CHAPTER  2

A History of
Corrections
Introduction: The Evolving Practice of Corrections   16 In Focus 2.1. Modern-Day John
Themes: Truths That Underlie Correctional Practice   17 Howard—Dr. Ken Kerle   25
Early Punishments in Westernized Countries   18 Bentham and Beccaria   25
The First Jails  19 William Penn  27
Galley Slavery  20 Colonial Jails and Prisons  28
Poverty and Bridewells, Debtors’ Prisons, and Comparative Perspective: Early European
Houses of Correction   21 and British Prisons   30
Transportation  22 Summary  30
Enlightenment—Paradigm Shift  23 Key Terms  31
Spock Falls in Love   23 Discussion Questions  31
John Howard  24 Useful Internet Sites  32

v Introduction: The Evolving

Practice of Corrections
The history of corrections is riddled with the best of intentions and the worst of abuses.
Correctional practices and facilities (e.g., galley slavery, transportation, jails and prisons, com-
munity corrections) were created, in part, to remove the riffraff—both poor and criminal—
from urban streets or at least to control and shape them. Prisons and community corrections
were also created to avert the use of more violent or coercive responses to such folk. In this
chapter and the next, the focus is on exploring the history of the Western world’s correctional
operations and then American corrections, specifically, and the reoccurring themes that run
through this history and define it.
It is somewhat ironic that one of the best early analyses of themes and practices in American
prisons and jails was completed by two French visitors to the United States—Gustave de
16
 Chapter 2  v  A History of Corrections 17

Beaumont and Alexis de Tocqueville—

while the country was in its relative Photo 2.1
infancy, in 1831, and experiencing the In 1831,
virtual birthing of prisons themselves Tocqueville, as
(Beaumont & Tocqueville, 1833/1964). a 26-year-old
Tocqueville, as a 26-year-old French French magistrate,
magistrate, brought along his friend brought along his
B e au m o nt , s upp o s e d ly to s t ud y friend Beaumont
America’s newly minted prisons for 9 to study America’s
months. They ended up also observing newly minted
the workings of its law, its government prisons.
and political system, and its race rela-
tions, among other things (Damrosch,
2010 ; Tocqueville & Goldhammer,
1835/2004). The irony is that, as outsid-
ers and social critics, Beaumont and
Tocqueville could so clearly see what
others, namely Americans, who were
thought to have “invented prisons” and
who worked in them, were blind to. In
this chapter we will try to “see” what
those early French visitors observed
about Western and specifically American
correctional operations.
Few visitors to the United States, or residents for that matter, explored or commented on the
early correctional experience for women (Dorothea Dix being a notable exception—there will
be more about her and her observations about the state of corrections in 1845 in Chapter 3). Yet
some of the themes that run through the practice of corrections apply to women and girls as
well, but with a twist. Women have always represented only a small fraction of the correctional
population in both prisons and jails, and the history of their experience with incarceration, as
shaped by societal expectations of and for them, can be wholly different from that of men. As
literal outsiders to what was the “norm” for inmates of prisons and jails, and as a group whose
rights and abilities were legally and socially controlled on the outside more than that of men
and boys, women’s experience in corrections history is worth studying and will be more fully
explored in Chapter 10.
What is clear from the Western history of corrections is that what was intended when prisons,
jails, and reformatories were conceived, and how they actually operated, then and now, were and
are often two very different things (Rothman, 1980). As social critics ourselves, we can use the
history of corrections to identify a series of “themes” that run through correctional practice, even
up to today. Such themes will reinforce the tried, yet true, maxim, “Those who cannot remember
the past are condemned to repeat it” (Santayana, 1905, p. 284). Too often we do not know or
understand our history of corrections, and as a consequence, we are forever repeating it.

v Themes: Truths That Underlie

Correctional Practice
There are some themes that have been almost eerily constant, vis-à-vis corrections, over
the decades and even centuries. Some such themes are obvious, such as the influence
18 Corrections: The Essentials

that money, or its lack, exerts over virtually all correctional policy decisions. Political
sentiments and the desire to make changes also have had tremendous influence over
the shape of corrections in the past. Other themes are less apparent, but no less potent
in their effect on correctional operation. For instance, there appears to be an evolving
sense of compassion or humanity that, though not always clear in the short term, in
practice, or in policy or statute, has underpinned reform-based decisions about correc-
tions and its operation, at least in theory, throughout its history in the United States. The
creation of the prison, with a philosophy of penitence (hence the penitentiary), was a
grand reform itself, and as such it represented in theory, at least, a major improvement
over the brutality of punishment that characterized early English and European law and
practice (Orland, 1995).
Some social critics do note, however, that the prison and the expanded use of other
such social institutions also served as a “social control” mechanism to remove punishment
from public view, while making the state appear more just (Foucault, 1979; Welch, 2004).
Therefore, this is not to argue that such grand reforms in their idealistic form, such as prisons,
were not primarily constructed out of the need to control, but rather that there were philan-
thropic, religious, and other forces aligned that also influenced their creation and design, if
not so much their eventual and practical operation (Hirsch, 1992). Also of note, the social
control function becomes most apparent when less powerful populations like the poor,
the minority, the young, or the female are involved, as will be discussed in the following
chapters.
Other than the influence of money and politics and a sense of greater compassion/
humanity in correctional operation, the following themes are also apparent in corrections
history: the question of how to use labor and technology (which are hard to decouple from
monetary considerations); a decided religious influence; the intersection of class, race, age,
and gender in shaping one’s experience in corrections; architecture as it is intermingled with
supervision; methods of control; overcrowding; and finally the fact that good intentions do
not always translate into effective practice. Though far from exhaustive, this list contains
some of the most salient issues that become apparent streams of influence as one reviews the
history of corrections. As was discussed in Chapter 1, some of the larger philosophical (and
political) issues, such as conceptions of right and wrong and whether it is best to engage in
retribution or rehabilitation (or both, or neither, along with incapacitation, deterrence, and
reintegration) using correctional sanctions, are also obviously associated with correctional
change and operation.

