DOCSLIB.ORG

Institutionalizing the Pennsylvania System: Organizational Exceptionalism, Administrative Support, and Eastern State Penitentiary, 1829–1875

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Institutionalizing the Pennsylvania System: Organizational Exceptionalism, Administrative Support, and Eastern State Penitentiary, 1829–1875 Institutionalizing the Pennsylvania System: Organizational Exceptionalism, Administrative Support, and Eastern State Penitentiary, 1829–1875 By Ashley Theresa Rubin A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Jurisprudence and Social Policy in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Malcolm Feeley, Chair Professor Cybelle Fox Professor Calvin Morrill Professor Jonathan Simon Spring 2013 Copyright c 2013 Ashley Theresa Rubin All rights reserved Abstract Institutionalizing the Pennsylvania System: Organizational Exceptionalism, Administrative Support, and Eastern State Penitentiary, 1829–1875 by Ashley Theresa Rubin Doctor of Philosophy in Jurisprudence and Social Policy University of California, Berkeley Professor Malcolm Feeley, Chair I examine the puzzling case of Eastern State Penitentiary and its long-term retention of a unique mode of confinement between 1829 and 1875. Most prisons built in the nineteenth cen- tury followed the “Auburn System” of congregate confinement in which inmates worked daily in factory-like settings and retreated at night to solitary confinement. By contrast, Eastern State Penitentiary (f. 1829, Philadelphia) followed the “Pennsylvania System” of separate confinement in which each inmate was confined to his own cell for the duration of his sentence, engaging in workshop-style labor and receiving religious ministries, education, and visits from selected person- nel. Between 1829 and the 1860s, Eastern faced strong pressures to conform to field-wide norms and adopt the Auburn System. As the progenitor of the Pennsylvania System, Eastern became the target of a debate raging over the appropriate model of “prison discipline.” Supporters of the Auburn System (penal reformers and other prisons’ administrators) propagated calumnious myths, arguing that the Pennsylvania System was cruel and inhumane, dangerous to inmates’ physical and mental health, too expensive, and simply impractical and ineffective. Largely as a result of these myths, only three other prisons followed this model, including another prison in Pennsylvania, Western State Penitentiary. However, by the Civil War, all three prisons abandoned the System in practice and then formally rejected it, citing the manifestation of the myths at their prisons. East- ern maintained its allegiance. Even after overcrowding struck in 1866, making separation for all inmates impossible, Eastern’s administrators continued to aspire to their Pennsylvania System. In the years after the Civil War, the Auburn–Pennsylvania debate faded and penal reformers moved on to new issues. The carceral field grew less isomorphic (homogeneous) as new facilities (adult reformatories in the North and plantation-style prisons in the South) emerged. The Auburn System itself had to evolve as new challenges emerged. The earlier pressures to conform had declined by the late 1870s. Ironically, it was in this context that Eastern effectively, but quietly, abandoned the Pennsylvania System. While legislative authorization continued until 1913, the Pennsylvania System was virtually unrecognizable at Eastern by the late 1870s as administrators sought to deal with an ever-growing prison population by double-celling inmates in violation of the principle of separate confinement to which they subscribed. As one of the first modern prisons, the progenitor of a distinctive mode of confinement, and an exception to the historical trend, Eastern is one of the most famous prisons in penal history. However, its lengthy and exceptional retention of the Pennsylvania System remains significantly under-theorized. Instead, scholars have largely sought to explain Eastern’s initial adoption of the 1 Pennsylvania System, focusing on the unique features of that system (e.g., Dumm, 1987; Rothman, 1971; Rusche and Kirchheimer, 1939; see also Meranze, 1996). This study seeks to determine how and why the Pennsylvania System remained the model of confinement at Eastern despite pressures that encouraged conformity to a different model of confinement. I employ historical content analyses of archival materials consisting of a wide range of primary-source documents relating to the prison. These documents include Eastern’s widely circulated Annual Reports to the legislature, private documents maintained by Eastern personnel and penal reformers that reveal actual practice at Eastern, and penal reform literature and penal legislation from across the United States that provide insights into the pressures from the field. I find that the most important factor behind the Pennsylvania