The Correctional System Takagi

8/16/2019 The Correctional System Takagi

1/9

Social Justice/Global Options is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Crime and Social Justice.

http://www.jstor.org

THE CORRECTIONAL SYSTEMAuthor(s): PAUL TAKAGISource: Crime and Social Justice, No. 2 (Fall-Winter 1974), pp. 82-89Published by: Social Justice/Global OptionsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29765918Accessed: 08-09-2015 19:55 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Tue, 08 Sep 2015 19:55:50 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=socjusgloopthttp://www.jstor.org/stable/29765918http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/29765918http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=socjusgloopthttp://www.jstor.org/


2/9

Course Outlines and BibliographiesTHECORRECTIONALSYSTEM

PAULTAKAGI*

I.

When I was a sociology graduate student in the early 60sat a nearby university, I was invited by a graduate studentfriend at Berkeley to sit in on a seminar taught by ErvingGoffman and David Matza. Dave lectured that evening onthe various theoretical schools of deviance, identifying the

Chicago school, the functionalists, the labeling school, andthe correctional view, which he dismissed outright. I wasthen, as I am today, primarily interested in how peoplefaced up to the complexities and contradictions of punish?ing the convicted, and I walked away from Dave's lecturefeeling out-of-step from the mainstream of criminologicaltheorizing. More recently, Taylor, et al. (1973) also dis?

missed the correctional view, to the extent that it did noteven warrant a listing in the index.

The dismissal of the correctional view has created alacuna in a field, which, prior toWorld War II, containedsome of the best works in criminology. Orlando Lewis(1922), Harry E. Barnes (1926); (1930), Blake McKelvey(1936), Rusche and Kirchheimer (1939), and the ModemCriminal Science Series that included the works of Saleilles

(1911),Tarde

(1912),and

Aschaffenburg (1913)reveal

how the theories of crime, criminal responsibility andpunishment in the various stages of Euro-American historyhave a close relation to the prevailing state of the politicaleconomy.

The powerful socialization effects of graduate studiesmade me falter a bit inmy convictions as I initially tried toteach the prison/corrections course as a problem in formalorganization (Cressey, 1961;Skyes, 1958; Goffman, 1959;

Qoward, et al., 1960; Clemmer, 1940; Etzioni, 1961; Blau,1955; etc.), but it just didn't come off. I had for several

years worked in probation, parole, and as a counselor atSan Quentin Prison, and there was little correspondencebetween what was practiced and what sociologists had to

say about the correctional apparatus. More seriously, Ihadpushed aside my 12months inManzanar, a concentrationcamp for Japanese Americans inWorld War II, where lifebehind barbed wire fence and gun towers, although not asphysically repressive, nevertheless approximated theroutines in a maximum security prison. In both places,officials practiced their assumptions about powerlesspeople. In Manzanar, for example, we were required to

demonstate our reformation by taking a loyalty oath. If aperson failed to cooperate, it meant a transfer to amoresecure facility (Tule Lake). From there several hundredpeople were committed to federal prisons as draft evaderswhile others were banished from the United States. Thosewho elected to swear their allegiance had, in effect, enlistedfor military service to fight a war between imperialistnation-states, while the others were paroled to labor in thenation's agricultural and urban factories.

The Japanese problem created out of racism and

political repression resulted in solutions based upon theneed for socially useful labor. This is the history ofpunishment.

The events of the 1960s jarred my sensibilities. It was,and continues to remain, a slow process to re-learn what I

knew about punishment, to integrate the literature of the1960s and 1970s on racial and political repression into a

theory of punishment (Malcolm X, 1964; Cleaver, 1968;Jackson, 1970; Melville, 1971; Davis, 1971; etc.), and torefute the predominant themes in punishment

? deter?rence, reformation, the protection of society or of theindividual ? as nothing but rhetorical justifications forsocial revenge.

At this time I believe theonly

honest,straightforward,and logical interpretation of punishment is social revenge

on the one hand, and the stages of capitalism and the needfor socially useful labor on the other. The latter considera?tion came to be adopted much later in history as the poor

were increasingly controlled by the criminal laws. Theancients, however, were primarily concerned with the resto?ration of equity, and the idea of punishment was to forcethe convicted to share as much as possible, the loss andsuffering of the victim. But beginning around the 16thcentury, the convicted were sold to private entrepreneurs,to fight mercantile wars, to man the galleys, or transportedto develop colonial territories, while the rich and privileged

were permitted to pay fines or to do penance.

