development of corrections essay

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

Criminal Justice

IResearchNet

Academic Writing Services

History and evolution of correctional systems.

This article explores the intricate history and evolution of correctional systems in the United States, spanning from the early colonial era to contemporary times. Beginning with the roots of punishment in colonial America, the narrative delves into the emergence of the penitentiary system and its subsequent influence on the shaping of correctional philosophy. Examining pivotal moments such as the Progressive Era reforms and the Great Depression, the article analyzes how these historical contexts molded the trajectory of American corrections. A critical exploration of 20th-century challenges, including the impact of the War on Drugs and mass incarceration, sets the stage for an examination of contemporary trends and innovations, such as evidence-based practices and alternatives to incarceration. The article concludes by reflecting on the ongoing evolution of correctional systems, acknowledging both the strides made in rehabilitation and the persisting challenges in achieving a balanced and just approach to criminal justice. In adherence to the APA style, in-text citations substantiate key assertions and provide readers with access to scholarly sources.

Introduction

Correctional systems represent a crucial facet of the criminal justice process, encompassing a spectrum of institutions and practices designed to address and rehabilitate individuals involved in criminal activities. This article delves into the multifaceted history and evolution of correctional systems in the United States, offering a scholarly exploration of the intricate developments that have shaped this integral component of the criminal justice landscape. To comprehend the contemporary state of correctional systems, it is imperative to scrutinize their historical roots and trace the trajectory of their evolution. This introduction aims to define correctional systems, emphasizing their role in society, and underscores the significance of studying their history. A concise overview of the developmental milestones in corrections in the United States sets the stage for a comprehensive analysis of the various epochs that have influenced the present state of American correctional philosophy. The article’s purpose is to provide readers with a nuanced understanding of the forces and ideologies that have molded correctional systems, while its scope extends from the colonial era to contemporary times, encompassing pivotal reform movements, challenges, and innovative trends within the field.

Historical Roots of Correctional Systems

The roots of correctional systems in the United States trace back to the early forms of punishment in colonial America. During this era, punishment predominantly manifested through corporal penalties and public shaming, reflecting a society where physical retribution served as a deterrent. The utilitarian philosophy, emphasizing the greatest good for the greatest number, influenced these early approaches to punishment.

The transformational shift towards more systematic correctional practices began with the emergence of the penitentiary system. Inspired by Enlightenment ideals and the reformist movement, the notion of rehabilitation gained prominence. This era saw the establishment of two influential models: the Pennsylvania and Auburn systems. The Pennsylvania model focused on solitary confinement and reflection, while the Auburn model incorporated congregate labor in silence.

The 19th century witnessed a substantial growth in prison populations, a phenomenon propelled by urbanization and industrialization. The surge in crime rates, coupled with societal changes, led to an increased reliance on imprisonment as a method of punishment. However, this period also brought to light challenges such as overcrowding and inadequate living conditions within burgeoning prison facilities. As correctional systems grappled with these issues, the stage was set for further developments and reforms in the evolving landscape of American corrections.

Reform Movements and Progressive Era

The reform movements of the 19th and early 20th centuries mark a pivotal period in the evolution of correctional systems in the United States, notably influenced by the contrasting Auburn and Pennsylvania models. The Auburn system, emphasizing congregate labor and enforced silence, left an indelible mark on the landscape of prison labor. This model, with its focus on productivity, laid the groundwork for the emergence of modern penitentiaries where labor played a central role in the rehabilitative process.

The Progressive Era, spanning the late 19th to early 20th century, brought about substantial reforms in correctional philosophies. Departing from the punitive measures of previous eras, rehabilitation emerged as a guiding principle. This shift in ideology aimed at addressing the root causes of criminal behavior rather than merely punishing offenders. Educational and vocational programs gained prominence within prisons as tools for reform, reflecting a broader societal belief in the transformative power of education.