System’s longevity at East- ern was the long-lasting support of its administrators (administrative support). While local penal reformers were useful in maintaining the statutory authorization of the Pennsylvania System and defending it against criticism from the field, they had little influence over public or private organi- zational behavior at Eastern. Moreover, legislative authorization was likely only minimally signifi- cant as the authority of the legislature, including actual legislation, was often disregarded by prison administrators, who saw themselves as the proper authority on penological matters. Thus, available countervailing forces were quite weak and unlikely to have played a significant role in overcom- ing pressures towards conformity. Apparently promising contextual explanations, moreover, fall apart upon investigation. Counterfactual evidence provides the most promising guidance: The lack of administrative support at other prisons that adopted the Pennsylvania System was highly sig- nificant in its failure at those prisons. At Eastern, by contrast, prison administrators maintained constant support of the Pennsylvania System—often in ways that mitigated against the same fac- tors that led other prisons’ administrators to abandon the Pennsylvania System for more efficient methods. Through vehement rhetorical defenses, Eastern’s administrators countered the veracity of reformers’ unflattering myths. Administrators also imposed strategic marginal alterations of the Pennsylvania System, manipulating features of their system to reduce its vulnerability to man- ifestations of the calumnious myths. Through these two tactics, they protected the Pennsylvania System at Eastern from factors that caused its demise at other prisons. Why did Eastern’s administrators expend this effort to protect an unpopular system of prison discipline? I suggest that retaining the Pennsylvania System at Eastern offered adminis- trators particular benefits that overcame the challenges associated with exceptionalism. Specifi- cally, I argue that the Pennsylvania System had become institutionalized (Selznick, 1949, 1957) at Eastern in the sense that it was meaningful to Eastern’s administrators beyond its utility as a basic set of instructions regarding how to incarcerate criminals to achieve their reformation, deterrence, or punishment. Instead, the Pennsylvania System offered administrators certain phenomenological benefits (Whetten, 2006) such that it was in their interest to maintain and publicly defend the Penn- sylvania System. First, as a distinctive structure increasingly unique to Eastern, the Pennsylvania System offered administrators a status identity both indirectly (through their affiliation with and endorsement of a system they described as humanitarian and generally superior to alternatives) and directly (through their claims of their own benevolence and professional expertise). Importantly, these sources of status identity were only available if administrators retained the Pennsylvania Sys- tem, and they were strengthened through administrators’ rhetorical defenses of the Pennsylvania System. Moreover, affirming this status identity may have alleviated existential anxiety among administrators, who faced normative criticism from the field. Second, protecting the public image of the Pennsylvania System constituted an imperative for administrative decision making when actual implementation proved problematic. When faced with conflicting goals, vague instructions that failed to cover all eventualities, and material challenges to implementation, the need to protect 2 the Pennsylvania System—to make it look good, to preserve it at Eastern—offered clarity. Having this imperative may have alleviated epistemic anxiety among administrators, who faced exacer- bated levels of uncertainty from the ambiguities in their goals and technology and no guidance (no external model) from the field. Thus, the status identity and imperative rendered the Pennsylvania System valuable to Eastern’s administrators, despite the challenges. Indeed, administrative sup- port continued until the Pennsylvania System no longer provided these benefits. By the 1870s, the field had moved on: the debate was over, as was the need to defend the Pennsylvania System—the Pennsylvania System had clearly lost—and it was no longer a source of distinction. While admin- istrators retained the name, they began to change the core of the principle. No longer infused with value, the Pennsylvania System became expendable. 3 To my parents, Ginny and Bob, and my husband, David, for their love and support i Abbreviated Table of Contents List of Figures viii List of Tables ix Abbreviations x Preface xi Acknowledgements xiv I The Puzzle 1 1 Introduction 3 2 The Carceral Field 25 3 The Deviant Prison 40 II Strategies 67 4 Rhetoric 69 5 Professionalization 96 6 Adaptation 122 7 Practice 142 8 Conclusion 162
Load more

