Brookdale Community College Chapter 5 History of Punishment Summary Chapter Summary 5. For each chapter you are to put together a 2-3 page outline (with ma

Brookdale Community College Chapter 5 History of Punishment Summary Chapter Summary 5. For each chapter you are to put together a 2-3 page outline (with main headings and subheadings). Outline the main ideas with supporting points. No need to be overly detailed. The book is easy to outline. Look at the main headings in bold. Choose the ones that you think are most important (maybe all of them, maybe just some of them) and outline those sections. Answer the following questions for each chapter:

What do you think are the two most interesting topics discussed in the chapter? Why?

Give an example of something in the news that pertains to what you read in the chapter.

This assignment must be typed and submitted electronically in MS Word (.docx) format.

In the file is some of the main points in chapter 2. The main points are bolded and below them are the sub points to use with it.

Make sure to put the two most interesting things from the chapter in and give something from the news that pertains to this chapter HISTORY OF PUNISHMENT
Punishment for the violation of group norms, rules, and laws is a common element across
human history and societies. Whether the response is informally handed out by the head of a
household or reflects the official commands of a modern-day court, social life imposes various
restrictions on behavior, and violations carry the possibility of a negative response. Punishment
may be justified for a variety of social, political, moral, or religious reasons. In ancient times,
punishment for a violation of a social norm or law was often handled locally, by the family, clan,
or head of the community. Larger and more organized societies typically used more formal
procedures for investigating, prosecuting, adjudicating, and punishing of-fenders. There was
considerable variation, however, in the response depending on the type of law or custom that
was violated, who the offender and victim were, the specific geographic location of the incident,
and the exact historical time period. Nearly every society has had some arrangements for the
temporary confine-ment of offenders. Some ancient civilizations, such as the Greeks and
Romans, also had facilities designed to hold offenders for longer periods of time. In gen-eral,
however, punishment in premodern Western societies and colonial America primarily involved
the use of monetary compensation or corporal punishments. This is not to suggest that
imprisonment did not occur, but it was far from the most common or most important form of
punishment. When incarceration did occur, it was for the purpose of holding the offender until
the corporal or capital sentence was to take place, usually within a day or two. Modern societies
are structured by the formal organization and routinization of social tasks and social life. One of
the social tasks that has been increasingly con-trolled and managed has been the enforcement
of laws and punishment of law vio-lators. With the spread of democratic values and market
capitalism came growing criticism of the use of physical punishment. In the late 1700s, severe
forms of pun-ishment were being questioned by those adhering to the Classical school. Furthermore, existing punishments and facilities of the day were perceived as ineffective and
counterproductive. As society shifted from a top-down power structure to one based on the
sovereignty of the people, new forms of punishment were needed to reflect these new social
relations. It was during this time that the modern-day peni-tentiary was born, and with it the
beginning of formal organizational structures designed to carry out punishments (Morris and
Rothman 1995; Rothman 1971). Several major penal institutions were created in the United
States between 1790 and 1830. Although there were differences in the design and operation of
these early penitentiaries, they were more similar than not. In less than 100 years, punishment
changed from the rather arbitrary use of physical punishment to a model emphasizing the
confinement and correction of individual offenders through segregation, regimentation, and
control. Offenders were increasingly separated based on personal characteristics. As a result,
female offenders, ju-venile delinquents, and the mentally ill were placed in facilities independent
of male adult criminal offenders.
HISTORY OF INCARCERATION FOR WOMEN
Compared to male offenders, females have historically been less frequently con-victed of crimes
and sentenced to prison. The main reason noted by some schol-ars is that women were
presumed to be treated more leniently by prosecutors and judges. During the past 35 years,
however, there has been a large increase in the percentage of women who are incarcerated,
especially for drug and property crimes. In fact, according to the Bureau of Justice of Statistics
(Carson 2015), the number of women in prison has outpaced men by more than 50% since
1980, when women made up more than 26,000 of the U.S. prison population. By 2014, their
numbers had increased to well over 215,000. Justice system reactions to female offending can
be understood in three stages, or historical responses: the neglect response, the differential
response, and the equalization response.
