American Penology

A History of Control

Thomas G. Blomberg

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351532501
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

The purpose of American Penology is to provide a story of punishment's past, present, and likely future. The story begins in the 1600s, in the setting of colonial America, and ends in the present. As the story evolves through various historical and contemporary settings, America's efforts to understand and control crime unfold. The context, ideas, practices, and consequences of various reforms in the ways crime is punished are described and examined.

Though the book's broader scope and purpose can be distinguished from prior efforts, it necessarily incorporates many contributions from this rich literature. While this enlarged second edition incorporates select descriptions and contingencies in relation to particular eras and punishment ideas and practices, it does not limit itself to individual "histories" of these eras. Instead, it uses history to frame and help explain particular punishment ideas and practices in relation to the period and context from which they evolved. The authors focus upon selected demographic, economic, political, religious, and intellectual contingencies that are associated with historical and contemporary eras to show how these contingencies shaped America's punishment ideals and practices.

In offering a new understanding of received notions of crime control in this edition, Blomberg and Lucken not only provide insights into the future of punishment, but also show how the larger culture of control extends beyond the field of criminology to have an impact on declining levels of democracy, freedom, and privacy.

1
Introduction

In this enlarged second edition of American Penology, we have expanded our historical materials and extended our contemporary discussion. Through our examination of several centuries, we communicate a story about American penology's past, present, and future. The story begins in the 1600s, in the setting of colonial America. It ends in the year 2009, in what is now routinely termed millennial America. As this story is told through various historical and contemporary settings, America's efforts to understand and control crime unfold. The context, ideas, practices, and consequences of various penal reforms are described and examined. As these reforms evolve, patterns and relationships emerge, culminating in conclusions that may be disquieting to some because of their Orwellian implications, but comforting to others because of their suggestion of greater order, convenience, and public safety.

It is important to acknowledge that, while this book incorporates specific historical conditions and influences in relation to particular penal reform eras, it does not provide histories of these eras. Rather than “doing history,” the genre of this book is to use selected historical conditions and influences. The purpose is to frame particular penal reforms, ideas, and practices in relation to the historical period and context from which they emerged and to which they are relevant.

Conceptual Framework

In the first half of the twentieth century, criminological inquiry was focused upon offender behavior and crime causation. The underlying assumption was that the operations of the formal criminal justice system of police, courts, and corrections are not problematic; on the contrary, it was assumed that this system simply operates in accordance with its formally prescribed goals and purposes. As a result, the system did not capture the attention of early twentieth-century criminological researchers.

During the 1960s, however, America witnessed firsthand the patterned inability of police, courts, and corrections to respond effectively to the decade's crime and civil disobedience. As public scrutiny increased, problems emerged that were directly connected to the underlying goals and fundamental purposes of the criminal justice system. Notions of “blind justice” and “disin terested professionalism” as accurate characterizations of criminal justice system practices were quickly discarded as criminal justice agencies were thought to have taken on a self-interested “life of their own” and, in the process, to have displaced their law-and-order, due process, and offender rehabilitation goals.

As these recognitions emerged, unprecedented interest in the critical study of the criminal justice system developed. Research shifted from a fixation with the offender and causes of crime to a preoccupation with the meaning and consequences of past and present crime-control efforts. This book draws upon several themes emerging from this critical literature over the past several decades. One dominant theme is what Cohen (1985) termed the “demystification theme of penology,” which resulted from critical examinations of the ideas and consequences of various penal strategies.

Although these various examinations involve different theoretical perspectives, they share a singular curiosity—namely, the interface between penal ideas and consequences—and a singular conclusion—the expansion of control over more of the population (Blomberg and Cohen, 1995). For many, the history of punishment is an unending cycle of good intentions gone bad, with the recurring disparity between ideas and consequences being attributed to a number of factors. For example, some assert that this disparity is due to flawed implementation resulting from misunderstandings in program design, in sufficient resources and staff, or other unforeseen developmental impediments (ibid.). Others maintain that the disparity between ideas and consequences is not so accidental; rather, organizational imperatives such as maintenance, survival, and expansion systematically undermine the efforts of well-meaning reformers (Austin and Krisberg, 1981; Blomberg, 1977; Rothman, 1980).