v  Early Punishments in Westernized Countries

Human beings, throughout recorded history, have devised ingenious ways to “punish” their
kind for real or perceived transgressions. Among tribal groups and even in more developed
civilizations, such punishment might include, among other tortures, whipping, branding,
mutilation, drowning, suffocation, executions, and banishment (which in remote areas was
tantamount to a death sentence). The extent of the punishment often depended on the
wealth and status of the offended party and the offender. Those accused or found guilty and
who were richer were often allowed to make amends by recompensing the victim or his or
her family, while those who were poorer and of lesser status were likely to suffer some sort
of bodily punishment. But whatever the approach, and for whatever the reason, some sort
of punishment was often called for as a means of balancing the scales of justice, whether to
appease a god or gods or later Lady Justice.
 Chapter 2  v  A History of Corrections 19

As David Garland (1990) recounts, “ancient societies and ‘primitive’ social groups often
invested the penal process with a wholly religious meaning, so that punishment was under-
stood as a necessary sacrifice to an aggrieved deity” (p. 203). As urbanization took hold,
however, and transgressions were less tolerated among an increasingly diverse people, the
ancients and their governing bodies were more likely to designate a structure as appropriate
for holding people. For the most part, such buildings or other means of confining people
were often used to ensure that the accused was held over for “trial” or sometimes just for
punishment (Orland, 1975, p. 13). Fines, mutilation, drawing and quartering, and capital pun-
ishment were popular ways to handle those accused or convicted of crimes (Harris, 1973;
Orland, 1975).

Although mutilation ultimately disappeared from English law, the brutality of Anglo-
Saxon criminal punishment continued unabated into the eighteenth century. In the
thirteenth century, offenders were commonly broken on the wheel for treason. A
1530 act authorized poisoners to be boiled alive. Burning was the penalty for high
treason and heresy, as well as for murder of a husband by a wife or of a master by
a servant. Unlike the punishment of boiling, that of burning remained lawful in
England until 1790. In practice, and as a kindness, women were strangled before they
were burned. The right hand was taken off for aggravated murder. Ordinary hangings
were frequent, and drawing and quartering, where the hanged offender was publicly
disemboweled and his still-beating heart held up to a cheering multitude, was not
uncommon.
In addition, until the mid-nineteenth century, English law permitted a variety of
“summary” punishments. Both men and women (the latter until 1817) were flagellated
in public for minor offenses. For more serious misdemeanors there was the pillory,
which was not abolished in England until 1837. With his face protruding though its
beams and his hands through the holes, the offender was helpless. Sometimes he was
nailed through the ears to the framework of the pillory with the hair of his head and
beard shaved; occasionally he was branded. Thereafter, some offenders were carried
back to prison to endure additional tortures. (Orland, 1975, p. 15)

The First Jails

Jails were the first type of correctional facility to develop, and in some form they have existed
for several thousand years. Whether pits or dungeons or caves were used, or the detained
were tied to a tree, ancient people all had ways of holding people until a judgment was made
or implemented (Irwin, 1985; Mattick, 1974; Zupan, 1991).
According to Johnston (2009), punishment is referenced in a work written in 2000 B.C.
and edited by Confucius. The Old Testament of the Bible refers to the use of imprisonment
from 2040–164 B.C. in Egypt and its use in ancient Assyria and Babylon. Ancient Greece and
Rome reserved harsher physical punishments for slaves, whereas citizens might be subjected
to fines, exile, imprisonment, or death, or some combination of these (Harris, 1973).

Ancient Roman society was a slave system. To punish wrongdoers, capitis deminutio
maxima—the forfeiture of citizenship—was used. Criminals became penal slaves.
Doomed men were sent to hard labor in the Carrara marble quarries, metal mines,
and sulphur pits. The most common punishment was whipping—and in the case of
free men, it was accompanied by the shaving of the head, for the shorn head was the
mark of the slave. (Harris, 1973, p. 14)
20 Corrections: The Essentials

Early versions of gaols (or jails) and prisons existed in English castle keeps and
dungeons and Catholic monasteries. These prisons and jails (not always distinguishable
in form or function) held political adversaries and common folk, either as a way to punish
them or incapacitate them or to hold them over for judgment by a secular or religious
authority. Sometimes people might be held as a means of extorting a fine ( Johnston,
2009). The use of these early forms of jails was reportedly widespread in England, even
a thousand years ago. By the 9th century, Alfred the Great had legally mandated that
imprisonment might be used to punish (Irwin, 1985). King Henry II in 1166 required that
where no gaol existed in English counties, one should be built (Zupan, 1991) “[i]n walled
towns and royal castles,” but only for the purpose of holding the accused for trial (Orland,
1975, pp. 15–16). In Elizabethan England, innkeepers made a profit by using their facility
as a gaol.
Such imprisonment in these or other gaols was paid for by the prisoners or through their
work. Those who were wealthy could pay for more comfortable accommodations while
incarcerated. “When the Marquis de Sade was confined in the Bastille, he brought his own
furnishings and paintings, his library, a live-in valet, and two dogs. His wife brought him
gourmet food” (Johnston, 2009, p. 12S). The Catholic Church maintained its own jails and
prisonlike facilities across the European continent, administered by bishops or other church
officials.
In fact, the Catholic Church’s influence on the development of westernized corrections
was intense in the Middle Ages (medieval Europe from the 5th to the 15th centuries) and
might be felt even today. As a means of shoring up its power base vis-à-vis feudal and medi-
eval lords and kings, the Catholic Church maintained not only its own forms of prisons and
jails, but also its own ecclesiastical courts (D. Garland, 1990). Though proscribed from draw-
ing blood, except during the Inquisition, the Church often turned its charges over to secular
authorities for physical punishment. But while in their care and in their monasteries for pun-
ishment, the Catholic Church required “solitude, reduced diet, and reflection, sometimes for
extended periods of time” (Johnston, 2009, p. 14S). Centuries later, the first prisons in the
United States and Europe, then heavily influenced by Quakers and Protestant religions in the
states, copied the Catholics’ monastic emphasis on silence, placing prisoners in small austere
rooms where one’s penitence might be reflected upon—practices and architecture that, to
some extent, still resonate today.

