that not only curtail lifespans but also detrimentally impact physical, mental, and emotional well-being (Couloute, 2017). Years of inadequate resources, limited accessibility, and understaffing in prison healthcare exacerbate the situation, resulting in each year spent behind bars equating to a loss of two years in life expectancy for individuals (Widra, 2023). Moreover, the scarcity of healthcare resources within prisons not only compromises the health of older individuals but also proves to be inefficacious and excessively costly.

State and federal governments are allocating increasingly larger sums of money toward healthcare for their expanding populations of older adults. While most studies examining the substantial expenses associated with incarcerating older individuals date back at least a decade, their findings consistently reveal significant financial burdens (Widra, 2023). For instance, the medical care and extra precautions necessary to protect an aging population in jails and prisons costs the prisons two to three times the amount compared non-elderly prisoners (Chettiar et al., 2012). In 2013, the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) dedicated 19% of its total budget—equating to $881 million—to incarcerate older adults (Office of the Inspector General, 2016). During this period, the BOP identified a striking trend: a remarkable 25% surge within just one year in this specific demographic, distinguishing it as the fastest-growing group within the inmate population. This stands in stark contrast to the 1% decline observed in the remainder of incarcerated individuals. This significant transformation signals a notable change in the composition of those behind bars, emphasizing the urgency for focused analysis and interventions to address this evolving landscape.

9.4.4.3.2 Mentally Ill Inmates

When mental health institutions closed in the latter part of the twentieth century, instead of developing much-needed alternative resources or community-based facilities, patients were discharged into society. As Wagner (2000) notes, “Many of the people released from the closed state hospitals are the same people who are now incarcerated in the state prisons” (para. 12). In the absence of adequate community-based mental health services, individuals with mental illnesses often become ensnared in the criminal justice system due to factors such as homelessness, substance abuse, or the inability to access mental health care support services. This trend of closing mental health institutions and expanding correctional facilities persisted into the 21st century. For instance, in 1999, 500 psychiatric hospital beds were eliminated in New York State, while $360 million in state funds were allocated for the construction of two supermax prisons equipped with psychiatric wings (Wagner, 2020).

Therefore, the situation faced by individuals with serious mental illnesses today closely resembles that of individuals with serious mental illnesses in the 1840s—a shortage of psychiatric beds and an abundance of jail and prison cells (Torrey et al., 2010). Consequently, incarceration institutions have effectively become mental health facilities, housing significant numbers of individuals with mental health problems, despite lacking “the capacity to adequately meet the needs of those in their care” (Sawyer, 2017, para. 2). Today, the sizable population of mentally ill prison inmates presents a complex and challenging issue that intersects with various aspects of public health, criminal justice, and human rights.

Correctional facilities are inherently ill-suited for individuals with serious mental illness (Torrey et al., 2010). The complex needs of these individuals extend far beyond the scope of incarceration facilities, and they often lack the essential resources and trained personnel to deliver adequate mental health care (Sawyer, 2017). The confluence of limited resources, overcrowding, and a dearth of specialized staff exacerbates the already deficient mental health services within correctional facilities. As a result, rather than receiving essential treatment in appropriate clinical settings—which are scarce, inadequately funded, or altogether absent—many inmates with mental illness are left untreated.

Research indicates that a substantial proportion of the prison population grapples with mental health disorders, with rates significantly surpassing those observed in the general population (Sawyer, 2017). This underscores the troubling reality that, instead of receiving adequate treatment and care, a considerable number of individuals suffering from mental illness in the U.S. are funneled into the criminal justice system, where they frequently go undiagnosed and untreated.

Housing large populations of mentally ill inmates within incarceration facilities presents several challenges (Torrey et al., 2010). One primary issue is accurately identifying mentally ill inmates. However, due to various factors such as insufficient resources, stigma, and inadequate screening processes and training, many mentally ill inmates may not receive the proper diagnosis and treatment they need. Findings from the 2011-2012 National Inmate Survey (Bronson & Berzofsky, 2017) revealed that “only about a third of those reporting serious psychological distress were currently receiving treatment” (Sawyer, 2017, para. 2). Consequently, many inmates with mental illnesses receive minimal or limited treatment, leading to exacerbated symptoms and heightened suffering.