The reform Walnut Street Prison, the first prison in theworld, was constructed inPhiladelphia in 1790. Contrary tothose who argue that the construction was influenced bythe ideology of 18th century rationalism and reform (Roth

man, 1971:58-61), it confined mainly debtors and pettyproperty offenders. The post-Revolutionary War periodproduced a serious economic depression and social unrestamong the poor.

Those people refusing to accept the paper (money)were subject to heavy fines and the loss of their rightsas freemen; as a result shops were closed, farmers

* Paul Takagi is an Associate Professor at the School of Criminol?ogy, University of California, Berkeley.

82 Fall-Winter 1974


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/9

refused to bring their produce to the cities, anddebtors fled from their creditors . . . the paper moneyparty broke out in open violence in what is known as

Shay's Rebellion, which necessitated the raising of an

army of 4,000 to suppress it.This paper money agitation, which found its

strongest support among the poorer classes, particu?larly the debtor farmers, was but a reflection of the

general restlessness, the desire for freedom and equal?ity, and the opposition to all political and socialrestraints that accompanied the Revolutionary move?

ment. However, it threatened to undermine some ofthe most fundamental institutions on which the

existing economic order was based (Wright,1941:236).

The first prison was constructed to punish the dissidents,and indeed, the ideas of William Penn were highly influ?ential. However they had nothing to do with humanitarianideals. His Great Law of 1682 provided that all land andgoods of the convicted should be liable (escheated) tomakesatisfaction to the parties wronged to the limit twice itsvalue; and for the poor, the convicted should be required towork in prison until the injured party is satisfied. Penn'sideas were much closer to the concepts of social revengeand useful labor than they were to Beccaria's moral calcu?lus.

A system of behavior modification was introduced in theWalnut Street Prison, the system of secondary reinforce?ment (token economy) so widely used in today's prisons,except that inWalnut Street Prison it was not token. Eachprisoner was given fair pay for his/her labor. Hie prisonerwas debited for the cost of maintenance, and an additionalsum was deducted for the prisoner's share of tools. Theprisoner was also required to pay the costs of the trial, aswell as a fine to the State. If there was a balance against theprisoner at the time of expiration of sentence, the personwas retained until itwas liquidated.

Until 1890 or so, the operation of prisons was a highlyprofitable venture for the State and for private entre?preneurs who purchased or leased convict labor. Evenyoung boys from the New York House of Refuge wereindentured as cabin boys to America's expanding fleet ofclipper ships to challenge Great Britain's worldwide mer?cantilism. Young girls, however, were indentured into whatwas then called housewifery. The period of indenturewas indefinite.

The prison population in the United States remainedrelatively stable during the first half of the 19th century.The years following 1850 and the first two decades of the20th century represent the second wave of prison construc?tions. The burgeoning prison population along with tworelated developments, racism and the labor movement, ledto reforms, namely, the adoption of probation, parole, andthe indeterminate sentence law, to alleviate the pressures ofa growing penal population.

Prison Population, United States and Territories1850- 1890

Census Years

Ratio to TotalPrison Populations U.S. Population

1850186018701880

1890

6,737 1 : 3,44219,086 1 : 1,647

32,901 1 : 1,17158,609 1 : 855

82,329 1 : 757Source: Miller (1974). Also Lombroso and Ferrero (1895:vi).

The penal reforms at this time can only be understoodwithin the context of a number of interrelated issues.Onlyrecently have criminologists begun to study the origins anddevelopments of these reforms, and a great deal moreresearch needs to be done. Let me cite a passage from onehistorical work to set the state for my discussion of two ofthese issues ? racism and the labor movement.

The United States (1843-1860) developed into a greatindustrial power, but it paid a high price for this

privilege. As efficient machines produced more andmore industrial and agricultural goods, consumptioncould not maintain the pace. The resulting deflationneeded only the impetus derived from a few failuresof large banks or Wall Street firms to push theeconomy into a full scale depression. In the 25 yearsafter 1873, half were years of depression ... As each

panic struck, Americans became convinced that thenew one was worse than the last (LaFeber, 1963:8).

