The Establishment of Modern Prisons and Destruction of Criminal Justice Administration
Introduction
Solicitous
ideas of justice have never been the basis for contemporary criminal justice
systems. Prior to the onset of
correctional facilities, most cultures implemented an array of corporal
punishments to inflict shame and used torture as deterrence for societal
obedience to laws and regulations (Carlson & Garrett, 1999; Sherman &
Hawkins, 1981). Michel Foucalt (1977)
explains this transition and discusses how correctional facilities began to be
used because of the evolution of social morals about what is cruel and
inhumane, and that once humans realized the social and economical benefits of
putting offenders in buildings that the justice system never looked for other
applications of justice and punishment.
After the permanence of correctional facilities in modern nations was
established, the law enforcers changed mentalities again from using more humane
administrations of justice to using these facilities to justify the necessity
of law and order, maintain occupational success and professional-social
reputations, and to alter the minds of what is considered acceptable when
delivering punishments on convicted criminals (Foucalt, 1977; Greenberg, 1975;
Schmalleger, 2008).
Not many scholars or
legal practitioners have posited information about the infiltration of mental
processes that solidify the above-mentioned actions. Thus, this essay conveys ideations about how
the establishment of prisons by government and private entities is responsible
for the lack of reformations in criminal justice systems and that individuals,
at times, refuse to use or fathom a new application of punishment because they
have been indoctrinated to the belief that any other forms of punishment are
ineffective, odd, unnecessary, and burdensome (Putwain & Sammons, 2002; Robbins,
2009; Scott, 1998). It is suggested by
this author that these psychological effects are deliberately and passively
done and that law enforcers are mainly responsible for these mental states
about justice in societies. The
aforementioned responsibility is, again, done on purpose and passively because
humans learn social mechanisms from each other and that outside perspectives
are viewed as odd and difficult to comprehend because of the normalization that
occurs in social interactions. Due to
this, the idea of criminal justice has transitioned into a social utility that
is mostly rooted in maintaining the comfortableness that has been ascertained
by the establishment of correctional facilities.
History of Modern Prisons and
the Sociological Premises of its Existence
Impeding
inappropriate behaviors through legal systems delivers aspects of what is
considered proper in a culture (Lilly, Cullen, & Ball, 2011; Longres, 1990). With the advent of prisons, humans
established an idea that encompasses humaneness rather than simply dealing with
criminals via capital or corporal punishments (Foucalt, 1977; Lilly, Cullen,
& Ball, 2011; Schmalleger, 2008).
The United States was one of the forerunners in this psychological and
physical process, and as the Eastern State Penitentiary in Pennsylvania was
constructed these virtues set the tone for Americans and many other people in
foreign nations to glean what justice systems are responsible for (Foucalt,
1977; Schmalleger, 2008). Initially, the
use of labor and solitude were the main premises, but these applications of
punishment changed as the Pennsylvania system grew and other law enforcers
recognized how prisons can deliver various methods of punishment and produce
better results for themselves, the public, and offenders who were incarcerated
(Carlson & Garrett, 1999; Foucalt, 1977; Schamalleger, 2008).
Rather than forced labor
and solitude, prisons began to shift to more liberal policies because of
cultural and financial reasons (Conley, 1982; Fisher-Giorlando, 2009; Rothman,
1990). That is, the Auburn facility in
New York was one of the first penal structures that offered more kind services
to inmates for the previously mentioned ideas of general human success and
monetary reasons (Conley, 1982; Fisher-Giorlando, 2009; Rothman, 1990). Inmates in New York could communicate with
each other and participate in recreational activities that were suggested to
help them become better in their behaviors during and after a term of
imprisonment (Conley, 1982; Fisher-Giorlando, 2009; Morris & Rothman, 1995;
Rothman, 1990). Soon after the Auburn
system was established, correctional facilities all throughout the northeastern
United States replicated its organization (Conley,
1982; Fisher-Giorlando, 2009; Morris & Rothman, 1995).
This realization of what
was thought to be monumental in penal institutions transitioned into external
ideologies about not only the success for criminal justice systems, but also
the ancillary devices, individuals, and economy (Conley, 1982;
Fisher-Giorlando, 2009; Morris & Rothman, 1995). Elaborating more, once the prisons opened-up
to more liberal approaches of incarceration, humans, and the utilities that
they use to survive, benefitted as well (Conley, 1982; Fisher-Giorlando, 2009;
Morris & Rothman, 1995). Occupations
of all sorts were configured – which brought positive worth – and communities
became engulfed in providing services and becoming attached to the prisons in
their areas because the consistency of the previously described benefits that the
penal institutions brought (Conley, 1982; Fisher-Giorlando, 2009; Morris &
Rothman, 1995). This is an understanding
that the new implementation of punishment was not simply about incarcerating
offenders for deterrent effects or protecting society in a humane method, but
simultaneously developed collective efficacy, financial and social prosperity,
and worth in society (Barak-Glantz, 1986; Fisher-Giorlando, 2009).
