4.3.1: The Penitentiary Era (1790s-1860s)

During the American Colonial period, corrections were heavily influenced by the English penal styles and punishment practices (Blomberg & Lucken, 2010). Despite England’s long history of using incarceration as a form of punishment, it was rarely employed for punitive purposes in colonial America. This was primarily due to the small population of Europeans residing in Colonial America during the early colonial period, which was so minute it would be unable to fill even a single modern-day large college football stadium. Early colonialists lived in small, isolated settlements with insufficient resources to incarcerate lawbreakers. Therefore, formal punishments such as banishment and corporal punishment, including whipping, branding, and mutilation, as well as capital punishment, were common practices.

After the American Revolutionary War, the newly formed America was determined to establish itself as a civilized society (Blomberg & Lucken, 2010). During the early 1800s, two competing penitentiary systems emerged: the Pennsylvania system and the Auburn system. The Pennsylvania system mandated that inmates remain silent and reside in their individual cells at all times (Kann, 2005). Advocates of this system argued that the time of isolation allowed inmates adequate time to reflect on their transgression and repent. They also contended maintaining inmates’ isolation minimized the need for discipline, thereby requiring minimal training for guards (Rothman, 1990). In contrast, the Auburn system only separated inmates overnight. However, this system always enforced silence, and during the daytime, inmates congregated for work, prayer, and meals. Supporters of the Auburn system claimed that its use of congregate work and smaller cells was more practical, cost-effective, and humane.

The Pennsylvania (Eastern) System

In the late 1780s, Benjamin Rush, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, alongside the Philadelphia society and the Religious Society of Friends (also known as Quakers), advocated for more humane and rehabilitative approaches to punishment, favoring incarceration over corporal or capital punishment (Eastern State Penitentiary Task Force of the Preservation Coalition of Greater Philadelphia, & Marianna Thomas Architects, 1994). By 1790, their efforts proved successful as Philadelphia legislators supported funding to transform Walnut St. Jail into the first U.S. penitentiary. The penitentiary was designed to isolate each inmate, providing a space for reflection and penitence, hence the name “penitentiary,” derived from the Latin word meaning “repentance” or “penance.” However, the penitentiary quickly became overpopulated, leading to the approval of the construction of two new state prisons: Western State Penitentiary in Pittsburgh and Eastern State Penitentiary near Philadelphia.

While Western State Penitentiary in Pittsburgh was opened in 1826, its poor architectural design necessitated its demolition and subsequent reconstruction in 1833 (Barnes, 1927). Eastern State Penitentiary, which opened in 1829 in Cherry Hill, Pennsylvania, just outside of Philadelphia, became the model for the Pennsylvania system, sometimes referred to as the Eastern system. The penological approach of the Pennsylvania system was centered on many Quaker principles, particularly hard work and rehabilitation through repentance. The Pennsylvania system introduced the practice of “silence and separation,” where inmates lived and worked in isolation and were required to always remain silent. The prison was designed in a radiating fashion, resembling a wagon wheel.

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Eastern State Penitentiary, located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is a historic prison known for its innovative radial layout, designed to maximize security and isolation while minimizing the need for staff, and implementation of solitary confinement (Eastern State Penitentiary Task Force of the Preservation Coalition of Greater Philadelphia, & Marianna Thomas Architects, 1994). Established in 1829, it was one of the first penitentiaries in the United States and operated until 1971. Eastern State Penitentiary was designed to rehabilitate prisoners through isolation and reflection, rather than punishment. Its unique radial layout, with cell blocks radiating from a central surveillance hub, allowed separate exercise yards for each cell block to minimize inmate interaction and efficient monitoring of inmates. The prison system of solitary confinement, where prisoners were kept in individual cells and prohibited from interacting with others, became a model for prisons worldwide. Despite controversy over its harsh conditions, Eastern State Penitentiary played a significant role in the development of modern prison systems and continues to attract visitors interested in its rich history and architectural significance. Caption Reads: “This Institute known as “Cherry Hill State Prison” at Philadelphia, is the Model Prison of “The Pennsylvania System of Prison Discipline” or “Separate System” as it is called to distinguish it from “The Congregate”. Each Convict occupies a single Cell or Workshop and is thus separated from all other convicts. There are 7 Cell Corridors, capable of receiving 500 convicts. The average number confined annually is less than 300. Some cells are 11ft.9in. By 7 ft.6 in. with yards attached, 15ft by 8 ft. Others are double this size, all lighted and warmed and ventilated–Gas is introduced into the corridors. Heats by hot water through’ pipes. Water in each cell and other Conveniences. The above is a Bird’s Eye View of the Building–Grounds and Environs. –April 1856.” Visit Easternstate.org for more information.
Photo Credit: Samuel Cowperthwaite, artist, Public Domain