By 1854 the gold fields of California had panned out, thestate had not yet established a stable agricultural economy,and California along with the rest of the nation was in thethroes of an economic depression. One area of the nation'seconomy was not affected ? the shipping industry. TheAmerican clipper ship linked California with Kwantung tocover the distance in 30 days, eclipsing the old sailing vesseltime by almost one-half. The tonnage of the clippers wasalmost 2,000 compared to a ship of 450 tons, and on asingle voyage, 500 Chinese immigrants represented theequivalent of $37,000 in passage fees (Barth, 1964).

Several contributing factors, some independent of oneanother, resulted in over 16,000 Chinese arrivals to Cali?fornia in 1854, an increase of four-fold over the previousyears and two to eight times more for each year thereafterfor the next 20 years (Coolidge, 1909; Sandemeyer, 1939).The China of this period was in shambles brought about bythe

aggressivecolonial

policiesof the British East India

Trading Company which promoted the Opium Wars thatcompletely destroyed the economy of China. The ensuingTaiping Rebellion and the natural disasters seriously dis?located the people of China. Thus, ahighly disciplined andtechnically competent labor pool became available whensuddenly there was a tremendous need for labor in the

western United States.Since the average Chinese laborer did not have the

resources to pay his way across the Pacific, he signed acontract with a representative of the shipping company, or

Crime and Social Justice 83




4/9

with an intermediary, to work for a period of three to tenyears under indentured servitude. Similar to the auctioningof slaves in the South, commission merchants in SanFrancisco advertised the services of Chinese for specifiedperiod of years. The anti-Chinese movement began almostimmediately.

Organized labor led the movement against the Chinese.Labor's indictment of the Chinese originally began as anindictment of the contract labor system, but the inability

or unwillingness of the state legislature and the courts tocontrol the abuses of the system, and the continuedsupport of the Chinese by the capitalists in railroad, mining,and land reclamation projects, resulted in a generalizedindictment of the Chinese.

It had been supposed that the completion of the CentralPacific Railroad (1869) would bring forth an era of pros?perity; but it was, on the contrary, the occasion ofwidespread unemployment. Land did not continue to risein value, the change from steamship to railroad transporta?tion caused more workers to be unemployed, freight ratesremained inordinately high, and thousands of white andChinese workers were discharged upon the California labormarket. The white working classes centered their ill feelingsupon railroads, corporations and the Chinese.

Except for individual capitalists who defended theChinese so long as they found Chinese labor useful, and theoccasional editorialists, notably Mark Twain, who con?demned the outrages committed against the Chinese, Cali?fornia from its earliest days had been anti-Negro, antiChinese, anti-corporation, and pro-white workers. In every

political campaign, it was a contest between the politicalparties as to which could take the furthermost anti-Chineseposition. The anti-Chinese agitators included organizedlabor, politicians, and officials of municipal and stategovernments. After the completion of the railroad, antiChinese agitators included members of Congress. In 1882,the first of the Chinese exclusion acts was enacted withprovisions to severely restrict the shipping companies'

84 Fall-Winter 1974

importation of contract laborers; eventually, contract labor

was prohibited by statute.The abolition of contract labor threatened the highly

profitable convict lease and contract labor systems. Al?though the states continued to use convict labor under the

piece-price, state account, and state-use systems, the prisonswere never again able to show a profit. Individual statesenacted their own legislation. In New York, Brockway, thesuperintendent of the highly acclaimed Elmira Reforma?

tory,was

outwardly belligerent towardthe New York

legislative Prison Labor Reform Commission charged withthe investigation of, among other things, a method otherthan the system of contract prison labor (Brockway,1912:286-290). Brockway and other prison officials fearedthe adverse influence of idleness or aimless occupation as

frankly disastrous and calamitous. The widely heldbelief among prison officials that idleness, overpopulation,and mindless prison labor, which characterized the late19th century prisons, would result in prisoner rebellions,

undoubtedly contributed to the adoption of probation andparole as inexpensive methods of controlling the convicted.Some years later, in defense of the indeterminate sentencelaw and parole, which apparently were under sharp attack

and criticism, Illinois commissioned an impartial survey toinquire: Should the indeterminate sentence and parole beabandoned or continued? The commission reported,among other findings, the following:

