Broken Beyond Repair: Rehabilitative Penology and American Political Development
| Published date | 01 June 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1065912917695189 |
| Date | 01 June 2017 |
| Author | Anthony Grasso |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2017
Article
Political Research Quarterly
2017, Vol. 70(2) 394 –407
Broken Beyond Repair: Rehabilitative
© 2017 University of Utah
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Penology and American Political
https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917695189
DOI: 10.1177/1065912917695189
journals.sagepub.com/home/prq
Development
Anthony Grasso1
Abstract
Research on American criminal justice often concludes that the U.S. penal system was largely guided by the “rehabilitative
ideal,” the philosophy that punishment should reform inmates and equip them to lead law-abiding lives, through the
twentieth century preceding the rise of mass incarceration. This article complicates this narrative by evaluating the
intellectual origins of the rehabilitative ideal and demonstrating that it was built on theoretical premises justifying
punitive politics from its inception. The ideal has always relied on distinguishing curable offenders from incorrigible
ones who cannot be reformed and warrant harsher punishment. This has guided American state development in
punitive directions throughout the twentieth century. Progressive era indeterminate sentencing reforms were geared
toward both containing and reforming offenders, the eugenics movement of the early twentieth century relied on
the idea of criminal incorrigibility to advocate for compulsory sterilization statutes, and anxieties about incorrigibility
justified punitive features of the draconian federal sentencing reforms of the 1970s and 1980s. This history indicates
that a full revival of the rehabilitative ideal is unlikely to check contemporary punitive political impulses, especially
given that two political and ideational currents currently driving American penal policy—neoliberalism and bio-
criminology—comport with the punitive facets of rehabilitative penology.
Keywords
rehabilitation, punishment, race, eugenics, criminology, prison reform
Introduction
South and Southwest where abusive and racially biased
punishments persisted throughout the twentieth century
After decades of growth in incarceration, criminal justice
(Lynch 2010; Muhammad 2010; Oshinsky 1996;
reform has recently emerged as a major issue in American
Perkinson 2010). Even prior to the prison boom, many
politics. Many proposals to reverse the prison boom are
states meted out harsh justice in lieu of or along with
premised on reorienting the penal system toward rehabili-
penal welfarist measures (Goodman, Page, and Phelps
tating offenders through early release incentives and edu-
2015; Pisciotta 1994).
cational, substance abuse, and other prison-based
A deeper historical look at the rehabilitative ideal’s
programs (Norquist 2011; Shavin 2015; Thielo et al.
ideological and institutional origins in the Progressive era
2016). Contemporary reformers seek to reclaim the “reha-
further complicates this picture. Rehabilitative penology
bilitative ideal” that reportedly undergirded American
was designed to help occupants of penal institutions
penality for much of the twentieth century until the 1970s,
adjust to society through educational and vocational
when it was abandoned and incarceration rates soared.
training, good behavior incentives, and other prison-
The ideal rested on the belief that the penal system should
based programming. The central aim was to reduce recid-
not simply punish people who violated the law but equip
ivism by facilitating personal improvement. But this
them to lead productive and law-abiding lives upon release
rehabilitative model incorporated elements of harsh
(Allen 1981).
Leading scholars of mass incarceration contend that
1University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA
the repudiation of rehabilitation in the 1970s was a driver
of the punitive policies that have increased incarceration
Corresponding Author:
rates (Garland 2001; Tonry 2016). But research on the
Anthony Grasso, Department of Political Science, University of
Pennsylvania, 208 S. 37th Street, Room 246, Philadelphia, PA 19104,
punitive turn indicates that the rehabilitative ideal was
USA.
always more of an ideal than a reality, especially in the
Email: agrasso@sas.upenn.edu
Grasso
395
justice from its inception, as Progressive era penological
were first incorporated into rehabilitative penology and
scholars and practitioners imbued rehabilitation with a
why calls for rehabilitation have historically been compat-
dual purpose. Offenders were given rehabilitative oppor-
ible with practices of harsh justice. Given the rehabilita-
tunities, but those who failed to reform were deemed
tive ideal’s relationship to Progressive era politics, the
incorrigible and punished harshly.
sections “The Political Development of Indeterminate
The emergence of rehabilitative penology cannot be
Sentencing” and “Rehabilitation, Eugenics, and
separated from the ideological and ideational currents of
Compulsory Sterilizations” outline how it influenced
the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. state-level indeterminate sentencing and compulsory ster-
Rehabilitative penology developed in a political and
ilization statutes in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
intellectual milieu dominated by eugenics, bio-determin-
centuries. The hallmark policy innovation of rehabilita-
ism, and a faith in scientific expertise to solve social
tion—the indeterminate sentence—was geared toward
problems. Progressives routinely coupled enlightened
both reformation and incapacitation. Rehabilitative ideol-
policy with a politics founded on pseudo-science to sepa-
ogy’s role in the eugenics movement demonstrates how it
rate mental defectives, minorities, and undesirables from
could be used by coalitions advancing explicitly coercive
“worthy” elements of the population. It was within this
objectives.
ideological terrain that a two-pronged rehabilitative phi-
Ideational features of the rehabilitative ideal have per-
losophy emerged that was premised on the rehabilitation
sisted over time and helped shape policies well into the
and release of reformable offenders and the warehousing
twentieth century, including the punitive federal sentenc-
and punishment of incorrigibles.
ing reforms of the 1980s discussed in the section “The
Rehabilitative penologists embraced Italian criminol-
Rehabilitative Ideal, Sentencing Reform, and Mass
ogist Cesare Lombroso’s theory of criminal atavism. In
Incarceration.” This indicates that the tough-on-crime
Criminal Man, published in 1876, Lombroso contended
coalition of the 1970s did not abandon the rehabilitative
that physiological stigmata like thick skulls or long ears
ideal altogether but exploited its premises to help justify
were suggestive of a primitive biological inheritance that
a politics focused on containment. As argued in the pen-
rendered individuals “born criminals” whose criminality
ultimate section, two ideological and ideational frames
was attributable to immutable congenital defects currently influencing American political and intellectual
(Lombroso [1876] 2006). It was in opposition to incorri-
development—neoliberalism and bio-criminology—are
gible “born criminals” that early penologists sought to
compatible with the punitive facets of rehabilitative
identify reformable offenders. They developed seemingly
penology. As a consequence, calls to reclaim the rehabili-
progressive tools, most notably indeterminate sentencing,
tative ideal are unlikely to check the punitive impulses of
to help them sort offenders into naturally existing catego-
American politics.
ries of corrigibility. By accepting the existence of born
American political development scholarship has con-
criminals, rehabilitative penology put the onus for reform
ceptualized political actors as operating within inherited
exclusively on individuals, disregarded social and eco-
contexts of ideas that are used in service of coalition for-
nomic factors contributing to crime, and absolved the
mation and institutional change (Smith 2014). Analyses
state of any duty to reform so-called incorrigibles.
of statements and documents from intellectuals, policy-
An analysis of the rehabilitative ideal’s origins reveals
makers, and activists from the late nineteenth through
that it rests on several core principles that have recur-
twentieth centuries highlight how ideational elements of
rently legitimized abusive and containment-based poli-
rehabilitative penology have been deployed by various
cies: many criminals are incorrigible, their incorrigibility
political coalitions to defend harsh criminal justice poli-
is largely biological, punishment should be individual-
cies. This suggests that the rehabilitative ideal provides a
ized based on a person’s reformative capacity, offenders
weak foundation for an alternative to punitive politics.
are personally responsible for their reformation, and
coercive state institutions are capable of enacting positive
The Origins of the Rehabilitative Ideal
social change, either by reforming or containing offend-
ers. An examination of how these ideas have translated
Following its first annual meeting in Cincinnati in 1870,
across time complicates existing accounts of penal reha-
the American Congress of Corrections published its
bilitation’s role in American political development. “Declaration of Principles,” which encouraged the use of
...
To continue reading
Request your trial