A significant development during this era was the rise of parole and probation as alternatives to traditional incarceration. The indeterminate sentence, allowing for flexibility in the duration of imprisonment based on an individual’s progress and behavior, became a cornerstone of Progressive Era reforms. Parole boards were established to assess inmates’ readiness for reintegration into society, fostering a more individualized approach to criminal justice.

The intertwining of these reforms not only reshaped the physical structures of correctional facilities but also redefined the overarching goals of the criminal justice system. Rehabilitation and reintegration took precedence over mere punishment, reflecting a progressive vision that sought to address the complex interplay of social, economic, and psychological factors contributing to criminal behavior. The legacy of these reforms continues to influence contemporary correctional practices, laying the groundwork for ongoing debates about the balance between punishment and rehabilitation in the criminal justice system.

Challenges and Transformations in the 20th Century

The 20th century witnessed a series of challenges and transformations that significantly impacted the landscape of correctional systems in the United States. The Great Depression, a defining economic downturn of the 1930s, had profound implications for corrections as financial constraints led to severe cutbacks in funding. This period saw a decline in rehabilitation efforts, with correctional facilities struggling to meet basic needs, thereby affecting the overall effectiveness of the system.

The introduction of the Medical Model in the mid-20th century marked a paradigm shift in correctional philosophy. This model, emphasizing the diagnosis and treatment of offenders as patients, influenced the design of treatment programs within prisons. The focus shifted from punishment to rehabilitation, with an increased emphasis on addressing underlying psychological and behavioral issues contributing to criminal behavior.

Deinstitutionalization emerged as another transformative force in the 20th century. The movement aimed to reduce the reliance on large, centralized institutions, advocating for community-based treatment and support. However, the unintended consequence of deinstitutionalization was the strain it placed on the prison population. Individuals with mental health issues, lacking adequate community support, often found themselves within the criminal justice system, contributing to the challenge of overcrowded prisons.

The latter half of the century saw the initiation of the War on Drugs, a socio-political campaign that led to a significant increase in incarceration rates. The punitive measures associated with this campaign contributed to the rise of mass incarceration, raising questions about the efficacy of such approaches in addressing the root causes of drug-related offenses.

Criticism of correctional systems intensified, with a particular focus on issues of racial disparity. The disproportionate impact of law enforcement policies on minority communities became a focal point, highlighting systemic inequalities within the criminal justice system. This period also witnessed a heated debate between proponents of rehabilitation and those advocating for a more punitive approach to justice, reflecting ongoing tensions within the field.

The challenges and transformations of the 20th century laid the groundwork for the complexities and controversies surrounding modern correctional systems. The intersection of economic factors, shifting philosophies, and social issues set the stage for a reevaluation of the goals and methods of incarceration, prompting a renewed focus on addressing systemic shortcomings and promoting justice within the criminal justice system.

Contemporary Trends and Innovations

The turn of the 21st century has witnessed a dynamic shift in correctional paradigms, marked by the emergence of contemporary trends and innovative approaches that seek to address the shortcomings of traditional correctional systems. One notable trend is the widespread adoption of evidence-based practices, emphasizing the integration of scientifically validated methods into correctional interventions. This shift reflects a commitment to programs and strategies proven to be effective in reducing recidivism and promoting rehabilitation, thereby aligning with broader efforts to enhance the overall efficacy of the criminal justice system.

Technological advancements have played a pivotal role in reshaping correctional management. From surveillance technologies to electronic monitoring systems, these innovations have enhanced the efficiency and security of correctional facilities. Additionally, advancements in data analytics and artificial intelligence are increasingly being leveraged to assess risk factors, tailor rehabilitation programs, and optimize resource allocation within correctional systems.

A significant contemporary focus is placed on reentry programs and community corrections, acknowledging that successful reintegration into society is a key component of effective correctional practices. Programs designed to facilitate a smooth transition from incarceration to community life, including job training, counseling, and support networks, aim to reduce the likelihood of reoffending and contribute to the overall well-being of the individuals involved.

