Isegoria

The American prison experiment has a 250-year history of good intentions and bad results:

Eastern State Penitentiary is one of the places where the American prison experiment began, and where one of its most bizarre iterations was tested on human beings. After it opened in 1829, Eastern State was, as it is now, a tourist attraction. In 1858, more than 10,000 visitors paid entry fees to gawk at the building and the men confined inside it.

The walls are what everyone sees first when they come to Eastern State. The prison, located on a rise in what is now Philadelphia’s Fairmount neighborhood, is skirted by imposing 30-foot-high granite walls, crenelated turrets, and a medieval gatehouse. It was designed to intimidate, and it has always done its job.

When the Marquis de Lafayette, a hero of the American and French revolutions, passed through Philadelphia on an 1824 tour of all 24 U.S. states, city leaders showed him the facade of Eastern State, then still under construction. According to all accounts, Lafayette recoiled at the sight. Thomas B. McElwee wrote in an 1835 history of the prison that the “form of the edifice was disapproved by LaFayette, in the memorable expression which he uttered as he crossed its threshold for the first time, ‘What! Have you Bastilles in this country?’”

Eastern State cost $780,000 to construct, making it one of the most expensive buildings in the country when it opened and one of the most expensive in the world. The paradox of the place was that this fearsome fortress represented the liberal ideals of the young American republic and an investment in building a more humane justice system.

[…]

The modern prison is widely considered an American invention, one born out of a peculiar American mix of Christian theology and Enlightenment confidence. Much as the Founding Fathers sought to constrain the passions of majorities and lawmakers through checks and balances, prison advocates in the early republic wanted to use architecture and discipline to mold convicts into productive citizens while avoiding the sadism and spectacle that typified criminal justice in Europe.

[…]

Unlike in the jails of the 18th century, everything in Eastern State was designed for the purpose of corrections. The prison was built around a central hub, from which cellblocks extended radially like spokes on a wagon wheel. Newly arriving prisoners were brought in wearing hoods, given identification numbers that replaced their names while they were incarcerated, and put in isolation cells where they spent 23 hours a day. Inside each cell were a bed and a worktable, where inmates spent daytime hours at trades such as making shoes.

The thing former Eastern State inmates most often recalled was the profound, tomblike silence. Prisoners were never allowed to talk to each other. The barrel-vaulted ceilings were designed to amplify sound, so from the central hub a guard could hear the faintest whisper or languid sigh. To maintain the atmosphere, guards padded through the cellblocks in wool socks.

The only human contact the incarcerated people of Eastern State Penitentiary were allowed was a weekly meeting, through a grated door, with local ministers. The ministers acted as “moral instructors” and kept notes on the prisoners’ prospects for rehabilitation.

The philosophical cornerstone of Eastern State was laid in 1787 at Benjamin Franklin’s house, when the humanitarian Benjamin Rush first proposed building a “house of repentance” for convicts. Rush wrote that inmates should be subjected to strict routines of “BODILY PAIN, LABOR, WATCHFULNESS, SOLITUDE, and SILENCE,” joined with “CLEANLINESS and a SIMPLE DIET.”

[…]

Since the American Revolution, the nascent states had been working to reform their jails—usually nothing more than a filthy common room that held men, women, and minors together—and rewrite their laws to sever themselves from England’s despised criminal code, which by the end of the 18th century included more than 200 capital offenses. The reform movement was propelled by anti-royal sentiments, by the spread of Howard’s theories among the elite, and by theological objections to capital and corporal punishment—particularly in Pennsylvania, with its high number of Quakers. “As the sect with the strictest definition of what was due Caesar, [Quakers] were in perennial conflict with Caesar’s laws,” Ignatieff writes. “Hence of all sects they asked the most searching questions about the right of the state to coerce citizens.”

The problem with getting rid of the whipping post and stocks was figuring out their replacement. In 1786, Pennsylvania briefly tried sentencing criminal offenders to public labor repairing roads and digging ditches, but it discovered that leaving gangs of convicts to wander freely through the streets was a poor idea. The laborers, who became derisively known as “wheelbarrowmen,” wore degrading uniforms and were mocked by onlookers. There were also escapes, violence, and, in one incident, an attempt to rob Alexander Hamilton’s carriage as it returned from the Constitutional Convention. Public opinion quickly turned against what one Philadelphia Evening Post columnist called the “lawless and wandering banditti of wheelbarrowmen.”

Rush argued convincingly that public punishment degraded both the convict and the society that witnessed it. In 1790, Philadelphia’s Walnut Street Jail opened a wing of 16 isolation cells based on Rush’s ideas. It was initially touted as a success and copied in many other U.S. cities, but within several years these “proto-prisons,” as Rubin calls them, fell prey to the same overcrowding, riots, and arsons that they had supposedly cured. By 1810, the newfangled “penitentiary house” that had made Philadelphia a worldwide leader in criminal justice reform was widely seen as a failure, too small and poorly designed for its requirements. State authorities had to call up militias to quell prison riots and mass breakouts in New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia.

“American states’ first sustained experiments with long-term confinement as punishment for convicted offenders, drawing on Pennsylvania’s example, had failed—visibly and spectacularly,” Rubin writes.

In response to the failure of the proto-prisons and a rising fear of social disorder, there were proposals to abolish the penitentiary mode of punishment and return to hard labor, corporal punishment, and even banishment. In his 1818 address to the New York Legislature, Gov. DeWitt Clinton called incarceration a “failure” that enrolled criminals in a “school of turpitude.” Several states reauthorized capital punishments they had stricken from their books.

But reformers convinced state legislatures that what was needed were networks of larger penitentiaries located outside of major cities. This launched the first wave of American prison building.

If you plot gun-ownership vs. gun deaths, they correlate, Emil Kirkegaard notes, but that includes suicides. If you plot gun-ownership vs. homicides, they don’t. The real question is, Does gun ownership predict homicides taking race into account?

But then again, we know that homicide rate is mostly related to which % of the state is Black. The leftists are trapped. To show that gun ownership causes homicides — how could they not? it’s an effective and easy to use method — they need to control for the confounders. But that would mean doing regressions and seeing that Black% is the main variable, a big no-no.

[…]

Overall, though, it does seem like more guns means more homicides in general, net of demographics, and our county-level analyses back this up, just not entirely convincingly so.

In June, 1975, New York City’s police and corrections officers handed out pamphlets titled Welcome to Fear City: A Survival Guide for Visitors to the City of New York:

The Incidence of crime and violence in New York City is shockingly high, and is getting worse everyday. During the four month period ended Apr. 30, 1975, robberies were up 21%; aggravated assault was up 15%; larceny was up 22%; and burglary was up 19%.

Now, to “solve” his budget problems, Mayor Beame is going to discharge substantial numbers of firefighters and law enforcement officers of all kinds. By the time you read this, the number of public safety personnel available to protect residents and visitors may already have been still further reduced. Under those circumstances, the best advice we can give you is this: Until things change, stay away from New York City if you possibly can.

Nevertheless, some New Yorkers do manage to survive and even to keep their property intact. The following guidelines have been prepared by a council of firefighters and law officers to hetpyou enjoy your visit to the City ofNew York in comfort and safety.

Good luck

1 . Stay off the streets after 6 P.M. Even in midtown Manhattan, muggings and occasional murders are on the increase during the early evening hours. Do not be misled by the late sunsets during the summer season. If you walk in midtown at about 7;30 P.M., you will observe that the streets are nearly deserted.

2, Do not walk. If you must leave your hotel after 6 P.M., try not to go out alone. Summon a radio taxi by telephone, or ask the hotel doorman to call a taxi while you remain in the hotel lobby. Follow the same procedure when leaving the restaurant, theatre, or other location of your evening activity.

3. Avoid public transportation. Subway crime is so high that the City recently had to close, off the rear half of each train in the evening so that the passengers could huddle together and be better protected. It has been proved that increasing the number of Transit police officers will cause a reduction in subway crime, but the announced decreases in Transit patrol will have the opposite effect. Accordingly, you should never ride the subway for any reason whatsoever. In midtown Manhattan, you may, at only slight risk, ride the buses during daylight hours only,

4. Remain in Manhattan. Police and fire protection in other areas of the city is grossly inadequate and will become more inadequate. In the South Bronx, which is known to police officers as “Fort Apache,” arson has become an uncontrollable problem, if you remain in midtown areas and restrict your travel to daylight hours, emergency service personnel are best ableto provide adequate supervision and protection.

5. Protect your property. Theft has become so great a problem that the City, is urging everyone to engrave identifying numbers on all property, and the Police Department has purchased special engraving pens which are made available to the public. If you walk on Madison Avenue or in other major midtown locations during business hours, you will observe that many merchants keep their doors locked and will admitcustomers only after careful inspection. After hours, they protect their premises with special heavy safety gates. Accordingly, you should observe the following precautions.

6. Safeguard your handbag, if you carry a handbag or similar personal luggage, try to hold It firmly with both hands whenever you are in public. Never let it out of your hands; above all, never let It out of your sight Places that seem most secure, such as restaurants or cocktail lounges, are often the most dangerous. Even a moment’s inattention can result in a serious loss.

/. Conceal property in automobiles. If a package is visible on the seat or floor of your automobile, even though the vehicle is locked, there is an excellent chance that your property will be gone when you retprn, Accordingly, all property should be locked In the trunk or the glove compartment. Do not park your car and then transfer property into the trunk; you will probably be observed. All property should be secured before you arrive at your parking place. Remember also to keep all doors locked and all windows closed when you are In the vehicle. Remember too that auto thefts have Increased this year.

8. Do not leave valuables in your hotel room, and do not deposit them in the hotel vault. Hotel robberies have become virtually uncontrollable, and there have been some spectacular recent cases in which thieves have broken into hotel vaults. At present, bank vaults appear to be the only depositories that offer an acceptable degree of security for personal property.

9. Be aware of fire hazards. The Fire Department is severely undermanned at present and further reductions are in prospect. Accordingly,
you may have to evacuate quarters without assistance if fire should occur from either natural or malicious causes. Try to avoid buildings that are not completely fireproof and familiarize yourself with exits and escape routes wherever you are. In hotels, try to obtain a room that is close by the fire stairs.

These guidelines have been prepared and distributed as a public service by the Council for Public Safety, Room 576, 299 Broadway, New York. NY 10007.

Freddie DeBoer sees us entering a new period of spectacular acts of public violence:

After decades of unusually low levels of such violence, we may now be returning to conditions similar to those of previous eras where such acts become distressingly common — notably, the turn of the 20th century, with the wave of anarchist assassinations from 1881 to 1914, the Haymarket Affair, and the Galleanist bombings, as well as the “Days of Rage” of the 1970s, including the Weather Underground, the Symbionese Liberation Army, and FALN (the Puerto Rican separatist movement).

[…]

Mass shootings and similar events are now so normalized that it can be difficult to sort out whether we’ve slipped into such an era, but my fear is that recent violence will spread and grow, that in fact each act will serve as an accelerant for the next, as the cascading violence will help the people who commit this violence see their work as part of some broader movement that gives them the meaning they seek.

This is, in fact, my overarching argument: that where we are trained to see public violence as the outcome of ideology — those anarchist assassinations, 9/11, Oklahoma City, Anders Breivik, Yukio Mishima — in the 21st century, a certain potent strain of political violence is not the product of ideology but rather an attempt to will ideology into being through violence itself. To create meaning in a culture steeped in digital meaninglessness by the most destructive means available. The 21st century school shooter (for example) does not murder children in an effort to pursue some teleological purpose; the 21st century school shooter exists in a state of deep purposelessness and, at some level and to some degree, seeks to will meaning into being through their actions. This is part of why so many of them engage in acts of abstruse symbolism and wrap their politically-incoherent violence in layers of iconography; they are engaged in cargo cult meaning-making, the pursuit of a pseudo-religion. The tail wags the dog; acts we have grown to see as expressions of meaning are in fact childish attempts to will meaning into being through violence.

In 2019, more than 1,000 Democratic Socialists of America gathered in Atlanta for their national convention, where they endorsed decarceration:

The background to the resolution clearly outlines the underlying ideology: “DSA will promote a socialist vision of prison abolition that protects people from corporate exploitation as well as dismantling racist incarceration and ending prosecutions of the working class.” The DSA’s official platform further asserts that “incarceration, detention and policing are active instruments of class war which guarantee the domination of the working class and reproduce racial inequalities.”

Following the national organization’s lead, New York City DSA issued its Agenda for Decarceration in January 2020. The program consisted of nine existing legislative proposals and seven new ones aimed at reducing Gotham’s incarcerated population. Among these were the elimination of cash bail; decriminalization of drug possession and prostitution; creation of supervised injection sites; abolishing mandatory minimums; reducing maximum sentences with retroactive effects; and restrictions on the use of solitary confinement. The agenda also included a “no new jails” pledge, which prohibited supporting more jail construction.

[…]

Many of the decarceration agenda’s proposals—bail reforms, restrictions on solitary confinement, decriminalization of drug possession—have been tried, in New York or elsewhere.

In 2019, New York eliminated bail for most misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies. Over the next two years, the city’s pretrial prison population fell by over 40 percent. At the same time, major crimes rose 36.6 percent. New York remains the only state that forbids judges from considering a suspect’s potential danger to the community when setting bail.

In 2015, New York City moved to end the use of solitary confinement for prisoners under 21. In 2021, New York State passed the HALT Act, which limits solitary confinement to 15 days for all prisoners and bans it altogether for younger and older inmates. As City Journal’s Charles Fain Lehman argued, these restrictions have contributed to greatly increased prison violence and eliminated one of the main tools corrections officers use to maintain order.

Oregon tried decriminalization of drug possession in 2021. Subsequently, narcotic-related deaths and open-air drug markets proliferated in its largest city, Portland, which was described as a “war zone.”

Other proposals from the Agenda for Decarceration might be implemented soon. Take Intro 798, a city council bill to abolish the NYPD’s Criminal Group Database, which centralizes information on alleged gang members, reported incidents, and gang dynamics. Though this item is off the legislative agenda for now, Mamdani recently expressed support for abolishing the database, echoing Councilwoman Althea Stevens’s reproach that most of the individuals on the list are minorities. NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Legal Matters Michael Gerber responded to Stevens by observing that the perpetrators of violence were also disproportionately minority.

Finally, Mamdani and other elected DSA officials who signed the agenda stand by their intention to close the city’s Rikers Island jail facility by the legally mandated 2027 deadline. The mayoral front-runner has argued that faster timelines for court hearings, as well as additional bail reforms, could help shrink the city’s jail population. Brad Lander, who serves as the city’s comptroller and has backed Mamdani in the race, praised a 2024 move on the part of Chief Administrative Judge Zayas that aimed to do the same.

Expediting cases and attempting to address the underlying factors of crime are desirable moves in their own right. But, as Lehman noted in a report for the Manhattan Institute, “under almost no conceivable scenario can the city expect to safely and sustainably reduce daily jail population to 3,300”—the borough-based jails’ expected capacity by 2027.

Inquisitive Bird reminds us that our prisons aren’t filled with harmless pot smokers:

With 541 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants, the American prisoner rate ranks 5th in the world, only beaten by a handful of less developed countries. Owing to its large population size and high prisoner rate, the U.S. has more prisoners than any other country.

[…]

A clear majority of prisoners have committed violent crime (62.5%). Nearly five times as many prisoners are in for murder compared to drug possession (15.0% vs 3.2%).

Even non-violent offenses tend to be serious. Burglary comprises over half of the property offenses. Drug possession only accounts for a small fraction of drug crimes and just 3.2% of all inmates—and even this figure should be interpreted in the light of possible plea bargains.

[…]

The median number of prior arrests was nine. More than three quarters have at least 5 prior arrests. Having 30+ prior arrests was more common than having no arrest other than the arrest that led to the prison sentence (i.e., 1 prior arrest).

[…]

One study of 411 males found that the self-reported number of offenses was over 30 times greater than convictions (Farrington et al., 2014). For sexual offending, studies have estimated the dark figure to be anywhere from 6.5 to 20 times the official figure (Drury et al., 2020). In a recent study of American delinquent youths, the self-reported number of delinquent offenses was 25 for every police contact (Minkler et al., 2022).

[…]

Compared with other highly developed nations, the United States has a much higher rate of serious crime (e.g., homicide). The high prisoner rate is a direct result of that. If we benchmark the prisoner numbers on a per-homicide basis, rather than a usual per-capita basis, the U.S. has a typical number of prisoners and an exceptionally low number of police.

Ever since Portugal enacted drug decriminalization in 2001, reformers have argued that North America should follow suit, but when Oregon and British Columbia decriminalized drugs in the early 2020s, the results were so catastrophic that both jurisdictions quickly reversed course:

Contrary to popular belief, Portugal does not allow consequence-free drug use. While the country treats the possession of illicit drugs for personal use as an administrative offense, it nonetheless summons apprehended drug users to “dissuasion” commissions composed of doctors, social workers, and lawyers. These commissions assess a drug user’s health, consumption habits, and socioeconomic circumstances before using arbitrator-like powers to impose appropriate sanctions.

These sanctions depend on the nature of the offense. In less severe cases, users receive warnings, small fines, or compulsory drug education. Severe or repeat offenders, however, can be banned from visiting certain places or people, or even have their property confiscated. Offenders who fail to comply are subject to wage garnishment.

Throughout the process, users are strongly encouraged to seek voluntary drug treatment, with most penalties waived if they accept. In the first few years after decriminalization, Portugal made significant investments into its national addiction and mental-health infrastructure (e.g., methadone clinics) to ensure that it had sufficient capacity to absorb these patients.

This form of decriminalization is far less radical than its North American proponents assume. In effect, Portugal created an alternative justice system that coercively diverts addicts into rehab instead of jail. That users are not criminally charged does not mean they are not held accountable. Further, the country still criminalizes the public consumption and trafficking of illicit drugs.

[…]

In late 2020, Oregon embarked on its own drug decriminalization experiment, known as Measure 110. Though proponents cited Portugal’s success, unlike the European nation, Oregon failed to establish any substantive coercive mechanisms to divert addicts into treatment. The state merely gave drug users a choice between paying a $100 ticket or calling a health hotline. Because the state imposed no penalty for failing to follow through with either option, drug possession effectively became a consequence-free behavior. Police data from 2022, for example, found that 81 percent of ticketed individuals simply ignored their fines.

Additionally, the state failed to invest in treatment capacity and actually defunded existing drug-use-prevention programs to finance Measure 110’s unused support systems, such as the health hotline.

The results were disastrous. Overdose deaths spiked almost 50 percent between 2021 and 2023. Crime and public drug use became so rampant in Portland that state leaders declared a 90-day fentanyl emergency in early 2024. Facing withering public backlash, Oregon ended its decriminalization experiment in the spring of 2024 after almost four years of failure.