CHAPTER 1.

TITLE: History of Imprisonment

AUTHORS: Bruce A. Arrigo, Ph.D., Department of Criminal Justice & Criminology

University of North Carolina at Charlotte
and

S. Lorén Trull, Esq.

University of North Carolina at Charlotte

1
Introduction

In the United States, the use of criminal confinement as a form of punishment

commenced during the colonial era (Rothman 2002; Scull 2006). Since then, it has

continued to evolve with fluctuating commitments to punishment’s transitory purpose

and the variable penal philosophies that justify it. This chapter focuses on the evolution

of the U.S. imprisonment system, and it examines the relevance of the system’s

development in relation to correctional psychiatry. The first section of the chapter

reviews the history of American prisons, including their shifting purposes, standards,

and practices. The second portion of the chapter highlights the persistent lack of regard

for prisoners with mental illness throughout the history of American penology, and it

explains how rehabilitation theory has intersected with the diagnostics and treatment of

persons experiencing psychiatric disorders while criminally confined. The chapter

concludes by discussing the current status of imprisonment in the United States, noting

the impact that the War on Drugs campaign has had on minority communities.

History of American Prisons and Punishment

The prisons of the colonial era were based on religion, English tradition, and

practical wisdom (Meskell 1999). With relatively small populations to police, the criminal

justice system administered swift and public punishments that were intended to

humiliate, enslave, or even torture (Pfohl 2009). Moreover, given the strong sense of

kinship that shaped colonial hamlets, punishment existed to deter transgression and to

discipline waywardness (Foucault 1979). Deterrence philosophy was fueled through

Calvinist religious doctrine and dogma (Barnes 1968). For Calvinists, it was wasteful

and futile to rely on and invest in a reformist-based penal system because man was

2
innately sinful, wicked, and evil. Operating from within this no-nonsense and religiously-

driven framework, the colonies drew from English criminal codes to define specific

capital offenses, ranging from murder to blasphemy (Barnes 1968). For non-capital

offenses, retribution increased in severity as recidivism continued, and punishment

could eventually result in banishment (Cullen & Gilbert 1982). This English-based,

Calvinist-inspired system of punishment persisted until the late 1700s when reform

movements emerged as a response to the rapid population growth and the call for a

more humane “corrections” system (Barnes 1968; Rothman 2002). Utilitarians such as

Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill began criticizing the English system of

punishment and imprisonment. They argued that people were not innately cruel or sinful

but rather that they were capable of weighing the costs and benefits of committing a

crime and making a decision on how best to behave based on this reasoned calculus

(Barnes 1968).

During the post-Revolutionary era, the Italian criminologist Cesare Beccaria

emerged as the most significant theorist to influence the American system of corrections

(Hirsch 1982). A notable objection to the English penal system was his disdain for the

practice of meting out severe punishment that exceeded the harshness of the crime

(Meskell 1999). Beccaria posited that the source for crime was the criminal code itself

and not the individual (Gillin 1926). Specifically, he maintained that in order to overcome

the arbitrary and draconian criminal codes found in countries such as England,

governments should enact legislation that strictly defined punishments, appropriately

limited the power of judges, clearly and publicly codified laws, comprehensively created

punishments that instilled fear in and thus deterred potential offenders from engaging in

3
criminal behavior, and purposely developed punishments that were the least harsh and

the least necessary to achieve the goal of deterrence (Gillin 1926). By the late 1700s,

America’s acceptance of Beccaria’s recommendations led to the revision of its criminal

codes and the introduction of a reformist-based system of punishment (Cullen & Gilbert

1982).

The early U.S. prisons were harsh, often housing men and women together.

They lacked discipline, humane treatment, and sanitary living conditions (Rothman

2002; Scull 2006). In 1786, following the acceptance of arguments put forward by the

Classical School of Criminology (i.e., the integration of utilitarianism’s reasoned calculus

and Beccaria’s fear of punishment philosophy), Benjamin Rush, along with the Society

for Assisting Distressed Prisoners (SADP), drafted a new criminal code in the U.S.

(Barnes 1968). One of the most notable correctional facilities to emerge following this

codification was the Walnut Street Jail, located in Philadelphia, PA (Roth 2006). The

origins of its system of punishment and imprisonment can be traced to a law passed by

the Pennsylvania legislature on April 5, 1790 based on a SADP draft report that called

for solitary confinement combined with the administration of hard labor (Barnes 1968).

The law specifically substituted hard labor as punishment, called for the segregation of

prisoners by gender and type of crime, and also permitted solitary confinement for the

most serious of offenders (Barnes 1968). Additionally, prisoners in the Walnut Street

jail were required to read the Bible, to participate in religious instructions, and they were

not allowed to drink alcohol. This model of criminal confinement encouraged

introspection, the elimination of bad habits, and it purged the “moral contamination” of

other inmates through the use of segregated or isolative confinement (Roth 2006).

4
 The penal culture changed along with the law undergirding the American penal

system. Jails were no longer run for profit as they had been under the colonial system,

the organization of imprisonment was standardized, and it was less vulnerable to

extortion by the keepers of the kept (McGowen 1995). While the Walnut Street jail

limited solitary confinement to the most egregious of offenders, the facility lacked a full-

fledged model of prisoner isolative segregation that did not include hard labor (De

Beaumont, De Tocqueville & Lieber 1833). Moreover, while the Walnut Street jail

experienced some success evidenced by declining crime rates, it lacked proper prison-

based controls, suitable plans for expansion, and sufficient financial support., The

facility deteriorated in the 1820s and was officially shut down in 1835 (Lewis 1965).

A new wave of reformers began to take part in shaping the burgeoning U.S.

system of imprisonment and punishment. The origin of crime shifted sharply to a new

view of criminality rooted in the ills of a failed social order (Gillin 1926). From this

emergent perspective, the purpose of confinement was to advance the well-being of the

individual offender; that is, the aim of criminal confinement was to ensure the safety and

to further the good of society as a whole while disciplining (i.e., normalizing) the

transgressor (Foucault 1979). In 1816, a New York prison was constructed in Auburn

modeled after this philosophy (De Beaumont, De Tocqueville & Lieber 1833).

The attempt at solitary confinement without hard labor was unsuccessful at the

Auburn Prison. As a penal practice, some questioned whether isolative segregation

ultimately led to insanity (Barnes 1968). Eventually, this criticism eliminated isolative

segregation as a broadly applied penal practice. The Auburn Prison then implemented

the congregate system of correctional management (Meskell 1999). Under the

5
congregate system, prisoners were allowed to work together during the day; however,

at night, they were required to sleep in different cells and were prohibited from

speaking, effectively preventing communication with other inmates (Lewis 1965). The

Auburn system used intense observation of prisoners to monitor inmate behavior, and it

relied on consistent discipline throughout the prison to manage and correct inmates.

The Eastern Penitentiary at Cherry Hill in Pennsylvania was constructed in 1821,

and its creation departed from the example set at the Auburn facility (Barnes 1968).

Eastern Penitentiary implemented a system of imprisonment that focused on the reform

of prisoners as soon as they began serving their sentences. Convicts were placed in

solitary confinement, not allowed to work, and expected to reflect on their own criminal

wrongdoings. Eventually, prison inmates were given permission to work, access to the

Bible, and were taught to read during their incarceration if they entered the prison

illiterate (De Beaumont, De Tocqueville & Lieber 1833). These reforms were driven by

Quaker religious convictions and based on a philosophy of both moral reform and social

rehabilitation (Dumm 1987). Known as the Philadelphia model, this approach to penal

practice required less intense supervision of convicts than did the Auburn model. Both

of these structures or models of correctional management shaped the American prison

system through much of the 19th century. However, the approach developed at the

Auburn Prison was more widely adopted throughout the United States and came to

dominate 19th century practices (US Dep’t of Justice 1939). This was due, in large part,

to the health repercussions of isolative segregation without labor (as experienced at

Eastern Penitentiary) and the financial savings that followed from the imprisonment

6
model at Auburn (i.e., the per inmate costs were nearly half those of Eastern

Penitentiary).

In the late 1800s through the mid-1900s, a series of international mobilization

events and national reform efforts emerged to improve the treatment of convicts. In

1885, an international prison conference led to radical changes in penal philosophy and

practice. During this period, the focus on scientific approaches to the confinement and

rehabilitation of prisoners propelled efforts to reduce reliance on incarceration, to pursue

alternative sanctions for less severe crimes, and to introduce new strategies such as

probation (Ferracuti 1989). Two more international conferences were held: one in

Amsterdam in 1901, the other in London in 1925. They shifted the focus to the criminal

offender’s psychopathology (Palermo 2013). This clinically-oriented understanding of

delinquent and criminal behavior resulted in better inmate treatments and improved

patient outcomes. Moreover, these gains fostered the development of alternative

measures of detention and ushered in a new focus on the social reintegration of

prisoners (Ferracuti 1989).

This rehabilitative turn in correctional philosophy led to improvements in prison

conditions. Notwithstanding the mostly nominal gains that followed, many deficiencies

remained in United States correctional institutions up until the 1960s. Indeed, the penal

system had reached a point where inmates were afforded a decent diet, had access to

reading materials, benefitted from several forms of recreation, and were able to buy

certain personal items while criminally confined. However, prisoners served longer

sentences, were under constant surveillance, and still lacked sufficient access to much-

7
needed health/mental health services and community recovery programming (Palermo

& White 1998).

As the 20th century progressed, urban centers became more densely populated,

and crime rates as well as jail populations increased. These realities contributed to

overcrowded prisons, substandard living conditions, and a heightened threat of inmate

violence (Morris 1995). The increased prison population once again led to strict

supervision, reduced access to rehabilitative services, and a decline in living conditions.

American prisons became undisciplined and dangerous, a breeding ground for the

recruitment of gang members, for the sale and purchase of drugs, and for the

development of a pariah prison economy (e.g., sexual violence) (Wortly 2003). In an

effort to improve deteriorating penal conditions, judicial intervention surged from the

1960s to the 1980s (Dilulio 1990). A coalesced concern for civil liberties, prisoner

rights, and scholarly research documenting the physical and psychological impact of

incarceration absent requisite social and psychological supports, led to progressive,

constitutionally-supported reforms within the American penal system (Appelbaum 1994).

Beginning in the late 20th century, researchers noted that a significant decline in

criminality had occurred across the United States; however, unprecedented prison

population growth coupled with rapid correctional facility expansion continued unabated

(Mauer 2011). Today, by most accounts, the number of criminally confined individuals

in jails and/or prisons exceeds 2.7 million. This figure does not account for the collateral

harm that extends to the family members of those incarcerated (Chesney-Lind & Mauer

2003; Clear & Frost 2013). Moreover, the total number of persons with serious mental

illness in prisons and jails is larger than the total number of psychiatric hospital patients 

8
(Lamb & Weinberger 1998), making the delivery of effective correctional psychiatric

services and social programming both fiscally unsustainable and clinically untenable. 

These institutional dynamics persist today, especially when noting that at least 40

percent of persons with severe mental illnesses are at some point in their lives housed

in jails and/or prisons (Torrey et al. 2010). Moreover, the conditions of imprisonment in

the 21st century remain problematic (e.g., overcrowded and underfunded), with an

emphasis on retributive penal practices. Examples include reliance on “supermax”

secure housing units to mass incarcerate, deployment of long-term disciplinary and

administrative solitary confinement, and dependence on digitized security and

surveillance systems to officially monitor (Arrigo, Bersot, & Sellers 2011).

Mental Illness and the American Correctional System

Just as correctional institutions have evolved over time by way of their shifting

purposes, standards, and practices, so too has the type of treatment inmates received

while incarcerated. Throughout the 19 th and early 20th centuries, the purpose of

imprisonment in the U.S. was to rehabilitate (McGee 1969). Indeed, the very name

penitentiary – a popular descriptor used during this period – indicated that prisons were

more than just a place to house transgressors (Cullen & Gendreau 2000). Religious

values principally motivated this commitment to the rehabilitative ideal, until it was

professionalized in the 20th century in the form of individual treatment (Palermo 2013).

The professionalization of correctional treatment changed how recovery and reform

were defined, and the conditions under which both occur.

Throughout the latter portion of the 20th century to the present, individualized

rehabilitation has dominated prison psychiatry. An important part of this philosophy is

9
determining which antisocial characteristics an inmate possesses and/or which critical

thinking errors an inmate exhibits that cause criminal conduct (Andrews & Bonta 2010).

This assessment and diagnostic approach to offender treatment became a starting point

for predicting and controlling criminal predispositions, thoughts, and behaviors. The aim

was to better address the offender’s clinical needs and to better protect the community’s

security (Cullen & Gendreau 2000).

Diagnosis requires clinicians to examine individual behavior, symptoms, and

mental capacity in ways that label or classify offenders (Shipley & Arrigo 2001). Critics

of this approach have suggested that ’almost any offender in a correctional setting is

hypothetically entitled to a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD)’ (Toch

1998, p. 149). Moreover, by focusing on criminal behavior, clinical symptoms, and

mental capacity, other researchers have warned that an ‘over diagnosis of psychopathy

in criminal populations’ is likely to follow (Hart & Hare 1997, p. 23). As predicted, the

prevalence rates for ASPD and psychopathy are alarmingly high. According to most

estimates, nearly 50 percent to 80 percent of offenders are diagnosed with ASPD, and

15 percent to 30 percent are diagnosed with psychopathy (e.g., Gacono 2000). The

justification for relying on the diagnosis of psychopathy is that accurate identification is

‘for the offender’s own good and for the good of those with whom the psychopath

interacts’ (Shipley & Arrigo 2001, p. 409). Conversely, some mental health practitioners

question whether investing in this sort of deficit-oriented language and logic furthers the

collective goal of structurally transforming correctional treatment by humanizing offender

rehabilitation (Polizzi, Braswell & Draper, 2014).

10
 Arguably, clinical risk assessment, diagnosis, and treatment have become more

sophisticated given advances in psychopharmacological medicine, actuarial rigor in

social science methodologies, and precision in diagnostic techniques and analytics.

Regrettably, the fate of prisoners classified as mentally ill has not similarly progressed.

Incarceration is difficult on one’s mental health because of the ‘overcrowding, violence,

lack of privacy, lack of meaningful activities, isolation from family and friends,

uncertainty about life after prison, and inadequate health services’ (Fellner 2006, p.

391). Numerous studies report the rise in the number of mentally ill persons in the

prison system (Torrey et al. 2010). Moreover, the swelling number of inmates with

psychiatric disorders found in correctional settings today has converted jails and prisons

into ill-equipped de facto institutions that warehouse the mentally ill much like the

practice of the 19th century. Indeed, while American prison systems are beginning to

implement some novel accommodations for persons with psychiatric disorders (e.g.,

specialized rehabilitation units, diversion through mental health court), they are often

subjected to the same punitive treatment of isolative confinement that was popularized

during the 19th century (Fellner 2006). Prison segregation only amplifies the lack of

adequate care available for those who need or could benefit from mental health

treatment, and it further exacerbates the detrimental impact such custodial care has on

prisoners who experience or are otherwise susceptible to psychiatric symptoms and/or

illness (Haney 2006).

The U.S. prison system has always struggled to determine clinical correctives

and rehabilitative treatments to assist mentally ill offenders. Current correctional

policies targeting inmates with psychiatric disorders balance the ideals of individual

11
liberty against the demands of institutional safety and the need for public welfare (Arrigo

et al. 2011). Mindful of the inadequate delivery of psychiatric services found in many

American prisons, several international covenants and a number of human rights

activists have called for an overhaul of policies that affect persons suffering from a

mental disability (Perlin 2011). In fact, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for

the Treatment of Prisoners recognizes that some incarcerates with serious mental

illness should not be subjected to imprisonment at all (Fellner 2003; Haney 2006).

While much of the focus is on improving conditions within correctional institutions,

researchers contend that the ‘most effective way to ensure that the rights of mentally ill

offenders are protected is to try to keep them out of prison in the first place’ (Fellner

2003, p. 411). This would require an increase in community-based programming and

court-ordered mental health services, a consideration of the offender’s mental status in

judicial policies such as mandatory minimum sentencing, and a restructuring of the pre-

trial process in which psychiatrically disordered offenders would be identified (e.g.,

Appelbaum 1994). Thus, while the diagnosis of mental illness has become more

sophisticated over time, the treatment of the mentally ill within the prison system has not

nearly similarly progressed.

The Current Era of Mass Incarceration

Beginning in the 1980s a transition in judicial and penal policy emerged that

would have an unprecedented impact on the U.S. imprisonment system. The ‘law and

order’ philosophy began to resurface, especially during the presidential campaign of

Richard Nixon (Beckett 1997). This tough-on-crime agenda gained momentum during

the 1970s and peaked in 1982 when President Ronald Reagan announced his infamous

12
War on Drugs campaign (Alexander 2010). This initiative was accompanied by a

sizeable increase in anti-drug initiatives and the emergence of crack cocaine markets in

inner city communities. It set the stage for the current and disproportionate rates of

incarceration for Black and Brown men in the United States. This shift also marked a

significant change in public opinion. By 1989, 64 percent of Americans believed that the

sale and distribution of illicit drugs was the most important societal issue confronting the

country (Beckett 1997). By the early 1990s, with mounting support from the public and

with surges in county, state, and federal law enforcement budgets, an emergent system

of racialized justice began to populate American cities and towns (Alexander 2010). By

1991, nearly a fourth of young African American males were under some form of

incarceration or social control administered by the correctional industry. Additionally,

between 1985 and 2000 convictions for drug offenses accounted for about two-thirds of

the rise in federally housed prisoners (Mauer 2006). To date, the most telling

consequence of the War on Drugs initiative is that more than 31 million people have

been arrested and convicted for these criminal offenses, leading to systematic mass

incarceration that adversely and unequally impacts people of color (Mauer & King 2007;

Alexander 2010).

The number of African Americans incarcerated under the guise of the War on

Drugs campaign is alarming. By 2000, seven states reported that African Americans

accounted for 80 percent to 90 percent of all criminally confined drug offenders (Human

Rights Watch 2000). Nationwide, between 1983 and 2000, the number of African

Americans incarcerated for drug crimes increased 26 times; for Latino offenders during

the same period the number increased 22 times (Travis 2002). These figures stand in

13
stark contrast to the rate of incarceration for White offenders who witnessed only an

eight percent increase compared to their minority counterparts. This finding is

particularly troubling given that the majority of illegal drug users and dealers in the U.S.

are Caucasian (Mauer & King 2004).

By 2013, both national and state governments began to recognize the fiscal and

social impact of the 40 year over-incarceration trend (Clear & Frost 2013). Since 1980,

the federal prison population has increased every single year. In 2009, Americans were

in prison at the rate of 760 per 100,000 citizens; this is five times the rate of Britain,

eight times the rate of Germany and 12 times the rate in Japan (Global Public Square

2013). The reality of U.S. imprisonment is that the country incarcerates the largest

number of people worldwide at a rate that is four times that of the planet’s average

(Hartney 2006). While the sheer number of convicts represents a considerable social

control and institutional management problem – particularly as it disproportionately

impacts low-income minority males – a fiscal problem also undeniably exists. The

United States spends nearly $42 billion annually on the prison industrial complex, and

despite the exorbitant spending it is still regularly sued by individuals for failure to meet

minimum standards of health and safety (Hartney 2006).

Summary

Confronted with the reality of racialized justice and an imprisonment culture that

struggles to cultivate, much less implement, sorely needed rehabilitative prescriptions,

correctional psychiatry now increasingly directs its clinical attention to the challenges of

treating the psychopathology of internet harassers, cyber stalkers, and virtual sexual

predators (Gunn 2000). Coupled with these novel and mostly untested directions, is the

14
application of cognitive neuroscience to forensic and correctional settings (Garland

2011; Gazzaniga 2009). For example, restoring the death row inmate’s competence for

purposes of state-sanctioned execution raises serious questions about the legal limits of

individual privacy rights, the ‘soft’ science of functional magnetic resonance imaging

technology, and medicine’s responsibilities to professionally navigate the clinical ethics

of both (e.g., Arrigo 2007). Thorny directions and complex developments such as these

await the attention of correctional psychiatry as it responds to the legal, fiscal, and

social constraints of penal policy and the future of American imprisonment.

15
 References

Alexander, M. (2010). The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of

Colorblindness. (New York: New Press).

Andrews, D.A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct, 5 th ed.

(Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing).

Appelbaum, P.S. (1994). Almost a revolution: Mental health law and the limits of

change. (New York: Oxford University Press).

Arrigo, B.A. (2007). Punishment, freedom, and the culture of control: The case of brain

imaging and the law. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 33, (3), 457-482.

Arrigo, B.A., Bersot, H. & Sellers, B.G. (2011). The ethics of total confinement: A

critique of madness, citizenship and social justice. (New York: Oxford University

Press).

Barnes, H.E. (1968). The evolution of penology in Pennsylvania; a study in American

social history. (Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith).

Beckett, K. (1997). Making crime pay: Law and order in contemporary American

politics. (New York: Oxford University Press).

Chesney-Lind, M. & Mauer, M. (2003). Invisible punishment: The collateral

consequences of mass incarceration. (New York: New Press).

Clear, T.R. & Frost, N.A. (2013). The punishment imperative, the rise and failure of

mass incarceration in America. (New York: NYU Press).

Cullen, F.T. & Gendreau, P. (2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy,

practice and prospects, United States.

16
Cullen, F.T. & Gilbert, K.E. (1982). Reaffirming Rehabilitation. (Cincinnati, OH:

Anderson Publishing).

De Beaumont, G.A.D., De Tocqueville, C.A. & Lieber, F. (1833). On the penitentiary

system in the United States and its application in France ... Translated from the

French, with an introduction, notes and additions. By F. Lieber.

DiIulio, J.J. (1990). Courts, Corrections, and the Constitution. (New York: Oxford

University Press).

Dumm, T.L. (1987). Democracy and Punishment. (Madison, WI: University of

Wisconsin Press).

Fellner, J. (2006). A corrections quandary: mental illness and prison rules’ Harvard Civil

Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 41, 391-412.

Ferracuti, F. (1989). Carcere e trattamento (prisons and treatment), Trattato di

Criminologia, Medicina Criminologica e Psichiatria Forense (Treatise on

Criminology, CriminologicalMedicine and Forensic Psychiatry), vol. 11. Giuffre,

Milan.

Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (trans: Sheridan, A.).

(New York: Vintage).

Gacono, C. (2000). The clinical and forensic assessment of psychopathy: A

practitioner’s guide. (New York: Routledge).

Garland, B. (2011). Neuroscience and the law: Brain, mind, and the scales of justice.

(New York: Dana Press).

Gazzaniga, M.S. (2009). The ethical brain. (New York: Dana Press).

Gillin, J.L. (1926). Criminology and penology. (London: Jonathan Cape).

17
Global Public Square, (2013). U.S. wakes up to prison nightmare. Available from:

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/17/u-s-wakes-up-to-its-prison-

nightmare/. [4 December 2013].

Gunn, J. (2000). Future directions for treatment in forensic psychiatry. British Journal

of Psychiatry, 176, 332-8.

Haney, C. (2006). Reforming prisons: Psychological limits to the pains of

imprisonment. (Washington DC: APA Books).

Hart, S.D. & Hare, J.D. (1997). Psychopathy: Assessment and association with

criminal conduct in D.M. Stoff, J. Breiling, & J.D. Maser (eds.) Handbook of

antisocial behavior, pp. 22-35), (New York: John Wiley).

Hartney, C. (2006). U.S. Rates of Incarceration: A Global Perspective (FOCUS).

Available from: http://www.issuelab.org/permalink/resource/2634. [4 December

2013]

Hirsch, A.J. (1982). From pillory to penitentiary: the rise of criminal incarceration in

early Massachusetts. (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Michigan Law Review Association).

Human Rights Watch (2000). Punishment and prejudice: racial disparities in the war on

drugs, HRW Reports, 12, 2.

Lamb, H.R. & Weinberger, L.E. (1998). Persons with severe mental illness in jails and

prisons: A review. Psychiatric Services, 49, 483-492. .

Lewis, W.D. (1965). From Newgate to Dannemora; the rise of the penitentiary in New

York, 1796-1848. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).

Mauer, M. (2006). Race to Incarcerate, rev ed. (New York: New Press).

18
Mauer, M. (2011). Sentencing reform: Amid mass incarcerations-guarded optimism.

Criminal Justice, 26, 27-36.

Mauer, M., King, R.S. & Young, M,C. (2004). The meaning of "life": Long prison

sentences in context. (Washington, DC: Sentencing Project).

Mauer, M. & King, R.S. (2007). A 25-year quagmire the war on drugs and its impact on

American society. (Washington, DC: Sentencing Project).

McGee, R.A. (1969). What's past is prologue. Annals of the American Academy of

Political and Social Science, 381, 1-10.

McGowen, R. (1995). Well-ordered prison: England, 1780-1865, in N. Morries & D.

Rothman (eds.) Oxford History of the Prison: The Practice of Punishment in

Western Society, pp. 79-109, (New York: Oxford).

Meskell, M.W. (1999). An American resolution: The history of prisons in the United

States from 1777 to 1877, Stanford Law Review, 51, pp. 839-865.

Morris, N. (1995). The contemporary prison, in N. Morries & D. Rothman (eds.) Oxford

History of the Prison: The Practice of Punishment in Western Society, pp. 227-

259, (New York: Oxford) .

Palermo, G.B. & White, M.A. (1998). Letters from prison: A cry for justice. (Springfield,

IL: Charles C. Thomas).

Palermo, G.B. (2013). Evolution of punishment and incarceration, in Konrad, N., Vollm,

B. & Weisstub, D.N. (eds.) Ethical issues in prison psychiatry, (New York:

Springer).

Perlin, M.L. (2011). International human rights and mental disability law: When the

silenced are heard. (New York: Oxford University Press).

19
Pfohl, S.J. (2009). Images of deviance and social control: a sociological history (Grove,

IL: Waveland Press).

Polizzi, D., Braswell, M., & Draper, M. (2014). Transforming corrections: Humanistic

approaches to corrections and offender treatment, 2nd ed. (Durham, NC:

Academic Press).

Roth, M.P. (2006). Prisons and prison systems. (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press).

Rothman, D.J. (2002). Conscience and convenience: The asylum and its alternatives in

progressive America. (New York: Aldine Transaction).

Scull, A. (2006). The insanity of place/the place of insanity: Essays on the history of

psychiatry. (New York: Routledge).

Shipley, S. & Arrigo, B.A. (2001). The confusion over psychopathy (II): Implications for

forensic (correctional) practice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology. 45, 407-420.

Toch, H. (1998). Psychopathy or antisocial personality disorder in forensic settings, in

Millon, T, Simonsen, E, Birket-Smith, M & Davis, RD (eds.) Psychopathy:

Antisocial, criminal and Violent Behavior, pp. 144-158, (New York: Guilford).

Torrey, E.F., Kennard, A.D., Lamb, H.R., & Pavle, J. (2010). More mentally ill persons

are in jails and prisons than hospitals: A survey of the states. (Arlington, VA:

Treatment Advocacy Center).

Travis, J. (2002). But they all come back: facing the challenges of prisoner reentry.

(Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press).

United States (1939). The Attorney General's survey of release procedures digest of

federal and state laws on release procedures. (Washington DC: U.S. G.P.O).

20
Wortley, R. (2003). Situational prison control: Crime prevention in correctional

institutions, (New York: Cambridge University Press).

21