By Mary Reyes Torres, SSPM Mercy University Intern (2025)The mission of Mercy University's History Majors Internship Program at the Sing Sing Prison Museum is to teach museum and archives practices, non-profit administration, museum office culture and professional practices, and/or public education methods through project-based work and hands-on activities. The students’ projects include research, writing, and collecting information and resources. Students see first hand how history is applicable to the workplace. At the end of each internship, students create something intended for the museum's audiences. IntroductionIncarceration is one of the most challenging experiences a person can endure. The isolation, loss of freedom, and emotional weight of separation from loved ones often lead people to search for deeper meaning, comfort, and healing. For many incarcerated individuals, religion becomes a lifeline. One of the religions people turn to is Christianity, specifically becoming a Jehovah’s Witness. I wanted to explore how Jehovah’s Witnesses practice their religion inside prison and how it shapes the lives of incarcerated individuals. Drawing from interviews with an individual who has experienced the faith in prison and a volunteer who preaches to incarcerated individuals, my inquiry will provide insight into the emotional and transformative effects of Jehovah's Witness teachings in a prison setting. Having grown up as a Jehovah’s Witness myself, I am familiar with the profound impact of Bible study on personal development and spirituality. My goal is to understand how the same spiritual path is followed within prison and what impact it has on inmates both emotionally and in terms of personal change. I interviewed with two groups: incarcerated Jehovah’s Witnesses who practiced their faith during their sentences and volunteers who regularly visit prisons to share Bible teachings. The purpose of these interviews was to gather perspectives both from those inside the prison system and those who serve as religious outreach. I aimed to answer two primary questions: how is religion practiced differently inside prison walls, and how does preaching Jehovah’s message feel when shared in such an intense environment? In addition to conducting interviews, I also referenced sources from the Jehovah’s Witnesses website, which outlines their practices and beliefs, and relevant academic articles about the impact of prison reform and rehabilitation through faith. The interviews were conducted with three individuals: Efren and Monse, a married couple. Efren was incarcerated and later met his wife after his incarceration period. And Esmeralda, a volunteer who preaches to incarcerated women. These interviews provide insights into the ways Jehovah’s Witnesses practice their faith in prison and the challenges they face. I asked questions to both groups and listened to their experiences.  Photo courtesy of JW.org Esmeralda's InterviewEsmeralda, a volunteer who ministers to incarcerated individuals, shared her experiences of working with incarcerated women and offering Bible study. Below are the questions and answers from her interview. 1. How long have you been preaching in prisons? Esmeralda began preaching during the start of the pandemic by writing letters to incarcerated women. These letters were part of her initial outreach, as she corresponded with female inmates. In March 2024, she began going inside prisons to encourage unbaptized publishers (people who can preach to others, but aren't baptized), offering further support to those who were interested in studying the Bible. 2. What inspired you to begin preaching to incarcerated individuals? Esmeralda was initially nervous but was inspired by hearing others’ experiences of witnessing in prisons. She attended a bible conference in upstate New York, where she heard stories of those involved in prison ministry, and it struck her that this was an opportunity to help others in need of guidance. She decided to take the step to apply and became involved after being interviewed by the elders in her congregation, who believed she would be a good candidate to go inside prisons and help incarcerated women with the bible. 3. What kind of responses do you get from incarcerated individuals? Esmeralda shared that many of the incarcerated women respond positively to the Bible study, with some sharing how it has profoundly changed their lives. Some incarcerated women even help other inmates by sharing their newfound understanding of Jehovah’s teachings. She also talked about how the incarcerated women at the Bedford Hills maximum-security prison hold the Memorial of Jesus Christ, reflecting the sincerity of their faith. She emphasized that the Bible helps many incarcerated women navigate their circumstances and become better individuals. 4. What material did you use to teach about the Bible? Esmeralda primarily used letters to correspond with incarcerated individuals, where she discussed key topics such as Jehovah’s character and the importance of repentance. When writing letters, she would ask if they wanted specific bible-based reading material sent to them. In the prison, the Watchtower study is conducted twice a month, and if ten incarcerated women attend, it can be held weekly. This study covers various Bible teachings, including the message of hope and redemption for those who turn to Jehovah. 5. What advice would you give to new volunteers working in prisons, or who are interested in doing so? Esmeralda’s advice is to put in your application and allow Jehovah to use you to help people in need. She emphasized the importance of seeing incarcerated men and women as individuals who made mistakes, not as irredeemable people. She reminded volunteers not to judge inmates but to show them compassion and support in their spiritual journey. The act of helping someone turn their life around is, in Esmeralda’s words, “an honor.” 6. What role does forgiveness play in your message? Forgiveness is central to Esmeralda’s message. She often writes to incarcerated women about the importance of repentance and how Jehovah forgives those who truly seek to change. Forgiveness is also emphasized in the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses, encouraging incarcerated women to forgive themselves and others, a crucial step in their rehabilitation process.