Robert Vaux, a member of the Philadelphia Society, and a key contributor to the planning of the penitentiary, provided five key principles of the Pennsylvania System (as cited in Eastern State Penitentiary Task Force of the Preservation Coalition of Greater Philadelphia, & Marianna Thomas Architects, 1994, pp.18-19):

1. Prisoners should be treated not vengefully but in ways designed to convince them that through hard and selective forms of suffering they could change their lives;
2. to prevent the prison from being a corrupting influence, solitary confinement of all inmates should be practiced;
3. in his seclusion the offender was to have an opportunity to reflect on his transgressions so that he might repent;
4. solitary confinement is a punishing discipline because man is by nature a social being; and
5. solitary confinement is economical because prisoners do not need long periods of time to benefit from the penitential experience; fewer keepers are required, and the costs of clothing are reduced. The strong faith in reformation coupled with deterrence is very evident.

While supporters of the Pennsylvania system were vocal about its success, within a few years, reports emerged of excessive punishment leading to serious injury, prisoner deaths, embezzlement, and sexual improprieties with female inmates (Thibaut, 1982).

Additionally, there were concerns regarding inmate mental illness stemming from the use of solitary confinement. Ultimately, the Pennsylvania system, with its emphasis on isolation and silence, fell out of favor by the end of the 19th century due to its high cost and the negative effects of inmate isolation.

The Auburn (New York) System

The Auburn Penitentiary in Auburn, NY, opened in 1818. Unlike the isolation and silent approach of the Pennsylvania system, the Auburn Penitentiary adopted a slightly different approach. It utilized a congregate approach. While inmates still slept in isolation and were expected to maintain silence, they worked together, attended mandatory prayer services together, and ate together during the day (Foucault, 1975/1977).

One significant difference between the Auburn Penitentiary and the Eastern State Penitentiary lies in their architectural design. Instead of employing the more expensive 12′ by 7.5′ single-cell radial design, Auburn Penitentiary arranged 7′ by 4′ cells back-to-back in the center of a large building, spanning five tiers high. Additionally, there were designated areas for large groups of inmates to congregate for work, dining, and recreation. Unlike the Pennsylvania system, where inmates both worked and slept in their large single cells, the Auburn system was designed so that inmates used their small cells solely for sleeping and spent their waking hours in other areas of the prison. This design necessitated strict scheduling, enforced through corporal punishment or even solitary confinement. However, Auburn’s use of solitary confinement quickly came under scrutiny and was discontinued in 1822 after multiple reports of mental illness and high suicide rates among inmates subjected to solitary confinement (Eastern State Penitentiary Task Force of the Preservation Coalition of Greater Philadelphia, & Marianna Thomas Architects, 1994). The founders of both the Auburn and Pennsylvania penitentiaries preached that convict labor would aid in reformation and even deterrence (Pillsbury, 1989). However:

The penitentiary goals set forth by the founders (punishment, reformation, and social control) became compromised as administrators attempted to heighten prisons’ self-sustainability and profit. Soon thereafter, prisons became more remunerative, using prison employment as a mechanism of control and profit, not reform. (Maier, 2018, p. 11)

In the early years of the penitentiary, the public account system was utilized. In this work system, inmates conducted unpaid labor, manufacturing goods in the prison that could be sold on the open market, with the revenue returning to the state. However, this shift towards the market economy had negative repercussions for businesses and workingmen, who voiced concerns about their inability to compete with free prison labor (Pillsbury, 1989). Consequently, by the late 19th century, states began transitioning away from this approach, opting instead for the more profitable contract system. In contrast to having penitentiary administrators exclusively oversee inmate labor and manufacturing, the contract system enabled private companies to pay a set fee to utilize prisoners for labor within the confines of the penitentiaries. These manufacturing operations were entirely supervised and managed by these private contractors.