The Neglect Response
After the 1820s, penal codes of most states were changed to indicate that im-prisonment would
be the primary form of punishment for criminals. Before this time, however, state prisons often
housed only 50 inmates. During most of the 20th century, the percentage of female inmates
hovered around 4 percent of the total prison population (today, women comprise approximately
7 percent of state and federal prison populations). There were no national statistics on inmate
de-mographics until approximately 1910, but there is little reason to think that the percentage of
women incarcerated during the 18th and 19th centuries was higher than the 4 percent figure.
Thus, prisons in the late 17th and early 18th centuries likely had approximately 1 or 2 female
inmates housed in their facilities. Given these low numbers of women in prison, interest in the
treatment of women in prison was lacking and few discussions were held on building separate
institutions for female offenders. Women who were sentenced to incarceration were actually
placed in the same large rooms that held male inmates. It was not until the 1820s that
segregating the sexes into separate cells occurred. Further-more, it was not until the 1830s that
same-sex facilities became standard practice.
One prison in New York circa 1825 attempted to ameliorate some of these problems in the
Auburn prison by keeping female inmates in a third floor attic above the prison kitchen instead
of housing them in the cell block with male prisoners. A prison matron (i.e., a female correctional
officer who was more of a mother hen-type figure) was hired in 1832, but before her
appearance, the female inmates had no supervision. An agent of the prison delivered food to
the women and removed the waste once daily, but other than that, these women were expected to take care of themselves. The conditions in the attic were quite deplor-able and
overcrowded, making the cell blocks where the males were housed look like a luxury hotel in
comparison. Although it would seem like any type of separation in housing for men and women
would improve the daily lives of female inmates, new problems surfaced. As women were given
their separate units, they were often far away from the prison’s center where the programs and
other opportunities for betterment were held. Women were seldom able to access the health
care, religious services, or exercise facilities. Thus, in seeking equal treatment, what women
received was the appearance of equality with inferior conditions. Enter the reformatory era.
The Differential Response
During the reformatory era (discussed later), which began in the 1860s, concern for both male
and female prisoners became evident. Feminists at this time cam-paigned in earnest to
encourage male legislators to fund separate reformatory institutions for female offenders. Their
arguments surfaced around three major ideas: (1) Males are not to blame for female criminality;
females should be respon-sible for their own actions; (2) rehabilitation would be more effective if
women were not subjected to the negative influences of men; and (3) women have the abil-ity to
control and reform their sisters and should be given every opportunity to do so (Freedman
1984). In essence, female inmates and male inmates require differ-ent responses in punishment
and treatment, and the best way to achieve this goal is for women to be separated from men in
their own facilities operated by women. As one might imagine, these ideas did not go over very
well with the men of the day. Yet, in 1873, Indiana opened the first women’s prison, followed by
Mas-sachusetts in 1877, with other states soon following their lead. The facilities were
administered and run by women for female offenders. The architectural style of these
institutions differed a great deal from the typical male prison. Female pris-ons were constructed
in a cottage plan, with inmates living in small units (hence, the cottages) that had a home-like
atmosphere rather than a cell block. It was be-lieved that this environment would enable the
women to understand and accept their expected role in society. The main elements of treatment
that incarcerated women received at the time were training in sewing, cooking, washing and
iron-ing clothes, gardening, and farming. Thus, separate and differently designed prisons,
different programs, and different labor assignments were just some of the ways in which the
differential response to female offenders became evident. Of course, in any number of ways,
this differential treatment was an improvement over the neglect of the previous stage when
women were housed with men and supervised by male guards. How-ever, in focusing on the
special needs of females and creating this differential response, the reformers (mostly middleclass women intent on molding female offenders into homemakers despite the reality that most
of these women would have to support themselves upon release from prison) “created a new
set of prob-lems by assuming that all women inmates, as women, could be treated alike, by
methods aimed at reinforcing true womanhood in an era in which a new woman was emerging”
The Equalization Response
It took nearly 100 years for the women’s movement to have any success in dem-onstrating that
restricted opportunities created by an overemphasis on domestic skills and imprisoning women
on minor charges (men were often not subjected to such terms) was a misguided pursuit in the
quest for equality. Thus, pleas for equal treatment for both male and female inmates were
made. One mechanism that jump-started the equalization response was the use of legal action
by and for female inmates in the late 1960s. Such issues as sentencing disparities between
men and women wherein women were serving longer, indeterminate sentences were brought
before the courts. In the 1970s, conditions of confinement were the equalization issues brought
forth for the courts to rectify. The decisions handed down held that there must be substantial
equivalence between men and women across a number of practices. For example, men and
women must be given similar opportunities to participate in work-furlough programs, assignment
to minimum-security institutions should be available to both men and women, and the distance
between the location of sentenc-ing and the prison should be equivalent for men and women.
These last two holdings were driven by the fact that most states only have one prison for all
female inmates and thus it must house all security levels. Outcomes from other cases resulted
in the development and implementation of quality treatment and vocational programs equal to
those delivered in male prisons. Furthermore, courts held that women must have access to
adequate law facilities and legal assistance in their prisons as well.
ERAS OF PUNISHMENT
The purpose of punishment and the use of different types of punishment have largely reflected
the needs of a particular society. As a result, there have been different eras of punishment in
the United States that used varying mechanisms for punishment.
The Era of the Penitentiary
Incapacitation and deterrence were the philosophies that dominated the pur-poses for
confinement in the 1800s to 1860s. This was known as the penitentiary era, so called because
of the development of a formal penal system and a heavy reliance on incarceration. Two
different styles of penitentiaries became symbols of this era: separate and congregate. These
styles are more commonly known as the Pennsylvania and Auburn systems, respectively. The
Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was said to be a separate system
because of its heavy reliance on silence and the separation of inmates from one another in
individual cells. Eating, working, and sleeping were performed in the confines of the cells. The
purpose of silence and solitude was reflected in the belief that the only way to repent and reform
for one’s wrongdo-ings was to reflect silently on one’s deeds. Inmates were also denied visits
from family members and friends and access to newspapers, and correspondences of any kind
were forbidden (Rothman 1971). The Auburn Prison in New York also operated under the rule
of silence, but it differed from the Pennsylvania prison in that inmates could congregate with one
another during the day while eating or working. Auburn prisoners returned to separate cells at
night, and silence, even while in the presence of other inmates, was strictly enforced. Inmates in
New York were also secluded from the outside world; there was no sight, sound, or contact with
anyone or anything beyond the prison walls (Rothman 1971). Penitentiaries sprang forth in
other areas of the United States following the procedures and philosophies of their
predecessors, despite the criticisms lodged against the imposition of silence, corporal
punishments to keep inmates under control, and restriction of access to the external society.
This so-called old prison discipline led some inmates to suffer from mental, emotional, and
physical illness and, in some cases, even death.
The Era of Reform
The Civil War detracted attention from the plight of prisoners housed in the peni-tentiaries that
were built in the 1800s. By 1870, however, the harsh environment of these institutions again
came to be scrutinized. A more humanitarian approach to the practice of incarceration was
advocated based more on the philosophy of rehabilitation rather than pure incapacitation or
deterrence. The National Prison Association, which is known today as the American
Correctional Association, was formed in 1870 to address the problems of the penitentiary
system. Prison administrators, members of Congress, and prominent citizens from the United
States and abroad gathered in Cincinnati, Ohio, and issued a set of declarations by which
prisons would be reformed. These principles emphasized the value of treatment for inmates
based on their individual needs, an indeterminate sentenc-ing scheme by which inmates could
earn their way out of prison, vocational and educational training, labor that was purposeful
rather than punishment oriented, and noncorporal methods of discipline that made use of
rewards rather than pun-ishment for conformity (Pisciotta 1994). In addition, the reformers
abolished the rule of silence. A system whereby released inmates could continue their treatment in the community was also introduced during the reform era. Today, this practice is better
known as parole, and it is discussed in more detail in Chapter 6. The Elmira Reformatory in New
York was the prototype institution whose mission was to carry out these principles. Inmates
were classified based on their conduct and success in the interventions available at the facility,
such as training for trade and academics. Similar to Elmira’s predecessors, the reformatory was
criticized for the means used to control inmates, inhumane working and living conditions, and
rigid order. Thus, the intentions of the reforms appeared to be sound but, in the end, poor
implementation and a lack of funding required a new approach to the use of institutions for
punishment.
The Era of Industry
The idea of convict labor was not new to the world of incarceration: The Penn-sylvania and the
Auburn systems required inmates to engage in craft-oriented or factory-oriented labor,
respectively (Conley 1980). The goods produced by in-mates were often sold in the open
market. Inmates at the Auburn prison actually built Sing Sing Prison, New York’s second state
institution for the incarceration of convicted offenders. Chain gangs were developed during this
era, with inmates working on road or canal projects and prison construction for the states.
Inmates were also tied to the private sector by being employed contractually with private-sector
businesses in the making of furniture, clothing, brooms, baskets, and ho-siery. In addition, some
inmates were contracted out to work in stone quarries and coal mines (Mancini 1978; Sellin
1976). These latter practices, known as convict leasing, were a Southern develop-ment, and
some authors have suggested that convict leasing was basically another way to enslave Blacks
following the Civil War (Johnson 2002; Sheldon 2001). Convict leasing of inmates often led to
illness, suffering, and even death. For example, in Georgia, convicts were beaten if they did not
produce the designated amount of coal per day (Mancini 1978). Despite such horrific
consequences associated with convict labor during the industrial era, states and their officials
continued their labor programs for in-mates until the 1930s, when state legislatures and
Congress passed a number of measures banning the sale of inmate-produced goods to the
public (Sexton 1995). The major impetus for such legislation was complaints advanced by
workers in the organized labor force that inmate-made goods undercut the price at which freemarket products could be sold. Once the Great Depression hit in the 1930s, pressure from
workers increased considerably to prohibit inmate labor from in-terfering with their profits; thus,
inmate labor was curtailed. Legislation was reintroduced in the late 1970s that permitted
products pro-duced by prison industries to be sold in the open market once again. Today,
inmates continue to work while doing their time in various industries connected to the private
and public sectors. Inmates have been involved in such jobs as as-sembling graduation gowns
for Jostens, making embroidered emblems for Lyon Brothers Manufacturing Company, and
even sewing garments that were later purchased by J.C. Penney and Victoria’s Secret for retail
sale for Third Genera-tion.
The Era of Rehabilitation
By the early 1930s, there was a strong sense of urgency that something needed to be done
about the harsh punishments faced by inmates in U.S. penal institutions. The Depression
contributed to discontent among the general public, and dissatis-faction in prisons was also on
the rise. Several major prison riots in Illinois, Colo-rado, New York, and Kansas City prompted
the government to take notice. Even prison officials began to understand the hopelessness that
prisoners experienced. With a report issued by the Wickersham Commission in 1931, inmate
grievances were officially recognized. State prisons did not provide anything more than capricious rules and coercive punishments for inmates, and meaningful programs to assist
inmates in their reformation were lacking. In fact, inmates spent most of their time inactively
engaged in simply doing their time. The Wickersham Commission called for a new philosophy to
guide the prison system; the philosophy of rehabilitation soon replaced the philosophies of
deterrence and incapacitation that had dominated since the inception of the penitentiary. The
major players in the move toward more rehabilitative efforts were the progressives, who were
most active during the first couple of decades of the 20th century. The progressives were known
for their indeterminist view that social problems, including crime, were often beyond an
individual’s control, much like having a disease that needs treatment. The medical model
dominated the rehabilitation era with a focus on the needs of the individual offender and less
reliance on prisons to carry out the criminal sanction. Probation, indeterminate sentences,
classification systems, vocational and educational training, and release from prison based on
treatment success were some of the significant practices de-vised and implemented to carry out
the goal of rehabilitation. Many of the recom-mendations from the 1870 National Prison
Association finally came to fruition. Corrections would follow the re…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment