How Did Dorothea Dix's Prison Reform

Penitence over Punishment: Reforming America’s Prisons From the New Deal to the Great Society, America has developed many government programs meant to benefit the American people. Dorothea Dix, one of the first famous prison reformers from America's’ Antebellum period from 1840-1860, saw that there were many problems in America’s prison system that she had to stand up for. Before her work, prison was viewed purely as a source of punishment and showed very little mercy to its captives. This strict disciplinary approach led to the disturbing disaster in Auburn Prison where 80 men undergoing strict solitary sentences either suffered from mental breakdowns or committed suicide(“Prison”) Through Dorothea Dix’s hard work and leadership, she reformed
prisons to be more humane and rehabilitative. Her work lives on today, where people argue over the role of prisons and whether they must focus more punishment or penitence. The American government needs to reverse the emphasis on harsh penalties and adequately support programs aimed at rehabilitating prisoners in order to bring an end to oppressive cycles of incarceration that target minorities.
During the 1990’s, the American public’s greatest fear was crime. The British Broadcasting Channel describes the state of America and the reasoning behind its great fear of crime before Clinton’s election:
“At the time, violent crime was seen as out of control in the US. Starting in 1987, the homicide rate in the US was increasing by 5% each year, peaking in 1991 with 9.8 deaths per every 100,000 people. Many of those victims were young African Americans. Robbery and assault rates had exploded beginning in the late 1960s, and the crack cocaine epidemic was devastating the nation's urban centres” (Lussenhop).
As crime increased and fear rose, Americans, especially conservative Republicans, wanted to elect a president who was tough on crime.
Both Liberals and Conservatives wanted the federal government to take a stand against crime. However, they both disagreed in how it should be done. Conservatives preferred “tougher” laws that focused on punishing criminals harshly to disincentivize crime. This could mean longer prison times, harsher conditions such as solitary confinement, and increased support of police and other law enforcement. On the other hand, liberals tended to support laws that help prevent crime, unjust punishments, and can help rehabilitate inmates . Bill and Hillary Clinton saw this as an opportunity to get elected and took full advantage of it. Bill Clinton ran as a democrat but campaigned to be tough on crime, trying to get support from both sides. Hillary Rodham Clinton famously called an African American teenager accused of murder a “superpredator”, instilling fear into America and pushing the need for action to be taken against these criminals(13th). As Americans grew fearful. They turned to Bill Clinton and elected him as the 42nd President of the United States of America in the election of 1992. Being a democrat with a democrat majority in Congress, he was poised to pass decisive legislation. He delivered on his promise to be tough on criminals by passing the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. A humongous bill of over one thousand pages
and costing 30 billion dollars, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 had many important consequences on America(“Violent”).
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 covered many areas. It gave out 30.2 billion dollars for crime control and other similar social programs, which was the highest amount of money ever spent on a federal crime bill. States would take about 11 billion dollars, prisons took 10 billion, and 7 billion was given for crime prevention.(“Violent”) This massive amount of money for the crime bill strengthened its power and reach. A portion of money totaling 8.8 billion was given to add a hundred-thousand police officers to American communities. 2.6 billion was also given to multiple governmental organizations specializing in enforcing the law such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and Border Patrol (“Violent”). Since both a democratic president and congress passed the bill, they implemented a few billion dollars into social programs such as rape education and “safe haven” programs. Another 9.9 billion dollars was allocated to build prisons for violent offenders and illegal immigrants (“Violent”). It also implemented the Three- Strikes Rule, issuing a mandatory life in prison for a third serious violent felony and added 60 new federal crimes that would lead to a federal crime. These new policies were made to satisfy both parties, but both the liberals and conservatives of America were dissatisfied because of the compromises. However, the overall trend was that America would now shift its focus on stronger punishments, which will lead to
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was not enough for solving crime in America, and in some cases, made it even worse than it was before the act was passed. They took away a very important part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that prevented racial injustice. When it was first introduced, the bill included a section that was known as the Racial Justice Act, which was staunchly supported by the congressional Black Caucus. This act, if it had passed, would have given permission for any defendants who are racial minorities to challenge their death sentencing if they had any reason to suspect that the death penalty was applied to them because of possible racial bias. As the death penalty expanded to account for more than fifty more offenses, the Racial Justice Act would have been especially useful(“new”). The Racial Justice Act promised to protect its citizens from racial injustices but could not be passed by Congress and the Act was thrown away by legislators. In addition to this, another issue is the mandatory sentencing. The amount of prison inmates has increased by four times within the past twenty years prior to 1994. The biggest cause for the all time highs in the number of incarcerated people is the mandatory minimum sentencing enactments that are being continually being enforced in many states. It is at its most prominent form in the well liked and well known “three strikes and you are out” statutes. In addition to the previous information stated, the crime act also includes another term that earning yourself three drug offenses or violent felonies can lead to a life sentencing in prison. Even justices vehemently dislike these mandatory minimum sentences because it limits their ability to putting out punishments that they feel fit as judges. (“new”) Punishments are too harsh and may not fit the criminal to what would suit them best, which is the judge’s job to decide, not a law. To make matters worse, these harsh rules may not even disincentivize crime effectively. “There is no solid evidence to support the conclusion that sending more convicted offenders to prison for longer periods of time deters others from committing crime.”(“new”). Most importantly, The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 took away pell grants for prisons, meaning prisoners in federal prisons cannot receive access to education while in prison. The act was made for initiating punishment, not to help reform prisoners. It is in this statement that leads one to believe the act was a mistake for how society should handle prisoners, especially prisoners of color. Instead, the focus should be rehabilitation. San Quentin State Prison shows the positive effects of programs that encourage education like pell grants that can benefit prisoner’s development.
San Quentin is undergoing a project called the prison university project that gives prisoners access to an education, in the hopes of setting them on the right path. The mission that San Quentin State Prison claims their Prison University Project to be is to provide higher education to their inmates as well as support the general cause for access to higher education for all prisoners and to raise awareness for the need for correctional education and criminal
justice(“Prison”). There is a lot of other information that can be found that show the positive effects of prison education. A 2014 study by the RAND Corporation examines the results of correctional education and how effective it is in rehabilitating prisoners. It showed that prisoners who received correctional education have a thirteen percent higher chance of finding employment than the inmates who did not receive any correctional education.(Maximino) This evidence proves that correctional education can change the lives of inmates and help them become better citizens.
Perhaps most importantly, these statistics lead to one that can prove useful to society. RAND has estimated that because these inmates will go on to live lives that help contribute to society, every dollar that is spent on correctional education can save five dollars on three-year reincarceration costs because inmates have a smaller chance of being arrested again.(Maximino) Therefore, correctional education is not only a humane way of bettering the behavior of prisoners, it is also extremely cost effective, saving precious tax dollars. The need for education in prison should be applied to all prisons for its beneficial results. Rep. Danny Green says “A lack of federal funding is the primary barrier to correctional education. This is another reason why we need to expand Pell Grants and restore eligibility for the incarcerated. Expanding and restoring Pell is a common-sense federal investment that dramatically increases successful reentry and builds stronger communities and families.”(“Real”). Pell grants and access to education allow prisoners to contribute to society and become “good” people again. “We have mountains of evidence to show that funding in-prison education and eliminating barriers to high education for those with criminal history are wise investments in reducing re-incarceration and allowing people to turn away from lives crime. I am living proof.” says Glenn E. Martin(“Inmates”). Education gives prisoners a second chance and can help them get on the right track and avoid future jail time. “People are being released from prison without the education, without the job training, without the resources they need to get their lives together, and they are ending up back in prison. By investing in jobs and education, rather than jails and incarceration, we can give people the second chance they deserve and put an end to the global embarrassment of our country locking up more people than any other nation on earth.” says Bernie Sanders (qtd. In “Senators”). Education will give prisoners a way to change their lifestyle so they won’t get arrested once they’re free, which would reduce the number of prisoners America is burdened with.