| all photos and unattributed text copyright © 2005-2008 by abandonedamerica.org and may not be used or reproduced without prior written consent. all rights reserved. |
| one can always hope |
according to the law encyclopedia, the idea of incarcerating criminals as punishment for their crimes is
an american one. jails existed long before our country was found, but were used primarily to house
prisoners until their sentence, be it corporal punishment, public humiliation, or execution, was carried out.
there also were debtor's prisons, where people were held until they paid off all or a portion of what they
owed, but this had nothing to do with committing crimes. this changed with the introduction of the
penitentiary.
proposed by the quakers, penitentiaries were supposed to be more humane response to crime than
corporal punishment or execution. the prisoners were kept in absolute silence and seclusion for extended
periods of time so they could reflect on their crimes and thereby learn the error of their ways. the
penitentiary system became a model upon which many other countries based their penal systems - it was
viewed as more enlightened to isolate criminals from everyone and everything, even if it did have the
disturbing side effect of frequently driving them mad. eventually penitentiaries relaxed their standards,
allowing prisoners to speak with guards or each other on a limited basis.
as crime in cities dramatically increased during the industrial age, prisons became an increasingly popular
solution to nearly every social ill. prison populations soared and crimes punishable by imprisonment
multiplied. as the initial ideal - that of bludgeoning prisoners into remorse with vast, empty stretches of
time - faded away, there was little that replaced it. various improvements on the methodology of
incarceration were proposed, such as jeremy bentham's fascinating and imposing panopticon prison
layout, but the theory behind its use as a form of punishment were (arguably) never successfully updated.
while hotly debated among some circles, the prevailing belief was that those who commit crimes require
punitive intervention in the form of removing them from surrounding society and placing them in harsh
and brutal environments. critics viewed prisons as little more than crime universities, where the amateur
crook networks with and learns from those who are more hardened and feckless, and likely graduates
with a greater knowledge of their trade and a deep and abiding hatred of the society that would condemn
them to such treatment. while the penal system briefly flirted with the idea of using prisons to rehabilitate
criminals to become productive members of society, this idea was abandoned fairly quickly. as it stands,
recidivism rates for those imprisoned are high and the united states leads the world in the number and
percentage of its population behind bars.
in light of this, it would appear that the prison system itself is a failure. it is extraordinarily expensive,
and in many ways actively encourages criminals to commit more crimes. the horrors of the prison system
can be grossly disproportionate to the offenses committed, and statistics prove again and again that prison
sentences are sharply biased by a criminal's racial and economic standing. nevertheless, the problem
remains: what does one do to deter crimes? how does society as a whole discourage theft, extortion, and
the myriad of other offenses men and women are imprisoned for if not by incarceration? is there ever a
sympathetic or humane way to punish someone? is it even possible to mitigate the damage done by such
barbaric crimes as rape and murder, and if so, how? when the very concept of justice is so subjective, is it
possible to attain it with the impartiality that its implementation as a form of a social institution demands?
there are no simple answers to these problems. opinions seem to be sharply divided as to whether
prisons are too harsh or too lenient, yet the existence of the prison system itself - and the dilemma of how
to respond to crimes if not with incarceration - is rarely challenged. i see places like the john f. grantham
correctional facility as masses of unanswered questions, not as the solutions that our comfortable belief in
our social superiority supposes. perhaps one day someone with wisdom far greater than my own will
concoct an entirely new and more effective response to the darkness in the human heart and the wretched
acts that mankind commits, and all prisons will stand as empty as this one.
one can always hope.
an american one. jails existed long before our country was found, but were used primarily to house
prisoners until their sentence, be it corporal punishment, public humiliation, or execution, was carried out.
there also were debtor's prisons, where people were held until they paid off all or a portion of what they
owed, but this had nothing to do with committing crimes. this changed with the introduction of the
penitentiary.
proposed by the quakers, penitentiaries were supposed to be more humane response to crime than
corporal punishment or execution. the prisoners were kept in absolute silence and seclusion for extended
periods of time so they could reflect on their crimes and thereby learn the error of their ways. the
penitentiary system became a model upon which many other countries based their penal systems - it was
viewed as more enlightened to isolate criminals from everyone and everything, even if it did have the
disturbing side effect of frequently driving them mad. eventually penitentiaries relaxed their standards,
allowing prisoners to speak with guards or each other on a limited basis.
as crime in cities dramatically increased during the industrial age, prisons became an increasingly popular
solution to nearly every social ill. prison populations soared and crimes punishable by imprisonment
multiplied. as the initial ideal - that of bludgeoning prisoners into remorse with vast, empty stretches of
time - faded away, there was little that replaced it. various improvements on the methodology of
incarceration were proposed, such as jeremy bentham's fascinating and imposing panopticon prison
layout, but the theory behind its use as a form of punishment were (arguably) never successfully updated.
while hotly debated among some circles, the prevailing belief was that those who commit crimes require
punitive intervention in the form of removing them from surrounding society and placing them in harsh
and brutal environments. critics viewed prisons as little more than crime universities, where the amateur
crook networks with and learns from those who are more hardened and feckless, and likely graduates
with a greater knowledge of their trade and a deep and abiding hatred of the society that would condemn
them to such treatment. while the penal system briefly flirted with the idea of using prisons to rehabilitate
criminals to become productive members of society, this idea was abandoned fairly quickly. as it stands,
recidivism rates for those imprisoned are high and the united states leads the world in the number and
percentage of its population behind bars.
in light of this, it would appear that the prison system itself is a failure. it is extraordinarily expensive,
and in many ways actively encourages criminals to commit more crimes. the horrors of the prison system
can be grossly disproportionate to the offenses committed, and statistics prove again and again that prison
sentences are sharply biased by a criminal's racial and economic standing. nevertheless, the problem
remains: what does one do to deter crimes? how does society as a whole discourage theft, extortion, and
the myriad of other offenses men and women are imprisoned for if not by incarceration? is there ever a
sympathetic or humane way to punish someone? is it even possible to mitigate the damage done by such
barbaric crimes as rape and murder, and if so, how? when the very concept of justice is so subjective, is it
possible to attain it with the impartiality that its implementation as a form of a social institution demands?
there are no simple answers to these problems. opinions seem to be sharply divided as to whether
prisons are too harsh or too lenient, yet the existence of the prison system itself - and the dilemma of how
to respond to crimes if not with incarceration - is rarely challenged. i see places like the john f. grantham
correctional facility as masses of unanswered questions, not as the solutions that our comfortable belief in
our social superiority supposes. perhaps one day someone with wisdom far greater than my own will
concoct an entirely new and more effective response to the darkness in the human heart and the wretched
acts that mankind commits, and all prisons will stand as empty as this one.
one can always hope.