This research explores broad changes in state politics related to the re-emergence of imprisonment as a major social policy since the 1970s and how these changes affected the possibilities of penal reform. Specifically, it focuses on how the increased use of imprisonment transformed the management and internal order of prisons and how this related to other areas of state governance in two jurisdictions, New South Wales and Pennsylvania. Several questions will guide this research: How did the visibility of prisons and their role in state politics change during this period and what effect this did this have on prison operations? How were prison regimes reorganized after the decline of rehabilitation and what were the penal philosophies informing such changes? How did actors select and adapt correctional practices from other jurisdictions and what were the effects of this borrowing? How did the changes inside prisons parallel reforms in state government and other areas of social policy?
The theory motivating this research treats prisons as an integral part of state politics rather than as isolated institutions, and it also explores the movement of penal practices across jurisdictional borders. By the 1970s, prison issues attracted more public attention than they had for decades, becoming a centerpiece of contention between political parties that were gradually converging on many other issues. This was particularly evident during public inquiries into scandals and corruption involving prisons, which often discredited practices and officials. Inquiries also created openings for major reforms, penal experimentation, and transferring practices from other jurisdictions. Despite large differences between Pennsylvania and New South Wales, each state experienced volatile penal politics and adopted some similar practices. This research will explore whether the greater visibility of prison issues helped institute many reforms, particularly those borrowed from other jurisdictions. The primary method for this project will be archival research supplemented with interviews.
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE This research explores the re-emergence of imprisonment as a major social policy in Pennsylvania since the late 1960s by focusing on the transformation of prison regimes and internal order and how this related to broader political changes in state governance and politics. It forms part of a broader project, which analyzes similar changes in the Australian state of New South Wales and aims to reframe discussions about recent penal changes in several ways. First, it highlights the role of state, i.e. a sub-national jurisdiction, politics in transformations of prison regimes and internal practices. Most current work on prisons generalizes at a national level, deals more with the societal causes of the growth of inmate populations, or views prisons as self-contained arenas. Second, by emphasizing contingency in penal transformation, the research explores various moments and directions of penal change that competed for attention, support and legitimacy during this period. There were many alternatives proposed and pursued in the early years of the time period under consideration, but this activity narrowed by the late 1970s and early 1980s. This approach to the evidence underscores the complexity and unresolved nature of penal issues at the time rather than simply viewing it as a prelude to the massive prison expansion, which came later. Third, this project highlights the role of increased visibility and publicity in prison issues at this time, which departed significantly from previous decades. This publicity was especially evident in a number of prison scandals and even more public inquiries. Fourth, this research foregrounds the increased production of penal knowledge at this time and its consequences. The inquires, media coverage, activities of prisoner activists and writers and the large research capacity of post-war penology generated enormous amounts of penal knowledge by the 1970s, which further enhanced the visibility of such matters. Finally, this project considers how increased visibility and knowledge formed large, intersecting networks and publics of penal reform, which spanned many different actors and agencies within Pennsylvania and also connected them to similar actors in other jurisdictions, both nationally and internationally. These networks and specific events like public inquires created new vectors for the transmission of penal knowledge and practices across jurisdictional borders, which accelerated during the latter half of the twentieth century. Thus, this research assesses the recent history of penal change in Pennsylvania, its local dynamics and parameters, as well as how such changes influenced and were influenced by broader aspects of penal change in the country and other parts of the world. This research contributes to contemporary debates about penal policy as many states in the U.S. and abroad reconsider practices from the last thirty years, which led to unsustainable levels of incarceration and poor prospects for inmate reform. The anticipated final product of this research will be a historical narrative about such practices, emphasizing especially the unfortunate consequences of how penal policy and practice developed and the alternative paths that might have been taken, and it will suggest some possible future directions. One of the main findings of the research is that scandal-driven penal policy formation tended to both increase the range of proposed reforms and the number of participants in such deliberations, while at the same time diminishing the ultimate number of possible policy options considered by political and correctional leaders. This somewhat paradoxical situation was one of the consequences of the declining authority of correctional officials and the therapeutic discourse and practices they advocated in the post-war decades. In the wake of increasing crime rates, growing fear of crime and unrest in prisons, criticism of these experts, their agendas and official penal bureaucracies emanated from across the political spectrum. Political and correctional leaders abandoned therapeutic programs because they became hard to justify and lost credibility. It became more prudent to contain unrest in the prisons, reestablish order through custodial solutions and avoid discrediting scandals. This narrowed the political space for experimentation, innovation and alternative practices, but ironically facilitated the circulation, adoption and adaption of practices and knowledge designed to meet the challenges of this moment, whether they were lines of critique, inquiry reports, or new inmate classification. Solutions from afar held a degree of legitimacy for actors in jurisdictions like Pennsylvania and New South Wales because they lacked the immediate taint of local problems even as they had the experience and knowledge of overcoming similar difficulties elsewhere. This research established numerous connections between academic communities in the United States and Australia in fields such as history, law, criminology, sociology, and anthropology. This cultural and intellectual exchange permitted a comparative assessment of practices while also enabling future collaborations on these issues with academics researchers, government administrators and public policy advocates as well as people not usually involved in these circles, such as guards, inmates, and prisoner advocates.
