The Deviant Prison: Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary and the Origins of America's Modern Penal System, 1829–1913 (Cambridge Historical Studies in American Law and Society)

Cover 1 Half-title 3 Series information 4 Dedication 6 Title page 7 Copyright information 8 Contents 9 List of Figures 11 List of Tables 13 Acknowledgments 15 List of Abbreviations 19 A Brief Timeline 21 Important Actors 23 Introduction 25 Part I Becoming the Deviant Prison: Establishing the Conditions for Personal Institutionalization 59 A The Context of Creation 61 1 Faith and Failure: Experimenting with Solitary Confinement in America's Early State Prisons 63 2 Born of Conflict: The Struggle to Authorize the Pennsylvania System 93 B The Men in Charge 121 3 Uncertainty and Discretion: The Contours of Control at Eastern State Penitentiary 123 4 Criticism and Doubt: The Pennsylvania System and the Social Construction of Penal Norms 157 Part II The Advantage of Difference: The Process of Institutionalization 189 A The Administrators' Public Defense 191 5 Neutralizing the Calumnious Myths: Administrators' Public Defense of the Pennsylvania System 193 6 Combatting the Pains of Deviance: OrganizationalDefense As Self-Defense 229 B Behind the Scenes 257 7 Strategic Manipulations: Acceptable and Unacceptable Violations of the Pennsylvania System 259 8 Turning a Blind Eye: Reputation and the Limits of Administrative Commitment 288 Part III Forced to Adapt: The Conditions for and Process of Deinstitutionalization 317 A Left Behind in a New Era 319 9 An Alternative Status: Administrators' Transition from Gentleman Reformers to Professional Penologists 321 10 Fading Away: National Obscurity, Catastrophic Overcrowding, and the Individual Treatment System 354 Conclusion 383 Appendix A Inspectors 395 Index 397 "At a time when prisons were still new, and nearly every prison in the country followed the same model of confinement, Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary (opened in 1829) was known for its exceptional reliance on long-term solitary confinement. Eastern was criticized for its exceptional reliance on what was seen as an inhumane, expensive, and ineffective approach to confinement. Why did it persist in its deviance? This book traces the process by which Eastern's criticized method of confinement became institutionalized for its administrators. Often working against the opposition of the local penal reformers and state legislature, Eastern's administrators fought both publicly and behind the scenes to maintain their unique approach because of the particular value it offered them. Ultimately, this study retells the history of nineteenth century prison innovation and diffusion from the perspective of those actors most demonized within the penal field. It offers multiple lessons for understanding penal trends, including the way in which anxiety that about significant penal change shapes penal actors' decisions. It also illustrates how organizations, including state-run organizations, can continuously defy legal, penal, and cultural norms in ways standard organizational theories cannot explain"-- Provided by publisher Early nineteenth-century American prisons followed one of two dominant models: the Auburn system, in which prisoners performed factory-style labor by day and were placed in solitary confinement at night, and the Pennsylvania system, where prisoners faced 24-hour solitary confinement for the duration of their sentences. By the close of the Civil War, the majority of prisons in the United States had adopted the Auburn system - the only exception was Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary, making it the subject of much criticism and a fascinating outlier. Using the Eastern State Penitentiary as a case study, The Deviant Prison brings to light anxieties and other challenges of nineteenth-century prison administration that helped embed our prison system as we know it today. Drawing on organizational theory and providing a rich account of prison life, the institution, and key actors, Ashley T. Rubin examines why Eastern's administrators clung to what was increasingly viewed as an outdated and inhuman model of prison - and what their commitment tells us about penal reform in an era when prisons were still new and carefully scrutinized.