As the 1800s ended, the
Auburn model was still considered the best approach to punishment and the
fundamental ideas of the system can still be seen today (Conley, 1982; Morris
& Rothman, 1995; Schmalleger, 2008).
Nevertheless, significant changes in laws and technology restructured
prisons in modern cultures to cater to the conforming individuals and thus
maintained incarceration as the primary utensil when a person was convicted of
violating the law. The early 1900s was
an era that was infatuated with the idea of prisons being used to allow society
and individuals to prosper (Conley, 1982; Fisher-Giorlando, 2009; Morris &
Rothman, 1995). With the concentration
of external services being provided to and for communities, criminal justice
systems were viewed as necessary components for the stability of capitalism in
countries that were founded on such economic practices (Conley, 1982;
Fisher-Giorlando, 2009; Morris & Rothman, 1995). People were not blind to the penal institutions’
real purposes, but many of them simply had no regrets because of the value that
they brought to their livelihoods in an indirect and direct fashion (Conley,
1982; Fisher-Giorlando, 2009; Morris & Rothman, 1995). Second to this, with the decades of
indoctrination that permeated as the number of prison facilities grew, not much
was done to shift criminal justice systems away from using incarceration as its
main form of punishment (Farmer, 2003; Fisher-Giorlando, 2009; Foucalt, 1977). The external enjoyment that occurred from
having prisons set up was simply camouflaging and distorting any other
implementations of punishment or distributions of justice. Additionally, if any flak was demonstrated
toward modern nations' incarceration methods there was a plethora of propaganda
that reminded people of the benefits of prisons and the reasons why offenders
were incarcerated (Farmer, 2003; Fisher-Giorlando, 2009; Foucalt, 1977).
Another point that needs
to be discussed is social stratification and how prisons were used to house
people who met a prejudiced criterion.
In other words, prisons in modern nations served as a utility that
warehoused minorities and people who lacked social morals that most citizens
participated in (Alexander, 2012; Walker, Spohn, & Delone, 2012). These implementations of justice on social
status only furthered the ideas about prisons having secondary purposes other
than deterring criminality and delivering methods of humane and informal
justice based on social status. Criminal
justice systems, essentially, became the guardian for the burdens that many
citizens complained about. Many
behaviors and characteristics were identified and used to give prisons and the
legal system in general a purpose to continue with incarceration as its main
method of punishment (Alexander, 2012; Walker et al., 2012). Professionals in the criminal justice systems
certainly enjoyed this social role, as the expansion of prisons in the
twentieth century had created more correctional facilities than any other era
in human history and thus required more criminal justice professionalism and,
simultaneously, confirmed its necessity and, again, other ideations about
applications of deterrence and justice were not produced because of this
(Alexander, 2012; Conley, 1982; Walker et al., 2012).
The significance of
prisons based on the Auburn system reached its permanence in the middle part of
the 1900s (Conley, 1982; Fisher-Giorlando, 2009). Yet, there was a significant change to its
use that was centered on politics. This
political association began in the 1970s with the United States’ Republican Party’s marketing of dangerous drug users for their advantage because of the
liberal philosophies that were sustained in the 1960s (Alexander, 2012; Conley,
1982; Walker et al., 2012).
This was not only an American approach, but the United States surely
forged the concept of evilness toward drug offenses and, in turn, furthered the
indoctrination of prisons being the only plausible administration of punishment
(Alexander, 2012; Walker et al., 2012). Other modern nations thus began using prisons as
political advantages during this point in human history and, because of this,
prisons solidified the criminal justice operations in contemporary cultures as
other institutions of government catered to the benefits that correctional
facilities brought for society and politicians.