Recommended publications
  • LETHAL INJECTION: the Medical Technology of Execution
    LETHAL INJECTION: The medical technology of execution Introduction From hanging to electric chair to lethal injection: how much prettier can you make it? Yet the prettier it becomes, the uglier it is.1 In 1997, China became the first country outside the USA to carry out a judicial execution by lethal injection. Three other countriesGuatemala, Philippines and Taiwancurrently provide for execution by lethal injection but have not yet executed anyone by that method2. The introduction of lethal injection in the USA in 1977 provoked a debate in the medical profession and strong opposition to a medical role in such executions. To 30 September 1997, 268 individuals have been executed by lethal injection in the USA since the first such execution in December 1982 (see appendix 2). Reports of lethal injection executions in China, where the method was introduced in 1997, are sketchy but early indications are that there is a potential for massive use of this form of execution. In 1996, Amnesty International recorded more than 4,300 executions by shooting in China. At least 24 lethal injection executions were reported in the Chinese press in 1997 and this can be presumed to be a minimum (and growing) figure since executions are not automatically reported in the Chinese media. Lethal injection executions depend on medical drugs and procedures and the potential of this kind of execution to involve medical professionals in unethical behaviour, including direct involvement in killing, is clear. Because of this, there has been a long-standing campaign by some individual health professionals and some professional bodies to prohibit medical participation in lethal injection executions.
    [Show full text]
  • Office for Victims of Crime
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office for Victims of Crime Office for Victims of Crime Report to the Nation 2001 Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street NW. Washington, DC 20531 John Ashcroft Attorney General Deborah J. Daniels Assistant Attorney General John W. Gillis Director, Office for Victims of Crime Office of Justice Programs World Wide Web Home Page www.ojp.usdoj.gov Office for Victims of Crime World Wide Web Home Page www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc For grant and funding information contact U.S. Department of Justice Response Center 1–800–421–6770 OVC Resource Center 1–800–627–6872 TTY: 1–877–712–9279 OVC Resource Center Home Page www.ncjrs.org NCJ 189205 The Office for Victims of Crime is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Victims of Crime Act of 1984, as amended: A Report to the President, the Congress, AND THE NATION Office for Victims of Crime Office of Justice Programs U.S. Department of Justice This report covers activities undertaken by the Office for Victims of Crime and its grantees with Crime Victims Fund revenues during Fiscal Years 1999–2000. Acknowledgments he Office for Victims of Crime gratefully acknowledges the work of Ashley Oliver Barrett, who analyzed data and numerous project T summaries to prepare the final draft of this Report to the Nation.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Penalty Prison Cells
    Death Penalty Prison Cells Which Benton plagiarise so contrapuntally that Rodrique velarized her self-abandonment? Inflamed and razed finedHaven when heel brandersalmost unbrokenly, some sheets though very Gerritwilfully unbinding and motherly? his spoon incarnate. Is Aylmer always historical and The death row made for prison cells even understand that my mother Deposited by friendsfamily andor money earned by working until the prison. A superior Before Dying Solitary Confinement on these Row. Death row Definition of Death tax at Dictionarycom. Lifers would no longer sent a cell which take their space in and already crowded jail. Willie Francis Wikipedia. The strict penalty Emotion numbers and turnover law divide The. The Management of Death-Sentenced Inmates Missouri. Wyoming Frontier Prison Rawlins Picture include row a Check out Tripadvisor members' 113 candid photos and videos of Wyoming Frontier Prison. Walking death camp at San Quentin State Prison KALW. Death row prisoners live in the barren cells Open bars. Living conditions on death during World Coalition Against the. The 156 death row inmates in Pennsylvania state prisons go just sleep every bullet the same note they wake up in an by-12 local cell illuminated. The one woman under a death midwife is incarcerated at an Atlanta prison manual any loose-row cell i look through bars at any chain-link came about 12 feet. In GHANA prison Services officials reported that cold one coil in Ghana 104 death row prisoners were held provide a cell designed to defend only 24 prisoners9 2 Death. Be found few single cells at the Holman Correctional Facility in Atmore Escambia County.
