History of the Bureau of Prisons and its Fraudulence Upon American Citizens

Idiosyncratic industrialization of the federal prison system has been the theme for the federal government ever since its inception and its progression of failures in penology.  The Three Prisons Act in 1891 started it all and we have been on a roller coaster of botched methods of corrections and cruelty without many favorable social adjustments toward deterring criminality or providing rehabilitation to offenders.  As the federal system grew, it became a modality for other nations originally, however capitalism entrenched the American criminal justice system and the correctional aspect of the system transpired into an all-out industry.  Punishment and rehabilitation are secondary factors in the history, and current state, of the Bureau of Prisons, and the United States is no longer viewed as a positive example for its correctional system. 

Decades of overzealous and crooked politicians, as well as greedy private industries, have now caused an enormous social harm and, unfortunately, left a very negative impact on human history.  The Bureau of Prisons' history is nothing spectacular and is quite a long length of drudgery when it is properly examined.  American citizens have been withheld from the Bureau’s practices due to the desire of the corrections employees to not be viewed as cruel, unprofessional, unsuccessful, and lethargic in their progression.  Because of the horrible social impact that the federal prison system is responsible for, this blog will depict the history of the Bureau of Prisons, analyze its trends and demographics of offenders and employees, and present recommendations so that the erroneous procedures are permanently ended. 

History of the Federal Bureau of Prisons

             As initially stated, the federal prison system was started in 1891 by the enactment of the Three Prisons Act.  Federal prisoners prior to this point were housed in state correctional facilities and financed via contracts between both governments.  Overcrowding and political separations were included in the reasons for the creation of the federal penal system, as well as the ideology of taking the budget allocated to federal-state contracts, and simply using the funds to construct a penal system solely for federal offenders.  It should be noted that money issues were the primary discussions for the build-up of the federal correctional system and thus verifies the concepts of the prison systems in the United States being based on industry administration rather than deterrence and rehabilitation.  Nonetheless, the first penitentiaries were built in Leavenworth, Kansas and Atlanta, Georgia, and another was turned over to the federal government – McNeil Island, Washington.  These three facilities were monitored by the Department of Justice since the Bureau of Prisons was yet to be created.  The oversight was very limited because of the Department’s dedication to other matters in the country.  At this point in American history, the federal criminal justice system was truly obliging by the Tenth Amendment and rarely intervened in criminal matters unless a direct offense in federal jurisdiction occurred.  Crimes against the federal government, federal officials, and crime sprees that crisscrossed the nation and its borders were the focus of the police agencies and judiciary. 

             In 1930, the Bureau of Prisons was created by the push from the Assistant Attorney General, Mabel Walker Willebrandt, because she believed that better organization of the federal penal system was required.  Once more, overcrowding and lack of meaningful programs were cited as reasons for enhanced regulations of the penitentiaries; which the Department of Justice and Congress agreed with and thus the Bureau of Prisons was born.  More construction of prisons was thought to be the answer to eliminate the problems addressed by the Assistant Attorney General and other studies by governmental agencies.  Two years later, the first prison -- after the official inception of the Bureau -- in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania was opened, and the conditions were suggested to be the utmost humane and proper for prisoner reform.  However, this notion of adequate penological operations was short-lived.  As the United States Penitentiary at Lewisburg progressed, many problems arose between inmates, as well as dissent toward the employees who worked there.  The organization was not as authentic as it claimed to be.  Meaning that various types of inmates were housed together within close quarters and there was no classification system set into place.  Offenders of all walks of life were stationed in Lewisburg and the various types of inmate offenses and sentences caused friction in respect to which type of programming should be conducted, which offenders should live with each other, and how staff should perform their duties with the previously mentioned grievances. 

The federal government used the concerns to grow the spending for the newly created penal system, and with this action being construed a simple problem was manufactured.  The problem was building the prisons and not having the inmates to fill the locations.  Net-widening theory was the answer to this simple problem, and the federal government put the call out for the Bureau of Prisons to law enforcers all throughout the nation.  Again, the issues of spending money were a problem for the federal government, and this time people were asking to allocate more funding for devices that were, at this point in American history, not returning many palatable outcomes.  Answering this problem came with an executive order signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the fruition of a federally owned company that alleged to be providing inmates with work skills so that when they were released the offenders were employable and productive in society.  Federal Prison Industries, also known as “UNICOR” was set into place.  Yet, the skills that were suggested to being acquired were not as prestigious as the Bureau of Prisons proclaimed, and the “employment” conditions were not up to par with the external rules and regulations for other American corporations.