0 Comments
By Samantha Naus, SSPM Mercy University Intern (2025)The mission of Mercy University's History Majors Internship Program at the Sing Sing Prison Museum is to teach museum and archives practices, non-profit administration, museum office culture and professional practices, and/or public education methods through project-based work and hands-on activities. The students’ projects include research, writing, and collecting information and resources. Students see first hand how history is applicable to the workplace. At the end of each internship, students create something intended for the museum's audiences. When asked what the objective of our state prison system should be, most New Yorkers would agree that reformation should be the priority. One of the most successful available avenues to reach this goal is providing incarcerated people with access to literature. Access to books and literature not only provides a productive avenue for incarcerated people to focus their time, but also a way to help build skills and work towards rehabilitation and reintroduction into society. Studies such as the one conducted by the Mackinac Center have shown a positive correlation between prison educational programs and a reduced return rate for incarcerated individuals (https://www.mackinac.org/s2023-01). As this has been proven to be true time and time again, it might surprise us to know just how little access to literature incarcerated people in New York State prisons, like the Sing Sing Correctional Facility (SSCF), actually have.  A. Berghaus, 1878 The New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision promotes programs such as the General Library Program on their website, claiming to allow requests for literature and books throughout the Westchester library system. However, the reality is that it is more difficult than ever for the those serving time to gain access to any literature at all, including through the permanent library on the Sing Sing campus. It is only through conversation with the men who have been formally incarcerated there that the public has any knowledge of just how far these systems of access have broken down. The prison’s library, though limited, could often be the one possible avenue for any book. Since the National Guard was deployed to state prisons in February, during the correctional officer’s wildcat strike, and remain active until today (8/20/25), library access has been completely halted inside. As the situation becomes increasingly dire, it is more important then ever to put the focus back on simple and beneficial rehabilitation efforts. The addition of a library to the Sing Sing facility was first proposed by Reverend Chaplin John Luckey in the early 1840’s when he served as the prison Chaplin. Originally focused on religious text, the mission was eventually expanded to include non-religious based texts after a push by Eliza Farnham, the Matron of the incarcerated woman at Sing Sing. Access and censorship fluctuated wildly over the decades depending primarily on the Warden in charge and their personal rehabilitation philosophy. When the Section 285 law was passed by the New York State Senate to allocate funds to state prison libraries, it seemed like proper access might finally be achieved. Much of these programs however are depended on a prison librarian to make them function, and Sing Sing has been without one for many years, compounding the access problem in the prison. This however leads to a glimmer of hope, as a new Librarian has recently been hired by Sing Sing; a good sign that some gears might start turning again. Though having to adhere to a strict set of rules, primarily the NYDCCS Media Review directive no. 4572, the librarian is allocated a certain amount of money per incarcerated individual to spend on acquiring books and literature. Although this amount only equates to roughly half a book per prisoner a year, without a librarian to utilize it this allocation of funds often does not reach the prisoners. In addition to the inter-prison library, communication with other Westchester libraries to engage in the General Library Program has also ground to a complete halt. Many librarians are unaware of such programs, but eager to help if possible. This is especially true in the case of the Ossining Public Library, located just over a mile from the SSCF. Viewing the incarcerated men in Sing Sing as part of the larger Ossining community, local libraries are keen to work with the prison library to help them bring more literature into the prison. Ideas have even been floated about book clubs or projecting recorded lectures or other ways for the public library to help those inside, but all at the moment are just wishful thinking. Setting up a relationship between the incarcerated and the local library however would not only benefit those with years left on their sentence but can also help to develop pathways to community for those that are finally released. With the local librarians eager to help, state government funds already allocated, and the long overdue hiring of new prison librarian, all the pieces to provide meaningful rehabilitation are in place and can hopefully soon begin to serve the men inside. In addition to the public sector, Non-profits have also popped up to try and tackle the problem of access. One such organization doing meaningful work in this area is Freedom Reads. Created by CEO Reginald Dwayne Betts, he leaned upon his own experience of being incarcerated for almost a decade to try and provide other incarcerated people with the same lifeline he depended on: books. Freedom Reads builds bookshelves, with an amazing curated set of books, placed in living quarters not the library. This program brings literature access to the spaces where the incarcerated spend the most down time. Proven a success time and time again, Freedom Reads is another example of the benefits literature can have for those inside. Sources: https://www.mackinac.org/s2023-01 https://doccs.ny.gov/general-library-program https://www.untappedcities.com/sing-sing-prison/ https://www.nysl.nysed.gov/libdev/outreach/corrgdln https://nysfocus.com/2025/07/22/new-york-doccs-prison-staffing-crisis-guard-strike https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/EDN/285 https://doccs.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2024/12/4572.pdf https://freedomreads.org/about/reports Related:
Recent news regarding banning books in an ICE Detention Center near Buffalo, NY: https://nysfocus.com/2025/10/08/batavia-buffalo-detention-center-ice-book-ban By Caroline Ranald CurvanThe last in a series of three posts investigating the role religion played in the early development of Sing Sing. The Fight for Sing Sing's Soul – The Tenure of Reverend John Luckey, 1839-1865
At the time, Sing Sing was transitioning from one political order to another. Luckey’s arrival coincided with the departure of Prison Agent/Warden Robert Wiltse – a brutal administrator who had served with the notorious Capt. Elam Lynds – and the beginning of Governor William Seward’s comparatively progressive administration. Seward faced numerous crises: surging immigration, a financial panic and rising crime rates. Yet, regarding the correctional system, Seward would prove to be a pragmatist. During Seward’s term, space opened for people like Luckey to champion rehabilitation through religion and education.