    [Show full text]
  • Prison Abolition and Grounded Justice
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2015 Prison Abolition and Grounded Justice Allegra M. McLeod Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1490 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2625217 62 UCLA L. Rev. 1156-1239 (2015) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Social Control, Law, Crime, and Deviance Commons Prison Abolition and Grounded Justice Allegra M. McLeod EVIEW R ABSTRACT This Article introduces to legal scholarship the first sustained discussion of prison LA LAW LA LAW C abolition and what I will call a “prison abolitionist ethic.” Prisons and punitive policing U produce tremendous brutality, violence, racial stratification, ideological rigidity, despair, and waste. Meanwhile, incarceration and prison-backed policing neither redress nor repair the very sorts of harms they are supposed to address—interpersonal violence, addiction, mental illness, and sexual abuse, among others. Yet despite persistent and increasing recognition of the deep problems that attend U.S. incarceration and prison- backed policing, criminal law scholarship has largely failed to consider how the goals of criminal law—principally deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and retributive justice—might be pursued by means entirely apart from criminal law enforcement. Abandoning prison-backed punishment and punitive policing remains generally unfathomable. This Article argues that the general reluctance to engage seriously an abolitionist framework represents a failure of moral, legal, and political imagination.
    [Show full text]
  • Prisoner Testimonies of Torture in United States Prisons and Jails
    Survivors Speak Prisoner Testimonies of Torture in United States Prisons and Jails A Shadow Report Submitted for the November 2014 Review of the United States by the Committee Against Torture I. Reporting organization The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) is a Quaker faith based organization that promotes lasting peace with justice, as a practical expression of faith in action. AFSC’s interest in prison reform is strongly influenced by Quaker (Religious Society of Friends) activism addressing prison conditions as informed by the imprisonment of Friends for their beliefs and actions in the 17th and 18th centuries. For over three decades AFSC has spoken out on behalf of prisoners, whose voices are all too frequently silenced. We have received thousands of calls and letters of testimony of an increasingly disturbing nature from prisoners and their families about conditions in prison that fail to honor the Light in each of us. Drawing on continuing spiritual insights and working with people of many backgrounds, we nurture the seeds of change and respect for human life that transform social relations and systems. AFSC works to end mass incarceration, improve conditions for people who are in prison, stop prison privatization, and promote a reconciliation and healing approach to criminal justice issues. Contact Person: Lia Lindsey, Esq. 1822 R St NW; Washington, DC 20009; USA Email: [email protected] +1-202-483-3341 x108 Website: www.afsc.org Acknowledgements This report would not have been possible but for the courageous individuals held in U.S. prisons and jails who rise above the specter of reprisal for sharing testimonies of the abuses they endure.
    [Show full text]
  • ESP-History-Overview.Pdf
    EASTERN STATE PENITENTIARY A N A TIONAL HIST ORIC LANDMARK 1. History of Eastern State Penitentiary, Philadelphia In the ambitious age of reform following the American Revolution, the new nation aspired to change profoundly its public institutions, and to set an example for the world in social development. Every type of institution that we are familiar with today—educational, medical and governmental—was revolutionized in these years by the rational and humanistic principles of the Enlightenment. Of all of the radical innovations born in this era, American democracy was, of course, the most influ- ential. The second major intellectual export was prison design and reform. Most eighteenth century prisons were simply large holding pens. Groups of adults and children, men and women, and petty thieves and murderers, sorted out their own affairs behind locked doors. Physical punishment and mutilation were common, and abuse of the prisoners by the guards and overseers was assumed. In 1787, a group of well-known and powerful Philadelphians convened in the home of Benjamin Franklin. The members of The Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons expressed growing concern with the conditions in American and European prisons. Dr. Benjamin Rush spoke on the Society’s goal, to see the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania set the international standard in prison design. He proposed a radical idea: to build a true penitentiary, a prison designed to create genuine regret and penitence in the criminal’s heart. The concept grew from Enlightenment thinking, but no government had successfully carried out such a program. It took the Society more than thirty years to convince the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to build the kind of prison it suggested: a revolutionary new building on farmland outside Philadelphia.