The critics of parole would substitute longer sen?

tences for the parole system. There might be un?

expected difficulty in securing this result, since it was

found that the sentence actually served is longerunder the parole system. But if the average timeserved were increased one year, this would require theimmediate construction of new penitentiaries and

reformatories, and an addition to the present expen?diture for maintenance of approximately $1,000,000to $1,500,000. Which is more desirable, the additionof an average of one year to the time served even ifthat could be obtained, or careful supervision for five

years after release . . .? (Bruce, et al., 1968:254).

Back in California, the effects of the anti-Chinese agita?tions were reflected in the racial composition of the

California prison population. In 1854 when the Chinesearrived in great numbers, the percentage of Chinese pris?oners at San Quentin was 2.6. It fluctuated around 6percent for the next ten years, a period during which theChinese were forbidden to testify gainst awhite person. Ineffect, a Chinese person could not defend himself against awhite accuser. It was not until the enactment of the CivilRights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment that theChinese were permitted to give evidence against a whiteperson. By then, the Chinese penal population had in?creased to 12 percent in a total population in which 8.7percent were Chinese. The Chinese were literally discardedas the social usefulness of their labor diminished followingthe construction of the railway; the percentage of Chinesein the state's prisons increased even further and hoveredaround 19 percent from 1879 to 1883. It slowly declined inthe next 17 years to 4.1 percent in 1900 (Berecochea,1974).




5/9

The experiences of the Chinese in the 19th century areinstructive on the relations between racism, labor useful?ness, and punishment. What happened to the Chinese thenis precisely what ishappening to people of color today. Thepowerful and passionate writings of James Boggs (1970)captures this as he characterizes the labor of black peopletoday as rendered socially useless by cybernation and theexport of jobs by multinational companies. JamesO'Connor (1973) also notes this, pointing to the existenceof a

surplus populationor

technological unemployment.Both writers observe that the role of the State is to preventminority and radical movements from collaborating andstrengthening by criminalizing this population; the State,short of that, co-opts the movement through poverty pro?grams, or neutralizes it through promises of legal redress,for example, Brown vs. Board of Education, affirmativeaction, and so on. But let me return to my discussion ofchanges at the turn of the 20th century.

While parole and probation were rapidly adopted by thestates, there was considerable hesitation in the acceptanceof the indeterminate sentence by the states; those that did,incorporated it some several years later. Parole was adoptedby California in 1893-94, and the indeterminate sentence

some 23 years later. This was the pattern inmost of thestates.The indeterminate sentence was to be a system of

punishment to fit the offender rather than the crime, andthis required a method of classification to identify classesof convicts to serve varying sentences. Although the NewYork House of Refuge (about 1825) indentured boys andgirls under indefinite sentences, this procedure was notexactly indeterminate in the sense that a specific offensecarried aminimum and maximum within which an official,other than a judge, arrived at a particular sentence. Thus,when the Congress of Criminal Anthropology convened inParis in August of 1889, no state in the union hadincorporated into law the indeterminate sentence as a

matter of penal policy for adult prisoners. The problems tobe solved were sharply drawn by participants at the Con?gress.

Uniformity of punishment is a manifest ab?

surdity. . . . The old criminal law only recognised two

terms, the offence and the punishment. The new

criminology recognises three terms, the crime, the

criminal, and the method of repression. Criminal law. . .must not be treated as a detached and isolated

science; it must be subordinated to psychology and

anthropology, or it will be powerless to interpret andto determine, in any enlightened legislation, the trueclassification of criminals (cited in Ellis, 1896:310,emphases original).

The turn of the 20th century was a critical period oftransition for theoreticians and practitioners of penal phi?losophy. The debate among the members at this 1889conference was not so much the method of classification,although there were some disagreements, but the need todevelop a method of individual punishment and moreimportantly, credentialed functionary, other than a judge,to classify prisoners, to administer the punishment, and todetermine sentences.

