Punishment, policing and incarceration currently encompass much of the public debate in the United States. There was a similar debate about the role of prisons and punishment in eighteenth-century Pennsylvania, although with different catalysts and goals concerning reform. The Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons, known as the Pennsylvania Prison Society (PPS), was founded in 1790 in response to the brutal American system of corporal punishment.[1] Society members such as Benjamin Rush and Roberts Vaux adopted the ideas of European Enlightenment thinkers from the eighteenth century as the basis for substantial change in methods of incarceration and punishment. which were ultimately incorporated at Eastern State Penitentiary (ESP). The prison’s founders, PPS members, boasted of progressive new measures such as solitary confinement and prisoner anonymity which were intended to facilitate the criminal’s restoration to society. However, in reality and practice, Eastern State Penitentiary did not remain true to its progressive values and incorporated punishment that was more reminiscent of the system it had intended to replace.
In the eighteenth century, the American system utilized public corporal punishment, which was based on cruelty and humiliation of the criminal. Penal practices in eighteenth-century Pennsylvania were based on English patterns of punishment. The English model regularly subjected offenders to public punishment, which was realized through the use of the whip, pillory, and scaffold.[2] Philadelphia’s punishments were located in public spaces where audiences could witness justice being carried out. Before hanging the convict would be marched throughout the city streets to the site of execution, one of four public squares.[3] The city’s market served as the location for whipping and pillorying, typically on Wednesdays and Saturdays. Initially, only murder was punishable by capital punishment. However in 1718 seventeen additional offenses were punishable by death. The list was expanded to include sodomy, robbery, and treason.[4] Lesser crimes, such as petit larceny, were punishable by up to fifteen lashes, and the amount would with any future convictions.[5]
In the eighteenth-century Philadelphia’s system of public punishment was structured to prioritize deterrence and to avoid the practices of brutal punishment and public shaming.[6] As quoted by Michael Meranze, Thomas McKean, chief justice of the state Supreme Court, argued that punishment was both rational and required when he stated that “God, in willing the happiness of mankind in society, must necessarily be supposed to will the restraint of such unruly passions as would, if unrestrained, overthrow and destroy all that happiness.”[7] Philadelphia’s penal ideology assumed that the best way to deter future crime was through exemplary punishment that fostered fear and pain of death. In 1768 Pennsylvania’s general assembly argued that it was “the Dread of exemplary Punishment, steadily and uniformly inflicted upon past Delinquents, that alone can deter the Wicked from the perpetuation of future Offense.”[8] Thus, Thomas McKean and other proponents of extreme punishment perceived this system to be the best deterrent of future crime for both the convicted and individuals considering engaging in crime.
Pennsylvania Prison Society members looked to the ideas and rationale of Enlightenment thinkers to both criticize the system and to support their reformatory goals. Italian criminologist Cesare Beccaria and English philosopher Jeremy Bentham’s works on moderate punishment and the status of prisons were particularly influential to early society members.[9] In Beccaria’s On Crimes and Punishments the PPS members found support for their disdain of exemplary capital punishments.[10] Beccaria argued that the intent of punishments should not be to torture the criminal, as that would not undo the crime they already committed.[11] According to Beccaria cruelty in punishment was “useless”; rather its goal should be to deter whilst making the “strongest and most lasting impressions on the minds of others, with the least torment to the body of the criminal.”[12] Bentham argued that solitude in penitentiaries would enable prisoners to achieve reformation since they would be free of plotting with other inmates and the threat of whips and fetters to discourage such activity.[13] These early works were critical in influencing PPS members that the current penal system could be reformed.
Benjamin Rush, a society member, drew specifically upon the ideas of English philanthropist John Howard to advocate for prison reform within the PPS.[14] In The State of Prisons in England and Wales Howard criticized the flaws of the English prison system and advocated for specific solutions to fix their faults. Howard argued that the current state of prisons in England and Wales were flawed because they were poorly managed.[15] One of the most troubling aspects concerning prison was the hard labor prisoners were subjected to. Contrary to popular belief in many of these prisons, hardly any work was done. Instead of working “prisoners spent their time in sloth, … and debauchery, to a degree which…is extremely shocking.”[16] Howard further criticized the fact that prisoners were not kept separate during the daytime. This enabled younger prisoners to hear about the adventures, escapes, and strategies of more experienced criminals.[17]
To remedy the problems of English prisons Howard advocated for solitary confinement and productive labor to be features of criminal punishment. Howard argued that prisoners should occupy separate rooms since “solitude and silence are favorable to reflection and may possibly lead…[criminals] to repentance.”[18] These separate rooms would include their own courtyards and would also reduce the collaboration between prisoners to escape.[19] Howard also advocated for a more effective labor system. He believed that having prisoners do only hard labor and correction deteriorated their health and morals, which upon reentry into society would certainly cause their destruction.[20] Howard wasn’t arguing that prisoners shouldn’t do work; he advocated for 10-hour workdays including meals.[21] Rather he criticized the model of work in English prisons which fostered idleness but putting most prisoners together in the same workroom. Furthermore, the numerous workrooms should be overseen by men of both temperance and prudence.[22] These changes would eventually be implemented at Eastern State Penitentiary.
Many of Howard’s reformatory ideas were adopted by Benjamin Rush, who in turn disseminated them to the PPS. Like Howard, Rush shared some of the same criticisms of the English prison and punishment system that had been adopted in the United States. In his essay titled “An Enquiry into the Effects of Public Punishments Upon Criminals and Upon Society” Rush argued that public punishment would never be able to effectively reform criminals and restore them to society. Rather Rush reasoned that criminals were more inclined to commit more crime after public punishments since “A man who lost his character at a whipping post has nothing valuable left to lose.”[23] The criminal as a result is more likely to engage in revenge upon society in general. Instead Rush argued that punishment should be conducted in private, “with cells provided for solitary confinement.”[24] Inspired by Howard and Beccaria, Rush argued that punishment should consist of labor and solitude in proportion to the nature of the crime.[25] Uniquely, Rush also reasoned that this institution should not be labeled as a “prison”. Instead, its name should “convey an idea of its benevolent and salutary design.”[26] Rush had no intention of having the reformatory institution associated with a flawed system of punishment.
Rush’s ideas were well received amongst members of the Pennsylvania Prison Society, particularly Roberts Vaux, who implemented many of these reforms at Eastern State Penitentiary.[27] According to Vaux ESP was distinct from other prisons in that prisoners would not be treated with vengeance, rather they would be subjected to labor that could better their lives in the future. Any time inmates were transported throughout the penitentiary they were made to wear hoods to keep their identity anonymous from other inmates.[28] The rationale behind this society was to protect the inmate’s identity so they would not be associated with criminality upon their reentry into society. ESP also subjected its inmates to complete solitary confinement so that offenders would have an opportunity to reflect and atone for their misdeeds.[29] Officially they were only permitted to be visited by a chaplain, guard, or member of the Prison Society.[30]In the 1867 Annual Inspection report the prison chaplain, who worked as the moral instructor, reported that access to books “strengthened” and “fortified” the minds of the inmates, making them less inclined to commit crimes.[31] ESP was also designed to give prisoners relative comfort in their confinement. Vaux wrote that the penitentiary’s cells should be “judiciously lighted, ventilated, and adapted in every way…to protect the health of the prisoner.”[32] On its face, ESP appeared to be a truly ‘progressive’ prison.
Although ESP claimed to be a reformatory institution it failed in many respects to live up to the ideals of its founders and the Enlightenment philosophers. The prison reneged on its commitment to the well-being of its prison population and more humane forms of punishment. In 1838, only 9 years after it officially opened, Warden Samuel R. Woods reported resorting to more extreme forms of punishment when milder forms, like reducing rations, were ineffective. These harsher punishments included placing prisoners in dark or bare cells, use of straight jackets, beating prisoner with a stick, and gagging prisoners with an iron gag.[33] Hence when the ESP adiminstrators encountered difficult or uncooperative prisoners they were quick to resort to more inhumane forms of punishment and abandon their reformatory goals. In the 1867 Inspectors Report of ESP the prison’s physician, Henry M. Klapp, regretfully acknowledged that ESP was suffering from overcrowding, which was detrimental to the health of the inmates.[34] As a result of limited space, the physician reported that inmates would be forced to be confined to their cells, and since they would be rebreathing the same air making them more susceptible to tubercular consumption and scrofula. Even more concerning the penitentiary itself was at an increased risk of an epidemic.[35] Prisoner well-being and safety were threatened in the earliest years after ESP’s founding.
The prison staff also deviated from their most central tenets, solitary confinement, and labor. Early in his administration, Warden Wood he reported numerous instances in which inmates simply refused to work. In 1835 inmate Samuel Brewster refused to do any labor after he was switched from carpentry to shoemaking for attempting to use his carpentry tools to build a ladder to escape. Brewster refused to work as a shoemaker and was subjected to reduced rations in a bare cell until he agreed to return to labor. He waited three months until he agreed to return to work.[36] ESP’s solitary system was also compromised. A series of letters from a female prisoner, Elizabeth Velora Elwell reveal that she maintained an intimate relationship with another prisoner, Albert Green Jackson, and met with him regularly.[37] Elwell’s letters further suggest that she maintained extensive communication with other people within the penitentiary, including a milk delivery worker and an individual who worked in the penitentiary’s “office”.[38] Most tellingly Elwell’s letters reveal that she met with Jackosn regularly. As quoted by Rebecca Capobianco on April 25, 1862, Elwell wrote to Jackson “My dear i am most dead every night When I come up to the old Sell and leave you my dear honey . . . may we see the time my dear that we will not have to go to the cole sellar to talk one word.”[39] Elwell and Jackson had established a system of interacting that went against the reformatory intentions of ESP.
In the eighteenth-century Philadelphia Prison Society reformers looked to the ideas and rationale of Enlightenment thinkers such as Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham to criticize capital punishments in the United States. Later in the century society member Benjamin Rush reiterated the ideas of John Howard to the PPS and argued for a system of solitary confinement and productive labor to reform criminal behavior. This model was adopted by Roberts Vaux and the PPS in the founding of Eastern State Penitentiary. Although its founders claimed it was different from other prisons, ESP staff regularly abandoned their founding ideals by subjecting inmates to harsher punishments and failing to enforce solitary confinement.
Written By: Nathaniel Flores, Senior, History Major
For Further Reading
Beccaria, Cesare. “An Essay on Crimes and Punishments.” With a Commentary by M. de Voltaire. A New Edition Corrected. Albany: W.C. Little & Co., 1872.
http://files.libertyfund.org/files/2193/Beccaria_1476_EBk_v6.0.pdf
Annual report of the Inspectors of the State Penitentiary for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Volume 39. United States. Laughlin Brothers, 1868.
Bentham, Jeremy The Panopticon Writings. Ed. Miran Bozovic (London: Verso, 1995). p. 29-95
https://www.ics.uci.edu/~djp3/classes/2012_01_INF241/papers/PANOPTICON.pdf
Capobianco, Rebecca. “”She Is the Beauty of This Place”: Elizabeth Velora Elwell and the Role of Prisoner Participation and Deviance at Eastern State Penitentiary.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 142, no. 1 (2018): 83-106. Accessed October 23, 2020. http://www.jstor.org.electra.lmu.edu/stable/10.5215/pennmaghistbio.142.1.0083.
City of Philadelphia Historical Commission. Eastern State Penitentiary Historic Structures Report: Volume I. Marianna Thomas Architects, July 21, 1996.
https://www.easternstate.org/sites/easternstate/files/inline-files/history-vol1.pdf
“Eastern State Penitentiary: 1998,” Verstehen Video, January 14, 2011, video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ikUWU3cbq8&feature=youtu.be
Howard, John. The State of the Prisons in England and Wales with Preliminary Observations and an Account ofSsome Foreign Prisons, Warrington, William Eyres, 1784 (3rd edition) https://archive.org/stream/stateofprisonsin00howa?ref=ol#page/n11/mode/2up
Michael Meranze. 1996. Laboratories of Virtue : Punishment, Revolution, and Authority in Philadelphia, 1760-1835. Published for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Virginia. Chapel Hill: Omohundro Institute and University of North Carolina Press. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=965163&site=eds-live&scope=site.
Rush, Benjamin. Essays: Literary, Moral and Philosophical,Philadelphia: Printed by Thomas and William Bradford…,1806.
http://resource.nlm.nih.gov/2569017R
Thibaut, Jacqueline. “”To Pave the Way to Penitence”: Prisoners and Discipline at the Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1835.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 106, no. 2 (1982): 187-222. Accessed October 23, 2020. http://www.jstor.org.electra.lmu.edu/stable/20091663.
[1] City of Philadelphia Historical Commission. Eastern State Penitentiary Historic Structures Report: Volume I. Marianna Thomas Architects, July 21, 1996, 44
[2] Meranze, Michael. Laboratories of Virtue. Punishment, Revolution, and Authority in Philadelphia, 1760-1835. Chapel Hill & London, North Carolina University Press, 1996, 19
[3] Meranze 19
[4] Meranze 21
[5] Meranze 21
[6] Meranze 26
[7] Meranze 27
[8] Meranze 27
[9] City of Philadelphia Historical Commission. Eastern State Penitentiary Historic Structures Report, 44
[10] [10] Meranze, Laboratories of Virtue, 63
[11] Beccaria, Cesare. “An Essay on Crimes and Punishments.” With a Commentary by M. de Voltaire. A New Edition Corrected. Albany: W.C. Little & Co., 1872.
[12] Beccaria 26
[13] Bentham, Jeremy The Panopticon Writings. Ed. Miran Bozovic London: Verso, 1995, 15
[14] City of Philadelphia Historical Commission. Eastern State Penitentiary Historic Structures Report, 44
[15] Howard, John. The State of the Prisons in England and Wales with Preliminary Observations and an Account of Some Foreign Prisons, Warrington, William Eyres, 1784 (3rd edition), 7
[16] Howard 8
[17] Howard 16
[18] Howard 43
[19] Howard 44
[20] Howard 69
[21] Howard 71
[22] Howard 71
[23] Rush, Benjamin Rush. Essays: Literary, Moral and Philosophical, Philadelphia: Printed by Thomas and William Bradford…,1806, 139
[24] Rush 150
[25] Rush 154
[26] Rush 150
[27] City of Philadelphia Historical Commission. Eastern State Penitentiary Historic Structures Report, 48
[28] “Eastern State Penitentiary: 1998,” Verstehen Video, January 14, 2011, video, 15:27
[29] City of Philadelphia Historical Commission. Eastern State Penitentiary Historic Structures Report, 38-39
[30] “Eastern State Penitentiary: 1998,” Verstehen Video, January 14, 2011, video, 15:29
[31] Annual report of the Inspectors of the State Penitentiary for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Volume 39. United States. Laughlin Brothers, 1868, 109
[32] [32] City of Philadelphia Historical Commission. Eastern State Penitentiary Historic Structures Report, 51
[33] Thibaut 195
[34] Annual report of the Inspectors of the State Penitentiary for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 100
[35] Annual report of the Inspectors of the State Penitentiary for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 101
[36] Thibaut, Jacqueline. “To Pave the Way to Penitence”: Prisoners and Discipline at the Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1835.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 106, no. 2 (1982), 198
[37] Thibaut 192
[38] Thibaut 194
[39] Thibaut 197