Galley Slavery
Another form of “corrections,” galley slavery, was used sparingly by the ancient Greeks and
Romans, but more regularly in the late Middle Ages in Europe and England, and stayed in use
until roughly the 1700s. Under Elizabeth I, in 1602, a sentence to galley servitude was decreed
as an alternative to the death sentence (Orland, 1975). Pope Pius VI (who was pope from
1775–1799) also reportedly employed it (Johnston, 2009, p. 12S). Galley slavery was used as
a sentence for crimes or as a means of removing the poor from the streets. It also served the
twin purpose of providing the requisite labor—rowing—needed to propel ships for seafar-
ing nations interested in engagement in trade and warfare. For instance, these galley slaves
were reportedly used by Columbus (Johnston, 2009). The “slaves” were required to row the
boat until they collapsed from exhaustion, hunger, or disease; often they sat in their own
excrement (Welch, 2004). Under Pope Pius, galley slaves were entitled to bread each day, and
their sentences ranged from 3 years to life (Johnston, 2009). Though we do not have detailed
records of how such a sentence was carried out, and we can be sure that its implementation
varied to some degree from vessel to vessel, the reports that do exist indicate that galley
 Chapter 2  v  A History of Corrections 21

slavery was essentially a sentence to death. Galley slavery ended when the labor was no
longer needed on ships because of the technological development of sails.

Poverty and Bridewells, Debtors’ Prisons,

and Houses of Correction
However, galley slavery could only absorb a small number of the poor that began to con-
gregate in towns and cities in the Middle Ages. Feudalism, and the order it imposed, was
disintegrating; wars (particularly the Crusades prosecuted by the Catholic Church) and inter-
mittent plagues did claim thousands of lives, but populations were stabilizing and increasing
and there were not enough jobs, housing, or food for the poor. As the cities became more
urbanized and as more and more poor people congregated in them, governmental entities
responded in an increasingly severe fashion to the poor’s demands for resources (Irwin,
1985). These responses were manifested in the harsh repression of dissent, increased use
of death sentences and other punishments as deterrence and spectacle, the increased use of
jailing to guarantee the appearance of the accused at trial, the development of poorhouses or
bridewells and debtors’ prisons, and the use of “transportation,” discussed below (Foucault,
1979; Irwin, 1985).
Eighteenth-century England saw the number of crimes subject to capital punishment
increase to as many as 225, for such offenses as rioting over wages or food (the Riot Act) or for
“blacking” one’s face so as to be camouflaged when killing deer in the king’s or a lord’s forest
(the Black Act) (Ignatieff, 1978, p. 16). New laws regarding forgery resulted in two-thirds of
those convicted of it being executed. Rather than impose the most serious sentence for many
of these crimes, however, judges would often opt for the use of transportation, whipping, or
branding. Juries would also balk at imposing the death sentence for a relatively minor offense
and so would sometimes value property that was stolen at less than it was worth in order to
ensure a lesser sentence for the defendant. In the latter part of the 1700s, a sentence of impris-
onment might be used in lieu of, or in addition to, these other punishments.
Bridewells, or buildings constructed to hold and whip “beggars, prostitutes, and night-
walkers” and later as places of detention, filled this need; their use began in London in 1553
(Kerle, 2003; Orland, 1975, p. 16). The name came from the first such institution, which was
developed at Bishop Ridley’s place at St. Bridget’s Well; all subsequent similar facilities were
known as bridewells.
Bridewells were also workhouses, used as leverage to extract fines or repayment of debt
or the labor to replace them. Such facilities did not separate people by gender or age or
criminal and noncriminal status, nor were their inmates fed and clothed properly, and sani-
tary conditions were not maintained. As a consequence of these circumstances, bridewells
were dangerous and diseased places where if one could not pay a “fee” for food, cloth-
ing, or release, the inmate, and possibly his or her family, might be doomed (Orland, 1975;
Pugh, 1968). The use of bridewells spread throughout Europe and the British colonies, as it
provided a means of removing the poor and displaced from the streets while also making
a profit (Kerle, 2003). Such a profit was made by the wardens, keepers, and gaolers, the
administrators of bridewells, houses of correction (each county in England was authorized
to build one in 1609), and gaols, who, though unpaid, lobbied for the job as it was so lucra-
tive. They made money by extracting it from their inmates. If an inmate could not pay, he or
she might be left to starve in filth or be tortured or murdered by the keeper for nonpayment
(Orland, 1975, p. 17).
Notably, being sent to “debtors’ prison” was something that still occurred even after the
American Revolution. In fact, James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution (and reportedly one
22 Corrections: The Essentials

of its main architects) and a Supreme Court justice, was imprisoned in such a place twice
while serving on the court. He had speculated on land to the west and lost a fortune in the
process (K. C. Davis, 2008).

Transportation
Yet another means of “corrections” that was in use by Europeans for roughly 350 years, from
the founding of the Virginia Colony in 1607, was transportation (Feeley, 1991). Also used to
rid cities and towns of the chronically poor or the criminally inclined, transportation, as with
bridewells and gaols, involved a form of privatized corrections, whereby those sentenced to
transportation were sold to a ship’s captain. He would in turn sell their labor as indentured
servants, usually to do agricultural work, to colonials in America (Maryland, Virginia, and
Georgia were partially populated through this method) and to white settlers in Australia.
Transportation ended in the American colonies with the Revolutionary War, but was prac-
ticed by France to populate Devil’s Island in French Guiana until 1953 (Welch, 2004). Welch
notes that transportation was a very popular sanction in Europe:

Russia made use of Siberia; Spain deported prisoners to Hispaniola; Portugal exiled
convicts to North Africa, Brazil and Cape Verde; Italy herded inmates to Sicily;
Denmark relied on Greenland as a penal colony; Holland shipped convicts to the
Dutch East Indies. (p. 29)

In America, transportation provided needed labor to colonies desperate for it. “Following a
1718 law in England, all felons with sentences of 3 years or more were eligible for transport to
America. Some were given a choice between hanging or transport” (Johnston, 2009, p. 13S).
It is believed that about 50,000 convicts were deposited on American shores from English
gaols. If they survived their servitude, which ranged from 1 to 5 years, they became free
and might be given tools or even land to make their way in the new world (Orland, 1975,
p. 18). Once the American Revolution started, such prisoners from England were transported
to Australia, and when settlers there protested the number of entering offenders, the pris-
oners were sent to penal colonies in that country as well as in New Zealand and Gibraltar
(Johnston, 2009).
One of the most well-documented such penal colonies was Norfolk Island, 1,000
miles off the Australian coast. Established in 1788 as a place designated for prisoners from
England and Australia, it was regarded as a brutal and violent island prison where inmates
were poorly fed, clothed, and housed and were mistreated by staff and their fellow inmates
(Morris, 2002). Morris, in his semi-fictional account of Alexander Maconochie’s effort to
reform Norfolk, notes that Machonochie, an ex-naval captain, asked to be transferred to
Norfolk, usually an undesirable placement, so that he could put into practice some ideas he
had about prison reform. He served as the warden there from 1840–1844. What was true
in this story was that, “In four years, Maconochie transformed what was one of the most
brutal convict settlements in history into a controlled, stable, and productive environment
that achieved such success that upon release his prisoners came to be called ‘Maconochie’s
Gentlemen’” (Morris, 2002, book jacket). Maconochie’s ideas included the belief that inmates
should be rewarded for good behavior through a system of marks, which could lead to
privileges and early release; that they should be treated with respect; and that they should
be adequately fed and housed. Such revolutionary ideas, for their time, elicited alarm from
Maconochie’s superiors, and he was removed from his position after only 4 years. His ideas,
however, were adopted decades later when the concepts of “good time” and parole were
 Chapter 2  v  A History of Corrections 23

developed in Ireland and the United States. In addition, his ideas about adequately feeding
and clothing inmates were held in common by such reformers, who came before him, as
John Howard and William Penn and those who came after him, such as Dorothea Dix.

v  Enlightenment—Paradigm Shift
Spock Falls in Love
As noted in Chapter 1, the Enlightenment period, lasting roughly from the 17th through the
18th century in England, Europe, and America, spelled major changes in thought about crime
and corrections. But then, it was a time of paradigmatic shifts in many aspects of the Western
experience as societies became more secular and open. Becoming a more secular culture
meant that there was more focus on humans on earth, rather than in the afterlife, and, as a
consequence, the arts, sciences, and philosophy flourished. In such periods of human his-
tory, creativity manifests itself in innovations in all areas of experience; the orthodoxy in
thought and practice is often challenged and sometimes overthrown in favor of new ideas
and even radical ways of doing things (K. C. Davis, 2008). Whether in the sciences with
Englishman Isaac Newton (1643–1727), philosophy and rationality with the Englishwoman
Anne Viscountess Conway (1631–1679), feminist philosophy with the Englishwoman Damaris
Cudworth Masham (1659–1708), philosophy and history with the Scotsman David Hume
(1711–1776), literature and philosophy with the Frenchman Voltaire (1694–1778), literature
and philosophy with the Briton Mary Wollstonecraft (1759–1797) or the Founding Fathers of
the United States (e.g., Samuel Adams, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine,
and Thomas Jefferson), new ideas and beliefs were proposed and explored in every sphere
of the intellectual enterprise (Duran, 1996; Frankel, 1996; Mackenzie, 1996). Certainly, the
writings of John Locke (1632–1704) and his conception of liberty and human rights pro-
vided the philosophical underpinnings for the Declaration of Independence as penned by
Thomas Jefferson. As a result of the
Enlightenment, the French Revolution
beginning in 1789 was also about reject- Photo 2.2
ing one form of government—the abso- Philosopher John
lute monarchy—for something that was Locke’s writings
to be more democratic and liberty based. and his conception
(Notably, the French path to democracy of liberty and
was not straight and included a dalliance human rights
with other dictators such as Napoleon helped to provide
Bonaparte who came to power in 1799.) the philosophical
Such changes in worldviews or underpinnings for
paradigms, as Thomas Kuhn explained the Declaration of
in his well-known work, The Structure Independence.
of Scientific Revolutions (1962), when
discussing the nonlinear shifts in scien-
tific theory, come usually after evidence
mounts and the holes in old ways of
perceiving become all too apparent. The
old theory simply cannot accommodate
the new evidence. Such an event was
illustrated on a micro, or individual, level
in an episode of the original Star Trek
24 Corrections: The Essentials

television show when Spock (the logical, unemotional, and unattached second officer) fell
in love with a woman for the first time after breathing in the spores of a magical flower on a
mysterious planet. Those who experienced the Enlightenment period, much like reformers
and activists of the Progressive (1880s to the 1920s) and Civil Rights (1960s and 1970s) Eras
in the United States that were to follow centuries later, experienced a paradigm shift regard-
ing crime and justice. Suddenly, as if magic spores had fundamentally reshaped thought and
suffused it with kind regard, if not love for others, humans seemed to realize that change in
crime policy and practice was called for, and they set about devising ways to accomplish it.

