DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Supermax Prisons

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Supermax Prisons The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Supermax Prisons Author(s): Daniel P. Mears Document No.: 211971 Date Received: January 2006 Award Number: 2002-IJ-CX-0019 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. SPUPERMAX RISONS URBAN INSTITUTE Evaluating the Effectiveness of Supermax Prisons Abstract for Project # 2002-IJ-CX-0019 Research Goals and Objectives Statement of Purpose: Despite the growth in super-maximum security prisons, no research has systematically assessed the goals, impacts, or costs of these prisons. The purpose of the Urban Institute (UI) research was to help states and correctional systems make informed decisions about investing in supermax prisons, and, specifically, to create an empirically-based framework to guide research on the goals and impacts of supermax prisons, and a tool for facilitating the understanding and use of benefit-cost analyses of these prisons. Research Subjects: The study included interviews with 60 corrections administrators, wardens, and officers, and state legislators, and a survey of state prison wardens. Respondents’ age, gender, and race/ethnicity were not recorded for the interviews or survey. Research Design and Methodology Methods: The study involved (1) a systematic review of research, corrections agency reports, and news and legal accounts of supermax prisons; (2) site visits to three states; (3) interviews with 60 corrections administrators, wardens, and officers, and state legislators, across eleven states; (4) a national survey of wardens’; and (5) creation of a benefit-cost analysis (BCA) policy brief and tool. Data Analysis: Data from the review, site visits, and interviews were coded into a matrix linking all identified goals, intended and unintended impacts, and causal logics. Survey data were examined using descriptive and multivariate regression analyses. The BCA policy brief was created with guidance from practitioners and researchers and by reviewing relevant BCA research and studies of supermax prisons. The BCA tool was created using a spreadsheet to link specific steps involved in conducting BCA of a supermax prison. 1 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. SPUPERMAX RISONS URBAN INSTITUTE Research Results and Conclusion Results: The study found many different goals and intended and unintended (positive and negative) impacts associated with supermax prisons, and explanations about how these impacts arise. Estimates of the true benefits and costs of these prisons requires assessment of the goals and impacts identified in this study. The study resulted in two presentations at professional meetings; a final report with an Executive Summary and four chapters prepared for submission to practitioner- and scholarly-oriented journal publications; a BCA policy brief; a BCA tool; and a matrix of supermax goals and impacts. Conclusions: Supermax prisons address a need that correctional systems face, including, not least, effective and safe management of prison populations. But the effectiveness of these prisons remains unknown and questionable, and considerable challenges exist in conducting empirical assessments of their effectiveness. Empirical research on the magnitude of a range of impacts associated with these prisons is greatly needed, along with rigorous benefit-cost studies that include reasonable estimates of both benefits and costs. 2 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. FINAL RE PO RT PO FINAL RE Evaluating the Effectiveness of June 2005 Supermax Prisons Daniel P. Mears Funded by the National Institute of Justice, Research Grant # 2002-IJ-CX-0019 URBAN INSTITUTE research for safer communities This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not Justice Policy Center been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Acknowledgements This report was written by Daniel P. Mears, a senior research associate in the Justice Policy Center (JPC) at the Urban Institute (UI). Jamie Watson, formerly a research associate at the Institute and now an independent consultant, provided assistance with key sections of the report, including the discussion of data and methods, and the creation, summary, and analysis of the matrix of supermax goals and impacts. Jennifer L. Castro, a research associate at the Institute, conducted the statistical analyses of the survey data and assisted with summarizing and analyzing the results. Sarah Lawrence, formerly a research associate at the Institute, assisted with writing a benefit-cost analysis (BCA) policy brief on supermax prisons and developing an accompanying spreadsheet-based tool to illustrate how BCAs of supermax prisons can be conducted. Vera Kachnowski, a research associate at the Institute, provided invaluable assistance in editing the BCA policy brief and finalizing the development of the BCA tool. John Roman, a senior research associate at the Institute, assisted with development, testing, and review of the BCA tool. Michael D. Reisig, an associate professor at Florida State University, collaborated with the author in developing a greater understanding of supermax prisons and their ability to achieve system-wide order. Dr. Mears is the Principal Investigator of Supermax Prisons: Examining the Impacts and Developing a Cost-Benefit Model, a project at the Urban Institute. The project (# 2002-IJ-CX- 0019) was funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and housed within the Institute’s Justice Policy Center, directed by Dr. Terence Dunworth. Andrew Goldberg, the NIJ Program Monitor for the project, provided invaluable support throughout the project. Many colleagues at the Urban Institute, especially Lisa Brooks, Adele Harrell, John Roman, Jeremy Travis, and Christy Visher, gave generously of their time and offered helpful insights and suggestions. Christy graciously reviewed the entire report and provided many ideas for improving it. The author gratefully acknowledges the support provided by the correctional administrators and wardens, local and state policymakers, and researchers who agreed to be interviewed for this study and who provided invaluable insights about supermax prisons. During all stages of the research study, the UI research team asked for feedback and assistance from many people and invariably received prompt and helpful advice. Our thanks to these people, including Gerald Berge, Michele Moczygemba Connolly, James Gondles, Jr., Charles Hinsley, Todd Ishee, Dimitria Pope, Larry Reid, Chase Riveland, Allen Scribner, William Stickman, and Reginald Wilkinson. We also thank James Austin and Gerald Gaes for their advice in the early stages of the project. William Johnson, Terry Wells, and Rodney Henningsen kindly provided a copy of the survey instrument they used in their national survey of prison wardens. We modified several items from this instrument in the UI survey. Points of view in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or of the Urban Institute, its board of trustees, or its sponsors. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Executive Summary* Twenty years ago, supermax-maximum security prisons were rare in America. Today, over two-thirds of states have “supermax” facilities that collectively house over 20,000 inmates. Designed to hold the putatively most violent and disruptive inmates in single-cell confinement for 23 hours per day, often for an indefinite period of time, these facilities have been lightning rods for controversy. Economic considerations are one reason—supermaxes typically cost two or three times more to build and operate than traditional maximum security prisons. A perhaps bigger reason lies in the criticism by some that supermax confinement is unconstitutional and inhumane. While proponents and opponents of supermax prisons debate such issues, a fundamental set of questions has gone largely unexamined: What exactly are the goals of supermax prisons, how, if at all, are these goals achieved, and what are their unintended impacts? The Urban Institute, with funding from the National Institute of Justice, conducted a study to help answer these questions with the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Introduction to Victimology and Victims' Rights Van Der Aa, Suzan
    Tilburg University Introduction to victimology and victims' rights van der Aa, Suzan Published in: Strengthening judicial cooperation to protect victims of crime Publication date: 2014 Document Version Early version, also known as pre-print Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): van der Aa, S. (2014). Introduction to victimology and victims' rights. In Strengthening judicial cooperation to protect victims of crime: Handbook (pp. 6-12). Superior Council of Magistracy of Romania. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 04. okt. 2021 This publication has been produced with the financial support of the Specific Programme Criminal Justice of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the
    [Show full text]
  • Does Imprisonment Deter? a Review of the Evidence
    April 2011 Sentencing Advisory Council Donald Ritchie Sentencing Matters Does Imprisonment Deter? A Review of the Evidence Contents Executive summary 1 Background 2 Deterrence in Victoria 4 Deterrence theory 7 General deterrence 12 Specific deterrence 18 Concluding remarks 23 Glossary 24 Bibliography 25 Executive summary Deterrence can be described as the prevention of crime Deterrence theory is based upon the classical economic through the fear of a threatened – or the experience of an theory of rational choice, which assumes that people weigh actual – criminal sanction. General deterrence is aimed at up the costs and benefits of a particular course of action reducing crime by directing the threat of that sanction at all whenever they make a decision. Deterrence theory relies potential offenders. Specific deterrence is aimed at reducing on the assumption that offenders have knowledge of the crime by applying a criminal sanction to a specific offender, in threat of a criminal sanction and then make a rational choice order to dissuade him or her from reoffending. whether or not to offend based upon consideration of Deterrence is only one of the purposes of sentencing in Victoria, that knowledge. determined by section 5(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). The Rational choice theory, however, does not adequately other purposes are: punishment, denunciation, rehabilitation and account for a large number of offenders who may be community protection (incapacitation). considered ‘irrational’. Examples of such irrationality can The scope of this paper is limited to examining the sentencing vary in severity – there are those who are not criminally purpose of deterrence only – it does not present an analysis of responsible due to mental impairment, those who are drug the evidence of imprisonment’s effectiveness in regard to other affected or intoxicated and those who simply act in a way that sentencing purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Cattle: Prison Overpopulation and the Political Economy of Mass Incarceration
    Themis: Research Journal of Justice Studies and Forensic Science Volume 4 Article 3 5-10-2016 Human Cattle: Prison Overpopulation and the Political Economy of Mass Incarceration Peter Hanna San Jose State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/themis Part of the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Hanna, Peter (2016) "Human Cattle: Prison Overpopulation and the Political Economy of Mass Incarceration," Themis: Research Journal of Justice Studies and Forensic Science: Vol. 4 , Article 3. https://doi.org/10.31979/THEMIS.2016.0403 https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/themis/vol4/iss1/3 This Peer-Reviewed Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Justice Studies at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Themis: Research Journal of Justice Studies and Forensic Science by an authorized editor of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Human Cattle: Prison Overpopulation and the Political Economy of Mass Incarceration Abstract This paper examines the costs and impacts of prison overpopulation and mass incarceration on individuals, families, communities, and society as a whole. We start with an overview of the American prison system and the costs of maintaining it today, and move on to an account of the historical background of the prison system to provide context for the discussions later in this paper. This paper proceeds to go into more detail about the financial and social costs of mass incarceration, concluding that the costs of the prison system outweigh its benefits. This paper will then discuss the stigma and stereotypes associated with prison inmates that are formed and spread through mass media.
    [Show full text]
  • Veterans in State and Federal Prison, 2004
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report May 2007, NCJ 217199 Veterans in State and Federal Prison, 2004 By Margaret E. Noonan Percent of prisoners reporting prior military service BJS Statistician continues to decline and Christopher J. Mumola BJS Policy Analyst Percent of prisoners 25% The percentage of veterans among State and Federal Federal prisoners has steadily declined over the past three decades, 20% according to national surveys of prison inmates conducted State by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). In 2004,10% of 15% State prisoners reported prior service in the U.S. Armed Forces, down from 12% in 1997 and 20% in 1986. Since 10% BJS began surveying Federal prisoners in 1991, they have 5% shown the same decline over a shorter period. Overall, an estimated 140,000 veterans were held in the Nation’s 0% prisons in 2004, down from 153,100 in 2000. 1986 1991 1997 2004 The majority of veterans in State (54%) and Federal (64%) prison served during a wartime period, but a much lower percentage reported seeing combat duty (20% of State Veterans had shorter criminal records than nonveterans in prisoners, 26% of Federal). Vietnam War-era veterans were State prison, but reported longer prison sentences and the most common wartime veterans in both State (36%) and expected to serve more time in prison than nonveterans. Federal (39%) prison. Veterans of the Iraq-Afghanistan eras Nearly a third of veterans and a quarter of nonveterans comprised 4% of veterans in both State and Federal prison.
    [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]
  • POLICING REFORM in AFRICA Moving Towards a Rights-Based Approach in a Climate of Terrorism, Insurgency and Serious Violent Crime
    POLICING REFORM IN AFRICA Moving towards a rights-based approach in a climate of terrorism, insurgency and serious violent crime Edited by Etannibi E.O. Alemika, Mutuma Ruteere & Simon Howell POLICING REFORM IN AFRICA Moving towards a rights-based approach in a climate of terrorism, insurgency and serious violent crime Edited by Etannibi E.O. Alemika, University of Jos, Nigeria Mutuma Ruteere, UN Special Rapporteur, Kenya Simon Howell, APCOF, South Africa Acknowledgements This publication is funded by the Ford Foundation, the United Nations Development Programme, and the Open Societies Foundation. The findings and conclusions do not necessarily reflect their positions or policies. Published by African Policing Civilian Oversight Forum (APCOF) Copyright © APCOF, April 2018 ISBN 978-1-928332-33-6 African Policing Civilian Oversight Forum (APCOF) Building 23b, Suite 16 The Waverley Business Park Wyecroft Road Mowbray, 7925 Cape Town, ZA Tel: +27 21 447 2415 Fax: +27 21 447 1691 Email: [email protected] Web: www.apcof.org.za Cover photo taken in Nyeri, Kenya © George Mulala/PictureNET Africa Contents Foreword iv About the editors v SECTION 1: OVERVIEW Chapter 1: Imperatives of and tensions within rights-based policing 3 Etannibi E. O. Alemika Chapter 2: The constraints of rights-based policing in Africa 14 Etannibi E.O. Alemika Chapter 3: Policing insurgency: Remembering apartheid 44 Elrena van der Spuy SECTION 2: COMMUNITY–POLICE NEXUS Chapter 4: Policing in the borderlands of Zimbabwe 63 Kudakwashe Chirambwi & Ronald Nare Chapter 5: Multiple counter-insurgency groups in north-eastern Nigeria 80 Benson Chinedu Olugbuo & Oluwole Samuel Ojewale SECTION 3: POLICING RESPONSES Chapter 6: Terrorism and rights protection in the Lake Chad basin 103 Amadou Koundy Chapter 7: Counter-terrorism and rights-based policing in East Africa 122 John Kamya Chapter 8: Boko Haram and rights-based policing in Cameroon 147 Polycarp Ngufor Forkum Chapter 9: Police organizational capacity and rights-based policing in Nigeria 163 Solomon E.
    [Show full text]
  • Chalk and Cheese: Australian Vs. Norwegian Prisons
    Chalk and Cheese Australian vs. Norwegian Prisons by Irina Dunn 1Published by Community Justice Coalition 2017 © Community Justice Coalition / Irina Dunn 2017 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted by any person or entity, including internet such as engines or retailers, in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying (except under the statutory exceptions provisions of the Australian Copyright Act 1968), recording, scanning or by any information storage and retrieval system without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. The fact that this book is published online does not mean that any part of it can be reproduced without frst obtaining written permission: copyright laws do still apply. Inquiries should be directed to the author. First published by Community Justice Coalition in 2017 PO Box 386 Broadway Sydney NSW 2007 Australia Phone (02) 9283 0123 www.communityjusticecoalition.org National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry: Creator: Irina Dunn, author Title: Chalk & Cheese: Australian vs. Norwegian Prisons ISBN: 9780648140405 (ebook) Subjects: Criminal justice, Administrator of --Australia Criminal justice, Administration of --Great Britain Criminal justice, Administration of --Norway Criminal justice, Administration of --Netherlands Criminal justice, Administration of --Cross-Cultural-Studies Cover designed by Nick Freeman Breakout Media Communications Edited by Irina Dunn 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide for Policy Reform in Colombia 9
    Table of Contents Executive Summary / 7 Introduction / 13 The publication of this report was supported by the Washington Prison from a Gender Perspective: Incarceration’s Effects on Women Convicted of Drug Crimes / 21 Office on Latin America and Open Society Foundations. Drug Policies and Gender: An Overdue Analysis / 22 ISBN 978-958-59496-9-0 Digital edition The Profile of Women Imprisoned for Drug Crimes in Colombia / 23 Colombia’s Prison Crisis and Its Impact on Women / 29 Photography Jessamine Bartley-Matthews Adam Schaffer Public Policy Recommendations: The Need for More Human and Effective Measures / 53 Understanding the Human Side of the Drug Problem / 54 Layout and cover Alejandro Ospina Changing Criminal Sanctions / 60 Understanding and Minimizing Prison’s Differentiated Translation Morgan Stoffregen and Disproportionate Effects on Women / 70 Printed by References / 77 Ediciones Antropos Ltda. First edition Bogotá, Colombia, October 2016 This document is available at http://www.dejusticia.org Women’s Voices from Prison: When Women Are Used as “Bait” for International Trafficking / 26 Marginal Links to Criminal Organizations / 27 When Criminal Defense Works against Defendants / 31 The Accused Cannot Reduce Their Sentences / 32 Creative Commons License 2.5 What Are Living Conditions Like in Prison? / 34 Attribution – Non-commercial – Share alike The Erosion and Weakening of Family Ties / 38 Long-Distance Mother-Child Relationships / 39 Dejusticia, 2016 Carrera 24 No. 34–61, Bogotá, D.C., Colombia Life After Prison and the Possibility of Relapse 1 / 42 Telephone: (+57 1) 608 3605 Life After Prison and the Possibility of Relapse 2 / 45 www.dejusticia.org Executive Summary n recent decades, the dominant model for responding to the drug problem has been the “war on drugs,” which relies on penal law to criminalize, prohibit, and penalize conduct associated with all stages of the drug trade.