Still others argue that the intentions themselves of penal reformers are suspect from the outset: There are no unintended (negative) consequences associated with penal reform, just traditional political and economic imperatives and interests being fulfilled. For example, seemingly benign attempts to decentralize corrections and thereby improve the chances of offender rehabilitation and societal reintegration have been portrayed as efforts to alleviate state fiscal crises while still expanding offender control into the community (Scull, 1977). Other writers depict penal reform initiatives as extensions of economic preservation associated with class conflict and accompanying status panic by the rich and powerful (Platt, 1969; Simon, 1993). According to this theme—depending upon the needs of the labor market—the prison effectively functions as a factory by manufacturing disciplined and reliable workers, or as a warehouse controlling a surplus population of workers who threaten the existing social and economic order (Melossi and Pavarini, 1981; Rusche and Kirchheimer, 1939).

Despite these different interpretations of intent, motive, implementation, and practices, the reported consequences have been consistent: more control over an ever-increasing proportion of the base population. This book acknowledges the utility of each of these interpretations. As a result, they have been incorporated, in part, to help frame and interpret the story of American penology. However, in contrast to some critical arguments, this book also recognizes that motives related to civility, humanitarianism, progress, and what Schlossman (1977) termed “love of the American delinquent” to capture the motives of juvenile court reformers, should not be ignored. Following decades of discussion and debate, many scholars now have come to agree that some combinations of historical contingencies have indeed influenced the course of penal change (Cohen, 1985; Garland, 1990; Lucken, 1997; Rothman, 1971). However, the order and weight of these various historical contingencies remain uncertain, as specific cause-and-effect relationships have seldom been identified. Rather, the combined forces, influences, and relationships are better understood as intermittent, not necessarily linear, and varying in degrees of priority (Lucken, 1998). Certain influences (e.g., religious, economic) are more prominent and meaningful to penal reform than others during different historical and contemporary eras.

In attempting to tell the story of American penology, then, an interrelated framework is employed. First, there are specific historical eras and contexts that are shaped by a number of different contingencies and influences, in which particular ideas emerge to support and inform particular penal reforms. Second, there are the documented ways in which these reforms became implemented and practiced, thereby producing particular consequences. Moreover, it is argued that these various penal reform practices have resulted in cumulative consequences over time. As new penal reforms have been implemented, previous penal practices seldom have been changed or discarded. It is in this regard that the concept of “net widening” is employed. Net widening refers to the tendency of penal reformers to sequentially extend control over more of the base population, rather than to provide alternative control as generally claimed in the promotion of penal reforms. The history of penal reform has been characterized by repeated efforts to modify, differentiate, or change previous penal practices through new and alternative strategies. However, in practice, these reforms became implemented as supplements rather than alternatives to previous practices, thereby extending the overall proportion of the base population subject to some form of penal control or net widening with little relationship to crime's fluctuating trends.

The conceptual framework for this book, therefore, is eclectic. The framework is eclectic because it employs critical, progressive, and bureaucratic perspectives in its efforts to communicate a connection between historical and contemporary contexts, ideas, practices, and consequences of the major penal reforms that have constituted American penology over the past several centuries.

Overview of Book

The challenge this book faces in telling the story of American penology is a difficult one. To accomplish the book's purposes requires selection and imposition upon historical and contemporary eras and related penal ideas and practices. Actual time is not the same as time measured by research, or what is often referred to as social or historical time (Friedman, 1993). Consequently, this book condenses decades and sometimes centuries into a single reform era in the effort to provide clarity and understanding of what other wise would be an overwhelming mass of details. Moreover, though chapters are devoted to the introduction of new penal reform strategies, the organization of the book should not imply that previously dominant penal strategies were replaced or discarded in response to the latest penal reform. Throughout American history, old and new strategies have coexisted; sometimes the old has gradually declined but, in many instances, old modes of punishment have never declined at all or have even resurfaced later with greater popularity and influence.