The recognition of alternatives to traditional incarceration has gained momentum, fostering a more nuanced approach to criminal justice. Drug courts, mental health courts, and restorative justice programs exemplify this trend, diverting individuals away from punitive measures and towards rehabilitative interventions tailored to address specific needs. Drug courts, for instance, aim to treat underlying substance abuse issues rather than imposing lengthy sentences, reflecting a paradigm shift towards a more therapeutic approach.

However, the contemporary landscape of correctional systems is not without challenges and debates. Persistent issues such as overcrowding, the impact of mandatory minimum sentences, and questions surrounding the privatization of prisons continue to be subjects of intense discussion. Moreover, the ongoing debate between punitive measures and rehabilitative approaches underscores the complex balancing act that correctional systems must navigate in the pursuit of justice.

As the field of corrections evolves, these contemporary trends and innovations provide a glimpse into a future where evidence-based practices, technological advancements, and a holistic understanding of rehabilitation and reentry form the foundation of a more effective and humane criminal justice system. The ongoing dialogue surrounding these issues reflects the dynamic nature of correctional systems and their continued efforts to adapt to the complex challenges of the modern era.

In retrospect, the journey through the history and evolution of correctional systems in the United States reveals a tapestry woven with key historical developments that have shaped the contemporary landscape of criminal justice. From the early forms of punishment in colonial America to the emergence of the penitentiary system, the influence of the Auburn and Pennsylvania models, and the transformative reforms of the Progressive Era, each epoch reflects a response to societal needs and evolving philosophies.

The 20th century presented its own set of challenges and transformations, from the impact of the Great Depression to the adoption of the Medical Model, deinstitutionalization, and the complexities brought about by the War on Drugs. The criticism of correctional systems and the debates surrounding issues of racial disparity and the dichotomy between rehabilitation and punishment underscored the ongoing struggle to strike a balance between justice, punishment, and societal reintegration.

Contemporary trends and innovations, such as evidence-based practices, technological advancements, and the emphasis on reentry programs and alternatives to incarceration, signify a dynamic shift toward a more nuanced and rehabilitative approach. Yet, amid these positive strides, challenges persist, and debates about the fundamental principles of corrections endure.

The ongoing evolution of correctional systems beckons a reflection on the future of corrections in the United States. As we navigate an era marked by advancements in technology, a renewed emphasis on evidence-based strategies, and a growing recognition of the importance of community reintegration, the future holds the promise of a more responsive and effective criminal justice system. The intersection of historical context, contemporary challenges, and evolving philosophies invites scholars, practitioners, and policymakers to engage in a continued dialogue that seeks not only to understand the past but also to shape a future where corrections serve as a catalyst for rehabilitation, justice, and societal well-being. In this dynamic landscape, the evolution of correctional systems remains an ongoing narrative, inviting further exploration and commitment to the principles that underpin the pursuit of a just and equitable society.

Bibliography

• Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The New Press.
• Beck, A. J., & Shipley, B. E. (1989). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1983. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
• Clear, T. R. (2007). Imprisoning communities: How mass incarceration makes disadvantaged neighborhoods worse. Oxford University Press.
• Clear, T. R., & Frost, N. A. (2014). The punishment imperative: The rise and failure of mass incarceration in America. NYU Press.
• Clear, T. R., Reisig, M. D., & Cole, G. F. (2012). American corrections. Cengage Learning.
• Feeley, M. M., & Simon, J. (1994). The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology, 30(4), 449-474.
• Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage Books.
• Garland, D. (1990). Punishment and modern society: A study in social theory. University of Chicago Press.
• Irwin, J., & Austin, J. (1997). It’s about time: America’s imprisonment binge. Wadsworth Publishing Company.
• Latessa, E. J., & Smith, P. (2011). Corrections in the community. Routledge.
• Lerman, A. E., & Weaver, V. M. (2014). Arresting citizenship: The democratic consequences of American crime control. University of Chicago Press.
• Mauer, M., & Chesney-Lind, M. (2002). Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment. The New Press.
• Rothman, D. J. (1971). The discovery of the asylum: Social order and disorder in the new republic. Little, Brown.
• Simon, J. (2007). Governing through crime: How the war on crime transformed American democracy and created a culture of fear. Oxford University Press.
• Spelman, W. (1995). Criminal incapacitation. Springer.
• Thompson, C., & Bynum, T. S. (2011). Historical dictionary of the American criminal justice system. Scarecrow Press.
• Vito, G. F., & Holmes, R. M. (2010). Corrections: A critical approach. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Walker, S., & Katz, C. M. (2011). The police in America: An introduction. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Western, B. (2006). Punishment and inequality in America. Russell Sage Foundation.
• Zimring, F. E. (2003). The contradictions of American capital punishment. Oxford University Press.