A Course ReversalIn 1842, Governor Seward was not re-elected and the political pendulum swung back towards favoring harsh discipline. The new administration reinstalled the infamous Captain Elam Lynds – this time as Principal Keeper of Sing Sing (3) – a position that gave him direct oversight and responsibility for punishing inmates. Luckey watched in horror as barbaric punishments returned, family visits and letters were banned, the prison library closed, and religious services scaled back. He chronicled this “reign of terror” in his 1860 memoir Life in Sing Sing State Prison: As Seen in a Twelve Years’ Chaplaincy.(4) Relying on emotional, individual accounts, he argued for a more humane approach consisting of “mild, but firm discipline, intellectual culture, and religious guidance.” One story he shared was that of “Jim,” a prisoner who had attacked guards with a red-hot poker, hoping to be flogged to death rather than continue suffering the physical abuse that was arbitrarily and ferociously meted out. “A speedy death,” Jim told Luckey, “is far preferable to being tortured to death by the cat [o’nine tails.]” Jim’s desperate act horrified Luckey, who reported the incident to prison inspector John W. Edmonds. Though skeptical, Edmonds nonetheless ordered an investigation. The findings were damning and in 1844, Elam Lynds was dismissed from Sing Sing for the last time. And in 1847, the New York State Legislature banned flogging in the state’s prisons. But this was not a triumph of morality – it was simply the realization that brutality made prisons harder to manage and less profitable. A Secular ShiftIronically, Luckey’s efforts helped turn prisons away from religion-based reform. Prison Inspector Edmonds would create the New York Prison Association (NYPA), an organization that stressed social order, not religious salvation. The NYPA’s philosophy was one of secular correction consisting of productive labor, education and post-release assistance. This philosophical divide sparked conflict among reformers – most notably between Rev Luckey and Eliza Farnham, the broad-minded matron of Sing Sing’s women’s prison. Farnham, appointed in 1844, sought to prove that kindness was a more effective method of governance than violence. She believed that rehabilitation required education and the nurturing of self-worth, not the imposition of religion. Bringing light, books and music into a prison long defined by darkness and violence, she read Charles Dickens to her charges, allowed them to decorate their cells, and embraced phrenology, a popular pseudoscience of the time, in an attempt to better understand the needs of the women under her care. To Luckey, Farnham’s actions were heresy. He accused her of actively turning inmates away from the Bible by replacing a focus on virtue and their eternal souls with the racy plots of a Dickens novel. She, in turn, accused him of forcing religion on a captive audience. After appeals to the Board of Prison Inspectors and the NYPA failed, Luckey took his concerns public, penning a scathing article for the New York Sun. He was dismissed in 1848. Luckey’s removal marked the end of religion’s central role in prison policy. Though he would return to Sing Sing in 1856 for an additional nine years, he would serve in a far more limited role. Around the same time, the Prison Discipline Society of Boston dissolved after the 1854 death of its founder Rev. Louis Dwight. No longer would the New York State Legislature rely on a religious organization to staff and report on the condition of their prisons. A Lasting ImpactThroughout Luckey’s years at Sing Sing, correctional policy shifted with each new administration. One governor emphasized reform; the next embraced the corporal punishment. Each swing in leadership radically shaped the lives of the incarcerated, guards and chaplains. Though Luckey retired to Missouri, preaching there until his death in 1875, his influence at Sing Sing endured. He exposed the toll of unchecked cruelty, helped prompt investigations, and indirectly spurred the formation of the NYPA – known today as the Corrections Association of New York (CANY)(5). Ultimately, he helped nudge those in power to see that rehabilitation was more powerful than the lash. Rev. John Luckey’s legacy is a reminder that reform is rarely linear. Effective and thoughtful efforts can be erased – or revived – at the stroke of a political pen. Luckey’s story isn’t just about discipline or incarceration – it’s a mirror reflecting what the state valued, what its citizens feared and how thin the line can be between justice and cruelty.  Rev. John Luckey’s headstone in Dale Cemetery, Ossining, NY; Photo by Caroline Curvan Endnotes:
Sources consulted:Correctional Association of New York (CANY)
“Documents of the Senate of the State of New York,” 1844, v.1, hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.b2882933 Graber, Jennifer. The Furnace of Affliction: Prisons and Religion in Antebellum America. University of North Carolina Press, 2014. Luckey, Rev. John. Life in Sing Sing State Prison: As Seen in a Twelve Years’ Chaplaincy. N. Tibbals & Co., 1860. https://archive.org/details/lifeinsingsings00luckgoog/page/n4/mode/2up Warriner, Rev. Edwin. Old Sands Street Methodist Episcopal Church of Brooklyn, N.Y.: An Illustrated Centennial Record, 1885. https://archive.org/details/oldsandsstreetme0000unse/page/n9/mode/2up?q=Luckey&view=theat By Caroline Ranald CurvanThis is the second in a series of posts investigating the role religion played in the early development of Sing Sing by writer and researcher Caroline Ranald Curvan. One of the best resources for early Sing Sing Prison history comes to us from the Annual Reports of the Prison Discipline Society of Boston (PDSB). Founded in 1825 by Congregational minister, Rev. Louis Dwight, the PDSB stood out as the most influential, vocal, and well-known American prison reform organization of its time. Under his leadership, the PDSB promoted the “Auburn System.” Developed in the 1820s at Auburn Prison, it allowed inmates out of their cells during the day to work but separated them at night. To maintain control, Rev. Dwight endorsed judicious application of “humane” forms of punishment, like the whip, describing the results he observed as “a beautiful example of what might be done by proper discipline.” (Endnote 1) The PDSB reports were widely circulated, purchased by numerous state legislatures, and even read across Europe. It was concerning to some that a religious organization held such sway over state officials and their resulting policies, but their reports and influence were considered crucial for maintaining prison order and, most importantly, for generating profits. Rev. Dwight was a pioneer in many ways. The PDSB’s observations and meticulous reporting highlighted numerous issues within the prisons across the country: the cycle of imprisonment for alcoholics, the harmful practice of mixing first-time offenders with repeat offenders, the presence of the mentally ill in prisons, the overrepresentation of Black inmates in Massachusetts jails, and the prevalence of homosexuality and rape behind bars. Additionally, he emphasized the Society’s belief that improving education of Black individuals would help address the racial disparities in the prison system.(2) It’s from these reports, often written by the on-site prison chaplain, that we get detailed, human-first perspectives of life inside prison walls. The PDSB’s first report on Sing Sing was published in 1827, while the prison was still under construction. Prison Agent (the early term for Warden) Captain Elam Lynds’ leadership is described in almost glowing terms: “All is order, industry, silence and activity. The work goes on rapidly, with little murmuring, and scarcely an effort to escape or rebel.” (3) And Lynds is given credit for bringing a chaplain into this prison that was not yet built: "At the earnest solicitation of Capt. Lynds that a chaplain might be sent, Mr. Gerrish Barrett was engaged to assume the responsibilities of the situation." (4) Rev. Barrett, born in 1797 in Massachusetts, attended Union College and then Princeton Divinity School. Assuming his duties at Sing Sing in May of 1827, it would be his very first posting. With no experience and no one to guide him, he made it up as he went along. A month into his tenure, he describes his ministry as follows: A little after 7 o’clock every evening, I commence reading the scriptures to the convicts, afterwards make some remarks, and then offer a prayer on each side of the prison. I have found by experience that to stand as near the center of the Prison as possible, on the pavement below, is far better, for the purpose of being easily heard, than to stand upon the gallery . . . After divine service on the Sabbath, a considerable portion of the time is spent in talking to the men in their cells . . . I have found no one yet who showed any disrespect or unwillingness to hear what was said. It is surprising to see, sometimes, how a few minutes conversation, concerning the soul, will make the muscles of a hardy-looking face relax and his eyes fill with tears. (5)
I heard a black man read. Four weeks ago, he could not say his letters. Now he can read slowly and is seldom obliged to spell any words of one syllable. . . I found him the other day reading in the Psalms. On asking the reason, he replied, ‘it seems to do me more good to read here.’ Such artless replies, connected with his general conduct, leads me to cherish the hope that the truth of God is beginning to fasten on this mind, which will be the means of purifying his heart and fitting him for heaven. (7) From these observations, Rev. Barrett proposed that he officially take on teaching the men to read, in addition to ministering to their souls. But Capt. Lynds did not support this plan, briskly decreeing that there was no room for instruction nor were there “spelling books” available. He was also especially contemptuous of the concept of inmate reformation, believing that this was unrealistic and naïve. Undaunted, Rev. Barrett persevered, teaching through the “grated iron doors of their cells.” Regarding the lack of spelling books, Rev. Barrett showed that he could teach reading just by using the Bible: Show the convict the first letter of the Bible, that is I. Let him find the same wherever it occurs in the first verse. Having done this, show him the second letter in the Bible, that is N. Let him find every N in the first verse. Having done this, and being told what I-N spells, he has already learned the first word in the Bible . . . It may be found that the convicts can learn to read in this manner. (8) Through his concern for their spiritual and intellectual well-being, the inmates began to confide in him, and an extremely dark and troubling picture of the prison began to emerge. Through these conversations, Rev. Barrett would hear about arbitrary and excessive floggings with the cat o’nine tails, the withholding of medical care from the sick and injured, and the starvation rations all were given, causing some to eat dirt and grass to fill their empty bellies. Further, the inmates claimed that Capt. Lynds was defrauding the State in various ways – one accusation was that he purchased “offal beef” instead of better-quality meat, pocketing the difference. (9) Rev. Barrett felt compelled to report this information to the Board of Prison Inspectors, who quickly began an investigation. When news of Rev. Barrett’s report reached Capt. Lynds, he apparently physically assaulted the good Reverend, and kicked him bodily out of the prison. (10) This was the end of Rev. Barrett’s ministry at Sing Sing. He would go on to work alternatively as a General Agent for the PDSB, (travelling the country to observe penitentiary conditions, writing reports and giving lectures) and as Chaplain at the State Prison at Wethersfield, Connecticut. He would retire from the ministry at the age of 46, marry, have several children, and die at the age of 59. Though a year would pass before a new chaplain was appointed, the Sing Sing chaplaincy endured. Barrett’s reports and the subsequent investigations led to Capt. Lynds’ downfall, sparking incremental change by briefly shifting focus to Sing Sing’s leadership, with an increased concern for inmate treatment. SOURCES CONSULTED
Prison Discipline Reports of Boston, 1825 – 1830 Graber, Jennifer. The Furnace of Affliction: Prisons and Religion in Antebellum America. University of North Carolina Press, 2014. ENDNOTES 1. PDSB, “First Annual Report, Vol. 1, 1826,” 17, 36. 2. Quen, Dr. Jacques. “Historical Reflections on the Sesquicentennial of the Founding of the Boston Prison Discipline Society (1825-1854).” A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, October 26, 1975. 3, 4, 5. PDSB 2nd Report, 1827 p. 67/115 6, 7. PDSB 3rd Report, 1828, p. 63/21 8. PDSB 3rd Report, 1828, p. 212/64 9. PDSB, 5th Annual Report, Vol. 1, 1830 10. PDSB, 5th Annual Report, Vol. 1, 1830, 17/347 This month marks Sing Sing Prison’s 200th anniversary. I always expected there would be more attention to this important milestone. Unfortunately, the events of the past few months—the murder of an incarcerated man at Marcy Correctional Facility; the wildcat strike of correction officers; the lockdown at Sing Sing and other state prisons—led to a decision by state officials to postpone any commemorations until a normal routine is restored including programs that support education and rehabilitation. This is the right course of action for all concerned. At the museum, we continue to plan and create a full slate of activities in this anniversary year—walking tours, public lectures, performances and special events. Our first exhibition will open in Ossining’s Olive Opera House in the fall. We will launch a new membership program and continue to produce our popular e-newsletter. An initiative on religion and prisons is underway with generous funding from Lilly Endowment. Is it possible to build a criminal justice museum at a moment when violence and conflict dominate the news about the state’s carceral system? Will our programs and exhibits engage and educate our audience about complex issues that have persisted for two centuries? Our board and staff are well aware of the challenges involved in achieving an ambitious mission. They share my belief that history is a relevant resource that helps us understand our own times. I am personally committed to creating an institution that offers a platform for the wide variety of perspectives that have defined our quest for justice in a democracy. I am convinced that we will become a leader in the national conversation about the purpose of prisons and make a positive contribution toward building a more just society. Readers of this column are encouraged to respond. Thank you. Brent D. GlassExecutive Director of Sing Sing Prison Museum By Caroline Ranald CurvanThis is the first in a series of posts investigating the role religion played in the early development of Sing Sing.
Looking back, as human communities became more organized, more “civilized” if you will, they adopted similar and swift forms of punishment - generally of a physical nature. The Code of Hammurabi and then the Bible both recommend punishments along the lines of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” and this was more or less the formula followed for centuries. It’s really not until the 19th century, and specifically in the brand-new United States of America, that the idea of incarceration -- that is confining offenders for an extensive period of time as the main form of punishment itself - was adopted. Why? Up until the American Revolution (1775 - 1783) criminal punishment in the Colonies followed the British methods -- fines, whippings, public shaming (think stocks and public cages), and the gallows. And hanging wasn’t a punishment reserved only for murder, or what we today consider capital crimes, but was applied erratically at the whim of the local magistrate. Thus, you would often find petty criminals -- burglars, horse thieves, forgers -- subject to it as well. Incarceration then was generally brief, with individuals only held until their sentence could be carried out. It was not in itself the punishment. The American Revolution, with its rejection of a monarchical government and philosophical grounding in democracy and liberty, sought to approach punishment from a new perspective, seeking to avoid the barbaric practices of Europe. This was also leavened by the Enlightenment belief that the “severity of punishment itself emboldens men to commit the very wrongs it was supposed to prevent . . . the countries and times most notorious for severity of penalties have always been those in which the bloodiest and most inhumane deeds were committed.” (Beccaria 33) Americans believed that the revolutionary idea of a more egalitarian society combined with a rational, certain, and humane system of punishment would deter all but a few offenders. What, then, should punishment look like in this new society? The answer became incarceration: sentence an offender to spend a long term in prison to remove them from society, allow them to reflect on their crimes, and avoid the gallows. That alone was thought to be enough. But the logistics of these early prisons seemed only to increase crime. Rather than the individual cells we think of today when we think of imprisonment, prisoners were housed in bunkrooms, fed in communal mess rooms, and allowed to mingle freely, contributing to widespread chaos with riots, escapes, and violence occurring frequently. The ongoing prevalence of crime was truly perplexing to Americans: They were not surprised that [crime] continued to plague Old World countries, where great disparities of wealth existed between classes, where common people had no voice in government, and where laws were harsh, crime was the inevitable result. . . But the new republic had eliminated these evils -- not only had the states reformed their criminal codes, but economic opportunity was widespread and a marked equality existed between social classes. Why then should crime disturb this country? This led to early 19th century fears that the newfound openness in American society actually contributed to crime and social unrest. And, paralleling this, was the worry that the influence of of religion was also waning within this new societal structure, removing yet another way to compel good behavior. Did crime actually increase during the early years of our republic? We can’t know, as records were not reliably kept. But the topic was one that captured the thinkers, reformers and politicians of the day. By the 1820s, new prison models were being pioneered by Pennsylvania and New York -- Pennsylvania experimented with the “separate system,” which kept each inmate effectively in solitary confinement for the duration of a prison term. Critics said this system led inmates to madness while costing the State too much, as inmates were unable to perform work. In contrast, New York State (in Auburn and then Sing Sing) developed the “congregate system” where inmates slept in a solitary cell but came together in silence to work and eat during the day. Both systems were seen as methods of retraining the imprisoned into productive members of society, with both following an inflexible routine of silence, labor and abject obedience. The Auburn and Sing Sing methods relied on cruel and brutal punishments -- whippings with the cat o’nine tails the most common - to regulate inmate behavior. Religion entered into this chaotic experiment with zeal and determination. As Christian groups saw it, reformation was being ignored in this new model. One of the chief reformative associations, and initially the most important at Sing Sing, was the Prison Discipline Society of Boston (PDSB). Thanks to the PDSB (which paid half his salary) the first Chaplain of Sing Sing, Rev. Gerrish Barrett, was assigned there before the first cellblock walls were even built. He would have to carve out a role where none had previously existed. In doing so, he would quickly run afoul of the ruthless Captain Elam Lynds . . . Stay tuned for more in the next installment. Sources Consulted:
Morris, Norval & Rothman, David, eds. Oxford History of the Prison. Oxford University Press, 1995. “World Prison Population List” 14th edition, April 2024. Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research, https://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/world_prison_population_list_14th_edition.pdf “An Essay on Crimes and Punishments.” By the Marquis Beccaria of Milan. With a Commentary by M. de Voltaire. A New Edition Corrected. (Albany: W.C. Little & Co., 1872). Initially published 1764 By Guy Cheli   Left: Robert Raines Collection, The Gangster Museum of America. Owen Madden and associates. 1910s Right: Robert Raines Collection, The Gangster Museum of America. Owen Madden with an unidentified associate. 1933 Readers of the SSPM newsletter often ask for historical information about men and women who were incarcerated at Sing Sing Prison. The following story by Guy Cheli provides a profile of Owney Madden who served time at Sing Sing from 1919 to 1923. Known as "the Killer" by friends and foes, Madden was a notorious gang leader and celebrity in New York City's underworld. My name is Guy Cheli, author of Images of America’s Sing Sing Prison. I was recently invited to The Gangster Museum of America at Hot Springs, Arkansas for an interesting interview. The Museum is an historic account of some of the most infamous and notorious gangsters of the 20s, 30s and 40s. History about the many underworld crime bosses who moved to Hot Springs to ease pressure from the FBI and each other can also be found there. Robert Raines the owner and director of the museum, thought I would be a great addition to his documentary about former mobster and Sing Sing inmate Owney Madden. In the documentary I was interviewed about the relationship between Madden and Warden Lewis Lawes. The link between Madden and Sing Sing is very interesting. Owen (Owney) Madden’s life of crime began around 1910 in the Hell’s Kitchen section of New York where he led the Gopher Gang. Called a vicious killer by some, Madden began changing his ways after arriving at Sing Sing in 1915. By the time Lewis Lawes became warden in 1920, Madden was pretty much a model prisoner. Soon after Madden’s parole in 1923, he started to profit from prohibition, becoming the king of bootlegging. He also opened the famous Cotton Club in Harlem, going on to own many night clubs including the very prestigious Stork Club. Warden Lawes allowed certain privileges to Madden and he was able to run his business from behind the walls of Sing Sing. Lawes even made Madden’s cohort, “Jimmy the Shiv” his personal chauffeur allowing him to be his link to the streets. The Wardens wife, Mrs. Kathryn Lawes, and Madden were very close leaving her and her family protected on the outside.
KEEP LEARNING: About Owen Madden The Gangster Museum of America at Hot Springs Arlington Hotel Owen (Owney) Madden The Gopher Gang History of Hot Springs Arkansas 1 History of Hot Springs Arkansas 2   Left: Guy Cheli Collection. Baseball. 1922
Right: Guy Cheli Collection. Etching Prison River. 1878 Written by Endrit Korca |
 Left: An original solitary confinement cell from Eastern State Penitentiary. Right: A cell at Sing Sing prison, Ossining, NY, c. 1910-15. |  |
While solitary confinement was meant to reform incarcerated people, more often it causes harm to people. Being left alone for such extended periods of time is not healthy for anyone. We are inherently social animals and require other human connections in order to live a healthy life. Solitary confinement can considerably mentally damage the people that are subjected to it. Studies have shown that people who are put through it are more susceptible to developing mental disorders such as depression and anxiety. They are more prone to becoming angry and hostile towards those around them, with an increased chance of lashing out in a physically violent manner. Their risk of opioid abuse, self-harm, and suicide is also higher.
This isn’t to say that every single one of them will end up this way as there are some that can survive within solitary and go on to live their lives as normally as before they were put into solitary. While interviewing Timothy, it became clear that he was one of those that didn’t suffer any long-term mental effects of solitary despite having spent a total of 6 years in solitary. He is aware that not everybody can survive it the way he did and notes how violent people would get after getting out of solitary. Some would end up even throwing their own feces while locked inside of solitary while others would end up committing suicide because they couldn’t handle it.
This isn’t to say that every single one of them will end up this way as there are some that can survive within solitary and go on to live their lives as normally as before they were put into solitary. While interviewing Timothy, it became clear that he was one of those that didn’t suffer any long-term mental effects of solitary despite having spent a total of 6 years in solitary. He is aware that not everybody can survive it the way he did and notes how violent people would get after getting out of solitary. Some would end up even throwing their own feces while locked inside of solitary while others would end up committing suicide because they couldn’t handle it.
"This graph is based on the Cox Propotional Hazard ratio, which represents the risk of death while accounting for variables like sex, race, age, prior incarcerations, length of incarceration, and other factors as calculated by the authors of the study. People who are confined in solitary are more likely to die of any cause, opioid overdose, homicide, and suicide than those who do not experience solitary confinement. People with more than one experience in solitary confinement are even more likely to die within the first year of release of all causes, homicide, and suicide." Source: PrisonPolicy.org
Reading about solitary might have you wondering why it matters. After all, these are the worst of the worst that humanity has to offer, right? Unfortunately, that isn’t the case. Historically, it’s been used by Corrections Departments to keep certain “problematic” people silenced. The most prominent example of this is Martin Luther King Jr. during the Civil Rights Movement. He was kept in a solitary cell and not allowed to see anyone, including his lawyers, due to his actions in leading the Civil Rights Movement.
In present times, it’s used on more small-scale problems that correctional officers face in their very complicated workplace. If an incarcerated person is dealing with mental health problems that cause them to act in a way corrections officers find difficult to handle, it’s not uncommon for them to be put in solitary in order to try and control their behaviors. This only makes the situation worse as solitary has been shown to worsen preexisting mental health conditions. When they’re eventually let back out, the reason they were put in isn’t solved, only made much worse. Timothy felt like his actions warranted being put in solitary confinement but notes that that isn’t the case for everyone. He mentioned a story of a corrections officer planting knives on three separate inmates to get them locked in solitary confinement in Auburn, NY in 2016. While there was no evidence, the guard in question did admit to it and ended up suspended without pay for 1 month. A retired lieutenant who prefers to remain anonymous said that in all his years working within corrections, he’s never noticed systematic abuses of solitary. In fact, there are even checks in place now to ensure that officers can’t put anyone they want in solitary. They must first get permission from a lieutenant or higher at which point there will be a hearing with witnesses and evidence in order to determine if solitary is justified. As a lieutenant, he was diligent about who he would send to solitary and would deny the requests of more inexperienced officers that may be resorting to solitary when it isn’t necessary. Even when he did put people in solitary, it was usually only for 7-10 days due to New York’s HALT Solitary Law.
In present times, it’s used on more small-scale problems that correctional officers face in their very complicated workplace. If an incarcerated person is dealing with mental health problems that cause them to act in a way corrections officers find difficult to handle, it’s not uncommon for them to be put in solitary in order to try and control their behaviors. This only makes the situation worse as solitary has been shown to worsen preexisting mental health conditions. When they’re eventually let back out, the reason they were put in isn’t solved, only made much worse. Timothy felt like his actions warranted being put in solitary confinement but notes that that isn’t the case for everyone. He mentioned a story of a corrections officer planting knives on three separate inmates to get them locked in solitary confinement in Auburn, NY in 2016. While there was no evidence, the guard in question did admit to it and ended up suspended without pay for 1 month. A retired lieutenant who prefers to remain anonymous said that in all his years working within corrections, he’s never noticed systematic abuses of solitary. In fact, there are even checks in place now to ensure that officers can’t put anyone they want in solitary. They must first get permission from a lieutenant or higher at which point there will be a hearing with witnesses and evidence in order to determine if solitary is justified. As a lieutenant, he was diligent about who he would send to solitary and would deny the requests of more inexperienced officers that may be resorting to solitary when it isn’t necessary. Even when he did put people in solitary, it was usually only for 7-10 days due to New York’s HALT Solitary Law.
Mugshot of Martin Luther King Jr. after being arrested for peacefully protesting. Was later placed in solitary confinement because of it. Source: HistoryNet.com
According to the United Nations, solitary confinement for longer than 15 days is torture, and certainly cruel and unusual punishment. The idea of this was laughable to Timothy and he argued that 15 days is a joke for many incarcerated people, including himself. These incarcerated people feel as if they’re getting away with breaking the rules in prison. He does acknowledge that he’s a unique case and that many other people wouldn’t be able to come out of solitary confinement fine the way he was. If solitary confinement is torture, the 8th amendment should prohibit its use since it protects against cruel and unusual punishments. Solitary is about controlling the prison’s population and ensuring they are kept in line, regardless of the consequences to them physically and mentally. The retired lieutenant says that placing incarcerated individuals that act out in solitary for longer periods of time is necessary. Due to the rampant criminality within our prison system, it is the only effective deterrent that guards had to control incarcerated people and prevent them from committing serious infractions.
Now that solitary has been limited in New York prisons, many incarcerated individuals aren’t afraid of committing infractions since they know they’ll only be placed in solitary for a few days. As such, it’s imperative that prisons first find a new and more humane way to punish those within our prison system before fully getting rid of solitary. Prisons are already a punishment but what else do you do when someone commits an infraction while already being punished? There are other punishments in place throughout prisons in the USA such as limiting recreational time and not allowing visitors. In order to fully get rid of solitary, we must first find a new and more humane method for corrections officers to keep incarcerated individuals from continuing to break the rules.
If you take issue with this normalized practice of solitary confinement, there are ways you can help. You can contact your federal representatives. There is a bill introduced that was introduced to Congress in 2023 called the “End Solitary Confinement Act.” Ask them to push this issue through in order to help those that need it. If you are a New York resident, you can contact your senator and demand that the DCCS better enforce the HALT Solitary Law which has put restrictions on the use of solitary confinement but hasn’t been enforced as much as it should be.
Now that solitary has been limited in New York prisons, many incarcerated individuals aren’t afraid of committing infractions since they know they’ll only be placed in solitary for a few days. As such, it’s imperative that prisons first find a new and more humane way to punish those within our prison system before fully getting rid of solitary. Prisons are already a punishment but what else do you do when someone commits an infraction while already being punished? There are other punishments in place throughout prisons in the USA such as limiting recreational time and not allowing visitors. In order to fully get rid of solitary, we must first find a new and more humane method for corrections officers to keep incarcerated individuals from continuing to break the rules.
If you take issue with this normalized practice of solitary confinement, there are ways you can help. You can contact your federal representatives. There is a bill introduced that was introduced to Congress in 2023 called the “End Solitary Confinement Act.” Ask them to push this issue through in order to help those that need it. If you are a New York resident, you can contact your senator and demand that the DCCS better enforce the HALT Solitary Law which has put restrictions on the use of solitary confinement but hasn’t been enforced as much as it should be.
SOURCES:
Solitary Confinement in New York State: The Facts
A "Noble Experiment": How Solitary Came to America
About Sing Sing Prison
Sing Sing | Ossining, NY
Trapped Inside: The Past, Present, and Future of Solitary Confinement
Prison Policy Initiative
Piece of History: MLK Letter from Birmingham Jail at Special Collections
History Net
3 Auburn prisoners say same guard planted weapons on them
End Solitary Confinement Act - Congress.gov
Correctional Association of New York - CANY
By Robert Rose, SSPM Communications Manager
The carceral system often conjures images of harsh punishments and bleak futures. However, the film Sing Sing presents another narrative: one of hope, redemption, male friendship, and the transformative power of rehabilitation programs. All this sheds a very different light on the notorious Sing Sing Correctional Facility.
On June 20th, I returned to Sing Sing and watched the movie in the auditorium alongside current Rehabilitation Through the Arts (RTA) members, alumni, and some of the film’s cast members. As the credits rolled, there was loud applause and smiles on faces. It was then that I realized Katherine Vockins’ words— “Trust in the process”—held true. Education and arts programs can inspire incarcerated individuals, helping them find their voice along with purpose and self-worth.
Sing Sing mirrors my journey in RTA. In the spring of 2003, I joined RTA seeking self-hope. Initially hesitant, I made it clear to the steering committee that I wasn’t an actor. However, as I participated in Shakespeare and storytelling workshops, I discovered a new passion. In this program, I found engagement while honing creative skills and fostering community and mutual support. The camaraderie and discipline required for production mirror the skills needed for successful reintegration into the community.
On June 20th, I returned to Sing Sing and watched the movie in the auditorium alongside current Rehabilitation Through the Arts (RTA) members, alumni, and some of the film’s cast members. As the credits rolled, there was loud applause and smiles on faces. It was then that I realized Katherine Vockins’ words— “Trust in the process”—held true. Education and arts programs can inspire incarcerated individuals, helping them find their voice along with purpose and self-worth.
Sing Sing mirrors my journey in RTA. In the spring of 2003, I joined RTA seeking self-hope. Initially hesitant, I made it clear to the steering committee that I wasn’t an actor. However, as I participated in Shakespeare and storytelling workshops, I discovered a new passion. In this program, I found engagement while honing creative skills and fostering community and mutual support. The camaraderie and discipline required for production mirror the skills needed for successful reintegration into the community.
| During a recent screening of Sing Sing at the Angelika Film Center in NYC, cast member James Williams shared his perspective on the impact of Rehabilitation Through the Arts (RTA): “A lot of times with RTA, we don’t just act; we aim to change the prison population.” This sentiment resonates deeply, echoing the experiences of founding member Sean Dino Johnson. Sean recalled the inaugural production of “Reality in Motion,” where cast members immersed themselves in character, even during walks in the prison yard. Their hope extended beyond the confines of the Facility—they envisioned broader audiences and family involvement. As Sean poignantly expressed, “It’s emotional for me to watch this, just to see how far we’ve come and where we stand today.” This journey—the process—is a testament to the transformative power of the arts within prison walls. |  Robert Rose at the Angelika Film Center |
Let’s learn a little more about the film. Sing Sing is a film directed by Greg Kwedar and co-written by Clint Bentley. It is inspired by the Rehabilitation Through the Arts program at Ossining’s Sing Sing Correctional Facility. It centers on a group of incarcerated men working together to stage theatrical productions as part of a rehabilitation program. The cast includes professional actors such as Colman Domingo and Paul Raci, as well as formerly incarcerated men who participated in the program during their time in prison, such as Clarence 'Divine Eye' Maclin, Sean San José, and John 'Divine G' Whitfield, who collectively defined what is called the “RTA Process.” Director Greg Kwedar reflects on the film’s journey, stating, “We’ve worked on this movie for over seven years, and every time I meet a new RTA participant or alumnus, I grow more confident that this is one of the most unique and transformative programs that I’ve ever encountered.”
Colman Domingo and Clarence Maclin in Sing Sing
Since I have personally witnessed the transformative power of the arts within correctional facilities, I can attest that the film beautifully captures personal growth and positive change among incarcerated men, some of whom are serving life sentences. As you watch Sing Sing, remember that it serves as a powerful reminder of the impact of rehabilitation programs in prisons. These programs encompass arts, academics, religion, and more, equipping incarcerated individuals with the tools they need to rebuild their lives. Despite facing harsh punishments and uncertain futures, these programs play a crucial role in reducing reoffending and offering a path toward self-confidence, redemption and hope.
After attending the past two screenings and listening to the audience, it’s clear that films like Sing Sing make a significant contribution to reshaping public perceptions about incarcerated individuals and the prison system. By humanizing the experiences of inmates and emphasizing their potential for change, the film encourages viewers to look beyond the stigma and stereotypes of incarcerated men.
Sing Sing isn’t just a movie; it serves as a powerful example of the impact of rehabilitation. It prompts us to reconsider our views on imprisonment and support initiatives that help incarcerated individuals find hope, meaning, and a path toward a brighter future. By emphasizing education, the arts, and rehabilitation, we can truly transform the lives of those in prison and positively impact our communities.
After attending the past two screenings and listening to the audience, it’s clear that films like Sing Sing make a significant contribution to reshaping public perceptions about incarcerated individuals and the prison system. By humanizing the experiences of inmates and emphasizing their potential for change, the film encourages viewers to look beyond the stigma and stereotypes of incarcerated men.
Sing Sing isn’t just a movie; it serves as a powerful example of the impact of rehabilitation. It prompts us to reconsider our views on imprisonment and support initiatives that help incarcerated individuals find hope, meaning, and a path toward a brighter future. By emphasizing education, the arts, and rehabilitation, we can truly transform the lives of those in prison and positively impact our communities.
Written by Amy Hufnagel & Alissa Lazaro
Did you know that most students leave high school without an understanding of the Jim Crow era and its continued impact on our society? This issue is at the heart of Learning for Justice, the education arm of the Southern Poverty Law Center. The history of convict leasing is an important topic that has informed the way our criminal justice system functions today. Civic Season, which spans from Juneteenth through the Fourth of July, is upon us, so let’s do some learning for justice!
This month we dove into the engaging and important podcast, Teaching Hard History, a production of Learning for Justice that helps educators and schools prepare students to be active participants in a diverse democracy. I listened to the episode, “Criminalizing Blackness: Prisons, Police and Jim Crow,” which takes a close look at the history of convict leasing. Convict leasing, the selling of prison labor to private interests, began almost immediately after emancipation, and principally affected African Americans. Because it was so profitable, “there was an effort to look for any opportunity to re-enslave or re-coerce Black labor.” New laws were put in place that criminalized small offenses, such as vagrancy, and made crimes that were formally considered misdemeanors, such as picking a strawberry (something that was common during the system of enslavement and might not lead to punishment), a felony that would land them a hefty prison sentence. Once in the prison system, prisoners could be sold from one private company (or person) to another, and labored building our nation’s coal mines, roads and railroads.
This month we dove into the engaging and important podcast, Teaching Hard History, a production of Learning for Justice that helps educators and schools prepare students to be active participants in a diverse democracy. I listened to the episode, “Criminalizing Blackness: Prisons, Police and Jim Crow,” which takes a close look at the history of convict leasing. Convict leasing, the selling of prison labor to private interests, began almost immediately after emancipation, and principally affected African Americans. Because it was so profitable, “there was an effort to look for any opportunity to re-enslave or re-coerce Black labor.” New laws were put in place that criminalized small offenses, such as vagrancy, and made crimes that were formally considered misdemeanors, such as picking a strawberry (something that was common during the system of enslavement and might not lead to punishment), a felony that would land them a hefty prison sentence. Once in the prison system, prisoners could be sold from one private company (or person) to another, and labored building our nation’s coal mines, roads and railroads.
|
This new criminal justice system is rooted in the exception clause of the 13th Amendment that states, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States.” As Dr. Robert T. Chase says in the podcast, “…it's within that loophole of the exception clause that allowed states to then make someone what became known as ‘a slave of the state.’ As the Virginia decision, Ruffin v. Commonwealth declared in 1871 that ‘a convicted felon is, for the time being, a slave of the state…’ And out of that came a whole series of laws that accelerated the criminal justice system.”
|
|
The episode takes us through informative interviews, such as the one quoted above with historian Dr. Chase, about the history of convict leasing, criminal justice in the Jim Crow era, and how best to teach this topic. It leaves us questioning the foundation on which our criminal justice system was built, and how its history has left a lasting impact on society. Honestly, this summary is just the tip of the iceberg of what you will learn in this episode; I hope you give it a listen!
Convict leasing is also a part of Sing Sing’s history. Sing Sing’s first structure was built using convict leasing; Men incarcerated in Auburn, NY came down the Hudson River to build a prison for New York State in 1825. The practice of convict leasing was slowly deemed illegal in NY State as legislators phased out the lucrative prison contract labor system between 1888-1894. To dive further into the history of convict leasing, we recommend reading Liberty’s Prisoners: Carceral Culture in Early America by Jen Manion (UPenn Press, 2015). This book explores the origins of prison labor alongside the idealism of this type of punishment and discipline.
Convict leasing is also a part of Sing Sing’s history. Sing Sing’s first structure was built using convict leasing; Men incarcerated in Auburn, NY came down the Hudson River to build a prison for New York State in 1825. The practice of convict leasing was slowly deemed illegal in NY State as legislators phased out the lucrative prison contract labor system between 1888-1894. To dive further into the history of convict leasing, we recommend reading Liberty’s Prisoners: Carceral Culture in Early America by Jen Manion (UPenn Press, 2015). This book explores the origins of prison labor alongside the idealism of this type of punishment and discipline.
|
Manion’s writing is compelling and approachable as she unfurls the “human costs of the birth of the penitentiary in the USA.” As I read her introduction, it was so profound to hold our idealism around issues of life, liberty and happiness up against those who were systematically being denied those things. We hear about injustice, wrongful convictions, and race, class and gender disparity frequently. Yet Manion takes the position that the penitentiary system was designed not for the most egregious offenders, but for the masses immigrating for the promise of liberty. This history seems particularly salient as we begin to prepare for the nation’s 250th birthday in 2026.
|
One point that Manion develops well is how the hierarchies of race, class and gender outside the prison came to be practiced inside, as well. She suggests that political and reform idealism was dismissed in favor of profit. Black prisoners waited on white prisoners; English criminals received better work assignments than Irish. “Why leave a perfectly able black woman alone in her cell with her thoughts and prayers when she could help around the prison,” Eastern State Penitentiary staff said about the first woman, named Ann Hilton, to be incarcerated there. For Hinton, punishment was not solitary reflection, but coerced free domestic labor. We know that there continues to be a hierarchy to how work assignments are given inside carceral facilities today.
From the Prison Policy Initiative’s 2022 reporting, we learn that 58% of people in state prisons have a work assignment, such as janitorial duties (29%); food preparation (20%); working in a prison library, stockroom, barber shop, or similar (12%); groundskeeping (10%); and jobs doing maintenance, repair, or construction (7.4%). Interestingly, none of this work is qualified as “job training,” which only is offered to 10% of the population. Most of the work assignments help keep the prison functioning. This data helps me think about the stories from the early 1800s of women, immigrants, working poor, and the formerly enslaved, who were sentenced to prison only to find their “reform” work assignment to be another level of injustice.
Curating this reading and listening selection was a way of sharing 1) some founding writings of penitentiary visionaries, 2) the history of convict leasing and contracts, and 3) how prison labor is functioning today. It is clearly “hard history.” Here is yet another reason why the Sing Sing Prison Museum has a role to play in the ecosystem of incarceration in New York, and why teaching hard history is so important to the health of our civic participation and leadership.
To continue the conversation, join us for our next Short Attention Span Book Club coming up on June 25th.
RESOURCES:
From the Prison Policy Initiative’s 2022 reporting, we learn that 58% of people in state prisons have a work assignment, such as janitorial duties (29%); food preparation (20%); working in a prison library, stockroom, barber shop, or similar (12%); groundskeeping (10%); and jobs doing maintenance, repair, or construction (7.4%). Interestingly, none of this work is qualified as “job training,” which only is offered to 10% of the population. Most of the work assignments help keep the prison functioning. This data helps me think about the stories from the early 1800s of women, immigrants, working poor, and the formerly enslaved, who were sentenced to prison only to find their “reform” work assignment to be another level of injustice.
Curating this reading and listening selection was a way of sharing 1) some founding writings of penitentiary visionaries, 2) the history of convict leasing and contracts, and 3) how prison labor is functioning today. It is clearly “hard history.” Here is yet another reason why the Sing Sing Prison Museum has a role to play in the ecosystem of incarceration in New York, and why teaching hard history is so important to the health of our civic participation and leadership.
To continue the conversation, join us for our next Short Attention Span Book Club coming up on June 25th.
RESOURCES:
- “Criminalizing Blackness: Prisons, Police and Jim Crow,” Teaching Hard History: Listen + Transcript | Apple Podcasts
- Liberty’s Prisoners: Carceral Culture in Early America, Jen Manion: JSTOR | Amazon
- Labor in State Prisons today (data from 2022 article): The state prison experience: Too much drudgery, not enough opportunity | Prison Policy Initiative
- About Civic Season: Made By Us | Civic Season
- The history of convict leasing and amazing photographs from the WPA era: The Convict Leasing System: Slavery in its Worst Aspects | Inside Adams (loc.gov)
- The ending of convict labor in NYS: The End of Contract Labor and its Effects on the New York State Penal System in the Nineteenth Century | The NYC Criminal (fordham.edu)
- ACLU and GHRC Research Report: "Captive Labor: Exploitation of Incarcerated Workers"
Archives
October 2025
August 2025
June 2025
May 2025
April 2025
January 2025
December 2024
July 2024
June 2024
May 2024
February 2024
January 2024
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
June 2023
May 2023
March 2023
November 2022
August 2022
March 2022
January 2022
April 2021
December 2020
May 2020
March 2020
December 2019
February 2019
RSS Feed