Rossiter (1971) considered this historical trend when he noted that history is written, but not made, in chapters. Rather, historical events unfold in an “untidy manner,” and those who seek to understand these events must proceed in a way that is neat and ordered. Reflecting Rossiter's observation, this book imposes order upon several centuries of U.S. penal reform experiences in the effort to provide compelling descriptions and interpretations about the story of American penology.

Chapter 2 begins the story of American penology. The chapter briefly describes colonial America's strong English ties, which were expressed in the form of the small closely knit nature of colonial communities, early American crime trends, religiously dictated views on crime's causes and control, and associated colonial criminal codes and punishments. Colonial punishment practices are portrayed in this chapter as functional and responsive to the context, beliefs, and needs of the staunchly religious and closely knit colonial communities. As 1800 drew near, English influences and the pristine colonial context began to wane and America's punishment ideas and practices underwent major transition.

Chapter 3 continues by reviewing what has been termed the Period of Transition. This period refers to the nearly forty years during which America experienced major reforms of its legal codes and introduced incarceration as a form of punish ment. Under the combined influences of the Enlightenment, post-revolutionary optimism, early industrialization, and geographic mobility, colonial American ideas about crime's causes and control were no longer consistent with or functional for the rapidly changing needs and sensibilities of Americans and their emerging way of life. Crime and punishment came to be interpreted within the paradigm of free will and the associated “Classical School.” The reasoning was that, if the consequences of crime are made more painful than they are pleasurable, specific and general crime deterrence is accomplished and crime is prevented. The focus of the transition period's justice and penal system was upon reforming the laws, apprehending wrongdoers, and then providing swift and sure adjudication and punishment, often through imprisonment.

While Chapter 3 describes the formative origins of American prisons, Chapter 4 chronicles the nationwide proliferation and refinement of the penitentiary. Shaped by a different set of historical conditions and broadly held “urban disenchantment,” notions of crime as a product of free will lost some of its influence. In its place, a more deter ministic explanation—one that likened crime to a moral disease brought on by the socially disorganized and evil influences of the city—became the theoretical idea that guided Jacksonian penal reformers. Consequently, prisons served the dual purpose of correcting the wayward prisoner through regimen, discipline, and obedience, and of providing the disorganized and depraved city with a model of proper social organization to emulate. The prison walls were not only to keep prisoners in then, but also to prevent the evil city from contaminating the well-ordered prison environment. However, these lofty prison goals were not realized and the prison soon became characterized by organizational survival and managerial concerns, which in turn prompted a new series of penal reforms.

Chapter 5 focuses upon the period in which a major philosophical shift in American penology occurred that involved a broad and unquestioned commitment to individualized treatment and offender rehabilitation. From the 1880s to the 1930s, America experienced an unprecedented call for increased government action to respond to conditions associated with industrialization, urbanization, immigration—namely, a host of social problems including crime. Despite the ever-growing sense of urban disenchantment, there thrived an immutable optimism about the potential of the combined efforts of government and science to resolve crime and other urban problems. This optimism was based upon the belief that, by employing scientific principles, a more informed and effective governmental method of dealing with criminal offenders could be established. This orientation is referred to as progressivism, and its adherents have become known as the progressives. Progressives were driven by the goal of individualized treatment for offenders and concluded that this goal could be realized through a series of penal reform alternatives. These alternatives ranged from the reformatory and juvenile court to indeterminate sentencing, parole, and probation. Ultimately, however, these strategies were implemented in a way that departed from the goals of individualized treatment and offender rehabilitation: Rather than providing alternatives to the previous reliance upon prisons, these reform efforts largely served as supplements, overshadowed by a variety of managerial and offender control matters.

Chapters 6 and 7 continue to trace the progressive reform movement. From the early 1930s to the 1960s, the scientific search for the causes of crime accelerated. This contributed to an expansion of the penal system through program proliferation and offender classifications based upon risk and need and the associated belief that “more is better.” Supported by the ideals of individualized treatment and rehabilitation, prisons, parole, probation, and the juvenile court each experienced substantial growth, differentiation, and bureaucratization. But while the penal system experienced unprecedented growth predicated upon the assumed utility of the rehabilitative ideal, actual pe nal practices remained largely the same—namely, managerially dictated, routinized, and control focused. This pattern of penal growth was largely viewed as a necessary response to the perceived growing crime problem and was unquestioned until the turbulent decades of the 1960s and 1970s.

