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
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
October 2025
Categories |
RSS Feed