The world of criminologists at this time was aware of

A WORD OF CAUTION TO OUR FRIENDS, THE CIGAR-MAKERS.Tnrough he moke t s easyto ee he pproach f Chinese heap abor*

and impressed with the work of Dr. H. D. Wey, themedicaldirector of Elmira Reformatory. Dr. Wey's treatment con?sisted of special dieting, bathing, massage, gymnastics, andschool work. The treatment led Havelock Ellis to comment:The experiments in the treatment of the criminal which

are being carried on at Elmira are probably of morewide-reaching significance than any at present carried onelsewhere (Ellis, 1896:264). The number of prisonerstreated, however, totalled only eleven, and the absence of a

treatment applicable to greater numbers led Ferri to com?ment:

... we must avoid the two extremes, uniformity of

punishment and the so-called individualisation of

punishment, the latter especially in fashion amongstAmerican prison experts. No doubt it would be adesirable thing to apply a particular treatment to eachconvict . . . but this is not practicable when thenumber of prisoners is very great, and the managingstaff have no adequate notions of criminal biologyand psychology. How can a governor individualise the

penal treatment of four or five hundred prisoners?

(Ferri, 1915:226-27).

The development of individualized punishment whichemerged around 1906 was called the new psychology orthe Boston Group (Witmer, 1946). The group included

William James, G. Stanley Hall, Adolf Meyers, and theirstudents, H. H. Goddard and William Healy. Dr. William

Healy (1915) was by far the most influential as he directedthe first juvenile psychiatric clinic founded in 1909 inChicago. In the meantime, the politically conservative butreform oriented Judge Harvey Baker, the first juvenile court

judge in Boston, aware of Dr. Healy's work in Chicago,strongly urged:





6/9

a clinic for the intensive study of baffling cases whichfail to respond to ordinary probation treatment

would enhance the efficiency of the court more than

any other accessory (Baker, n.d.:79).

Following this, Dr. Healy was recruited to become the firstdirector of Judge Baker's Clinic, founded in Boston in1912. This was the beginning of the Child Guidance ainic

movement.

Theprinciples

of the Clinic were, at once, an explana?tion of crime and delinquency and a justification forindividual punishment, which could be performed upon alarge number of people by employing psychologists andsocial workers. In this way, Dr. Healy and his followersbecame the mandarins in juvenile justice, and it can besafely said that the ideas of William Healy, and later,

August Aichhorn (1935), dominated practices in juvenilecorrections well into the 1960s. The technocratic problemposed by Ferri and others before the turn of the 20thcentury was finally solved. The psychiatric model was notadopted by adult corrections until the 1940s. Although the

majority of the states (22 of 26) enacted indeterminatesentence legislation after 1910, the chief reason may have

been economic, i.e., to ease an overburdened penal popula?tion. The several developments in adult corrections in theearly 20th century ? the Americanization movement(Osbome, 1916), the sterilization programs (Gosney, 1929;

Woodside, 1950), an industrial system of classification inthe Federal system, and the later adoption of the psychi?atric model ? all require closer examination and an inter?pretive order.

The foregoing, however, highlights some of the back?ground on corrections.

II.

I have taught the corrections course on four previousoccasions, changing the format each time, sometimes forreasons beyond my control, but also because of changes

within me which I have already discussed. This summer(1974), I'm teaching the course for the fifth time, limitingthe class size to 50, presenting tightly rganized lectures tolay down the origins and developments of modem correc?tions, limiting the number of guest lecturers, and arrangingfield trips to three penal institutions Atascadero, a prison

hospital for the criminally insane, Karl Holton School forBoys to observe the application of I-Levels and behaviormodification, and the adult women's institution at Frontera. The students in the class are encouraged to engage in

praxis,called

special projectsfor extra

credit,and to

reporton their activities at the end of the quarter.Atascadero and Karl Hal ton are visited because, begin?

ning around the mid-1960s, corrections have been increas?ingly attracted to behavioral psychology as the new systemof punishment. Although this is an area that I have notcompletely worked out, it seems to me that propositionsgenerated from small group research have led tomethodol?ogies and techniques in brainwashing. Sheriffs study ongroup standards, Asch's study on compliance, Harvey'sstudy on evaluation of performances, and Joseph Berger's

86 Fall-Winter 1974

study on expectation structures, combined with B. F.Skinner's work on operant conditioning, are the funda?

mental principles upon which Edgar Schein (1962) andJames McConnell (1970) candidly discuss brainwashing asthe new direction in penal punishment. The descriptions ofroutines in the adjustment centers (Jackson, 1970) bear aremarkable resemblance to Professor Edgar Schein's meth?odologies {Penal Digest International, 1972:4); behavior

modification, reality therapy, and transactional analysis

represent the more sophisticated techniques. Atascaderoand Karl Halton School for Boys provide us with a glimpseof these current trends.

