Cracks in the Penal Harm Movement: Evidence from the Field*

\\server05\productn\C\CPP\7-3\CPP306.txt unknown Seq: 1 26-AUG-08 7:55

CRACKS IN THE PENAL HARM MOVEMENT: EVIDENCE FROM THE FIELD*

SHELLEY JOHNSON LISTWAN Kent State University

CHERYL LERO JONSON FRANCIS T. CULLEN EDWARD J. LATESSA University of Cincinnati

Keywords: penal harm movement, correctional reform, progressive policies, limits of punishment Research Summary For more than three decades, the penal harm movement, which involves “get tough” ideology and policies, has held sway over U.S. corrections. Scholars have justifiably detailed and decried this movement, but in so doing, they have also inadvertently contributed to the view that a punitive worldview is hegemonic. In contrast, we detail four major “cracks” in the penal harm movement’s dominance: the persistence of rehabilitative public attitudes, the emergence of second thoughts about the wisdom of harsh sanctions, the implementation of progressive programs, and the increasing legitimacy of the principles of effective intervention for guiding correctional practices.

Policy Implications Taken together, these “cracks” comprise evidence that ideological space and political will exist to fight the penal harm movement and to map out a more efficacious and progressive response to crime. Because of the persistence of social welfare sentiments and growing challenges to the legitimacy of “get tough” policies, the potential to continue, if not expand, this countermovement is present. Taking advantage of this opportunity, however, will require forfeiting the belief that there is no escape from a punitive future and undertaking systematic efforts to devise correctional strategies that are based on solid science, improve offenders’ lives, and protect public safety.

* Direct correspondence to Shelley J. Listwan, Department of Justice Studies, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242 (e-mail: [email protected]).

424 LISTWAN ET AL.

Over the past three decades, a well-documented “penal harm” movement has developed—to use Todd Clear’s (1994:xiv) poignant descriptive label. This movement has trumpeted a “get tough” ideology that has legiti- mated the infliction of pain on offenders through mass incarceration and tight surveillance in the community. In this era, we have witnessed a trans- formation in language in which notions of treatment and corrections have been replaced with such phrases as “supermax prisons,” “prison over- crowding,” “three-strikes-and-you’re out,” “boot camps,” “chain gangs,” “intensive supervision,” and “community control.” However, more than a new lexicon is involved. Since the early 1970s, the numbers under correctional surveillance have increased seven-fold, with daily counts reaching more than 2.3 million people behind bars and nearly 5 million people on probation or parole (Harrison and Beck, 2006; Sabol, Couture, and Harrison, 2007). De Parle (2007:33) refers to this development as “the American prison nightmare.” It has been estimated that 1 in every 100 adults is behind bars, with this statistic climbing to 1 in every 9 African-American men ages 20 to 34 years (Warren, 2008). The epitome of penal harm is the supermax prison. This institution functions as a “waste management prison,” observes Simon (2007:153), in that it “uses its architectural and technological capacities not to transform the individ- ual but to contain his toxic behavior properties.” These facilities increased in the 1990s, finding their way into as many as 42 states; it is estimated that upward of 40,000 inmates are in administrative segregated housing of some sort (Abramsky, 2007; Briggs, Sundt, and Castellano, 2003). Resea