During the early years of UNICOR, inmates were primarily responsible for assembly line and metal stamping work with few privileges, and the skills used to operate the equipment could be performed by any layperson.  So, the idea that felons could utilize skills learned in prison in free society was not as valid as the Bureau of Prisons suggested.  Meaning that this type of work was common in the era and released offenders were competing with civilians who were similarly qualified and without a criminal record.  Businesses tended to hire those who did not have any criminal history, and at this period, there were no reentry laws like we have today.  In addition, and as aforementioned, the conditions that inmates underwent included long hours and few safety regulations.  Quotas were supposed to be met and if it appeared as if the expectations were not going to be fulfilled, inmates were worked longer than usual and with few breaks.  Moreover, the federal government was the only market for UNICOR during this time, and it wanted its goods and feelings of success.  Once the federal government realized that cheap labor in prisons could provide satisfactory results, the prison industry permeated and the decision was again made to expand the federal correctional system.  Monetary reasons were again a major reason for incarcerating people.

The 1940s were a unique time for the Bureau of Prisons.  Expanding the system was not hindered because of World War Two.  In fact, the opposite transition happened.  In 1940, UNICOR was revamped and suited to fit military needs.  Cheap labor from inmates was a win-win for the federal government, and it used all its might to produce items for the war.  Not even a decade had passed, and the Bureau of Prisons had doubled in size with the number of facilities and number of inmates it had.  The federal correctional system found success in the international tragedy that had manifested in Europe.  The Bureau of Prisons went from 14,115 inmates and 14 institutions in 1930, to 24,360 inmates and 24 institutions in 1940.  This is the same time at which the Bureau of Prisons also began its new classification system and implied that its transition was being conducted under the utmost modern correctional administrations.  Simply put, more inmates meant more jobs and responsibilities for the federal government to oversee and, in turn, it created an impact in American society toward an occupational manner.  Citizens enjoyed working for the federal government because of it salaries, benefits, and stable employment.  American society was beginning to rely on the correctional systems for long-term employment and goods that the prisons were manufacturing.  It is fair to imply that the term “prison-industrial complex” has its roots from the expansion of the Bureau of Prisons in the 1940s.  It needs to be noted that at this point in American penal history that the federal government was able to afford the expenses of the correctional system – in fact it was enjoying profits on both a fraudulent social capital level and legitimate monetary gain.  Years later, this cost-benefit status shifted toward negative dividends. 

Actions in the 1950s led the Bureau of Prisons into a political world and lobbying was commonplace.  James V. Bennett, Director of the Bureau of Prisons from 1937 to 1964, gained the assistance from members of Congress and was successful in having many policies crafted to increase the size of the federal prison industry.  Notably, Mr. Bennett was able to increase the budget for juvenile imprisonment as well as progressions in the adult penal procedures by acquiring funds for new facilities and work release programs.  The Youth Corrections Act and Prisoner Rehabilitation Act were fundamental in the federal deliverance of justifying more prisons and programs.  With this action, the system again grew with not only the size of inmate population and facility locations, but also in its hiring procedures; more employees were required to operate the daily operations that were manufactured by the aforementioned pieces of legislation.  Instantaneously, the American public was fooled by the transgression of the Bureau of Prison.  The public was informed that reforming offenders was the primary agenda for the successful lobbying; however, the authenticity of the programming within the Bureau of Prisons was not divulged in a general manner.  Meaning that the public never gleaned the results of the new programs and was unaware of the fact that their tax dollars were mostly being spent on employee salaries. 