San Quentin and Vacaville are becoming increasinglydifficult to visit. Earlier this year, Iwas invited to address aChicano prisoner group at Vacaville. Before being admittedinside, I was asked by prison officials to give the usualidentification, but in addition, I was asked for my socialsecurity number, driver's license number, membership in allvoluntary and professional organizations, and to sign awaiver to be photographed by prison officials. In themeeting with the prisoners, two guards were always present,we were observed through one-way mirrors, and un?

doubtedly tape-recorded. The women's prison at Frontera

continues to remain relatively open. In our work withwomen prisoners, we visit, send information (statistics,studies, books, etc.), and most important of all, participatein discussions on the politics of punishment.

For some students, visiting a prison turns out to be zoo

watching, but for others, it can be a profound politicalexperience. As Bob Wells, the one time condemned blackprisoner who pulled 46 years, told me recently, the powerof the people got me out of prison. And one of thepersons to organize mass support for Bob Wells was aformer student in the corrections class who made thecontact on one of these field trips.




7/9

REFERENCES

Aichhorn, August1935 Wayward Youth. New York: Viking Press (orig. 1925).

Aschaffenburg, Gustav1913 Crime and Its Repression. Boston: Little, Brown and

Company.

Baker, Harvey Humphreyn.d. Harvey Humphrey Baker, Upbuilder of the Juvenile

Court. Concord: The Rumford Press.

Barnes, Harry E.1969 The Repression of Crime: Montclair: Patterson Smith

(orig. 1926).

1972 The Story of Punishment. Montclair: Patterson Smith(orig. 1930).

Barth, Gunther1964 Bitter Strength. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Berecochea, John1974 Organization of Control Over Convict Offenders. Un?

published paper, School of Criminology, University of

California, Berkeley.

Blau, Peter1963 The Dynamics of Bureaucracy (revised edition). Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Boggs, James1970 Racism and the Class Struggle. New York: Monthly

Review Press.

Brock way, Zebuion R.1969 Fifty Years of Prison Service. Montclair: Patterson Smith

(orig. 1912).

Bruce, Andrew A., et al.1968 The Workings of the Indeterminate Law and the Parole

System in Illinois. Montclair: Patterson Smith (orig.

1928).

Qeaver, Eldridge1968 Soul on Ice. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Clemmer, Donald1940 The Prison Community. Boston: Christopher Press.

Qoward, Richard, et al.1960 Theoretical Studies in Social Organization of the Prison.

New York: Social Science Research Council, PamphletNo. 15.

Coolidge, Mary Roberts1909 Chinese Immigration. New York: Henry Holt.

Cressey, Donald (ed.)1961 The Prison: Studies in Institutional Organization and

Change. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Davis, Angela1971 If They Come in the Morning. New York: Signet.

Ellis, Havelock1897 The Criminal (second edition). New York: Charles

Scribner.

Etzioni, Amitai1961 Complex Organizations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and

Winston.

Ferri, Enrico1915 Criminal Sociology. New York: D. Apple ton.

Goffman, Erving1961 Asylums. New York: Doubleday.

Gosney, Ezra Seymour1929 Sterilization for Human Betterment. New York: Mc?

Millan.

Healy, William1915 Individual Delinquent. Boston: Little, Brown and Com?

pany.

Jackson, George1970 Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson.

New York: Coward-McCann.

LaFeber, Walter1963 The New Empire. Ithaca: Cornell Paperbacks.

Lewis, Orlando1967 The Development of American Prisons and Prison

Customs, 1776-1845. Montclair: Patterson Smith(orig.1922).

Lombroso, Caesar and William Ferrero1895 The Female Offender. New York.

Malcolm X1964 The Autobiography of Malcolm X. New York: Grove

Press.

McConnell, James V.1970 Criminals Can Be Brainwashed - Now. Psychology

Today (April).

McKelvey, Blake1972 American Prisons. Montclair: Patterson Smith (orig.

1936).

Melville, Sam1971 Letters from Attica. New York: William Morrow.

Miller, Martin B.1974 Temporal Strategies and the Indeterminate Sentence

Prisoner. Draft of an unpublished dissertation, School ofCriminology, University of California, Berkeley.

O'Connor, James1973 The Fiscal Crisis of the State. New York: St. Martin's

Press.

Osborne, Thomas Mott1916 Society and Prisons. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Penal Digest International, The

1972 (August).

Rothman, David1971 The Discovery of the Asylum. Boston: Little, Brown and

Company.

Rusche, George and Otto Kirchheimer1968 Punishment and Social Structure. New York: Russell and

Russell (orig. 1939).

Saleilles, Raymond1911 The Individualization of Punishment. Boston: Little,

Brown and Company.





8/9

Sandmeyer, Elmer Clarence1939 The Anti-Chinese Movement in California. Urbana: Uni?

versity of Illinois Press.

Schein, Edgar H.1962 Man Against Man: Brainwashing. Corrective Psychiatry

and Journal of Social Change 8(2).

Sykes, Gresham1958 The Society of Captives. Princeton: Princeton University

Press.

Tarde, Gabriel1912 Penal Philosophy. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Taylor, Ian, Paul Walton and Jock Young1973 The New Criminology. London: RouHedge and Kegan

Paul.

Witmer, Helen1946 Psychiatric Interviews. New York: Commonwealth Fund.

Woodside, Moya1950 Sterilization nNorth Carolina. ChapelH?1:University f

North Carolina Press.

Wrigfit, Chester W.1941 Economic History of the United States. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

COURSE READINGSCollected and Organized by James P. Brady

I. REPRESSIONAND REBELLION- PRISONERSINTHE 1970sRichard X Clark, The Brothers of Attica (pp. 20-122).

New York: Links Books, 1973.Min Sun Yee, Death on the Yard. Ramparts (April

1973).

II. THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND THEORI?GINSOF IMPRISONMENTGeorg Rusche and Otto Kirchheimer, Mercantilism and

the Rise of Imprisonment (pp. 24-52); Changes inthe Form of Punishment (pp. 53-61); The Aboli?tion of Transportation (pp. 114-115); Limits of

Modern Prison Reform (pp. 152-155), in Punish?ment and Social Structure. New York: Russell andRussell, 1968.

Blake McKelvey, Convict Labor and PedagogicalPenology (pp. 93-125), inAmerican Prisons. Mont?clair: Patterson Smith, 1972.

Harry E. Barnes, Prison Origins (pp. 131-137) andProgress of Penology (pp. 213-221), in The Story

of Punishment. Montclair: Patterson Smith, 1972.Orlando Lewis, The Early Developments of Prison

Labor in New York (pp. 130-139), in The Develop?ment of American Prisons and Prison Customs,1776-1845. Montclair: Patterson Smith, 1967.

III. PUNISHMENTNTHE NON-INDUSTRIALAMERI?CANSOUTH:SLAVERYRE-DEFINEDBlake McKelvey, Southern Penal Developments (pp.

172-189), in American Prisons. Montclair: PattersonSmith, 1972.

Mark Carleton, Punishment for Profit: 1835-1880(pp. 6-47) and 'Judicious' State Administration:1901-1920 (pp. 85-101), in Politics and Punish?

ment: History of the Louisiana Prison System (pp.102-107, 118-121), in The North Carolina Chain

Gang. Montclair: Patterson Smith, 1969.

IV. FROMPRODUCTIONTO REHABILITATION:THERISE OF SCIENTIFIC PENOLOGY AND THETREATMENT DEALJ. P. Byers, Correction and Prevention, in Prison

Labor. Volume II. Edited by C. R. Henderson. NewYork: Russell Sage, 1910.

Stagg E. Whitin, Economic Status of Penal Servitude.

National Committee on Prisons, 1912.John P. Frey, Trade Union Attitudes Towards Prison

Labor. Proceedings of National Conference onCharities and Corrections, 1912.

Samuel Gompers, Unions and Prisons. Harper'sWeekly April 1914).

M. N. Goodnow, Turpentine: Impressions of the Con?vict Camps of Florida. Survey (May 1, 1915).

W. D. Saunders, Cleaning Out North Carolina's ConvictCamps. Survey (May 15,1915).

Andrew A. Bruce, et al., The Justification for the

88 Fall-Winter 974




9/9

Indeterminate Sentence and the Parole (pp. 48-55),in The Workings of the Indeterminate Law and the

Parole System in Illinois. Montclair: Patterson Smith,1968.

Anonymous (prisoner), The Indeterminate Sentence.Atlantic Monthly (September 1911).

Moya Woodside, Foreword and Introduction (pp.xiii-xv, 6-13, 26-39, 50-55); Negroes and Steriliza?tion (pp. 82-87); Biennial Reports (statistics) (pp.

26-27, 30-31, 194-195),in

Sterilizationin

NorthCarolina. Chapel Hill: University of North CarolinaPress, 1950.

Paul Popenoe, Success on Parole After Sterilization.Proceedings of the 51st Annual Session of the Ameri?can Association for the Study of the Feebleminded,Cincinnati, Ohio, June 4-6, 1927; Eugenic Steriliza?tion in California. Journal of Social Hygiene(January 1928).

Charles E. Newman, Concepts of Treatment in Proba?tion and Parole Supervision (pp. 279-289), inProba?tion and Parole. Edited by Robert Carter and Leslie

Wilkins. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1970.

V. THE COLLAPSEOF THE REHABILITATIONMYTHAND THE REVOLUTION BEHINDWALLS: SCIEN?TIFIC REPRESSION ANDDEEPENED SOCIALCONTROLAlan Wolfe, Political Repression and the Liberal Demo?

cratic State. Monthly Review (December 1971).Eldridge Cleaver, Domestic Law and International

Order (pp. 128-137), in Soul on Ice. New York:McGraw-Hill, 1968.

Jessica Mitford, The Indeterminate Sentence (pp.79-94) and Clockwork Orange (118-137), inKind

& Usual Punishment. New York: Alfred A. Knopf,1973.

Huey Newton,The Penal

Colony (pp. 247-270),in

Revolutionary Suicide. New York: Harcourt BraceJovanovich, 1973.

Eldridge Cleaver, Affidavit #1: I am 33 Years Old(pp. 3-17), inPost-Prison Writings and Speeches. New

York: Vintage, 1969.

VI. THE IMPRISONMENTNDCONTROLOF WOMENJessica Mitford, Women in Cages (pp. 14-29), inKind

& Usual Punishment. New York: Alfred A. Knopf,1973.

Kitsi Burkhart, Women in Prison. Ramparts (June1971).

VII. POLITICAL PRISONERS: THESOCIAL-POLITICALTHOUGHTOF THE IMPRISONED EBELSJohnny Spain, The Black Family and the Prisons.

Black Scholar (October 1972).George Jackson, Towards the United Front (pp.

156-162), in If They Come in theMorning. Edited byAngela Davis. New York: Signet.

?Major articles concerning Vietnam, the contemporary

family, inflation and the fiscal crisis, the American left

? Re-examinatwns of the work of Lenin, Gramsci, Mao

and others

?Continuing and -wide-ranging discussion of the strategyand direction for building a socialist movement in the

United States today

SOCIALIST REVOLUTIONAGENDA PUBLISHING COMPANY396 SANCHEZ STREETSAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94114

NAME_ .

ADDRESS_

CITY _ STATE/ZIP_

? Subscription (6 issues) $7.00 ? Foreign subscription $8.00

? Special offer. Six issues of Socialist Revolution and a copy ofFor a New America, edited by James Weinstein and David.Eakins. $8.50

? Single issue $1.50 Contribution $_


Thi t t d l d d f 146 155 94 33 T 08 S 2015 19 55 50 UTC

The Correctional System Takagi

Documents

Transcript of The Correctional System Takagi