John Howard
John Howard (1726–1790) was one such person who acted as a change agent. As a Sheriff of
Bedford in England and as a man who had personally experienced incarceration as a pris-
oner of war himself (held captive by French privateers), he was enlightened enough to “see”
that gaols in England and Europe should be different, and he spent the remainder of his life
trying to reform them (J. Howard, 1775/2000; Johnston, 2009). Howard’s genius was his main
insight regarding corrections: that corrections should not be privatized in the sense that jailers
were “paid” by inmates (an inhumane and often illogical practice, as most who were incarcer-
ated were desperately poor, a circumstance that explained the incarceration of many in the
first place). Howard believed that the state or government had a responsibility to provide
sanitary and separate conditions and decent food and water for those they incarcerate.
His humanity was apparent in that he promoted this idea in England and all over the
European continent during his lifetime. His major written work, The State of the Prisons in
England and Wales, With Preliminary
Observations, and an Account of Some
Photo 2.3 Foreign Prisons (1775/2000), detailed
the horror that was experienced in the
John Howard
filthy and torturous gaols of England
(1726–1790)
and Europe, noting that despite the fact
believed that
that there were 200 crimes for which
the state or
capital punishment might be prescribed,
government had
far more inmates died from diseases
a responsibility to
contracted while incarcerated (Note to
provide sanitary
reader: The Old English used by Howard
conditions and
in the following quote sometimes substi-
decent food and
tutes the letter “f” for the letter “s.”):
water for those
they incarcerate.
I traveled again into the counties
where I had been; and, indeed, into
all the reft; examining Houfes of
Correction, City and Town-Gaols. I
beheld in many of them, as well as in
the County-Gaols, a complication of
diftrefs: but my attention was principally fixed by the gaol-fever, and the fmall-pox,
which I faw prevailing to the deftruction of multitudes, not only of felons in their dun-
geons, but of debtors alfo. (p. 2)

Howard (1775/2000) found that gaol fever was widespread in all kinds of correctional
institutions of the time: Bridewells, gaols, debtors’ prisons, and houses of correction. Notably,
 Chapter 2  v  A History of Corrections 25

in larger cities there were clear distinctions among these facilities and whom they held, but in
smaller towns and counties there were not. In the neglect of inmates and the underfunding
of the facilities, Howard found them all to be very alike. He noted that in some bridewells
there was no provision at all made for feeding inmates. Though inmates of bridewells were
to be sentenced to hard labor, he found that in many there was little work to do and no tools
provided to do it: “The prifoners have neither tools, nor materials of any kind; but fpend their
time in floth, profanenefs and debauchery, to a degree which, in fome of thofe houfes that I
have feen, is extremely fhocking” (p. 8). He found that the allotment for food in county jails
was not much better, remarking that in some there was none for debtors, the criminal, or the
accused alike. He noted that these inmates, should they survive their suffering, would then
enter communities or other facilities in rags, and spread disease wherever they went.
In his census of correctional facilities (including debtors’ prisons, jails, and houses of cor-
rection or bridewells) in England and Wales, Howard (1775/2000) found that petty offend-
ers comprised about 16% of inmates, about 60% were debtors, and about 24% were felons
(which included those awaiting trial, those convicted and awaiting their execution or trans-
portation, and those serving a sentence of imprisonment) (p. 25; Ignatieff, 1978). Ironically,
Howard eventually died from typhus, also known as gaol fever, after touring several jails and
prisons in Eastern Europe, specifically the prisons of Tsarist Russia.

In Focus 2.1

Modern-Day John Howard—Dr. Ken Kerle

The Corrections Section of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS) established the “John Howard” Award in 2009
and gave the first one to a modern-day John Howard, Dr. Ken Kerle (retired Managing Editor of the American Jails magazine).
Dr. Kerle has spent much of his adult life trying to improve jail standards both here in the United States and abroad. As part
of that effort, he has visited hundreds of jails in this country and around the world. He has advised countless jail managers
about how they might improve their operations. He has increased the transmission of information and the level of discussion
between academicians and practitioners by encouraging the publication of scholars’ work in American Jails magazine and
their presentations at the American Jails Association meetings, and by urging practitioners to attend ACJS meetings. Kerle also
published a book on jails titled Exploring Jail Operations (2003).

Bentham and Beccaria

As mentioned in Chapter 1, the philosophers and reformers Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832)
in England and Cesare Beccaria (1738–1794) in Italy separately, but both during the
Enlightenment period, decried the harsh punishment meted out for relatively minor offenses
in their respective countries and, as a consequence, emphasized “certainty” over the severity
and celerity components of the deterrence theory they independently developed. Beccaria,
in his classic work On Crimes and Punishments (1764/1963) wrote,

In order that punishment should not be an act of violence perpetrated by one or

many upon a private citizen, it is essential that it should be public, speedy, necessary,
the minimum possible in the given circumstances, proportionate to the crime, and
determined by the law. (p. 113)
26 Corrections: The Essentials

He argued that knowledge, as that provided by the sciences and enlightenment, was the only
effective antidote to “foul-mouthed ignorance” (p. 105).
Bentham also proposed, in his Plan of Construction of a Panopticon Penitentiary
House (1789/1969) —though the funding of it was not signed off on by King George III—
the building of a special type of prison. As per Bentham, the building of a private “prison”-
like structure—the panopticon, which he would operate—that ingeniously melded
the ideas of improved supervision with architecture (because of its rounded, open, and
unobstructed views) would greatly enhance supervision of inmates. Such a recognition
of the benefits of some architectural styles as complementary to enhanced supervision
was indeed prescient, as it presaged modern jail and prison architecture. His proposed
panopticon would be circular, with two tiers of cells on the outside and a guard tower
in its center, with the central area also topped by a large skylight. The skylight and the
correct angling of the tower were to ensure that the guard was able to observe all inmate
behavior in the cells, though owing to a difference of level and the use of blinds, the keeper
would be invisible to the inmates. A chapel would also be located in the center of the
rounded structure. The cells were to be airy and large enough to accommodate the whole
life of the inmates in that the cells were to “[s]erve all purposes: work, sleep, meals, pun-
ishment, devotion” (Bentham, 1811/2003, p. 194). Somehow, Bentham notes in his plan
without elaboration, the sexes were to be invisible to each other. He does not call for com-
plete separation of all inmates, however, which becomes important when discussing the
Pennsylvania and New York prisons in the following, but he does assert that the groups of
inmates allowed to interact should be small, including only two to four persons (Bentham,
1811/2003, p. 195).
As an avowed admirer of John Howard, Bentham proposed that his Panopticon
Penitentiary would include all of the reforms proposed by Howard and much more. Bentham
(1811/2003) promised that inmates would be well fed, fully clothed, supplied with beds, sup-
plied with warmth and light, kept from “strong or spirituous liquors,” have their spiritual and
medical needs fulfilled, be provided with opportunities for labor and education (“to convert
the prison into a school”) and to incentivize the labor so that they got to “share in the pro-
duce,” be taught a trade so that they could survive once released, and be helped to save for
old age (pp. 199–200). He would also personally pay a fine for every escape, insure inmates’
lives to prevent their deaths, and submit regular reports to the “Court of the King’s Bench”
on the status of the prison’s operation (pp. 199–200). Moreover, he proposed that the prison
would be open in many respects not just to dignitaries, but to regular citizens, and daily, as
a means of preventing abuse that might occur in secret. Bentham also recommended the
construction of his prisons on a large scale across England, such that one would be built
every 30 miles, or a good day’s walk by a man. He planned, as he wrote in his 1830 diatribe
against King George the Third, wryly titled “History of the War Between Jeremy Bentham
and George the Third—By One of the Belligerents,” that, “But for George the Third, all the
prisoners in England would, years ago, have been under my management. But for George
the Third, all the paupers in the country would, long ago, have been under my management”
(Bentham, 1811/2003, p. 195).
Though his plan in theory was laudable and really visionary for his time, and ours, he
hoped to make much coin as recompense for being a private prison manager—to the tune
of 60 pounds sterling per prisoner, which when assigned to all inmates across England,
was a considerable sum (Bentham, 1811/2003, p. 195). What stopped him, and the reason
why he was so angry with his sovereign, was King George’s unwillingness to sign the bill
that would have authorized the funding and construction of the first panopticon. Bentham
alleged that the king would not sign because the powerful Lord Spenser was concerned
 Chapter 2  v  A History of Corrections 27

about the effect on the value of his property should a prison be located on or near it.
Bentham’s prison dream was dead, but eventually he was awarded 23,000 pounds for his
efforts (p. 207). It was left to others to build panopticon prisons in both Europe and the
states in the coming years.

William Penn
William Penn (1644–1718), a prominent Pennsylvania Colony governor and Quaker, was
similarly influenced by Enlightenment thinking (though with the Quaker influence, his
views were not so secular). Much like Bentham and Beccaria, Penn was not a fan of the
harsh punishments, even executions, for relatively minor offenses, that were meted out
during his lifetime. While in England, and as a result of his defense of religious freedom
and practice, he was incarcerated in the local jails on more than one occasion, and even
in the Tower of London in 1669, for his promotion of the Quaker religion and defiance
of the English crown. He was freed only because of his wealth and connections (Penn,
1679/1981). As a consequence, when he had the power to change the law and its pro-
tections, and reduce its severity, he did so. Many years later (in 1682) in Pennsylvania,
he proposed and instituted his Great Law, which was based on Quaker principles and
de-emphasized the use of corporal and capital punishment for all crimes but the most
serious (Clear, Cole, & Reisig, 2011; Johnston, 2009; Zupan, 1991). His reforms substituted
fines and jail time for corporal punishment. He promoted Pennsylvania as a haven for
Quakers who were persecuted in England and Europe generally, and for a number of
other religious minorities (Penn, 1679/1981). His ideas about juries, civil liberties, religious
freedom, and the necessity of amending constitutions so that they are adaptable to chang-
ing times, influenced a number of American revolutionaries, including Benjamin Franklin
and Thomas Paine.
Many of Penn’s contemporaries were
not of the same frame of mind, however,
and after his death, the Great Law was Photo 2.4
repealed and harsher punishments were William Penn
again instituted in Pennsylvania, much proposed and
as they existed in the rest of the colonies instituted his Great
(Johnston, 2009; Welch, 2004). But the Law, which was
mark of his influence lived on in the based on Quaker
development of some of America’s first principles and
prisons. deemphasized the
Much like Howard and Bentham, use of corporal
Penn was interested in reforming and capital
corrections, but he was particularly punishment for
i n f luenced by h i s Q u a ker sent i - all crimes but the
ments regarding nonviolence and the most serious.
value of quiet contemplation. The
early A merican prisons known as
the Pennsylvania model prisons—the
Walnut Street Jail (1790) in Philadelphia,
the Western Pennsylvania Prison
(1826) in Pittsburgh, and the Eastern
Pen n sylvan i a P r i son (18 2 9) i n
28 Corrections: The Essentials

Philadelphia—incorporated these ideas (Johnston, 2009). Even the New York model pris-
ons, Auburn and Sing Sing Prisons, often juxtaposed with Pennsylvania prisons based
on popular depiction by historians (see Beaumont and Tocqueville, 1833/1964), included
contemplation time for inmates and a plan for single cells for inmates that reflected the same
belief in the need for some solitude.

v  Colonial Jails and Prisons

The first jail in America was built in Jamestown, Virginia, soon after the colony’s found-
ing in 1606 (Burns, 1975; Zupan, 1991). Massachusetts built a jail in Boston in 1635, and
Maryland built a jail for the colony in 1662 (Roberts, 1997). The oldest standing jail in
the United States was built in the late 1600s and is located in Barnstable, Massachusetts
(Library of Congress, 2010). It was used by the sheriff to hold both males and females,
along with his family, in upstairs, basement, and barn rooms. Both men and women
were held in this and other jails like it, mostly before they were tried for both serious and
minor offenses, as punishment for offenses, or to ensure they were present for their own
execution.
Such an arrangement as this—holding people in homes, inns, or other structures, that
were not originally designated or constructed as “jails”—was not uncommon in early colo-
nial towns (Goldfarb, 1975; Irwin, 1985; Kerle, 2003). As in England, inmates of these early
and colonial jails were required to pay a “fee” for their upkeep (the same fee system that
John Howard opposed). Those who were wealthier could more easily buy their way out of
incarceration, or if that was not possible because of the nature of the offense, they could at
least ensure that they had more luxurious accommodations (Zupan, 1991). Even when jailers
were paid a certain amount to feed and clothe inmates, they might be disinclined to do so,
being that what they saved by not taking care of their charges they were able to keep (Zupan,
1991). As a result, inmates of early American jails were sometimes malnourished or starving.
Moreover, in the larger facilities they were crammed into unsanitary rooms, often without
regard to separation by age, gender, or offense, conditions that also led to early death and
disease. Though, Irwin (1985) does remark that generally Americans fared better in colonial
jails than their English and European cousins did in their own, as the arrangements were less
formal and restrictive in the American jails and were more like rooming houses. Relatedly,
Goldfarb (1975) remarks,

Jails that did exist in the eighteenth century were run on a household model with
the jailer and his family residing on the premises. The inmates were free to dress as
they liked, to walk around freely and to provide their own food and other necessi-
ties. (p. 9)

As white people migrated across the continent of North America, the early western
jails were much like their earlier eastern and colonial cousins, with makeshift structures
and cobbled together supervision serving as a means of holding the accused over for trial
(Moynihan, 2002). In post–Civil War midwestern cities, disconnected outlaw gangs (such as
the Jesse James Gang) were responded to in a harsh manner. Some communities even built
rotary jails, which were like human squirrel cages. Inside a secure building, these rotating
steel cages, segmented into small “pie-shaped cells” were secured to the floor and could be
spun at will by the sheriff (Goldfarb, 1975, p. 11).
 Chapter 2  v  A History of Corrections 29

Of course, without prisons in existence per se (we will discuss the versions of such insti-
tutions that did exist shortly), most punishments for crimes constituted relatively short terms
in jails, or public shaming (as in the stocks), or physical punishments such as flogging or the
pillory, or banishment. Executions were also carried out, usually but not always for the most
horrific of crimes such as murder or rape, though in colonial America, many more crimes
qualified for this punishment (Zupan, 1991). As in Europe and England at this time, those
who were poorer or enslaved were more likely to experience the harshest of punishments
(Irwin, 1985; Zupan, 1991). Similar to Europe and England in this era, jails also held the men-
tally ill, along with debtors, drifters, transients, the inebriated, runaway slaves or servants, and
the criminally involved (usually pretrial) (Cornelius, 2007).
Though the Walnut Street Jail, a portion of which was converted to a prison, is often cited
as the “first” prison in the world, there were, as this recounting of history demonstrates, many
precursors that were arguably “prisons” as well. One such facility, which also illustrates the
“makeshift” nature of early prisons, was the Newgate Prison in Simsbury, Connecticut
(named after the Newgate Prison in London). According to Phelps (1860/1996), this early
colonial “prison” started as a copper mine, and during its 54 years of operation (from 1773
to 1827), some 800 inmates passed through its doors. The mine was originally worked in
1705, and one-third of the taxes it paid to the town of Simsbury at that time were used to
support Yale College (p. 15). “Burglary, robbery, and counterfeiting were punished for the
first offense with imprisonment not exceeding ten years; second offence for life” (p. 26). Later,
those loyal to the English crown during the U.S. Revolutionary War, or Tories, were held at
Newgate as well. Punishments by the “keeper of the prison” could range from shackles and
fetters as restraints to “moderate whipping, not to exceed ten stripes” (p. 26). The inmates of
Newgate Prison were held—stored, really—in the bowels of the mine during the evening (by
themselves and with no supervision), and during the day were forced to work the mine or
were allowed to come to the surface to labor around the facility and in the community. Over
the course of the history of this facility, there were several escapes, a number of riots, and the
burning of the topside buildings by its inmates. Early versions of prisons also existed in other
countries.

Photo 2.5
Newgate Prison,
a working copper
mine, served as
an early colonial
prison.
30 Corrections: The Essentials

Comparative Perspective: Early European and British Prisons

Some early European versions of prisons bucked the trend of harsh physical punishments even for minor offenses. Others,
but only a few, even classified their inmates not just by economic and social status, but by gender, age, and criminal
offense. For instance, in the Le Stinche Prison built in Florence, Italy, in the 1290s, the inmates were separated in this
way (Roberts, 1997). Later, the Maison de Force Prison in Ghent, Belgium (1773), placed serious offenders in a different
section of the prison from the less serious. A juvenile reformatory was even built in a separate wing of the Hospice of San
Michele in Rome (1704) (Roberts, 1997). An architectural depiction of the Ghent prison shows an octagonal shape with a
central court and then a partial view of separate living areas or courts for exercise, for women, vagrant men, and other men.
Much like the American colonies and England, however, the early European prisons and jails classified inmates by their
societal status and their ability to pay, with the concomitant amenities going to the wealthier.

Incarcerated nobles who could pay the heftiest fees lived in comparative comfort with a modicum of privacy; less
affluent prisoners were confined in large common rooms; the poorest inmates, and those who were considered the
most dangerous, had to endure squalid dungeons. It was not unusual for men, women, and children, the sane and
the mentally ill, felons and misdemeanants, all to be crowded indiscriminately in group cells. (Roberts, 1997, p. 5)

Another less enlightened type of prison existed in England in the form of the “hulks,” derelict naval vessels transformed
into “prisons” for the overflowing inmates in England. Used in tandem with transportation and other forms of incarceration
in the mid-1700s, and then increasing in use in the gap between the end of transportation to the American colonies with
the Revolutionary War and the beginning of transportation of “criminals” to Australia, the last hulk was used on the coast
of Gibraltar in 1875 (Roberts, 1997, p. 9). The English even confined some prisoners of war in a Hudson River hulk during
the American Revolution. Inmates of these hulks were taken off to labor during the day for either public works or private
contractors. The conditions of confinement were, predictably, horrible. “The hulks were filthy, crowded, unventilated,
disease-ridden, and infested with vermin. The food was inadequate and the discipline was harsh” (Roberts, 1997, p. 11).
Some inmates housed on the lower decks even drowned from water taken on by these broken-down ships.

Photo 2.6
Drawing of
inmates in the
hulk prison
washroom

A major proponent of reform of English prisons, and also a Quaker, was Elizabeth Gurney Fry (1780–1845). She was an
advocate for improved conditions, guidelines, training, and work skills for women inmates (Roberts, 1997). She provided
the religious instruction herself to the women inmates.
 Chapter 2  v  A History of Corrections 31

Summary
■■ Human beings have been inventive in their develop- Enlightenment period in Europe was a time for
ment of punishments and ways in which to hold and rethinking old ideas and beliefs.
keep people. ■■ Bentham, Beccaria, John Howard, and William Penn
■■ Correctional history is riddled with efforts to improve were all especially influential in changing our ideas
means of coercion and reform. about crime, punishment, and corrections.
■■ Those accused or convicted of crimes who had more ■■ Correctional reforms, whether meant to increase the
means were less likely to be treated or punished use of humane treatment of inmates or to increase their
severely. secure control, often lead to unintended consequences.
■■ Sometimes the old worldviews (paradigms) are ■■ Some early European and English versions of pris-
challenged by new evidence and ideas, and ons and juvenile facilities were very close in mission
they are then discarded for new paradigms. The and operation to America’s earliest prisons.

Key Terms
Auburn Prison Hulks Pennsylvania model prisons
Bridewells New York model prisons Sing Sing Prison
Eastern Pennsylvania Newgate Prison in Transportation
 Prison   Simsbury, Connecticut
Walnut Street Jail
Galley slavery Norfolk Island
Western Pennsylvania
Great Law Panopticon  Prison

Discussion Questions
1. Identify examples of some themes that run through- 4. What role has religion played in the development of
out the history of corrections. What types of punish- corrections in the past?
ments tend to be used and for what types of crimes?
What sorts of issues influence the choice of actions 5. What types of things have remained the same in cor-
taken against offenders? rections over the years, and what types of things have
changed? Why do you think things have changed or
2. How were people of different social classes treated in
remained the same?
early jails and bridewells?
3. We know that transportation ended because of 6. Several historical figures mentioned in this chapter
the development of sails, which was an improve- advanced ideas that were viewed as radical for their
ment in technology. Can you think of other types day. Why do you think such ideas were eventually
of correctional practices that have been developed, adopted? Can you think of similar sorts of seemingly
improved upon, or stopped because of advances in “radical” ideas for reforming corrections that might be
technology? adopted in the future?
32 Corrections: The Essentials

Useful Internet Sites

American Correctional Association: www.aca.org Office of Justice Research (information available
on all manner of criminal justice topics, specifically
American Jail Association: www.corrections.com/aja/
probation and parole here): www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
American Probation and Parole Association: www pub/pdf/ppus05.pdf
.appa-net.org.
Pennsylvania Prison Society: www.prisonsociety
Bureau of Justice Statistics (information available on .org
all manner of criminal justice topics): http://bjs.ojp
Vera Institute (information available on a number of
.usdoj.gov/
corrections and other justice-related topics): www
John Howard Society of Canada: www.johnhoward.ca .vera.org
National Criminal Justice Reference Service: www
.ncjrs.gov