History of Corrections

• Reference work entry
• First Online: 27 November 2018
• pp 2115–2127
• Cite this reference work entry

• Logan M. McBride 5  

416 Accesses

Imprisonment ; Reformation ; Rehabilitation

With more than two million adults serving time in American prisons and jails, another five million adults under forms of correctional supervision such as probation or parole that threaten imprisonment for violators, and an incarceration rate of more than 700 people per 100,000 population, the United States leads the world in incarceration (Glaze, 2011 ). Although imprisonment has come to dominate American corrections, the prison as a form of punishment is a relatively recent historical development, emerging as part of a transnational conversation in the United States and Europe in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and later in various forms throughout the rest of the world. To be sure, while neither the use of confinement nor the loss of liberty as punishment was invented in the United States, American penal innovation greatly influenced corrections on a global scale.

The history of corrections in America is...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Recommended Reading and References

Binder A (2001) Juvenile delinquency: historical, cultural and legal perspectives, 3rd edn. Anderson Publishing Company Cincinnati

Google Scholar  

Botsman D (2005) Punishment and power in the making of modern Japan. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Conley J (1980) Prisons, production and profit: reconsidering the importance of prison industries. Journal of Social History 14:2

Curtin M (2000) Black prisoners and their world, Alabama 1865–1900. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville

Ekirch A (1985) A profile of British convicts transported to the colonies, 1718–1775. The William and Mary Quarterly 42(2):184–200

Foucault M (1977) Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. Trans. Alan Sheridan. Vintage, New York

Freedman E (1981) Their sisters’ keepers: women’s prison reform in America, 1830–1920. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

Gilmore R (2007) Golden gulag: prisons, surplus, crisis, and opposition in globalizing California. University of California Press, Berkeley

Glaze L (2011) Correctional populations in the United States, 2010. Bureau of Justice. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus10.pdf . Accessed 16 Feb 2012

Gottschalk M (2006) The prison and the gallows: the politics of mass incarceration. Cambridge University Press, New York

Grubb F (2000) The transatlantic market for British convict labor. The Journal of Economic History 60(1):94–122

Ignatieff M (1978) A just measure of pain: the penitentiary in the industrial revolution, 1750–1850. Macmillan, New York

Kealey L (1986) Patterns of punishment: Massachusetts in the eighteenth century. The American Journal of Legal History 30(2):163–186

Kunzel R (2008) Criminal intimacy: prison and the uneven history of modern American sexuality. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Lewis W (1965) From Newgate to Dannemora: the rise of the penitentiary in New York, 1796–1848. Cornell University Press, Ithaca

Linebaugh P (2003) The London hanged: crime and civil society in the eighteenth century, 2nd edn. Verso, London

Masur L (1989) Rites of execution: capital punishment and the transformation of American culture, 1776–1865. Oxford University Press, New York

McLennan R (2008) The crisis of imprisonment: protest, politics, and the making of the American penal state, 1776–1941. Cambridge University Press, New York, 2008