The South

In the late 19th century, the use of penitentiaries became widespread across the country. Many penitentiaries in the South adopted the convict leasing system, leasing out inmates for work outside the prison walls. While Black inmates were disproportionately represented in Northern prisons – making up 26.66% of the inmates at Eastern Penitentiary in 1830, compared to only 2.84% of the Pennsylvania total population (Hershberg, 1971-1972) – very few inmates in the South were Black before the American Civil War. This disparity can be attributed to the prevalence of slavery and the prevailing belief that Black individuals inherently possessed criminal traits, making rehabilitation seem impossible and posing a perceived risk of corrupting White inmates (Hindus, 2012; Kann, 2005).

While almost all prison inmates in the South were White prior to the American Civil War, following the conflict, 90% of inmates were Black, leading to a significant shift in prison inmate demographics and correctional facility dynamics (Colvin, 1997). Despite the notable increase in incarcerated individuals after the Civil War, most Southern states refrained from constructing new prisons. Instead, they leased out predominantly Black inmates for labor in places such as plantations, cotton mills, and coal mines. This forced labor by imprisoned Black Americans bore striking similarities to the previous era of enslavement.

Soon after the Civil War, the convict leasing system became widespread in the South. Under this system, states leased inmates to private businesses for labor, with the lessees compensating the state for their use. Managed by private businesses, the conditions endured by inmates in the leasing system were often harsher than those experienced under slavery, where individuals were owned rather than leased (Oshinsky, 1997). The extremely severe conditions of the leasing system led to numerous prisoner deaths. For instance, in Alabama, 41% of inmates died in 1870, and it was estimated in 1880 that most inmates would perish within three years (Colvin, 1997).

Unfortunately, the deaths of inmate laborers were deemed unimportant to both the state and the lessees. Since the state could easily arrest more Black people for petty crimes such as vagrancy, gambling, or disorderly conduct, there was an abundance of potential inmate laborers. This led to the devaluation of all inmate labor, allowing for their abhorrent treatment, grueling labor, and inhumane living conditions (Oshinsky, 1997). This philosophy is illustrated in the correlation between conviction rates and local business needs, as Stein (2012) observed: “Conviction rates eerily reflect the ebb and flow of small local business’ needs” (p. 256).

Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\): Chain gangs of Black adolescents were a grim reality in the early 20th century, particularly in the Southern United States. These gangs were characterized by forced labor under harsh conditions, often involving physical punishment and minimal regard for the well-being of the young individuals involved. The practice was a manifestation of systemic racism and exploitation, where Black youths were disproportionately targeted and subjected to grueling work as a form of punishment and control. This occurrence reflected the pervasive racial inequalities and oppressive criminal justice practices of the time, highlighting a dark chapter in American history.
Photo Credit: Detroit Publishing Co., publisher, Public Domain

The convict leasing system fell out of favor due to objections from businesses and laborers who were unable to compete financially with the free labor provided by the state. This economic disparity highlighted the inherent injustice of exploiting incarcerated individuals for profit, prompting criticism and condemnation from some quarters. As a response to mounting pressure from labor unions, advocacy groups, and concerned citizens, some states began to reassess their approach to inmate labor. Instead of leasing prisoners to private entities, several states opted to utilize inmates solely for work on state-owned plantations and farmland. This shift was seen as a compromise between maintaining a source of labor for agricultural activities while addressing the ethical concerns surrounding convict leasing. However, it was increasingly recognized that this practice still perpetuated exploitation and failed to uphold the dignity and rights of incarcerated individuals. As a result, by 1928, convict leasing systems were banned in all state operated prisons, reflecting a significant step forward in the reform of the penal system and the recognition of prisoners’ rights and welfare (Howell, 2016).The abolition of convict leasing did not end the debate over the purpose of imprisonment. As the penitentiary era gave way to a new century, reformers began arguing that prisons could do more than warehouse offenders—they could rehabilitate them.