Chapter 8 shifts the previous chapters' focus on the relationship between historical eras and penal reforms to a more detailed consideration of the research and theory concerning the social organization of the prison. Indeed, it was the research on prisons during this period that first openly challenged the rehabilitative ideal, particularly as it pertains to the competency of the prison to induce offender change. Moreover, such detail of the prison social organization is essential for grasping the full meaning of incarceration from those who know it best—the inmates themselves. Beginning with Clemmer's 1940 contribution and subsequent research by Sykes (1958, 1995), Irwin and Cressey (1962), and Giallombardo (1966), a new and critical appreciation about life behind bars is provided. The arguments presented by these authors are neither pleasant nor optimistic about the potential of prisons to deal humanely or effectively with inmates. Nevertheless, the prison has consistently emerged unscathed from these criticisms and continues to operate as the taken-for-granted sanction of our justice system.

Returning to the book's prior focus on historical eras and penal reforms, Chapter 9 addresses the rise of the prisoner rights movement in the context of the civil rights activism and civil disobedience of the 1960s and 1970s. The progressive agenda that had dominated American penology for the first half of the 1900s fell under direct attack by the 1960s. Faith in the state and its agencies of crime control had dissolved. As opposed to previous reform efforts that expanded the penal system, the new reform movement advocated restraint, with specific checks designed to narrow the power and scope of the penal system. Following numerous lawsuits and legal victories, America's prisoners gained a number of important legal rights and privileges. How ever, many of the abuses the liberal Warren Court decisions appeared to have remedied quickly reemerged. Further, the increasing conservative makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court over the past several decades has resulted in numerous reversals of the earlier court rulings on behalf of prisoners during the 1960s and 1970s.

Also occurring during the 1960s and 1970s was the decentralization movement, which is examined in Chapter 10. The reforms that featured most prominently at this time are decarceration, diversion, and community corrections—all of which were promoted as being radical alternatives to the for mal penal system. The rationale underlying these reforms was that, by providing informal and voluntary forms of community treatment, offenders would avoid the negative labeling, stigmatization, and criminal as sociations that frequently result from formal system contact and processing. This approach included the promise of reducing the likelihood of future criminal activity by diverting first-time offenders. With legislative authority, theoretical justification, and professional and public support, decentralized penal strategies spread across America. However, the chapter documents that—although the logic behind the various decentralized reforms was radically different from that guiding preceding penal reforms—the decentralization practices and outcomes were not only similar; they were even more far-reaching. In other words, previous penal reforms such as reformatories, parole, probation, and the juvenile court were promoted as alternatives that would enable the penal system to provide more individualized offender treatment. In contrast, diversion, deinstitutionalization, and community corrections were promoted as alternatives to what was concluded to be a very negative penal system altogether that was doing more harm to offenders than good. But, regardless of these different motivations, efforts at de centralization not only met with more of the same, but also carried more ominous implications and consequences. New levels of control were extended not only to unintended juvenile clients but often to their families as well. When families subject to these new control measures were unable to comply—which was common—a series of repercussions ensued, often beginning with the dissolution of the family unit through the out-of-home placement of youth and sanctioning of parents, and frequently including the creating, perpetuating, and intensifying of subsequent crime.

By the end of the 1970s, declining faith in the rehabilitative ideal and de centralized correctional reforms had peaked. Chapters 11 and 12 move American penology's story forward by assessing the consequences of America's subsequent embrace of a “get tough on crime” ethos. In 1980, with the election of Ronald Reagan as president, there was a pervasive sense of cynicism due to a number of economic downturns and military failures. The response to these conditions was to abandon the liberalism of the past. As Reagan frequently stated in his early speeches following his election, “The problem with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so...