    [Show full text]
  • Transform the Harsh Economic Reality of Working Inmates
    Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development Volume 27 Issue 4 Volume 27, Winter 2015, Issue 4 Article 4 Emancipate the FLSA: Transform the Harsh Economic Reality of Working Inmates Patrice A. Fulcher Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/jcred This Notes and Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EMANCIPATE THE FLSA: TRANSFORM THE HARSH ECONOMIC REALITY OF WORKING INMATES PATRICE A. FULCHER* ABSTRACT Prisoner labor is a booming American industry. The 2.3 million people in the United States of America ("U.S.") behind bars serve as human resources sustaining the Prison Industrial Complex. In a less economically depressed market, perhaps there would be national prison reform campaigns geared toward decreasing the prison population. But in today's economic climate, the increase of U.S. inhabitants sentenced to prison has helped to quench the thirst for cheap, and in many instances, free laborers. Proponents of the use of inmate labor in the U.S. have argued that inmates should not be paid minimum wages because working for free is a part of the punishment for their crime. However, critics maintain that forcing inmates to work for free is the rebirth of chattel slavery. In order to protect the rights of workers, Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") in 1938, which in part, established the national minimum wage requirement.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminology Penology and Sentencing Human Right
    Criminology Penology and Sentencing Human Right Dimensions of Punishment and Sentencing Component - I (A)- Personal Details Role Name Affiliation Principal Investigator Prof(Dr) G S Bajpai Registrar National Law University Delhi Paper Coordinator Mr. Neeraj Tiwari Assistant Professor, National Law University Delhi Content Writer/Author Mr. Manwendra Kumar Assistant Professor, Tiwari RMLNLU, Lucknow Content Reviewer Prof. BB Pande Former Professor, Faculty of Law, Delhi University Component - I (B)- Description of Module Subject Name Criminology Paper Name Penology and Sentencing Module Name/Title Human Right Dimensions of Punishment and Sentencing Module Id Criminology/Penology & Sentencing/25 Pre-requisites Basic understanding of the Criminal Justice System in India and familiarity with the concept of Human Rights and rationale for punishment in Criminal Law Objectives To understand the interplay between Punishment, Sentencing and Human Rights. To understand why theorising the idea of punishment and sentencing in relation to human rights will always be contested Key Words Punishment, Sentencing, Human Right, Imprisonment, Degrading Punishment, minimum sentence, maximum sentence, Sentencing Discretion, Concurrent Sentences, Consecutive Sentences, Individualized Punishment, Execution, Death Row, Inordinate Delay “Trying a man is easy, as easy as falling off a log, compared with deciding what to do with him when he has been found guilty.” - Justice Henry Alfred McCardie 1. Introduction Punishment in law is the moral condemnation and denunciation by the society of the offence committed by the offender. Modern Penology, however, also insists on the individualization of punishment by insisting that sentencing must not be based solely on the aspects of crime committed but also on the elements attributable to the criminal.
    [Show full text]
  • UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO the Penitentiary at Richmond
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO The Penitentiary at Richmond: Slavery, State Building, and Labor in the South’s First State Prison A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in History by Hilary Louise Coulson Committee in charge: Professor Rebecca Jo Plant, Chair Professor Stephen D. Cox Professor Mark Hanna Professor Mark Hendrickson Professor Rachel Klein 2016 Copyright Hilary Louise Coulson, 2016 All Rights Reserved The Dissertation of Hilary Louise Coulson is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically: _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ Chair University of California, San Diego 2016 iii DEDICATION For my parents, Richard and Laura Coulson who always believed I could, and for my husband, Frank Fernandez, who helped me prove it. iv EPIGRAPH “You know we don’t have our prisons like yours of the North, like grand palaces with flower-yards.” –Keeper of the Virginia Penitentiary, c. 1866 v TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page ............................................................................................... iii Dedication ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Supermax Isolation
    one Supermax Isolation Solitary confinement has been part of American correctional practice since the birth of the nation. Th e idea of isolating prisoners for their own good was supported in the fi nal years of the eighteenth century by such prominent fi gures as Benjamin Franklin and his friend Benjamin Rush, the pioneering psychiatrist. During that era, many Quakers viewed crime as a moral lapse and jail as a place where prisoners would be left by themselves in a cell and would be expected to search their souls about their errant ways and be “penitent” (thus the origin of the word penitentiary). But over the years, prison funding could not keep pace with a growing prison population, so this kind of solitary confi nement for the general population of prisoners was abandoned as too expensive to construct for or to maintain. Where solitary was retained, its original rehabilitative rationale was stripped away; it was now openly used merely as a dreaded punishment and deterrent within the prison and as a convenient means of separating out, for months, years, even decades, individuals whose inclusion in the general prison population might pose problems for prison management. the long history of solitary confinement in the united states Th e fi rst correctional facility in the nation to consign prisoners to single cells was the Walnut Street Jail in Philadelphia. It was originally built in 1773 to handle the overfl ow of prisoners from the nearby, massively overcrowded High Street Jail. Th ere were simply too many debtors, paupers, prostitutes, thieves, and ex- slaves going to jail for the jailers to fi nd the space to house them.
    [Show full text]