    [Show full text]
  • Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-In-Sentencing Incentive Formula Grant Program
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Assistance REPORT TO CONGRESS Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-In-Sentencing Incentive Formula Grant Program February 2012 Submitted by: Table of Contents Introduction 1 Funding History 1 Eligibility Requirements 2 Appendixes A. Fiscal Years 1996–2001 VOI/TIS Funding 4 B. VOI/TIS Program Activities by State 6 Introduction Title II, Subtitle A of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (“Crime Act”) (Pub. L. 103-322), established the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing (VOI/TIS) Incentive Grant Program. The program assisted states in their efforts to remove violent offenders from the community and encouraged states to implement TIS laws. Originally administered by the Office of Justice Programs’ (OJP) Corrections Program Office (CPO), the program was transferred to OJP’s Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) in November 2002 after an OJP-wide reorganization merged CPO with BJA. The VOI/TIS Program provided formula grants to states to build or expand correctional facilities and jails to increase secure confinement space for violent offenders. From fiscal years (FYs) 1996 to 2001, half of the funds were made available for VOI grants and half were available as incentive awards to states that implemented TIS laws. VOI/TIS grant funds allowed states to build or expand correctional facilities to increase bed capacity for the confinement of persons convicted of Part 1 violent crimes or adjudicated delinquents who had committed equivalent acts. Funds were also used to build or expand temporary or permanent correctional facilities, including facilities on military bases, prison barges, and boot camps; to confine convicted nonviolent offenders and criminal aliens; or to free suitable existing prison space for the confinement of persons convicted of Part 1 violent crimes.
    [Show full text]
  • Woodrow Wilson's Conversion Experience: the President and the Federal Woman Suffrage Amendment Beth Behn University of Massachusetts Amherst, [email protected]
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Open Access Dissertations 2-2012 Woodrow Wilson's Conversion Experience: The President and the Federal Woman Suffrage Amendment Beth Behn University of Massachusetts Amherst, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/open_access_dissertations Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Behn, Beth, "Woodrow Wilson's Conversion Experience: The rP esident and the Federal Woman Suffrage Amendment" (2012). Open Access Dissertations. 511. https://doi.org/10.7275/e43w-h021 https://scholarworks.umass.edu/open_access_dissertations/511 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Open Access Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WOODROW WILSON’S CONVERSION EXPERIENCE: THE PRESIDENT AND THE FEDERAL WOMAN SUFFRAGE AMENDMENT A Dissertation Presented by BETH A. BEHN Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY February 2012 Department of History © Copyright by Beth A. Behn 2012 All Rights Reserved WOODROW WILSON’S CONVERSION EXPERIENCE: THE PRESIDENT AND THE FEDERAL WOMAN SUFFRAGE AMENDMENT A Dissertation Presented by BETH A. BEHN Approved as to style and content by: _________________________________ Joyce Avrech Berkman, Chair _________________________________ Gerald Friedman, Member _________________________________ David Glassberg, Member _________________________________ Gerald McFarland, Member ________________________________________ Joye Bowman, Department Head Department of History ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would never have completed this dissertation without the generous support of a number of people. It is a privilege to finally be able to express my gratitude to many of them.
    [Show full text]
  • Philadelphia Merchants, Trans-Atlantic Smuggling, and The
    Friends in Low Places: Philadelphia Merchants, Trans-Atlantic Smuggling, and the Secret Deals that Saved the American Revolution By Tynan McMullen University of Colorado Boulder History Honors Thesis Defended 3 April 2020 Thesis Advisor Dr. Virginia Anderson, Department of History Defense Committee Dr. Miriam Kadia, Department of History Capt. Justin Colgrove, Department of Naval Science, USMC 1 Introduction Soldiers love to talk. From privates to generals, each soldier has an opinion, a fact, a story they cannot help themselves from telling. In the modern day, we see this in the form of leaked reports to newspapers and controversial interviews on major networks. On 25 May 1775, as the British American colonies braced themselves for war, an “Officer of distinguished Rank” was running his mouth in the Boston Weekly News-Letter. Boasting about the colonial army’s success ​ ​ during the capture of Fort Ticonderoga two weeks prior, this anonymous officer let details slip about a far more concerning issue. The officer remarked that British troops in Boston were preparing to march out to “give us battle” at Cambridge, but despite their need for ammunition “no Powder is to be found there at present” to supply the Massachusetts militia.1 This statement was not hyperbole. When George Washington took over the Continental Army on 15 June, three weeks later, he was shocked at the complete lack of munitions available to his troops. Two days after that, New England militiamen lost the battle of Bunker Hill in agonizing fashion, repelling a superior British force twice only to be forced back on the third assault.
    [Show full text]
  • Prisoners of Solitude: Bringing History to Bear on Prison Health Policy Margaret Charleroy and Hilary Marland
    Prisoners of Solitude: Bringing History to Bear on Prison Health Policy Margaret Charleroy and Hilary Marland Season two of the popular prison drama Orange is the New Black opens in a small concrete cell, no larger than a parking space. The cell is windowless and sparsely furnished; it holds a toilet, a sink and a limp bed. The only distinguishing feature we see is a mural of smeared egg, made by the cell's resident, the show's protagonist Piper Chapman. When a correctional officer arrives at this solitary confinement cell, he wakes her, and mocks her egg fresco. “This is art,” she insists. “This is a yellow warbler drinking out of a daffodil.” Her rambling suggests the confusion and disorientation associated with inmates in solitary confinement, who often become dazed after only a few days in isolation. As the scene continues, we see Piper exhibit further symptoms associated with both short- and long-term solitary confinement—memory loss, inability to reason, mood swings, anxiety—all indicating mental deterioration and impaired mental health. In this and other episodes, we begin to see solitary confinement as the greatest villain in the show, more villainous than any character a writer could create. The new and growing trend of television prison dramas like Orange is the New Black brings the issue of solitary confinement, along with other issues related to incarceration, to a more general audience, exposing very real problems in the failing contemporary prison system, not just in America, but worldwide. The show's success leads us to ask how history, alongside fictional dramas and contemporary case reports, can draw attention to the issue of solitary confinement.
    [Show full text]
  • Teiiii^ !!Ti;;:!L||^^ -STATUS ACCESSIBLE Categbry OWNERSHIP (Check One) to the PUBLIC