Hiding the budgetary implementations and dismal results of the above-mentioned programs was beginning to be a problem for the Bureau of Prisons in the 1950s, and the prison industry needed a way to disguise its poorly operated programming and growth.  The answer was found in using the “medical model” for incarceration; which was initiated in 1959.  This model incorporated the use of scientific methods that diagnosed inmates and, in turn, was able to properly treat an offender via medicinal abilities and therapeutic mechanisms.  This period in the Bureau of Prisons’ history caused more growth in the inmate population, the number of correctional facilities, and employee retention.  In 1960, there were 25,853 inmates in 36 institutions.  The Bureau of Prisons increased its inmate population by approximately two-thousand and 12 additional correctional facilities in less than two decades, and the implementation of the medical model was beginning to be viewed as a form of hypocrisy by the public and correctional administrators.

These contradictions were dealt with in 1964.   Myrl E. Alexander, third Director of the Bureau of Prisons, sought reform that was in accordance to the medical philosophy.  His ideologies led to a slight reduction in the federal prison population, and it was reported that throughout the remaining years in the 1960s the Bureau of Prisons’ inmate population had a minor decrease, remained steady for several years, and even further decreased in 1970.  In 1970, there were still 36 institutions; however, the Bureau or Prisons’ population went from 25,853 inmates to 21,266 total inmates – a decrease of 17.7 percent.  Yet, this decrease did not last after the Nixon administration began its policy making.  In 1971, President Richard Nixon declared a “war on drugs,” and the declaration caused a significant increase in the federal penal system and, unfortunately, steadily increased in the future decades.  Drug offenders were sought out and used as propaganda to greatly impact the growth of the United States’ correctional system.  Discussions of expenditures were common and the solution to Nixon’s crime policies was to provide more funding for law enforcement and the warehousing of these specific offenders.  Again, monetary and political reasons – including federal salaries – became a primary variable for the increase that was suggested to be necessary.  Prisons in the United States were now a major employer for American citizens and scapegoats for public officials looking to be tough on crime.

As the Nixon administration curtailed its justice system to its particularities, the medical model was thrown to the wayside and a new form of penology was set into place.  The “balanced model” became the new format and it included a combination of punishment, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation – which still exists today.  This newfound philosophy resulted in cuts in inmate programming and other rehabilitative procedures.  Yet as the budgets cuts were applied, the finances associated with the federal correctional system did not decrease simultaneously.  Monies were allocated in the same fashion, but without the funding of social services and, because of this, the federal prison system changed from keeping inmates involved in programming to essentially standing around and participating in minimal extra-curricular activities.  Punishment and deterrence was thought to include offenders having “a lot of time to think about what they had done.”  After Nixon’s resignation, President Gerald Ford continued the practices of the Republican administration and the increase of offenders entering the federal correctional system remained.  At this point in American history, penal reform was subsided by corrupt politics and foreign turmoil that the military was operating.  The American media rarely covers criminal justice issues, and during these specific periods of history the concentration was on the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal by Richard Nixon and other politicians.  Rising incarceration rates were not presented to the public and the information associated with the federal penal system was barely covered in other words.  In turn, the Bureau of Prisons was able to operate in these conservative manners because of the attention to the above-mentioned matters.  Basically, Americans were unaware of the spending and incarceration rates that were commencing in their federal prison system in the 1970s. 

Even with the liberal ideologies in the President Jimmy Carter administration, the corrections industry was still in full-steam mode and the incarceration rates were increasing.  Conservative notions about crime control were a touchy subject and no politician wanted to be viewed as soft on crime.  President Carter spoke out about the issue several times, and declared that the criminal justice system was unfair and stacked against Americans in a negative fashion.  However, the propaganda of drug crimes and violence by the previous administration was so strong that there was not much that President Carter and Vice President Mondale could do to make the corrections industry more humane.  Nixon’s war on drugs had transitioned into a mainstream agenda, and throughout all of the country Republicans were pounding their fists for tougher penalties and more criminal laws.  During the late 1970s, Congress sided with the conservative crime control model, as well as simultaneously preparing for the upcoming presidential election in the early 1980s.  Republicans wanted the crime control effort to be their agenda, and they got it after a landslide victory in 1981 and the election of Ronald Reagan. 