Meranze M (1996) Laboratories of virtue: punishment, revolution, and authority in Philadelphia, 1760–1835. North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill

Morgan K (1985) The organization of the convict trade to Maryland: Stevenson, Randolph and Cheston, 1768–1775. The William and Mary Quarterly 42(2):201–227

Morris N, Rothman D (eds) (1995) The Oxford history of the prison: the practice of punishment in Western Society. Oxford University Press, New York

Perkinson R (2010) Texas tough: the rise of America's prison empire. Metropolitan Books, New York

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

Rafter N (1990) Partial justice: women, prisons and social control, 2nd edn. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick

Rothman D (1971) The discovery of the asylum: social order and disorder in the New Republic. Little, Brown & Co, Boston

Rothman D (1980) Conscience and convenience: the asylum and its alternatives in progressive America. Little, Brown and Company, Boston

Salvatore R, Aguirre C (eds) (1996) The birth of the penitentiary in Latin America. University of Texas Press, Austin

Schlossman S (2005) Transforming Juvenile justice: reform ideals and institutional realities, 1825–1920. Northern Illinois University Press, DeKalb

Spierenburg P (1987) From Amsterdam to Auburn an explanation for the rise of the prison in seventeenth-century Holland and nineteenth-century America. Journal of Social History 20(3):439–461

Sullivan L (1990) The prison reform movement: forlorn hope. Twayne Publishers, Boston

Teeters N, Shearer J (1957) The prison at Philadelphia, Cherry Hill. Columbia University Press, New York

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The Graduate Center, The City University of New York, New York, NY, USA

Logan M. McBride

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Logan M. McBride .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR), Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Gerben Bruinsma

VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Department of Criminology, Law and Society, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

David Weisburd

Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem, Israel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this entry

Cite this entry.

McBride, L.M. (2014). History of Corrections. In: Bruinsma, G., Weisburd, D. (eds) Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_273

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_273

Published : 27 November 2018

Publisher Name : Springer, New York, NY

Print ISBN : 978-1-4614-5689-6

Online ISBN : 978-1-4614-5690-2

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

50 Years Later: The Evolution of Prison Policy

Buried within Adelante is evidence of a fleeting attempt at prison reform and oversight in Connecticut. Is history repeating itself?

In the 1970s in a Connecticut prison, a newspaper called Adelante was written by and for Spanish speakers. The paper is included in Reveal Digital’s American Prison Newspapers collection, with digitized prison newspapers that span across three centuries. Many of these contain shocking history, but a seemingly drab notice from the April 1972 issue of Adelante is, in fact, extraordinary for what it reveals about the evolution of prison policy.

Prison disciplinary procedures are historically opaque and shielded from outside review. For centuries, courts determined that how discipline and punishment were administered within prison was the realm of prisons alone and could not be brought before the courts.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, quoted in Joseph Condon’s 1971 law review article Procedural Due Process in Prison Disciplinary Actions , affirmed:

[S]o long as the punishment imposed for an infraction of the rules is not so unreasonable as to be characterized as vindictive, cruel or inhuman, there is no right of judicial review to it… Such questions have consistently been held to be nonjusticiable, for routine security measures and disciplinary action rest solely within the discretion of the prison officials…

Courts refused to intervene in matters of prison rules, regulations, or practices, believing their domain to be that of protecting the rights of the accused and not that of defining the rights of the convicted. Often referred to as the “ hands off doctrine ,” it gave prison officials wide discretion and little oversight.

After being reaffirmed in court decisions for decades, sentiment would evolve—if only slightly—by the early 1970s.

The 1965 President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice may have contributed to the change. Formed by President Johnson, it was a response to growing social angst around crime, justice, fairness, and punishment. Ambitious in both scope and membership, it produced its completed report in 1967 . The report recommended sweeping reforms, including an overhauling of the juvenile justice system, the professionalization of policing, and major modifications to corrections policies.

