Deterrence General vs Specific Contrast

Deterrence ◦ General vs. Specific ◦ Contrast Effect Incapacitation ◦ Selective vs. General Rehabilitation/Reintegration ◦ Restorative Justice Retribution/Just Desert ◦ Non-utilitarian Goals/Justifications for Corrections

Importance ◦ Many issues/problems have been a part of corrections sine the earliest written records ◦ Many failed ideas get repeated ◦ Understand the current corrections landscape The History of Corrections

Code of Hammurabi (1772 BC), Roman 12 Tables (450 BC) ◦ Emphasized retribution (lex talionis) ◦ Punishments ranged from fines to death ◦ Generally, crime was a private matter Exception = Hammurabi ◦ Different sanctions based on status Earliest Written Legal Codes

Europe 9 th-15 th Century AD ◦ Subordinates Slaves, serfs, etc. dealt with by the lord of the manor absolute authority ◦ Freedmen settle conflicts “personally” Revenge / vengeance + feuds Reconciliation (buy off revenge) Feudal Society

First “principalities” in 12 th Century Shift from private to territorial lords Princes powerful enough to monopolize punishment and push back private vengence By 1500, government “corrections” overcomes traditions of private restitution and/or revenge Uneven and slow process Inquisitorial court system wins out over accusatorial system ◦ The “state” can prosecute the case without the victim Ex officio 1 st SHIFT: Private Public

BRUTAL physical punishment / death ◦ Molten lead down the shirt, drawing and quartering, burning, etc. PUBLIC spectacle ◦ In part, an effort to demonstrate that the government has a monopoly on the “legitimate” use of violence Form of Early State Corrections

Eventually, corrections changes into the form we recognize today No more molten lead down the front of the shirt, but still corporal punishment Punishment becomes less “public” Why? ? Spierenburg’s explanation? Transformation of sensibilities (Enlightenment) State no longer needs to prove itself From public brutality to private (indoors) punishment

England ◦ Corporal, Capital ◦ Transportation ◦ Pre-Prisons Galley Slavery Prison Hulks Debtor’s Prisons Houses of Corrections ◦ John Howard as first major “prison reformer” From Medieval Europe to Colonial America

Nature of Society ◦ Calvinist doctrine Crime not a “problem” (fact of life) ◦ Crimes/sins all treated similarly Control through family training/community cohesion ◦ Insiders vs. Outsiders Nature of Punishment ◦ Borrow heavily from England Corporal, Capital, Banishment Public Sparse use of prisons Colonial America (1600 -1750)

Population boom and shift from agrarian to industrial economy Enlightenment Produces alarm/dismay but also optimism ◦ First “burst of enthusiasm” (deterrence) Reform the legal code knife away from Brits ◦ Start with eliminating capital punishments for most crime Substitute prisons for corporal/capital punishment Enlightenment and Change (1770 s-1820)

Prison displaces corporal/capital punishment as the primary form of corrections First wave of prison building (1790 -1800) ◦ Not yet “reform” model—the legal code (not prison) was to greatly reduce crime. More rational and certain than “British” legal code. ◦ “A repulsion from the gallows rather than any faith in the penitentiary spurred the late-18 th Century construction” The Second Major Shift in Corrections

By 1820, the luster of the classical school (and associated reforms) fades ◦ No crime reduction, trouble with prisons ◦ Still, very optimistic (“impulse to reform”) The Invention of the Penitentiary ◦ A “PROPER” penitentiary will reform offenders PN vs. Auburn debate ◦ Reflects new understanding of cause of crime Prison “ideal” largely matched by practice ◦ Adequate funding, low crowding (Honeymoon) From deterrence to penance (1820 -1850)

Pennsylvania Separate AND Silent model gets competition Auburn (New York) ◦ Auburn Prison opens in 1818, adopts Walnut St. Jail (to become PN model) ideas in 1821 Not a good architectural fit, other problems… ◦ Reform through discipline/obedience, labor (inmates congregate to work, but lockstep, etc) Contract labor system Not much of a “Debate, ” but Auburn Model wins out…. . WHY? The Great Debate

Often neglected topic in corrections texts Corrections less centralized ◦ Justice dispensed at county level (not state) Prisons develop differently ◦ In South, race and the “Black codes” ◦ Economic differences Little $ to build prisons (civil war decimation) Different economy ◦ The “LEASE SYSTEM” ◦ Penal Farms Southern/Western Penology

By 1860, enthusiasm for penitentiaries wanes ◦ Corruption, corporal punishment, crowding. . . Wardens give up on ideal and seek to maintain order Even Eastern Penitentiary gives up “separate” model in 1886 1870 National Prison Congress ◦ Leads to “Declaration of Principles” Reaffirm reform over punishment Indeterminate sentences Parole Separate institutions for females and juveniles ◦ The lockstep, rules of silence, isolation, etc = humiliating and unproductive ◦ Elmira as “test case” for new “Reformatory” The New Penology (1870 -1900)

Progressives = middle/upper class reformers ◦ Great optimism + belief in government ◦ Sought to eradicate all sorts of social ills ◦ Crime? General reform (poverty reduction, fix slums) Embrace new penology ◦ Indeterminate sentences + parole boards/supervision ◦ Juvenile Justice System ◦ Probation Progressive Era 1900 -1960

By 1940 s, social sciences gain prestige ◦ Psychiatry, psychology, sociology Rehabilitative Ideal (1940 s-1960 s) Causes of crime are unique (social, psychological) The goal of corrections is to identify and eliminate/correct these causes (rehabilitation) Treatment must be individualized ◦ Corrections workers and judges must be trusted with a great deal of discretion The Medical Model and “Rehabilitative Ideal”

Rehab as unquestioned goal (in rhetoric at least) of Corrections system ◦ American Corrections Association (from American Prison Association) ◦ Correctional Facilities Standards for “correctional officers” All kinds of new Rx programs ◦ College education, group counseling, therapeutic milieu, behavior modification 1960 s Corrections becomes professionalized

Social Context of 1960 s ◦ Contrast with “progressive optimism/faith” ◦ Many progressives turn more radical Labeling theory ascends avoid “doing harm” Martinson Report “nothing works” ◦ Liberals embrace the “JUSTICE MODEL” ◦ Conservatives have different take on ’ 60 s Crime = symbol of all the “DISORDER” Solution = go back to classical school Progressives Radicals, Change. . . (1960 s-1980)

Conservatives and liberals agree on: ◦ The need to limit sentencing discretion Conservatives = liberal judges Liberals = corrupt, racist judges/parole boards Solution = return to determinate sentencing, sentencing guidelines, etc ◦ Only difference is on length of sentences Liberals = do less harm, be fair (justice model) Conservatives = punishment WORKS! Uneasy Alliance

1975 -2000 ◦ Prison as Crime Prevention Sentencing Guidelines/Policy ◦ Punishment Programs Boot Camps, “Shock Incarceration, ” ISP, Scared Straight!, Chain Gangs, Sherriff Joe… ◦ Political Rhetoric Democrats Begin to Pile on the “get tough” bandwagon The Crime Control Era

Liberals ◦ Rehabilitation ◦ Restorative Justice Conservatives? ◦ Problem Oriented Policing ◦ Zeal for prison has waned, less of political issue (terrorism, abortion, budget deficit, healthcare…) New Trends ◦ Evidence-Based Corrections ◦ Public Health Approach What Era Now?