With a Republican in the Oval Office, the continuance of conservative ideologies regarding penology was easy to produce.  Immediately after Reagan’s victory, the Republicans pushed for the furtherance of Richard Nixon’s war on drugs philosophy.  Crime statistics were being used as a solidification for the tough of crime policy making.  Violent crime rates were at the highest level in American history at the turn of the 1970s, and drug arrests simultaneously skyrocketed immediately after the inauguration of Ronald Reagan.  The Republican machine was in full-swing and they began drafting new policies that would forever change the nation and corrections element in the United States.  Via the use of the crime rates, the Reagan administration crafted the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 and the 1984 Sentencing Reform Act – which provided the tough of crime laws that the Republicans wanted.  After this enactment, the Bureau of Prisons grew significantly in size in respect to its number of facilities and inmate population.  Prior to these enactments, criminal justice matters were primarily a state issue; but the resilience of the Republican party changed this and increased the budget for the Bureau of Prisons in the hundreds of millions of dollars.  Changing the focus from dealing with serious federal crimes to prosecuting urban-street crime at an unprecedented level was the main reason for these increases.

Republican appointments made the Bureau of Prisons’ expansion easier to perform too.  Norman A. Carlson, fourth Director of the Bureau of Prisons, was on board with the growth of the federal prison system, and with the knowledge of the prison business, he had no grunts toward allowing the private sector to enter the prison industry.  In 1983, Corrections Corporation of America was formed and aided the federal government with its expansion of the prison population.  After the above-mentioned crime control laws in 1984, and the privatization of the prison industry, the federal prison population and number of facilities more than doubled at this time in American history.  Increased budgets and stock trading were variables that the American public vaguely knew about, and thus the federal prison system was now a full-fledged business.  Money made from the private prison industry and the war on drugs rarely made it into American news broadcasts.  Again, the use of crime rates as propaganda blinded many individuals in the United States’ society.  Federal incarceration was at level that no other nation in the world had ever seen at this point and it continued to grow despite the presentations of collateral harms given by American sociologists.  All of the 1980s included a constant increase in the Bureau of Prisons’ operations, and it did not stop in the 1990s.

In 1990, the Bureau of Prisons grew in size again.  There were now 65,347 inmates and 66 institutions.  Republican President George H. W. Bush continued the Nixon and Reagan philosophy, and drug offenders were the main type of inmates that the Bureau of Prisons incarcerated.  Federal employees, as well as private prison workers, were reaping the benefits.  Salaries were increased, and more people were willing to apply for positions in the corrections industry.  Being as stable as the profession was, there was no reluctance or care for the massive social impacts that the Bureau of Prisons was responsible for.  As long as paychecks were being received and bills were being paid, not many of the correctional unions cared about the cruel engagements that they were fostering.  Money was, again, the major accolade for the imprisonment of so many human beings.

Democrats in the 1990s recognized the power and prestige that the Republicans had acquired because of the prison-industrial complex, and were not going to cut themselves short of the prosperity.  After the election of Bill Clinton, coupled with the Democrats' desire to be viewed as concerned about public safety, more tough of crime policies were created and enacted and thus contributed to the increase of expenditures toward the Bureau of Prisons.  During the presidency of Bill Clinton, the inmate population in the Bureau of Prisons routinely doubled as the years passed.  The war on drugs had caused such great financial and political incentives that both political parties were willing to sell out the American citizens to the public and private prison industries.  Crime control was the utility that gained political effectiveness in this period of American history, and the monetary aspects made sense to those who were participating in the current trend.  With political support and financial prospects being sustained, the Bureau of Prisons’ administration never spoke out against the mass incarceration.  Again, as long as the corrections employees were being paid and able to support themselves, then there was no burden for them.  The result was so great for the political and correctional characters, that in 1997 the federal government passed a law that took control of the District of Columbia's felony offenders; thus, making the criminal activities a part of the federal criminal justice system, and with the high conviction rate in federal courts the population of the Bureau of Prisons increased once more.  More financing and employees were required to manage this flux of offenders into the federal correctional process.  Of course, allocating the finances for this procedure to the Bureau of Prisons was never a problem.  By the end of the year 2000 and President Clinton’s term, the Bureau of Prisons had again doubled and imprisoned 145,125 inmates. 