The challenges associated with the high population of jail and prison inmates with serious mental illness are extensive. As noted by Torrey et al. (2010), “Because of their impaired thinking, many inmates with serious mental illness are major management problems…and difficult to deal with” (p. 12). Untreated mentally ill inmates frequently engage in disruptive behavior, escalating the risk of conflicts and violence within correctional facilities. When they are unable to adhere to facility rules, they are often subjected to punishment, including placement in solitary confinement or segregated housing units, resulting in up to 23 to 24 hours of isolation in their cell (Wagner, 2020). A 2010 audit of three Wisconsin state prisons revealed that 55 to 76% of inmates in segregation were mentally ill (Torrey et al., 2010). Prolonged isolation often exacerbates their conditions and can lead to further deterioration of mental health, an increased risk of self-harm, and even suicide. Despite growing awareness of the harmful effects of solitary confinement, particularly among mentally ill inmates, it remains a widespread practice in many prisons.

Moreover, inmates with serious mental illness tend to experience longer prison stays and have a higher likelihood of returning after release, thereby increasing costs. According to Torrey et al. (2010), “The main reason mentally ill inmates stay longer is that many find it difficult to understand and follow jail and prison rules” (p. 12), leading to a higher probability of violating facility regulations. As the county and state corrections systems operate independently from, and often lack coordination with, the mental health system, the majority of mentally ill individuals leaving jails and prisons often receive minimal to no psychiatric follow-up care, contributing to a higher recidivism rate among mentally ill ex-offenders. Research conducted in Los Angeles County Jail revealed that 90% of mentally ill inmates were repeat offenders, with 31% having experienced incarceration ten times or more (Torrey et al., 2010). In addition to longer incarceration stays and high recidivism rates, mentally ill inmates necessitate more staff, expensive psychiatric examinations and medications, and an increased number of lawsuits, all of which exponentially raise incarceration costs for these offenders.

In addition to the multitude of widespread challenges, mentally ill inmates face heightened vulnerability to violence and abuse within prisons, often being targeted by other inmates or subjected to mistreatment by prison staff (Torrey et al., 2010; Wagner, 2020). Furthermore, inmates suffering from mental illness are at a higher risk of suicide. A study conducted in Washington State in 2002 revealed that 77% of inmates who attempted suicide had a mental illness, compared to 15% among the general jail population (Torrey et al., 2010).

The treatment of mentally ill inmates raises critical legal and ethical considerations. Depriving inmates of adequate mental health care may constitute a violation of their constitutional rights, including the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment (U.S. Const. amend. VIII). Furthermore, neglecting to address the underlying mental health issues of offenders undermines fundamental principles of justice and rehabilitation. Failing to adequately attend to the mental health needs of inmates not only infringes upon their rights but also perpetuates cycles of suffering and recidivism.

The imperative for alternative approaches to addressing the needs of mentally ill offenders is gradually gaining recognition. Overcoming these challenges requires a fundamental transition toward a more humane and rehabilitative approach to criminal justice. This transition entails substantial investments in mental health services, diversion programs, mental health courts, and specialized treatment facilities that provide comprehensive treatment and support services. By diminishing reliance on incarceration as the primary solution, these programs aim to facilitate rehabilitation and societal reintegration. Prioritizing these initiatives can contribute to a justice system that not only addresses the complexities of mental illness but also fosters healthier communities and more effective long-term outcomes.

9.4.4.3.3 Transgender Inmates

Protecting transgender inmates while simultaneously ensuring their equal access to programs has posed a significant challenge for prison administrators. Historically, transgender individuals deemed to be at risk were often segregated during incarceration (Ortlip-Sommers, 2020), which has been found to exacerbate psychological issues and hamper access to rehabilitation programs. Conversely, housing transgender inmates incongruously with the general population often results in ostracization, harassment, and elevated rates of violence, particularly in men’s prisons.

A recurring narrative among incarcerated transgender individuals involves experiencing harassment and disrespect from correctional staff, medical personnel, and other service providers. According to a 2009 survey conducted by the Hearts on a Wire Collective, which focused on incarcerated trans and gender-variant individuals in Pennsylvania, respondents detailed instances of ignorance and mistreatment (Emmer et al., 2011). As illustrated in Figure 9.21, the survey revealed that 64% of respondents encountered medical staff who lacked understanding of their health needs as transgender or gender-variant individuals. Moreover, 80% reported experiencing verbal harassment from staff, with 30% subjected to physical or sexual assault by staff members. Shockingly, 30% of respondents also disclosed that staff either encouraged or allowed cisgender incarcerated individuals to harass or assault them. Furthermore, of those who filed grievances due to harassment, half reported that no action was taken, and 60% experienced retaliation for filing complaints. Additionally, 17% of respondents were prohibited from practicing their religion based on their gender or perceived gender (Oberholtzer, 2017). These findings from Pennsylvania resonate with broader patterns observed in a survey by the National Center for Transgender Equality conducted in 2015, which reported that 20% of transgender individuals incarcerated within the last year experienced physical or sexual assault from correctional staff (James et al., 2015).

Figure 9.21

The 21st century marked significant progress in safeguarding the rights and well-being of transgender inmates, with many state policies tracing their origins back to the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) of 2003. PREA was a sweeping reform aimed at recognizing and mitigating the pervasive sexual abuse occurring in prisons and jails across the country. Although PREA was not specifically tailored for LGBTQ+ inmates, it incorporated provisions intended to safeguard all inmates, irrespective of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

In 2009, the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission identified transgender individuals as particularly vulnerable to assault and violence during incarceration (see U.S. Code on Prison Rape Elimination). Subsequently, in 2012, the DOJ commenced funding initiatives for state, local governments, and tribes aimed at fostering a “zero tolerance” culture in prisons, jails, and other correctional facilities. During this same year, the commission established national standards for preventing sexual assault in prisons in 2012 (National PREA Resource Center, n.d.), incorporating several guidelines specifically targeting transgender concerns as indicated in the list below.

PREA Guidelines (as cited in Oberholtzer, 2017):

• Individuals must be screened upon intake for risk factors for experiencing abuse, including whether they identify as trans.
• When an individual identifies as trans, the facility must assess them on a case-by-case basis to decide housing (i.e. whether they belong in a men’s or women’s facility), and an individual’s views regarding their own safety must be seriously considered in housing decisions.
• Trans people cannot be placed in segregated housing or solitary confinement for their own protection without their consent, or unless it is the only available option.
• Trans people must be given the opportunity to shower separately.
• Correctional staff may not physically search trans people to determine their genital status; all examinations must be conducted by a medical professional as part of a broader medical exam.
• Facilities must train correctional staff in how to search and communicate with trans people respectfully.
• When reviewing an incident of rape or sexual assault, staff must review whether the incident was motivated by various factors including gender identity and/or transgender status.

Despite the strides made in policy changes within jails and prisons over the past 25 years, significant challenges remain for LGBTQ+ individuals in correctional facilities. While there has been some acknowledgment of the unique needs of LGBTQ+ inmates, evidenced by the implementation of nondiscrimination policies and the creation of specific housing units, the persistent issues of harassment, discrimination, and violence underscore the ongoing struggle faced by this population. It is imperative that efforts to address these challenges continue, with a focus on promoting inclusivity, providing comprehensive training for staff, and ensuring access to supportive services for LGBTQ+ individuals within the criminal justice system. Only through sustained commitment and advocacy can meaningful progress be made toward creating safer and more equitable environments for LGBTQ+ individuals in correctional settings.

 

References

Alarcón, A. L., & Mitchell, P. M. (2012). Costs of capital punishment in California: Will voters choose reform this November? [Special issue]. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 46, S1-S36. https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol46/iss1/5/

Barnes, H. E. (1927). The evolution of penology in Pennsylvania: A study in American social history. Bobbs-Merrill.

Beckett, K., & Evans, H. (2016). Race, death, and justice: Capital sentencing in Washington state, 1981-2014. Columbia Journal of Race and Law, 6(2), 77-114. https://doi.org/10.7916/cjrl.v6i2.2314

Belknap, J. (2007). The invisible woman: Gender, crime, and justice (3rd ed.). Cengage Learning.

Bentham, J. (1791). Panopticon: Or, the inspection-house. Containing the idea of a new principle of construction applicable to any sort of establishment, in which persons … are to be kept … and in particular to penitentiary-houses, prisons, … In a series of letters, written in … 1787. Thomas Byrne.

Blomberg, T. G., & Lucken, K. (2010). American penology: A history of control (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Bogel-Burroughs, N. (2024, January 23). After a botched execution, Alabama is trying an untested method. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/23/us/nitrogen-execution-alabama-kenneth-smith.html

Bronson, J., & Berzofsky, M. (2017, June). Indicators of mental health problems reported by prisoners and jail inmates, 2011–12 [Special report]. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/imhprpji1112.pdf

Bronson, J., Stroop, J., Zimmer, S., & Berzofsky, M. (2017). Drug use, dependence, and abuse among state prisoners and jail inmates, 2007–2009. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Budd, K. M. (2024, February 21). Private prisons in the United States. The Sentencing Project. https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/private-prisons-in-the-united-states/

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (n.d.). Frequently requested figures. Corrections Statistical Analysis Tool (CSAT) – Prisoners. Retrieved May 18, 2024, from https://csat.bjs.ojp.gov/freq-requested-charts

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2024, April 17). Correctional officers and bailiffs. Occupational Outlook Handbook, U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved April 27, 2024, from https://www.bls.gov/ooh/protective-service/correctional-officers.htm

Butler, A. M. (1999). Gendered justice in the American West: Women prisoners in men’s penitentiaries. University of Illinois Press.

Camp, C. G. (1985, July). Prison gangs: Their extent, nature, and impact on prisons. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy, Federal Justice Research Program. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/99458NCJRS.pdf

Carson, E. A. (2021, December). Mortality in local jails, 2000–2019—statistical tables. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/mlj0019st.pdf

Carson, E. A. (2022, December). Prisoners in 2021-Statistical tables. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/media/document/p21st.pdf

Carson, E. A., & Kluckow, R. (2023, November). Prisoners in 2022—Statistical tables. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/document/p22st.pdf

Chettiar, I. M., Bunting, W., & Schotter, G. (2012, August). At America’s expense: The mass incarceration of the elderly (Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series, Working Paper No. 12-38; Law & Economics Research Paper Series, Working Paper No. 12-19). New York University School of Law. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2120169

Collins, C. F. (1997). The imprisonment of African American women: Causes, conditions, and future implications. McFarland.

Colvin, M. (1997). Penitentiaries, reformatories, and chain gangs: Social theory and the history of punishment in nineteenth-century America. Springer.

Committee on Causes and Consequences of High Rates of Incarceration, Travis, J. (Ed.), Western, B. (Ed.), Redburn, S. (Ed.), Committee on Law and Justice, & Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring causes and consequences. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18613

Cooper, R., Heldman, C., Ackerman, A. R., & Farrar-Meyers, V. A. (2016). Hidden corporate profits in the U.S. prison system: The unorthodox policy-making of the American Legislative Exchange Council. Contemporary Justice Review, 19(3), 380-400. https://digitalcommons.tacoma.uw.edu/socialwork_pub/440/

Cooper, S. (1993). The evolution of the federal women’s prison. In E. Adelberg & C. Currie (Eds.), In conflict with the law: Women and the Canadian justice system (pp. 33-49). Press Gang Publishers.

Couloute, L. (2017, May 2). Aging alone: Uncovering the risk of solitary confinement for people over 45. Prison Policy Initiative. Retrieved April 28, 2024, from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2017/05/02/aging_alone/

Death Penalty Information Center. (n.d.-a). Exonerations by race. Retrieved April 28, 2024, from https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence/exonerations-by-race

Death Penalty Information Center. (n.d.-b). Methods of execution. Retrieved April 28, 2024, from https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions/methods-of-execution

Death Penalty Information Center. (2016). Facts about the death penalty [Fact sheet]. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/urls_cited/ot2016/16-5247/16-5247-2.pdf

Dillavou, J., Kreager, D. A., Greenfelder, T., & Zhang, Y. (2022). Mothers inside and out? Pseudo-families and motherhood in a women’s prison. Crime & Delinquency, OnlineFirst. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287221083884 CC BY NC.

Eastern State Penitentiary Task Force of the Preservation Coalition of Greater Philadelphia, & Marianna Thomas Architects. (1994, July 21). Eastern State Penitentiary historic structures report: Volume I. Eastern State Penitentiary. https://www.easternstate.org/sites/easternstate/files/inline-files/history-vol1.pdf

Emmer, P., Lowe, A., & Marshall, R. B. (2011). This is a prison, glitter is not allowed: Experiences of trans and gender variant people in Pennsylvania’s prison systems. Hearts on a Wire Collective. https://www.heartsonawire.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/thisisaprison.pdf

Federal Bureau of Prisons. (n.d.). About our facilities. Retrieved May 18, 2024, from https://www.bop.gov/about/facilities/federal_prisons.jsp

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Vintage Books. (Original work published 1975)

Friedman, L. M. (1993). Crime and punishment In American history. Basic Books.

Garrett, B. L. (2020). Wrongful convictions. Annual Review of Criminology, 3, 245-259. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024739

Greene, M., Ahalt, C., Stijacic-Cenzer, I., Metzger, L., & Williams, B. (2018). Older adults in jail: High rates and early onset of geriatric conditions. Health & Justice, 6(3), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-018-0062-9

Gross, S. R., O’Brien, B., Hu, C., & Kennedy, E. H. (2014). Rate of false conviction of criminal defendants who are sentenced to death. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(20), 7230-7235. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1306417111

Harlow, C. W. (1994, September). Comparing federal and state prison inmates, 1991. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cfspi91.pdf

Hart, H. L. A. (1968). Punishment and responsibility: Essays in the philosophy of law. Oxford University Press.

Hershberg, T. (1971-1972, Winter). Free Blacks in antebellum Philadelphia: A study of ex-slaves, freeborn, and socioeconomic decline. Journal of Social History, 5(2), 183-209. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3786411

Hindus, M. S. (2012). Prison and plantation: Crime, justice, and authority in Massachusetts and South Carolina, 1767-1878. University of North Carolina Press.

Holdsworth, W. (1952). A history of English law: Volume XIII. Methuen & Co.

Howell, C. (2016). Convict leasing, justifications, critiques, and the case for reparations. Virginia Tech Undergraduate Historical Review, 5, 56-77. https://doi.org/10.21061/vtuhr.v5i1.41 CC BY.

James, S. E., Herman, J. L., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi, M. (2016). The report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. National Center for Transgender Equality. https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS%20Full%20Report%20-%20FINAL%201.6.17.pdf

Kaiksow, F. A., Brown, L., & Merss, K. B. (2023). Caring for the rapidly aging incarcerated population: The role of policy. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 49(3), 7-11. https://doi.org/10.3928/00989134-20230209-02

Kann, M. E. (2005). Punishment, prisons, and patriarchy. New York University Press.

Kyckelhahn, T. (2012, December). State corrections expenditures, FY 1982-2010. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/scefy8210.pdf

The Law Dictionary. (n.d.). Punishment. In The Law Dictionary. Retrieved May 18, 2024, from https://thelawdictionary.org/punishment/

Maier, W. B. (2018). Prison higher education and recidivism: A matched comparison among AA, vocational training, and non-degree earning inmates [Doctoral dissertation, Washington State University].

Martinson, R. (1974, Spring). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22-54.

Monazzam, N., & Budd, K. M. (2023, March). Incarcerated women and girls [Fact sheet]. The Sentencing Project. https://www.sentencingproject.org/app/uploads/2023/05/Incarcerated-Women-and-Girls-1.pdf

National Drug intelligence Center. (2008, April) Attorney General’s report to Congress on the growth of violent street gangs in suburban areas: Appendix B, national-level street, prison, and outlaw motorcycle gang profiles. U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/pubs27/27612/appendb.htm

National PREA Resource Center. (n.d.). About Prison Rape Elimination Act. Retrieved May 18, 2024, from https://www.prearesourcecenter.org/about/prison-rape-elimination-act

Oberholtzer, E. (2017, November 8). The dismal state of transgender incarceration policies. Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2017/11/08/transgender/

Office of the Inspector General. (2016, February). The impact of an aging inmate population on the Federal Bureau of Prisons. U.S. Department of Justice. (Original work published May 2015). https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2015/e1505.pdf

Orlando-Morningstar, D. (1997). Prison gangs. Special Needs Offenders Bulletin, 2, 1-12. https://www.fjc.gov/content/special-needs-offenders-bulletin-prison-gangs-0

Ortlip-Sommers, S. (2020). Living freely behind bars: Reframing the due process rights of transgender prisoners. Columbia Journal of Gender & Law, 40(3), 355-407. https://doi.org/10.52214/cjgl.v40i3.8599

Oshinsky, D. M. (1997). “Worse than slavery”: Parchman Farm and the ordeal of Jim Crow justice. Free Press.

Owen, B. (1998). In the mix: Struggle and survival in a women’s prison. SUNY Press.

Packer, H. L. (1968). The limits of the criminal sanction. Stanford University Press.

Palmer, T. (1975). Martinson revisited. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 12(2), 133-152. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224278750120020

Pew Charitable Trusts. (2008, February 28). More than one in 100 adults are behind bars, Pew study finds [Press release]. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/about/news-room/press-releases-and-statements/2008/02/28/more-than-one-in-100-adults-are-behind-bars-pew-study-finds

Pierce, G. L., & Radelet, M. L. (2005). Impact of legally inappropriate factors on death sentencing for California homicides, 1990-1999. Santa Clara Law Review, 46(1), 1-47. https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol46/iss1/1

Pierce, G. L., & Radelet, M. L. (2011, Winter). Death sentencing in East Baton Rouge Parish, 1990-2008. Louisiana Law Review, 71(2), 647-673. https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol71/iss2/6/

Pillsbury, S. H. (1989, Fall). Understanding penal reform: The dynamic of change. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 80(3), 726-780. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol80/iss3/3/

Pisciotta, A. W. (1994). Benevolent repression: Social control and the American reformatory-prison movement. NYU Press.

President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. (1967). The challenge of crime in a free society. U.S. Government Printing Office. https://www.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh241/files/archives/ncjrs/42.pdf

Putney, S., & Putney, G. J. (1962, Winter). Origins of the reformatory. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 53(4), 437-445. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol53/iss4/3/

Pyrooz, D., Decker, S., & Fleisher, M. (2011). From the street to the prison, from the prison to the street: Understanding and responding to prison gangs. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 3(1), 12-24. https://doi.org/10.5042/jacpr.2011.0018

Reagan, R. W. (1982, October 2). Radio address to the nation on federal drug policy. Ronald Reagan Presidential Library & Museum. https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/radio-address-nation-federal-drug-policy

Rothman, D. J. (1990). New light on the origins of the asylum. Little Brown & Co.

Rotman, E. (1995). The failure of reform: United States, 1865-1965. In N. Morris & D. J. Rothman (Eds.), The Oxford history of the prison: The practice of punishment in Western society (pp. 169-197). Oxford University Press.

Sawyer, W. (2017, June 22). New government report points to continuing mental health crisis in prisons and jails. Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2017/06/22/mental_health/

Snell, T. L. (2023, November). Capital punishment, 2021—Statistical tables. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/document/cp21st.pdf

Stein, A. (2012). Back on the chain gang: The new/old prison labor paradigm. Journal of Psychohistory, 39(4), 254-260.

Stephan, J. J., & Karberg, J. C. (2003, August). Census of state and federal correctional facilities, 2000. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/csfcf00.pdf

Thibaut, J. (1982). “To pave the way to penitence”: Prisoners and discipline at the Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1835. The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 106(2), 187-222. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20091663

Torrey, E. F., Kennard, A. D., Eslinger, D., Lamb, R., & Pavle, J. (2010, May). More mentally ill persons are in jails and prisons than hospitals: A survey of the states. Treatment Advocacy Center, & National Sheriff’s Association. https://static.prisonpolicy.org/scans/treatment/final_jails_v_hospitals_study.pdf

U.S. Department of Justice. (2007, February 21). Fact sheet: Security at the Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons Administrative Maximum Security facility. https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2007/February/07_opa_104.html

Wagner, P. (2020, April 1). Incarceration is not a solution to mental illness. Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2000/04/01/massdissent/

Western, B., & Pettit, B. (2010, Summer). Incarceration & social inequality. Daedalus, 139(3), 8-19. https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00019

Widra, E. (2023, August 2). The aging prison population: Causes, costs, and consequences. Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2023/08/02/aging/

Wines, E. C. (1873). Report on the International Penitentiary Congress of London, held July 3-13, 1872, to which is appended the second annual report of the National Prison Association of the United States, containing the transactions of the National Prison Reform Congress, held at Baltimore, Maryland, January 21-24, 1873. Government Printing Office. https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=amgUAQAAMAAJ&pg=GBS.PP4&hl=en

Wines, E. C., & Dwight, T. W. (1867). Report on the prisons and reformatories of the United States and Canada, made to the Legislature of New York, January, 1867. Van Benthuysen & Sons. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001745388/Home

Zeng, Z. (2022, December). Jail inmates in 2021-Statistical tables. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/media/document/ji21st.pdf

Zeng, Z. (2023, December). Jail inmates in 2022-Statistical tables. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/document/ji22st.pdf

Zeng, Z., & Minton, T. D. (2021, October). Census of jails, 2005-2019–Statistical tables. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice PRograms, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/media/document/cj0519st.pdf

Young, J. (2011). The criminological imagination. Polity Press.