“ Correctional agencies should develop explicit standards and administrative procedures to enable those under correctional control to test the fairness of key decisions affec ting them,” read the official report. Accusations of arbitrariness abounded at the time. “These procedures should include gathering and recording facts and providing for independent monitoring and review of the actions of correctional officials.” 

Problems identified in the report and more came to a head with the Attica Prison Riot of 1971 , which is often cited as the impetus for finally implementing reforms. Civil rights litigation had been successful at reforming broader society; that movement finally reached prisons. Courts took a more hands-on approach and scholarly research began critically examining policies behind the walls.

Suddenly, challenges to policies that were arbitrary or unfair were being upheld. Researchers began to examine due process and racial disparities as they related to prison policies and their enforcement. As a consequence of prisoners’ litigation, correctional facilities across the US were being placed under federal court orders and consent decrees as a way of imposing strict oversight. All eyes were on policy that was once shielded from view and disregarded.

Only in that historical context does the gravity of the OFFICIAL NOTICE above that appeared in Adelante 50 years ago make sense.

Policies that had previously been designed, implemented, and enforced unilaterally, were suddenly incorporating “independent monitoring and review.” The State of Connecticut abided by the new directive wholeheartedly.

OFFICIAL NOTICE (from the Department) On January 4th, 1972 Commissioner John R. Manson established a group to oversee the revision of all aspects of the Department of Correction’s disciplinary procedures, policies and procedures concerning the function and administration of discipline in the Department’s various institutions. Professor Leonard Orland of the University of Connecticut School of Law, who is a member of this group, has offered to receive comments, suggestions and complaints relating to the current disciplinary procedures that directly relate to inmates. Any inmate that desires to communicate their ideas can send a sealed envelope without censoring directly to Professor Orland at the University of Connecticut at the following address: University of Connecticut School of Law, West Hartford, Conn., 06117. The letters can be unsigned; however, Professor Orland has indicated that he would prefer to know the identity of who has written because he would like to personally interview certain inmates when the situations in question justify it. All communication with Professor Orland will be classified CONFIDENTIAL and the name of the sender will not be revealed to the other members of the group nor to any staff member of the Department of Corrections without the permission of the sender. Assistant Warden Earl F. Stout Chairman, Disciplinary Task Force

John R. Manson, the Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Corrections, convened an external council on January 4th, 1972 to oversee the revision of a broad scope of policies and procedures. According to his New York Times obituary, Manson was the first official to adopt the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners . (Today, the United States is perpetually identified as being in flagrant violation of these rules.) According to that obituary, he was also the first to implement a furlough and a work release program, both of which were broadly eliminated in the tough-on-crime decades to come.

Leonard Orland, a law professor at the University of Connecticut School of Law, not only sought comment from the incarcerated people who would be directly impacted by these changes. He went on to publish a book titled Prisons: Houses of Darkness in 1978, which revealed the “lawlessness by which sentencing judges, prison authorities, and parole boards actually operate,” according to its publisher  Simon and Schuster .

By placing a notice in Adelante , prison administrators were encouraging incarcerated people to weigh in on the policies that would be used to regulate their behavior and punish deviations. A decade prior, federal judges did not feel empowered to opine on prison policies. In 1972, incarcerated people themselves were being asked to.

Whether or not promises of anonymity were sincere is unknown, as is the final outcome of the policy review commission. What is known is that the sentiment towards transparency and oversight in prison policies was short lived.

In 2020, the United Nations decried conditions in US prisons,  “These dehumanising conditions of detention, sometimes euphemistically referred to as ‘segregation,’ ‘secure housing,’ the ‘hole’ or ‘lockdown,’ are routinely used by US correctional facilities…” Going to the “hole” is an exceedingly common form of punishment in prisons and jails. The UN derides the notion that going to the “hole” is a form of “discipline” by alleging it is little more than a euphemism for psychological torture.

The UN briefing specifically denounced the Connecticut Department of Corrections. “There seems to be a State-sanctioned policy aimed at purposefully inflicting severe pain or suffering, physical or mental, which may well amount to torture,” said UN Special Rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer. Nearly 50 years ago, Commissioner Manson prided himself on the fact the department complied with the UN rules. Now, the UN is sounding the alarm that the state’s policies likely amount to torture.

Incarcerated people have diminished rights of due process, with “penological interests” often outweighing their constitutional rights. The tough-on-crime era made any talk of reform or improving prison conditions controversial. Pell Grants were repealed in 1994, decimating higher education behind bars, and population growth produced rampant overcrowding. Conditions deteriorated across the nation.

Prison administrators themselves are aggrieved by the current state of affairs, having their hands tied, their prisons overflowing, and their budgets for programming slashed. “Public sentiment and political rhetoric have often limited prison administrators’ ability to manage overcrowded prisons in ways and with tools that sound professional judgment suggests are appropriate,” complained Frank Wood, the former director of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.

Chase Riveland’s article in Crime and Justice  interviews seven correctional administrators, Wood included, about the seismic shifts they witnessed between 1975 and 1997. An undercurrent of frustration at perceived policy regressions is present throughout the administrators’ statements. Their complaints, written in 1999, could be applied to many present-day correctional systems.

Popular discourse around prison reform seems to revolve more than it evolves. Many of the reforms proposed in the 1967 Crime Commission report never came to pass. Some of its most salient complaints are being echoed today. From the fact that women have only been provided with “inadequate imitations of the institutional programs used for males” despite having incredibly unique needs, to concerns about our juvenile justice system, to an emphasis on community-based programs and a need for rehabilitation, its findings are acutely relevant. The report admonished the federal government to lead all reforms and oversight.

Today, the federal government only infrequently intervenes in state and local justice systems. Much of the push towards reform in the 1970s was a consequence of successful prisoners’ litigation and the court orders and consent decrees that ensued, or proactive steps taken to avoid being bound to one. In 1996, Congress passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), which severely restricted the ability of any incarcerated person to challenge any condition of their confinement in court. The PLRA has been accused of facilitating civil rights abuses as it further hampered the ability of federal courts to intervene and oversee matters behind bars. The Department of Justice admits that prison oversight is markedly less developed in the United States when compared to other democracies.

Buried in an issue of Adelante is evidence of yet another fleeting—but ultimately failed—attempt at reform.

“Penal institutions tend to be a kind of catch basin for a myriad of human problems not resolved elsewhere,” read the 1967 Crime Commission report.

Support JSTOR Daily! Join our new membership program on Patreon today.

JSTOR is a digital library for scholars, researchers, and students. JSTOR Daily readers can access the original research behind our articles for free on JSTOR.

Get Our Newsletter

Get your fix of JSTOR Daily’s best stories in your inbox each Thursday.

Privacy Policy   Contact Us You may unsubscribe at any time by clicking on the provided link on any marketing message.

More Stories

• How Sports Shaped Glacier Science

• Labor Day: A Celebration of Working in America

A Selection of Student Confessions

Thurgood Marshall

Recent posts.

• Street Shrines, Bug Photos, and Revolutionary Women
• Playing It Straight and Catching a Break
• Finding Caves on the Moon Is Great. On Mars? Even Better.

Support JSTOR Daily

Sign up for our weekly newsletter.

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

The History of Corrections in America

Brief history of the federal prison system.

The United States government established the prison system in 1891. The Three Prison Act established funding for Leavenworth, McNeil Island and UPS Atlanta. It appears the first Federal prison was Leavenworth in Kansas. It started housing prisoners in 1906; however, prior to it opening federal prisoners were held at Fort Leavenworth military prison. Prisoners were used to build the facility.

Before the U.S. government passed the Three Prison Act, federal prisoners were held in state prisons. Today the Federal Bureau of Prisons houses inmates convicted of federal crimes. As of today the total number of inmates held in BOP operated facilities is 183,820 in 122 institutions, 27 residential reentry management offices and 11 privately managed facilities.