Throughout the 2000s, the Bureau of Prisons’ budget and size, again, increased in a magnitude that was never seen before.  Drug offenders made up the bulk of arrests and convictions, and the federal government was using the Afghanistan and Iraq wars to turn the attention away from the prison problem in the United States.  Mass incarceration went unchecked because of the social panic about terrorism in the country.  The Department of Justice’s budget was being steadily increased, and it included appropriating more funds to the Bureau of Prisons to properly structure its obligations.  Republicans were back in control, and insidiously used the terror-effect to their advantage when prison topics arose in political discussions.  If one were to review the media coverage during the first decade of the twenty-first century, almost all of it catered to the War on Terror.  Even non-prison topics were being ignored, and the country was engaged in a frenzy of questions and coverage about the dilemmas in the Middle East.  Healthcare, education, and other societal issues were barely touched on by the politicians and media companies in the United States.  Yet spending for the incarceration and war-time activities increased without much concern or knowledge about the subjects.  President George W. Bush did implement the Second Chance Act during these times of extreme mass incarceration, but it should be noted that the Bureau of Prisons’ incarceration rates were still increasing.  Nothing on a federal level was done to alleviate the burden of people entering the system, and a tiny focus on people leaving federal prisons hardly had any impact to the large numbers that were part of American culture at this point.  This trend lasted until the last years of Barrack Obama’s presidency. 

For first time in more than twenty years, the federal prison system began to reduce its population of inmates.  Criminal justice reform policies were still very meager in the federal system and this result was mostly fostered because of executive orders and new case law that was applied retroactively.  Meaning that many lengthy sentences were diminished because of President Obama’s executive actions and a Supreme Court decision in the Johnson case in 2015.  Other than these actions, nothing on a federal level has been conducted that would contribute to reductions in the prison population.  Currently, the Bureau of Prisons’ total inmate population is at 185,022 and has 122 correctional facilities, and with no sign of slowing down regarding its punitive outputs.

Offender and Employee Demographics

             Federal prisoners have mostly been of low socioeconomic status; meaning that most prisoners are below the national average of income that is suggested to be in the poverty zone – with a variable of legitimate income being the main contributor.  Drug offenses include the largest body of inmates, and it should be noted that many minority inmates are imprisoned because of some association with the illicit drug trade.  Moreover, White inmates make up the majority of the Bureau of Prisons’ population.  However, this number is not a representation of the racial and ethnic biases that the federal government is responsible for.  In particular, the ratio of African American inmates and Hispanic/Latino inmates compared to the total population of these minorities in the United States is troubling.  These appalling prejudices are mostly attributed to drug policies, immigration procedures, law enforcement efforts in the racial and ethnic minority communities, and stiff sentences that keep generations in federal prisons.  Dispersion in regard to racial and ethnic biases is not as prevalent as it is in state correctional facilities; however, the fact remains that the federal criminal justice system is mostly dealing with two types of disadvantages (social factors) that the racial and ethnic minorities are commonly associated with – which are sociological disorganization in their communities and immigration policies that are geared toward Hispanic/Latino individuals.

             African American and Hispanic/Latino communities are unfortunately not as well-kept as Caucasian communities in the United States.  Law enforcement professionals use the argument that they address criminality without taking into consideration the individuals or neighborhoods that the unlawful actions are occurring in.  This is the major problem in legal administrations, as the police practitioners fail to comprehend that social stressors cause criminal activity and these issues are more widespread in minority communities.  Simple social reforms could greatly deter crime in the minority communities.  By implementing environmental, anthropological, psychological, and sociological programming, the areas would be able to overcome the social ills that are abundant in their communities.  Urban blight (in minority communities) can be overcome by allocating finances and resources to eliminate slum lords, poorly performing schools, broken roads and sidewalks, gang activity, drug sales and use, familial issues, employment problems, and aggressive law enforcement tactics.  Reconsidering the crime control method with preemptive methods would decrease the institutionalization in the Bureau of Prisons and state correctional facilities.

             The age of offenders is a considerable aspect to acknowledge as well.  Bureau of Prisons’ statistics demonstrate that many inmates are 36 years-old or younger.  Many of the inmates in this category are not first-time offenders, and still can change criminal thinking or behaviors with proper intervention.  However, lack of effective procedures and general assertions of crime contorl hinder the Bureau of Prisons’ rehabilitation elements.  Botched religious, vocational, educational, and drug treatment are very common in federal prisons and inmates usually only participate in the programming because of some incentive that has been provided by the federal penal system.  In other words, the rehabilitation in the federal correctional facilities is only a formality and not authentic treatment services for offenders.  Employees who run these services tend to go “through the motions” to maintain employment, and not cause ripples that may cause unwanted attention from prison employees in the executive levels or receive public dissent about the haphazard programming.  The fear of employees being unwanted in federal prison programming contributes to the recidivism rates in the United States and wretched rehabilitation for federal offenders.

