9.2 Eras and Evolution of Corrections
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.
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 ascapital 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.
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.
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):
- 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;
- to prevent the prison from being a corrupting influence, solitary confinement of all inmates should be practiced;
- in his seclusion the offender was to have an opportunity to reflect on his transgressions so that he might repent;
- solitary confinement is a punishing discipline because man is by nature a social being; and
- 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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Impactful Moments In Criminal Justice: The Nothing Works Doctrine
In 1974, Robert Martinson conducted a comprehensive review of over two hundred studies on prison rehabilitation programs, resulting in one of the most influential criminal justice articles of the 20th century titled “What Works? Questions and Answers about Prison Reform.” Later referred to as the Martinson report, this seminal work concluded that rehabilitation efforts in prisons were largely ineffective, with only a minority of studies demonstrating any significant reduction in recidivism rates. Martinson suggested that while some treatment programs might have had partial success, the overall quality of research was so poor that definitive conclusions were elusive. As Martinson (1974) stated, “It is possible some of our treatment programs are working to some extent, but that our research [the specific studies examined in his study] is so bad that it is incapable of telling” (p. 49).
Although Martinson’s research was inconclusive due to poor research methodologies, the Martinson Report catalyzed the development of the “nothing works doctrine.” This doctrine contended that despite substantial investments in various rehabilitation programs, there was scant evidence supporting their efficacy in reducing recidivism rates. It challenged the prevailing notion that incarceration could be a means of effectively reforming offenders, highlighting the limitations of existing rehabilitation strategies. As a result, it prompted a reevaluation of correctional approaches, leading to policy shifts toward alternative methods of punishment and rehabilitation.
The following year, Ted Palmer (1975) published a rebuttal of Martinson’s report, exposing numerous flaws in the study. However, by then, it was too late; the simplistic notion that “nothing works” had already gained traction, becoming a rallying cry for many politicians eager to tout their "tough on crime" policies as the sole solution to rising crime rates. Throughout the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, this perspective was frequently invoked to undermine the efficacy and value of prison rehabilitation programs while bolstering the argument that prisons should solely serve retributive and deterrent purposes. Remarkably, the Martinson report was even cited twenty years later by Congress as rationale for excluding all state and federal prisoners from eligibility for Pell Grants or student loan when passing the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
By the 1980s, rising crime rates, popular punitivism, 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.
/ Photo Credit: Wesley B. Maier, CC BY 4.0
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.
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.
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.
Attributions
- Figure 9.5: The West Virginia State Penitentiary, a retired, gothic-style prison in Moundsville, West Virginia, that operated from 1876 to 1995 by Carol M. Highsmith, photographer in the Public Domain; LOC states: “No known restrictions on publication.”
- Figure 9.6: The State Penitentiary, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by Samuel Cowperthwaite, artist in the Public Domain; This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1929.
- Figure 9.7: A Southern chain gang by Detroit Publishing Co., publisher in the Public Domain; LOC states: “No known restrictions on publication.”
- Figure 9.8: New York State Reformatory, Elmira, N. Y. by Boston Public Library is released under CC BY 2.0
- Figure 9.9: Number of Prisoners Under State or Federal Correctional Authorities by Year by Wesley B. Maier, for WA Open ProfTech, © SBCTC, CC BY 4.0
- Figure 9.10: Vida Milholland [in jail cell] by Harris & Ewing, Washington, D.C. (photographer) in the Public Domain; This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1929.
A political stance and policy approach characterized by stringent enforcement of criminal laws and harsh punishments for offenders. Advocates of this approach prioritize law and order, aiming to deter crime through the threat of severe consequences and to protect communities by aggressively prosecuting and incarcerating individuals who break the law. Tough-on-crime policies often involve increasing police presence, implementing mandatory minimum sentences, reducing opportunities for parole or early release, and expanding the use of incarceration as a primary response to criminal behavior. This approach has been influential in shaping criminal justice systems in various countries, particularly during periods of heightened concern about crime rates and public safety.
The defining spirit or mood of a particular period in history, often characterized by the prevailing attitudes, beliefs, and cultural trends of that time. It encapsulates the collective consciousness and societal ethos of an era, influencing various aspects of life including art, literature, politics, and philosophy. The term originates from German, where "zeit" means "time" and "geist" means "spirit" or "mind." Understanding the zeitgeist of a given era provides valuable insight into the social, political, and cultural dynamics shaping that period.
Relating to, involving, or constituting punishment, typically aimed at deterring future wrongdoing, exacting retribution for a committed offense, and correcting behavior deemed unacceptable by law.
The physical discipline or penalty inflicted upon an individual, typically as a form of punishment for wrongdoing or to instill discipline. This form of punishment involves physically chastising the individual, such as through whipping, caning, and flogging.
Also known as the death penalty, refers to the legal execution of a person as punishment for a crime, typically administered by a government or judicial authority. This penalty is usually reserved for the most serious offenses, including murder, treason, or acts of terrorism. The methods of capital punishment vary depending on the jurisdiction and legal framework, and may include lethal injection, electrocution, gas chamber, hanging, or firing squad.
A correctional approach developed in the early 19th century characterized by solitary confinement and inmate labor in isolation. It aimed at reforming prisoners through reflection and penitence, with minimal interaction among inmates and staff to prevent corruption. The system, pioneered by the Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, emphasized the isolation of prisoners in individual cells for the duration of their sentences, coupled with opportunities for religious contemplation and work in isolation.
A congregate correctional approach developed at Auburn State Penitentiary in New York during the early 19th century. It emphasized strict discipline, silence, and a regimen of group labor during the day, while housing prisoners in separate cells at night. This system aimed to instill obedience and deterrence through harsh conditions and regimented routines.
The first penitentiary facility in the U.S., located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Established in 1773, it was designed as a model institution focused on solitary confinement and the rehabilitation of inmates through reflection and penance. The Walnut Street Jail is significant for introducing the concept of imprisonment as punishment and for laying the foundation for modern correctional practices.
A correctional strategy in which inmates are housed together in a centralized facility, such as a prison, where they interact and share common spaces for activities such as dining, recreation, and educational programs. This approach contrasts with more decentralized models of confinement, such as the use of individual cells in solitary confinement or in smaller, community-based facilities. The congregate approach aims to maximize efficiency in resource utilization and staff supervision while providing opportunities for social interaction and programming.
A financial system implemented in the early years of U.S. penitentiaries, where the institution's revenue and expenditures were managed directly by the state or government. Under this system, prisons operated as self-sustaining entities, generating income through the labor of inmates, which was then used to cover operational costs. This system often involved the sale of goods produced by inmate labor, with the proceeds contributing to the prison's budget. The Public Account System aimed to promote financial transparency and accountability in prison management, but it also faced criticism for incentivizing harsh labor conditions and neglecting the welfare of inmates.
A historical method of prison labor where private businesses contracted with prisons to use inmate labor for various forms of work within the confines of the prison. Under this system, businesses would provide raw materials and machinery to the prison, and inmates would manufacture goods or perform services in return. The prison administration would typically receive a fee from the contracting business, and in some cases, inmates might receive minimal compensation or sentence reductions. This system was prominent in the United States during the 19th and early 20th centuries and has been criticized for exploitative practices and poor working conditions for inmates.
A historical practice in the U.S., primarily in the Southern states after the Civil War until the early 20th century, where prisoners were leased to private companies for labor. This system often involved harsh and exploitative conditions for the prisoners, who were typically African American men, and contributed to the perpetuation of forced labor akin to slavery in the post-Civil War era.
The highest-ranking administrative official responsible for overseeing the operations and management of a prison or correctional facility. The Superintendent typically has authority over various aspects of the facility, including security, inmate programs, staff management, and budgeting. They play a key role in implementing policies, ensuring compliance with regulations, and maintaining the safety and security of the facility.
A historical penal practice in which prisoners could earn marks or credits for good behavior, which could be exchanged for privileges, early release, or reduced sentences. This system was aimed at incentivizing positive conduct and rehabilitation within correctional institutions.
A sentencing model in criminal justice where the length of incarceration is not fixed, but rather falls within a range determined by specified by legal statute or guidelines. The actual time served is determined by a parole board or similar authority based on the offender's behavior, rehabilitation progress, and other factors. This system allows for flexibility in tailoring the punishment to the individual circumstances of the case and the offender's potential for reintegration.
A supervised release of a prisoner before the completion of their full sentence. It involves the conditional release of an inmate into the community under the supervision of a parole officer, subject to compliance with specific terms and conditions. These conditions typically include regular reporting to the parole officer, maintaining steady employment or pursuing education, and refraining from criminal behavior. Parole aims to facilitate the offender's successful reintegration into society while also serving as a mechanism for monitoring and managing their behavior to minimize the risk of recidivism.
A perspective within the criminal justice system that emphasizes treating criminal behavior as a manifestation of underlying medical or psychological conditions, focusing on rehabilitation and treatment rather than punishment alone.
A task force established in 1965 by President Lyndon B. Johnson to address issues related to law enforcement and criminal justice administration in the United States. It was tasked with studying various aspects of the criminal justice system, including police practices, crime prevention, and the administration of justice. The commission's findings and recommendations helped shape federal policies and initiatives aimed at improving law enforcement and criminal justice practices.
A branch of corrections that focuses on the supervision and management of individuals who have been placed on probation, parole, or other forms of community-based supervision as an alternative to incarceration. Community corrections programs aim to promote rehabilitation, reduce recidivism, and facilitate successful reintegration into society by providing support, monitoring, and rehabilitative resources to offenders in their communities.
A range of punishment options for offenders that fall between fines and incarceration. These sanctions aim to provide graduated levels of supervision and control over offenders while allowing them to remain in the community. Intermediate sanctions typically include programs such as intensive probation supervision, electronic monitoring, residential programs, community service, and day reporting centers. These measures are designed to address the varying levels of risk and need presented by offenders, offering alternatives to incarceration that emphasize rehabilitation and community safety.
Please look for related terms in the Glossary
A societal tendency or political approach that emphasizes harsh punishment against individuals accused or convicted of crimes as a solution to crime, often driven by public demand, outrage, fear, or political motives for stricter penalties, rather than evidence-based crime prevention strategies.
The unjust or prejudicial treatment of individuals or groups based on certain characteristics such as race, gender, age, religion, or nationality. This treatment can manifest in various forms, including but not limited to unequal opportunities, harassment, exclusion, or violence, and may occur in different settings such as employment, education, housing, or public services. Discrimination violates principles of fairness, equality, and human rights, and is often illegal under anti-discrimination laws.
A philosophy of criminal justice that prioritizes the swift and efficient detection, prosecution, and punishment of offenders to maintain public order and deter criminal behavior. This approach emphasizes the use of aggressive law enforcement tactics, strict sentencing guidelines, and incarceration as primary tools for crime prevention and reduction.
A series of government initiatives, policies, and legislation aimed at reducing crime rates and combating criminal activity within a society. This term gained prominence in the mid-20th century, particularly in the U.S., where it was associated with increased law enforcement efforts, harsher sentencing laws, and the expansion of the criminal justice system. The War on Crime often involves measures such as increased police presence, tougher penalties for offenders, and the implementation of crime prevention programs. Critics argue that such initiatives can lead to issues of mass incarceration, racial disparities in the justice system, and infringement on civil liberties.
A term referring to the significant increase in the number of individuals imprisoned in the U.S. beginning in the 1970s. It encompasses both the sharp rise in incarceration rates and the disproportionate impact on certain demographic groups, such as racial minorities and those from low-income communities. Mass incarceration is often attributed to various factors, including changes in sentencing laws, the war on drugs, mandatory minimum sentences, and the growth of the prison-industrial complex. Critics argue that it has led to social, economic, and racial disparities within the criminal justice system and broader society.
Government policies and initiatives aimed at reducing the production, distribution, and consumption of illegal drugs through law enforcement, public education, and treatment programs, typically involves strict enforcement of drug laws, including the arrest and prosecution of drug offenders, as well as efforts to interdict drug trafficking operations domestically and internationally. Initiated in the U.S. in the 1970s, the War on Drugs encompasses various law enforcement efforts, legislative measures, and public awareness campaigns. This approach has been criticized for its social and economic impact, including mass incarceration, racial disparities in enforcement, limited success in curbing drug abuse, and perpetuated violence associated with the illicit drug trade, while proponents argue that it has reduced drug-related crime and improved public health and safety.