BOP Timeline

• 1891 - Federal Prison System Established
• Congress passes the "Three Prisons Act," which established the Federal Prison System (FPS). The first three prisons – USP Leavenworth,USP Atlanta, and USP McNeil Island – are operated with limited oversight by the Department of Justice.

BOP History

• Pursuant to Pub. L. No. 71-218, 46 Stat. 325 (1930), the Bureau of Prisons was established within the Department of Justice and charged with the "management and regulation of all Federal penal and correctional institutions." This responsibility covered the administration of the 11 Federal prisons in operation at the time.
• USP Leavenworth was one of three first generation federal prisons which were built in the early 1900s. Prior to its construction, federal prisoners were held at state prisons. In 1895, Congress authorized the construction of the federal prison system.[5] From an article at this link: Leavenworth
• The other two were Atlanta and McNeil Island (although McNeil dates to the 1870s the major expansion did not occur until the early 1900s)
• 1896 June 10: the Congress authorized a new federal penitentiary.
• 1897 March: Warden French marched prisoners every morning two and one-half miles (4 km) from Ft. Leavenworth to the new site of the federal penitentiary. Work went on for two and one-half decades.
• 1906 February 1: All prisoners had been transferred to the new facility, and the War Department appreciatively accepted the return of its prison. This medium-security prison for men opened in 1902 after President William McKinley signed off on the construction of a new federal prison in Atlanta. Along with USP Leavenworth and McNeil Island, it is one of the oldest federal prisons in the United States. From United States Penitentiary, Atlanta

Life Goes On: The Historic Rise in Life Sentences in America

Nellis, Ashley, and Jean Chung. The Sentencing Project, 2013 “This analysis documents long-term trends in the use of life imprisonment as well as providing empirical details for the offenses that comprise the life-sentenced population” (p. 1). An appendix provides a graph for each state showing their trends in the use of life sentences. Document ID: 027635

1980 New Mexico State Penitentiary Prison Riot

BBC (London, England), 2009 This video documentary covers the February 2 and 3, 1980 riot at the New Mexico State Penitentiary. During this riot, the worst in the history of corrections in the United States, 33 inmates were killed with over 200 injured, and seven of the 12 officers taken hostage hurt. Document ID: 026908

Correctional Photo Archives

Eastern Kentucky University, Special Collections and Archives Access to the American Prison Society Photographic Archive collected by William Bain is provided at this website include: about the collection; access the collection; access the inventory; search this site; other links; other resources; and contact information.

New York Correction History Society

This website serves to pursue, preserve, and promote the history of Correction Services in New York. Areas covered include Probation, Parole, Juvenile Justice, Alternatives to Incarceration, and Transitional Services.

A Brief History of Alcatraz - Federal Bureau of Prisons

Federal Bureau of Prisons Describes before the prison was built, the rock, birdman, escape attempts, and the closure of the facility. Compiled by the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

• DOI: 10.1108/jpmh-04-2024-0055
• Corpus ID: 272230078

Defining mental health literacy: a systematic literature review and educational inspiration

• Shengnan Zeng , Richard Bailey , +1 author Xiaohui Chen
• Published in Journal of Public Mental… 2 September 2024
• Psychology, Education

56 References

A systematic review of the limitations and associated opportunities of chatgpt, deductive qualitative analysis: evaluating, expanding, and refining theory, conceptualising and measuring positive mental health literacy: a systematic literature review, mental health education integration into the school curriculum needs to be implemented, review: school-based mental health literacy interventions to promote help-seeking - a systematic review., public opinion towards mental health (the case of the vologda region), quantifying the global burden of mental disorders and their economic value, mental health literacy: it is now time to put knowledge into practice, clarifying the concept of mental health literacy: protocol for a scoping review, positive mental health literacy: a concept analysis, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers