Today, the US imprisons more people (both
per capita and in terms of number of people incarcerated) than any other country in the
world. Of the approximately 10 million people currently
incarcerated worldwide, over 2 million of them are imprisoned in the US, with a rate
of around 655 people imprisoned for every 100,000 residents. And this rise in the number of incarcerated
Americans also aligns chronologically with another trend in the justice system: the rise
of private prisons. Many people are wary of the practice of privatizing
our penal system because of news stories over the years about corrupt dealings between lawyers,
judges, and prison owners/managers who arrange to have people incarcerated in exchange for
cash. But there’s also a series of deeper moral
and historical questions that stem out of this topic. And the primary questions are: what is the
purpose and function of a prison? Are they designed to punish, to isolate those
who break the law from the rest of the population, or are they actually places where justice,
reconciliation and reform can happen? If prisons are now the responsibility of the
state and the private sector, then what responsibility do they have to the populations they house? And does privatizing them change those responsibilities? Even though private prisons in the US have
a relatively short history, with the first modern private prison opening in 1984 in Tennessee,
the US penal system’s relationship to private money stretches back much further than that. Because the initial relationship between incarceration
and private industry didn’t focus on governments paying prison operators to house prisoners. Rather it focused on extracting free labor
from incarcerated populations. Up until the 18th century in Western Europe
and the US, most of the conversations about the role and function of prisons centered
heavily on punishment. Prisoners were to be isolated from the rest
of the population for their crimes, and were expected to suffer acutely. Think dungeons, corporal punishment, and executions. The prisons themselves were more of a waystation
for the ultimate punishment. But extracting money from prisoners’ (either
through fines or labor) was also a common practice beginning in the Medieval period
in western Europe, then later in the US. This usually came in the form of debtors’
prisons, where people unable to pay their bills were held until they could come up with
the money or work off their literal debts to society with unpaid labor. Debtors could, in theory, leave the prisons
once the debts had been repaid in full. But debtors’ prisons were slowly abolished
until they were closed entirely in the US and Europe in the mid-19th century because
they disproportionately targeted the poor. Meanwhile, the 19th century also saw the emergence
of a few key changes in the philosophy and functions of prisons. First, many prisons became places of long
term captivity, in effect becoming the primary home of punished populations and not just
holding zones until other harsher punishments could be netted out. The second major shift in the discussion of
prison cultures in the 19th century also came in the form of prison reform. Reform took two major strands: living conditions
and ideologies. Prison reformers like Dorothea Dix lobbied
to improve the living conditions of long term prisoners, many of whom were mentally ill
and abused by the guards tasked with their care. At the same time other reformers focused on
the mission and purpose of incarceration, claiming that prisons had a moral responsibility
to rehabilitate incarcerated people and reintegrate them into society. Even after the US outlawed debtors’ prisons
as inhumane in 1833, the relationship between state power, criminal punishment, and money
continued throughout the 19th century. One of the primary vehicles for this was the
convict leasing system. In her book, Professor Mary Ellen Curtin details
the rise of the convict leasing system after the Civil War. The US Southern states found themselves in
financial ruin. There was infrastructural damage caused by
the battles and their economy had been anchored by the practices of legal slavery. After legal abolition, they looked to other
ways to recover financially from the ravages of war while also severely limiting the legal
rights and protections of newly emancipated black citizens. As a result they expanded the convict leasing
system. Under convict leasing private businesses could
“lease” a prisoner from the state. In exchange for housing, clothing, and feeding
the convict, the contractors (which ranged from big factories, to coal mines, to private
plantations) paid the government a small fee. Convict leasing effectively reinstated the
terms of legal slavery under a different name. In order to increase their revenue, states
began arresting African Americans at increased rates from crimes that were vaguely defined,
such as vagrancy or thefts. And even though some of these crimes were
a result of overwhelming poverty and lack of opportunity in the region, many of them
were charges that were designed to target poor black communities (and poor white communities,
although in smaller numbers overall). As a result, prisons in Alabama that were
primarily housing white prisoners before the war became overwhelmingly filled with poor
black prisoners by the 1870s. As convict leasing became a source of cheap
labor for business owners and a steady stream of revenue for Southern states determined
to rebuild, the system expanded. Although it was primarily used in Southern
states, Northern states weren’t entirely opposed to the system since it was financially
profitable, even though it effectively reinstated legal slavery. For prisoners, time spent under the dominion
of contractors could be excessively brutal, with sentences often unofficially extended
far past when their terms of service were supposed to be over. Under the guise of building a “New South”
from the ashes of conflict, convict leasing really desired to return to the same south
grounded in the premise of class and racial inequality, with a large unpaid workforce
underpinning the social structure. As convict leasing became less common in the
early 20th century before ending all together, it did give way to other forms of profiting
off of the labor of convicts, like the chain gangs famously depicted in films and literature. Professor Angela Davis in her book details
the connections between early precedents like convict leasing and the rise of what prison
abolitionists have termed the “prison industrial complex” of the 20th and 21st centuries. The prison industrial complex is a term to
describe the relationship between private industries and incarceration. Davis points out that at the beginning of
her career as a prison rights advocate and prison abolitionist in the late 1960s, there
were close to 200,000 Americans in prison. By the early 2000s that number had skyrocketed
to 2 million. In part it was associated with a domino effect
of policy decisions in the latter half of the 20th century that disproportionately targeted
vulnerable populations. So our social behaviors and shifts in the
law created a context in which more people were considered criminals or subject to being
held prisoner. Just like with convict leasing after the Civil
War, the government turned to private contractors and business owners to find a place to house
a new influx of created criminals. Beginning in the 1980s the government looked
to private prisons as a potential relief, in addition to building many new publicly
run prisons. These policy changes effectively swelled the
number of people considered criminals and saw a huge increase in the number of residents
placed in prison. Individual states from the 1960s through the
end of the century began to increase the number of facilities they built. And starting in the 1980s the prison population
swelled as a result of Reagan era “war on drug policies” that targeted non-violent
drug offenders with hefty jail sentences in order to tackle the rising specter of drug
addiction in this country. These same policies were continued through
subsequent Republican and Democratic administrations in the 1990s. As a result, many poor people and people of
color began to fill prisons at an increased rate, since those populations were also more
likely to be surveilled for non-violent drug offenses. Additionally there was a move towards deinstitutionalizing
psychiatric patients that took place beginning in the 1950s and 1960s. Many long term care facilities for people
with ongoing mental health issues up until that point operated largely in the same way
as prisons. Facilities were overcrowded, patients were
detained without consent or the ability to leave, and in some cases suffered abuse at
the hands of their caregivers. But as state funded psychiatric facilities
closed, the number of people in need of long term care essentially shifted into the prison
system. This was in part because many of these newly
released patients became homeless and could be picked up for things like squatting or
committing petty crimes in order to survive. When patients suffering from mental health
issues are brought into emergency rooms (where they can usually only remain for around 72
hours) there isn’t a consistent bridge between emergency care and long term care, especially
because the country as a whole has a limited number of beds in safe psychiatric facilities. And by some counts there are approximately
twice as many people suffering from mental illness in US prisons than there are in US
psychiatric hospitals even though many medical experts agree there is no positive
correlation between mental health and committing violent crimes. So private prisons were looked to as a way
of cutting the costs of increased incarceration that occurred as a result of major policy
shifts. It’s unclear if private prisons actually
serve their intended effect (to save the government money). However they do make up a relatively small
percentage of the overall number of prisons in the country. In 2016 privately owned prisons only accounted
for 128,063 incarcerated people or 8.5% of the total prison population according to The
Sentencing Project. Today we see a return to conversations and debates about the two primary roles of a prisons
and jails: their ideologies and how those ideologies align with their responsibilities
to the incarcerated. As reports of widespread abuses at public
jails like Riker’s Island in New York have hit the headlines in the early 2010s, we turn
again to why a country with a relatively small percentage of the world’s population claims
such a large percentage of its incarcerated population. And these debates have returned in large part
to the same terms they were focused on during 19th century reforms. As prison abolition activists focus on the
decline of private and state run prisons, others have argued that there could be potential
ways forward through restorative justice. Restorative justice advocates are looking
to practices that center the well being of both the victim and the accused by seeing
if there are ways forward besides incarceration and social isolation. At the heart of it lies the question: what
does it mean to forgive someone for a crime they committed, after they have paid what
we refer to as a metaphorical “debt to society”? And can true justice look different than
just conviction and incarceration? That’s it for this week. This episode is the second in our series on
“Class and American Culture” and if you want to see more then check out our episode
on Racial Passing. And I’ll see you all back here next time.