    THEME: Socia Movements , NATIONAL HIST01 'LANDMARK Pri Re form. Form 10-300 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STATE: (Rev. 6-72) • f NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Pennsylvania COUNTY; NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES Philadelphia INVENTORY - NOMINATION FORM FOR NPS USE ONLY {NATTOIT/J, FT5703IC' ENTRY DATE ^mWiij.nitf.'TjypQ all entries - complete applicable sections) '^^^^^^^K^y^^iy^' SitlllP W!i*:': %$$$SX ^ v;!f ';^^:-M^ '^'''^S^iii^^X^i^i^S^^^ :- • y;;£ ' ' ' . :':^:- -• * : :V COMMON: Eastern State Penitentiary AND/OR HISTORIJC: [ Eastern State Penitentiary i'**i* ^Sririiii1 :*. -: . ' ',&$;':•&. \-Stf: -: #gy&. Vii'Sviv:; .<:. :':.x:x.?:.S :•:;:..:-.:;:;.:: : . :: r :' ..:•: :1.';V.':::::::1 -?:--:i^ . ....:. :•;. ¥.:? :?:>.::;:•:•:.:¥:" .v:::::^1:;:gS::::::S*;v*ri-:':i ftyWf*,^ ;:-.;. ; .;.^:|:.:. ....;- , ••;.,.; ,: ; : '.,:• f-^..^ ;. .S:.';: >• tell^•fcf S*fV;| :*;Wfl :-K;:; • ; -f,/ •.. ••, •••<>•' • •• .;.;.•• • ;.:;••••: •••/:' ..... :.:• :'. :•:.:: ;'V •': v,-"::;.:-;.:;.: :•;•: ^V - -•;.•: ;:>:••:;. .:.'-;.,.::---7:-::i.;v ' '''-:' jji.:'./s iSgfci'S ,':':Sv:;,: ' K JftiSiSWix?-: S.^:!:?--;:. ; S*;.?. S '«:;.;Si-.--:':.-'.;"-- :':: -::x: '; ^.^-Sy .:;•?.,!.;:.•::;•" • . STREET AND NUMBER: 21st Street and Fairmount Avenue CITY OR TOWN: CONGRE SSIONAU DISTRICT: Philadelphia 3 STATE { CODE COUNTY CODE f Pennsylvania 42 Philadelpftia lol teiiii^ !!ti;;:!l||^^ -STATUS ACCESSIBLE CATEGbRY OWNERSHIP (Check One) TO THE PUBLIC C3 District (Jg Building S3 P"b''c Public Acquisition: S3 Occupied Yes: r-i n • j Q Restricted Q Site Q Structure D Private O ln Process LJ Unoccupied ' — ' D Object D Both Q Being Considere<i LJr—i Preservationo worki D*— ' Unrestricted in progress IS No 'PRESENT USE (Check One or More ea Appropriate) D Agricultural \ Q§ Government Q Park O Transportation CD Comments Q Commercial f CD Industrial Q Private Residence JS< Other (Sped*,) D Educotionalj D Military Q Religious Used bv Philadelphia C}tv D Entertainment Q Museum Q Scientific Police.
    [Show full text]
  • Parades, Pickets, and Prison: Alice Paul and the Virtues of Unruly Constitutional Citizenship
    PARADES, PICKETS, AND PRISON: ALICE PAUL AND THE VIRTUES OF UNRULY CONSTITUTIONAL CITIZENSHIP Lynda G. Dodd* INTRODUCTION: MODELS OF CONSTITUTIONAL CITIZENSHIP For all the recent interest in “popular constitutionalism,” constitutional theorists have devoted surprisingly little attention to the habits and virtues of citizenship that constitutional democracies must cultivate, if they are to flourish.1 In my previous work, I have urged scholars of constitutional politics to look beyond judicial review and other more traditional checks and balances intended to prevent governmental misconduct, in order to examine the role of “citizen plaintiffs”2 – individuals who, typically at great personal cost in a legal culture where the odds are stacked against them, attempt to enforce their rights in * 1 For some exceptions, see Walter F. Murphy, CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY: CREATING AND MAINTAINING A JUST POLITICAL ORDER (2007); JAMES E. FLEMING, SECURING CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY: THE CASE FOR AUTONOMY (2006); Wayne D. Moore, Constitutional Citizenship in CONSTITUTIONAL POLITICS: ESSAYS ON CONSTITUTIONAL MAKING, MAINTENANCE, AND CHANGE (Sotirios A. Barber and Robert P. George, eds. 2001); Paul Brest, Constitutional Citizenship, 34 CLEV. ST. L. REV. 175 (1986). 2 Under this model of citizenship, the citizen plaintiff is participating in the process of constitutional checks and balances. That participation can be described in terms of “enforcing” constitutional norms or “protesting” the government’s departure from them. The phrase “private attorneys general” is the traditional term used to describe citizen plaintiffs. See, e.g., David Luban, Taking Out the Adversary: The Assault on Progressive Public Interest Lawyers, 91 CAL. L. REV. 209 (2003); Pamela Karlan, Disarming the Private Attorney General, 2003 U.
    [Show full text]