             Most employees in the Bureau of Prisons are Caucasian, followed by African Americans and then Hispanic/Latino descent taking the third highest rank.  Furthermore, much of the Bureau of Prisons’ employees work in security detail – corrections officers – and are males.  Training methods for this large group of employees usually encompasses facility security and the methods to defuse threatening situations.  Not much training exists in interpersonal skills, social work tendencies, and rehabilitative processes toward inmates.  After the implementation of the balanced model, the Bureau of Prisons’ services have been notoriously known as being ineffective.  Rudimentary programs that entail large masses of inmates are suggested to be beneficial.  Yet, the statistics demonstrate that about 30 percent of federal inmates who are released to mandatory supervised release are returned to prison within 5 years.  Theoretically, the poor training, ineffective inmate programs, and recidivism rates can be suggested to be part of the apathetic discourses that hinder offenders’ success during and after imprisonment.

Recommendations

             Hypocrisy by the Bureau of Prisons needs to be eliminated immediately.  The mass incarceration and suggestions of plausible services are not mathematically effective.  Meaning that the large quantity of inmates and few therapeutic programs makes it impossible for the federal prison facilities to produce beneficial results for inmates and society.  Additionally, the reliance on overwhelming expenditures is an act of greed by the politicians, social workers, prison employees, law enforcers, and private industries – including private prisons – that use the Bureau of Prisons as a source of personal and occupational worth.  This ought to be eliminated immediately through qualified candidates in public and private sectors.  Constant expulsion of private industry and poor governance attaching itself to the federal correctional system needs to be a priority by government officials.  Utilizing a correctional system in order to retain validity from the disenfranchisement of others is poor human behavior and also entails characteristics of psychopathic behaviors.  This is done on a daily basis by the above-mentioned professionals and industries. 

             Harsh drug laws and ridiculous federal sentencing dispositions also need to be removed in order to reduce the federal prison population and instill humanistic procedures for criminal offenders.  The fact is that many federal inmates are not violent offenders, and for the offenders who are convicted of violent offenses, many are not engaging in violence in a longitudinal fashion.  Usually, violent offenders can recognize their actions and not further engage in violence shortly after their arrest and conviction.  So, the philosophy of long sentences for these types of offenders is not realistic or rooted in any deterrence capacities and simply allows the Bureau of Prisons and its associations to profit in a lengthy procedure.  With this being said, low-level drug offenders should not be subjected to mandatory minimums; the drug war is a false ideology that will never be surpassed in the United States. 

Social reforms and more community corrections needs to be implemented in order to end the reliance on the prison-industrial complex.  Better forms of treatment and punishment can be configured while an offender is in society without any disturbances in the community, and the prisons should be reserved for the utmost horrific offenders who cannot be restored to civility.  Federal prison population and the number of correctional institutions needs to be drastically reduced and the power of correctional unions needs to be removed from lawmaking and law enforcing.  These groups are simply lying to the public and politicians in order to maintain their employment and individual worth in a commercially-based society.  Using the prison system to employ mostly White Americans is not a variable that should be considered when discussing federal criminal justice reform.  Moreover, more minority groups and women should be hired to progress the Bureau of Prisons in racial, ethnic, and gender equality.    

Community corrections officers have to shift from performing police roles to reentry services that encompass offender success.  These federal employees are simply engaging in actions that assist the unethical prison statistics and crime in society.  Better training and good-natured human beings should be hired for these positions.  Simply enforcing judicial conveyances by biased judges is not pertinent supervision to offender success in the community, and the failed federal court system needs to be acknowledged by these practitioners.  Finally, the capitalistic system in the Bureau of Prisons needs to be heavily monitored by the public so that the current state of the prison system does not continue.  Proper media coverage would allow the public to acquire the information about these problems and, in turn, not allow public officials and private companies to perform unethical actions.