Controversial questions about the ideological origins of the Pennsylvania system of prison discipline

Notably, neither the reports and reviews of the Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons nor the discourses of Pennsylvania's prison reform figures, prominently underscored the pivotal involvement of Quakers in this reformative endeavor. Contrarily, in the European penitentiary discourse, commencing with La Rochefoucauld's 1796 account of the American prison experience, Quakers were recurrently referenced both as proponents of humanizing penal practices (from William Penn's 1682 legislation to the restriction of capital punishment in 1794) and as principal actors of prison reform. Conspicuously, these narratives often converged, presenting a coherent and progressive Quaker movement, despite the temporal chasm spanning 150 years between these occurrences. It has not been taken into consideration that the directions of the Great Law of 1682 for the establishment of prisons and workhouses were not realized and the act was revised in in the early 18th century.

Within the European gaze, Pennsylvania was conceived as a state founded by Quakers, although its population was not mono-denominational by the close of the 18th century. Pivotal to this transformation were members of affluent, established families within Philadelphia's industrial milieu, who actively engaged in philanthropic initiatives, including prison amelioration and penal regimen transformation. This collective impetus led to the formation of the Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons, with a noteworthy portion of its active constituents - predominantly adherents of the Society of Friends - assuming pivotal roles within the inspectorate committee of Walnut Street Prison. Consequently, this cohort emerged as emissaries of the reformative impetus in Europe, received visitors, correspondence with British counterparts, and analogous endeavors. This orchestration engendered the perception of Quakers as the architects of the nascent penitentiary paradigm. However, it is imperative to recognize that by the latter 18th century, Pennsylvania's identity was progressively defined by religious pluralism rather than an overt Quaker hegemony. Confidingly, the religious influence on inmates in Philadelphia, during this era, did not markedly surpass that evident within other American or European penal institutions.

The late 19th century in the United States witnessed a prevailing skepticism towards the Pennsylvania system of prison discipline. Nonetheless, the early 20th century saw the germination of research inquiries into its origins, significantly facilitated by the proactive involvement of the Pennsylvania Prison Society, which instigated historical explorations. The works of Barnes and Teeters were published precisely in the initial half of the 20th century. In these scholarly contributions, the historical narrative surrounding the evolution of modern correctional establishments was articulated as a progressive movement instigated by religiously motivated philanthropists, driven by the aspiration to transform inmates into pious Christians and civic- minded individuals. Subsequently, these doctrinal expositions permeated educational textbooks and reference compendia. During the period of change in the concept of penal execution and implementation of the rehabilitation model in the 1960s, these narratives found strategic utility in the advocacy of reform by leaders within the Federal Bureau of Prisons, eventually achieving the status of the sanctioned historical account.

Within contemporary historiography, scholars of the modernist disposition, focusing on the religious substratum underpinning prison reforms, epitomized by the scholarship of Andrew Skotnicki and Svetlana Vasilyeva, have been discernible. In European penological literature (we are not talking about professional historical studies) the narrative of the Quaker establishment of penitentiary systems is also quite persistent.

In contrast, revisionist authors have critically evaluated the benevolent motivations of philanthropists as the sole impetus for penal transformations. These scholars attribute greater significance to shifts in social dynamics, demographic transitions, economic determinants, and the metamorphosis of institutions of power. Prison reforms were not only realized in Quaker or Calvinist states. But even in these, attempts by evangelical Protestants to make religion the centerpiece of a new philosophy and practice of punishment failed, and secular paradigms prevailed.

On the front of ideological foundations, the belief in the reformative potential of isolation was not unique to Quakerism but resonated across diverse Christian doctrines. Correspondingly, advocates of materialistic rehabilitative carceral discourse endeavored to better inmates, viewing them as subjects necessitating tailored “treatment” methodologies, including quarantine (isolation), discipline, physical and mental hygiene, moral influence, and analogous mechanisms. It is within Benjamin Rush's synthesized rehabilitative framework that these convergent impulses found theoretical mooring, thus furnishing the conceptual groundwork for the penitentiary reforms in Pennsylvania.

However, the shaping of the Walnut Street Prison's paradigm of prison discipline was profoundly influenced by English practices of corrective punishment and associated theoretical literature. This corpus of experience exerted a paramount impact that the members of the Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons deemed worthy of emulation. The initial introduction of solitary confinement, akin to its instantiation within European houses of correction, was initially imbued with disciplinary intent. Subsequently, when the exigency arose for an alternative to capital punishment, the paradigm of incarceration marked by stringent isolation and devoid of labor engagement found its inception within the precincts of the Walnut Street Prison. This development can be construed as an evolutionary permutation of preceding modes of disciplinary solitary confinement. While innovative, this approach was not bereft of parallels, as comparable methodologies were partially operationalized within British bridewells and penitentiary houses. However, within the confines of the Walnut Street Prison, this trajectory retained the semblance of an experimental venture rather than an institutionally crystallized praxis. Acknowledged by the very protagonists of reform, the rigorous regimen of solitary confinement encountered substantial practical challenges, precipitated by overpopulation, the cohabitation of disparate categories of confinements - state prison, gaol, and houses of correction - within a singular complex, alongside architectural inadequacies that plagued the prison.

The formulation of the emergent penitential paradigm, designated as “separate or solitary confinement at labour,” was motivated by the critical juncture encountered by the Walnut Street Prison, coupled with the adverse experiences encountered by the reformists. This developmental trajectory constituted a multifaceted process that resists reduction to the assimilation of specific religious precepts. Informed by both local experiences incorporating the Walnut Street Prison and the Western State Penitentiary and extraterritorial correctional institutions, most notably in New York, the formulation of this model was a nuanced synthesis. This synthesis was enriched by an assimilation of insights from penological theoreticians, empirical analysis of statistical data, and a comprehensive assessment of the merits and demerits intrinsic to assorted modalities of confinement. This assessment encompassed their psychological repercussions upon inmates, economic efficiency, the potency for maintaining discipline, and the provisions for surveillance and control. Crucially, these deliberations extended to transcontinental discourse, wherein interaction with British counterparts assumed significance. Importantly, the doctrine of solitary confinement did not reign as the exclusive and incontrovertible preference; proponents of the Auburn system, previously implemented, also made a compelling presence. For the first time, prison administrators entered the discussion and voiced their views on the appropriateness of a particular system grounded in pragmatic realities rather than strictly theoretical perspectives.

References

Actes du Congres penitentiaire international de Rome. (1888). Publies par les soins du Comite executif. T. I. Rome.

Adamson, C. (2001). Evangelical Quakerism and the Early American Penitentiary Revisited: The Contributions of Thomas Eddy, Roberts Vaux, John Griscom, Stephen Grellet, Elisha Bates, and Isaac Hopper. Quaker History, 90 (2), 35-58.

Alexander, M. E. (1966). Changing Concepts in Corrections. Proceedings of Fifth Annual Conference “Mental Health Career Development". Phoenix Arizona. US Department of Health Education and Welfare, 26-29.

An Act amending the penal laws of this state (1786). Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania 1682 to 1801. Vol. XII. Harrisburg: State Printer of Pennsylvania, 1896, 280-290.

An Act to reform the Penal Laws of the State. Ch. MCXVI (1790). Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania 1682 to 1801. Vol. XIII. Harrisburg: State Printer of Pennsylvania, 1896, 511-528.

Barnes, H. E. (1927). The evolution of penology in Pennsylvania: a study in American social history. Indianapolis.

Bradford, W. (1793). An inquiry how far the punishment of death is necessary in Pennsylvania. To which is added, an Account of the gaol and penitentiary house of Philadelphia. By Caleb Lownes. Philadelphia.

Colvin, M. (1997). Penitentiaries, reformatories, and chain gangs: social theory and the history of punishment in nineteenth-century America. New York: St. Martin's Press.

De Beaumont, G., De Tocqueville, A. (1833). On the Penitentiary System in the United States. Philadelphia, Carey, Lea & Blanchard.

DePuy, L. B. (1951). The Walnut Street Prison: Pennsylvania's first penitentiary. Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies, 18(2), 130-144.

First Annual Report of the Board of Managers of the Prison Discipline Society, Boston June, 1826. (1827). Boston.

Gibson, M. (2019). Italian Prisons in the Age of Positivism, 1861-1914. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Graber, J. (2008). “When Friends Had the Management It Was Entirely Different”: Quakers and Calvinists in the Making of New York Prison Discipline. Quaker History, 97(2), 19-40.

Graber, J. (2011). The Furnace of Affliction: Prisons & Religion in Antebellum America. University of North Carolina Press.

Handbook of Correctional Institution Design and Construction. (1949). United States Bureau of Prisons.

Hawke, D. F. (1971). Benjamin Rush; Revolutionary Gadfly. The Bobbs-Merrill Company.

Hirsch, J. A. (1982). From Pillory to Penitentiary: The Rise of Criminal Incarceration in Early Massachusetts. Michigan Law Review, 80, 1179-1269.

Ignatieff, M. (1978). A Just Measure of Pain: The Penitentiary in the Industrial Revolution, 17501850. New York : Pantheon Books.

Interview with Myrl E. Alexander. What Life Is Like in Today's Federal Prisons. From the US News & World Report. July 11, 1966. In: District of Columbia Appropriations for Fiscal Year (1967). Hearings before the Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Eighty Ninth Congress Second Session. Washington.

Journal of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1827-1828. (1828). Harrisburgh.

La Rochefoucauld, F.-A.-F. (1796). Des prisons de Philadelphie. Paris.

Letter, Report and Documents on the Penal Code, from the President and Commissioners Appointed to Superintend the Erection of the Eastern Penitentiary. (1828).

Manion, J. (2015). Liberty's Prisoners: Carceral Culture in Early America. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press.

Meranze, M. (1984). The Penitential Ideal in Late Eighteenth-Century Philadelphia. The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 108(4), 419-450.

Minutes of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania. (1853). V. 15. Harrisburg.

Niemcewicz, J. U. (1818). O wi^zieniach publicznych, czyli Domach Pokuty rzecz krotka, Warszawa-Krzemieniec.

Rothman, D. J. (1990). The Discovery of the Asylum: Social Order and Disorder in the New Republic. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Rubin, A. T. (2013). Institutionalizing the Pennsylvania System: Organizational Exceptionalism, Administrative Support, and Eastern State Penitentiary, 1829-1875. [A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree ofDoctor ofPhilosophy. University of California, Berkeley].

Rubin, A. T. (2021). The Deviant Prison: Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary and the Origins of America's Modern Penal System, 1829-1913. Cambridge University Press. Retrevied from https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108754095

Schmid, M. (2003). “The Eye of God”: Religious Beliefs and Punishment in Early Nineteenth Century Prison Reform. Theology Today, 59(4), 546-558. Retrevied from https://doi. org/10.1177/004057360305900403

Schneider, C. E. (1979). The Rise of Prisons and the Origins of the Rehabilitative Ideal. Michigan Law Review, 77(3), 707-746.

Sellin, T. (1953). Philadelphia Prisons of the Eighteenth Century. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 43 (1), 326-331.

Shaler, C., King, E., & Wharton, T. I. (1828) Report of the Commissioners on the Penal Code. Harrisburg.

Shapiro, D. M. (2019). Solitary confinement in the young republic. Harvard Law Review, 133(2), 544-598.

Skotnicki, A. (2000). Religion and the development of the American penal system. Lanham, University Press of America.

Spierenburg, P. (2007). The Prison Experience: Disciplinary Institutions and Their Inmates in Early Modern Europe. Amsterdam University Press.

Synopsis of the Visits to Prisoners. The Journal of Prison Discipline and Philanthropy, 1884, 1.

Teeters, N. K. (1955). The Cradle of the Penitentiary: The Walnut Street Jail at Philadelphia, 1773-1835. Pennsylvania Prison Society.

Vasilyeva, S. (2015). Quakers' Ideology and the Formation of the Philadelphia Prison System. The Bulletin of Ryazan State University named for S. A. Yesenin, 4 (49), 64-74.

Vassilyeva, S. Genesis and evolution of the doctrine of penitentiarism in the Anglo-American socio-cultural space (late 17th - early 19th centuries). [Doctoral dissertation, The Academy of Law Management of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia].

Tamara Kortukova, Liliia Nevara (2023). Features of the Principle of Non-Discrimination in International Trade and Economic Law

Legal Horizons, 2, 40-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54477/LH.25192353.2023.2.pp.40-50

Vaux, R. (1826). Notices of the Original, and Successive Efforts, to Improve the Discipline of the Prison at Philadelphia, and to Reform the Criminal Code of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania.

Yarmysh, O., Sokalska, O., & Kyrychenko, V. (2021). Genesis of the concept of correctional punishment: from antiquity to modern times. Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, 28(3), 162-175. Retrevied from https://doi.org/10.37635/ jnalsu.28(3).2021.162-17

Размещено на Allbest.ru