From the 1970s till the 1980s, the prison system served as a utility for
politicians to enter public office and create laws to remain in office and
acquire support from citizens who were and were not associated with
correctional facilities (Alexander, 2012; Merton, 1957; Walker et al.,
2012). All around the world political
figures teamed up with other employees of public offices and used penal
institutions as a basis to mete out their campaign speeches and declare victory
once elected or appointed to a public position (Conley, 1982; Fisher-Giorlando,
2009). These practices were more
abundant than in any other period of history in the world (Alexander, 2012;
Fisher-Giorlando, 2012). These dual incentives
between politicians and other public employees furthered the reliance on
correctional facilities, and criminal justice systems transitioned to using
penal institutions not only for deterring criminal activity and incarcerating
social outcasts, but for political reasons that delivered benefits to
politicians and other public agencies as well, which, in turn, gave jailers more respect in society. (Alexander, 2012; Murray, 1984;
Walker et al., 2012).
The United States in the 1980s, again, became the forerunner in using penal institutions to control
society and bring benefits to the public, services that were manifested and
used by correctional facilities, and, now, politicians and other public
employees in a larger fashion than before.
That is, the restructuring of criminal justice systems became utilities
that warehoused offenders for any type of violation of law and created a
private industry of corrections and businesses that relied on prisons (Messner
& Rosenfeld, 2006; Murray, 1984).
Shifting to the use of penal institutions as the primary source of
punishment for all violations of law and establishing private industries that
catered to public and additional private organizations allowed the
implementation of prisons to expand its realm in beneficial services again. The 1980s also saw a technological boom that
added to the expansion of prisons being the principal mechanism for punishment
(Messner & Rosenfeld, 2006; Murray, 1984; Schmallager, 2008). Since the technology industry is mostly made
up of private corporations, the benefits that extended into local communities
became more abundant. More importantly,
the technology boom made the benefits from and to prisons global (Byrne, Lurigio,
& Petersilia, 1992; Seiber, 1982).
Individuals and organizations were now subtly and directly shaping the
justice system for personal and economic wealth. Not many historians or scholars fully address
the concept that the advent and advancement of technology sustained penal
institutions as the primary administration of punishment in the latter half of
the twentieth century, but the fact is that the advancement and increased used
of technology made the prison systems more effective at its formal and informal
goals – as it does with any type of system or business.
The capstone of prisons
being the primary source of punishment reached its pinnacle in the 1990s, and
the current application of punishment is based on this era’s philosophies
(Alexander, 2012; Walker et al., 2012). Specifically, the prison systems in the world
had fully established its reliance on technology and external and internal
productions. Laws and organizations had
been produced so that the reliance on prisons as the main source of punishment
in contemporary societies could not be shifted to any other application of
punishment, and the correctional element of most modern nations had been set up
in a way that is like any other professional trade or occupation (Alexander,
2012; Schmalleger, 2008). Unions became
more profound and influential, technology was making incarceration easier to
perform, and the prosperity that was received by individuals transitioned into
legitimate careers that offered livable salaries and other benefits like many
other professions in this decade – and not only in public and private
correctional systems (Alexander, 2012; Schmalleger, 2008). Deterrence was still inferred to be the main
function of prisons in the modern world by criminal justice systems, yet with
the massive number of offenders who enter prisons, high recidivism rates, and
sheer lack of deterrent effect on many civilians who have and have not entered
the legal system suggests that the concept of prisons is rooted with an idea
that individual and financial worth are the main reasons for its permanent
existence (Alexander, 2012; Schmalleger, 2008).
The
Destruction of Criminal Justice Administration
Most business and public
operations evolve for the better and are not intimidated by admitting that
their prior practices were archaic and incorrect at times (Bohm, 2007; Leftkowitz,
2017). Practitioners in the criminal
justice system are unique with this notion because of their refusal to attempt
new administrations of punishment and to acknowledge how prisons have become
devices that individuals and organizations attach themselves to so that they
can benefit; this is done without the concept of justice in mind (Bohm, 2007;
Leftkowitz, 2017). The prison industrial
complex in modern society is a problem because of its lack of evolution and
inability to evolve past financial incentives.
Professions would be eliminated or diminished, and professional
reputations may not have merit if any significant changes were to occur. Because of this, the administration of
criminal justice has maintained a purpose that is rooted in ideas from the
1800s and capitalism in general – which are two ideas that have nothing to do
with justice now, and the only reason they are considered plausible is because
of the refusal to carry out innovative and effective applications of justice
(Bohm, 2007; Feeley & Simon, 1994).
Furthermore, the
stagnancy in the administration of criminal justice also occurs because of
informal and professional networks and the desire to keep them maintained. That is, if significant change were to happen
in the ideas about punishment in modern nations, then many professional and
informal peer groups would have to reconfigure their structure (Bohm, 2007;
Leftkowitz, 2017). The efforts that
would need to happen to reformat these peer groups would surely cause
protestations about maintaining the current premises of using prisons and the
current administration of criminal justice (Bohm, 2007; Leftkowtz, 2017). Additionally, many of the informal and
professional social networks would vanish if changes to the use of prisons were
manifested. Deconstruction and
reconstruction of the administration of criminal justice is a bilateral problem
that will not be initiated because of the effort that is required and the
disdain toward changing or ending activities that are centered on the use of
prisons, that is.
Conclusion
Use
of prisons has contributed to the demise of criminal justice
administrations. The reliance on
correctional facilities has ascertained an apparatus of attachments and social
networks that is difficult to surpass because of how long they have been
operated and maintained. Evolution in the
administration of justice will only happen when individuals and organizations
are forcefully told that they are no longer necessary or that they are required
to change their policies and activities. Legal systems are
responsible for these endeavors, and until the legal system casts a significant
change into itself there will be no other ideas or applications of punishment
or justice. Internal and external
protestations are the mechanisms for reform to be implemented, yet they also
cause friction and hatred toward ideations that prisons may not be the best
approach for many offenders from legal professionals and their supporters and,
because of this, the admonishment of anything that may change the benefits that
are currently in place does not occur wholeheartedly. The reliance on prisons
has destroyed the administration of criminal justice because of the desires by
supporters of the ongoing practices.
References
Alexander, M. (2012). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness.
New York: The New Press.
Barak-Glantz, I.
(1986). Toward a conceptual
scheme of prison management styles. The Prison
Journal, 61, 42-60.
Bohm, R. M.
(2007). “McJustice”: On the McDonaldization of criminal
justice. Justice
Quarterly, 23(1),
127-146.
Byrne, J. M., Lurigio, A. J., & Petersilia, J. (eds.). (1992).
Smart sentencing: The emergence of
intermediate sanctions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Carlson, P. M., & Garrett, J. S. (1999).
Prison and jail
administration: Practice and theory.
Gaithersburg,
MD: Aspen Publishers, Inc.
Conley, J.
(1982). Economics and the social
reality of prisons. Journal of Criminal Justice,
10(1),
1-82.
Greenberg, D.
(1975). The incapacitative effect
of imprisonment, some estimates.
Law and Society Review, 9, 541-580.
Farmer, P.
(2003). Pathologies of power: Health,
human rights, and the new war on the poor.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Feeley, M. M., & Simon, J. (1992).
Actuarial justice: The emerging
new criminal law.
In
the Future of Criminology, 171-201.
Fisher-Giorlando, M.
(2009). Introduction: The special issue on the history of prisons and
punishment. The
Prison Journal, 89(1), 7S-9S.
Foucalt, M.
(1977). Discipline and punish: The birth
of the prison. New York: Pantheon.
Leftkowitz, J.
(2017). Ethics and values in industrial-organization psychology. New York:
Routledge.
Lilly, J. R., Cullen, F. T., & Ball, R. A. (2011).
Criminological theory: Context and
consequences (5th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Longres, J. F.
(1990). Human behavior in the social environment. Itasca, IL: F. E.
Peacock
Publishers.
Merton, R. K.
(1957). Social theory and social
structure. New York: Free Press.
Messner, S. F., & Rosenfeld, R. (2006).
Crime and the American dream (4th
ed.).
Belmont,
CA: Cengage.
Morris, N., & Rothman, D. J. (1995).
The Oxford history of the
prison: The failure of
reform. New York: Oxford University Press.
Murray, C.
(1984). Losing ground: American social
policity, 1950-1980. New York:
Basic
Books.
Putwain, D., & Sammons, A. (2002).
Psychology and crime. New York:
Routledge.
Robbins, R. H.
(2009). Cultural anthropology: A problem-based approach (5th
ed.).
Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.
Rothman, D.
(1990). The discovery of the asylum:
Social order and disorder in the new
republic. Boston: Little, Brown and Company
Schmalleger, F.
(2008). Criminal justice: A brief introduction (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Scott, J. C.
(1998). Seeing like a state: How human
schemes to improve the human condition
have failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Seiber, S.
(1982). Fatal remedies. New
York: Plenum.
Sherman, M., & Hawkins, G. (1981).
Imprisonment in America. Chicago:
The University of
Chicago
Press.
Walker, S., Spohn, C., & Delone, M. (2012).
The color of justice: Race, ethnicity, and crime in
America (5th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Source: Public Domain
Comments
Post a Comment