Chain Gangs in the US Today, Research Paper Example

Abstract

This paper provides an in depth examination of the use of ‘Chain Gangs’ in the USA and the impact on the penal system. Chain Gangs gained in popularity after the end of the Civil War and were widely adopted in the Southern States. They mainly consisted of black people and other outdoor convict labor. The paper examines whether such treatment is an infringement of human rights and whether much of this was perpetuated by a spin-off of racism and slavery. The paper is divided into five main parts: (i) Introduction (ii) History and Background (iii) The Linkage to Slavery (iv) juvenile chain gangs and (v) Conclusions. The paper asks the question of whether the current US judicial system should abolish this type of convict punishment within the context of a modern day legal system of justice and recognize the importance of human rights.

Introduction

The first US chain gang was formed in the state of Georgia in 1908 as a progressive penal reform movement. Two main factors led to the development of the first chain gang: the ending of the convict lease system and a need for improved transportation. Reliable road workers were hard to find and keep and proponents of the program argued a humanitarian approach. Supporters of the chain gang claimed the program was an excellent way to provide honest hard work in the fresh air and sunshine away from their prison cells for the convicts without cutting into free men’s labor. The program was largely applauded and other states were encouraged to establish chain gangs for their own state prison systems. However, the existence of the first chain gangs was cut short by economic conditions brought by the Great Depression. As jobs became scarce, able workers reversed their opinions about road work and complained that the chain gangs were taking jobs and wages away from free men. Public opinion of chain gangs also changed as more white convicts were seen chained on the roads and movies such as I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang (1932) and Cool Hand Luke (1967)showed some of the realities and abuses routinely practiced in the chain gang system.[1]

Case study example

In 1995, four hundred convicts were gathered to work at the Limestone Correctional Facility in Alabama. Chain gangs were reestablished throughout Alabama and the states of Arizona, Florida, Massachusetts, Iowa and Wisconsin quickly adopted the system. This time chain gangs for women and juveniles were also established.1 The chain gang system has remained in place for some states, despite opponents objections on the basis of both the eighth and thirteenth amendments. While the Supreme Court has never directly ruled against the practice of chain gangs, they have ruled against several forms of prison abuse, including

Alabama’s “hitching post” punishment.1 More research is needed on the subject of chain gangs to decide if they can be instituted to serve both a reformatory and punishment purpose for convicts, while resolving past objections to the system.

History and background

After the Civil War, many systems of the southern states’ prisons compromising of largely the black population held two models of the prison’s outdoor convict labor. They include the road chain gang and the prison farm. The chain gang generally started in Georgia early in 1908 and envisioned as a thriving penal reform movement termed as the direct consequence that would end the convict lease system (Banks, 2005; Thomas, 2004; Colin, 2005). Chain gangs boomed throughout the South such that by the 1920s and mid 1930s it was apparent that chained prisoners, largely composing of blacks, became precisely anordinary sight along roadways (Gelb, 1973; John, 1986; Mariana,2002; Theresa, 1995).

Georgia grasped the social and economic benefits of using chain gang that soon developed and was of use in “good roads movement.” On humanitarian grounds, proponents had a claim that this was a fair deal for the prisoner, in allowing him to get out of the caged prisons and work outside while breathing the fresh air and enjoying sunshine (Banks, 2005; Thomas, 2004; Colin, 2005). This way, the movement was volatile and thrived in many states adopting the practice and legalizing it.

Chain gangs reintroduction

Featured in a few states during the 1990’s “get tough on crime” times when many states felt a need to use harsh approaches in curbing crime (Gelb, 1973; John, 1986; Mariana,2002; Theresa, 1995). Since slavery, it was a solemn issue to the state in handling prisoners since the human rights act introduction. Alabama was the first state to feature in the reintroduction in 1995 but feigned in many states at the end of the decade. However, there have been many jurisdictions re-introducing the gangs in form of prison labor in the recent years including Arizona and phoenix. Practices in chain gangs are conventional and controversial for the state. In one way, the approach was very effective in getting tough on crime and reducing the number of crimes in United States with a cut down of 2% in the number of prisoners across the states by the year 1997. However, basing on the human rights groups, it is apparent that chain gangs feature as an ethical issue affecting human beings and infringing on their rights as well as discriminating against their freedom.

Chain gangs have had a long history but tracing its roots, the intention was not of any good intention for the prisoners (Gelb, 1973; John, 1986; Mariana,2002; Theresa, 1995). Regions including Maricopa County, Arizona, Phoenix, and others around the country drewattention on using chain gangs for both women and men as an economic benefit courtesy of the correctional department. The practitioners of this practice base their argument framing chain gangs as better than chipping rocks or the rest of non-productive tasks that many correctional institutions use. However, there are quick points to note that even with the economic benefits in using chain gangs; the whole affair is all at the expense of the prisoners (Banks, 2005; Thomas, 2004; Colin, 2005).

Working conditions

Colin (2005) wrote that the prisoners have to work under very humiliating conditions with oppressive desert heat. It is unethical to deny a human being a choice because it infringes on his rights. Many jurisdictions have the argument that participation in chain gangs within Maricopa Countyis voluntaryand that everyone who works outdoor, not only the prisoner, works in heat as well (Gelb, 1973; John, 1986; Mariana,2002; Theresa, 1995). However, in the chain gangs situation, they do not have any freedom, they are denied rest since one individual resting means resting of the whole group and to make matters worse, they do not have access to essentials including water for quenching thirst. Working in the chain gangs might be voluntary as the jurisdiction states, but there is more to the issue (Banks, 2005; Thomas, 2004; Colin, 2005).

In Arizona, Maricopa County inmates volunteer to work in a chain gang just to earn credit en route for a high school diploma or in the pursuit of avoiding disciplinary lockdowns generally for rule infractions. It beats logic to conceptualize that; the practice might be voluntary but not indeed (Gelb, 1973; John, 1986; Mariana,2002; Theresa, 1995). There are strings attached to the voluntary work therefore compromising the practice. It is not wrong to make the practice voluntary because it shows a sense of justice and fairness but attaching conditions to the concept changes the entire practice and compromises the practice (Banks, 2005; Thomas, 2004; Colin, 2005).

The chain gangs introduction convicted prisoners to work that was rightfully and originally free labor. This time, it was a desperate time when many people in the country needed work and pay from any type of job because the great depression had hit the capital market and alienated many jobs present in the economy. Colin (2005) said that because of this, the chain gangs introduction into working in these jobs was a depreciation of jobs opportunity for the entire free population. With the government stopping the provision of federal funds in financing the construction of roads and using the chain gang convicts, it was apparent that the approach was a hoax and with negative effects to the broad population (Banks, 2005; Thomas, 2004; Colin, 2005). In fact, instead to serving as a crime deterrence approach, it perpetuated crime since majority of the people remained jobless across the country and engaged in criminal behavior.

Chain gangs perpetuated racism

Largely that the country has fought with trying to find solutions over centuries (Gelb, 1973; John, 1986; Mariana,2002; Theresa, 1995). The race factor features as one of the greatest ventures in chain road practices across many states in the United States. Just like the earlier note, chain gangs features commonly across the streets but with the black population being the majority (Theresa, 1995). Not that there were no white convicts in the prisons but the practice in a way would provoke more blacks to volunteer in the chain gangs. The concept of racism extended from the slavery period with unfair treatment on the blacks. On the other hand, there was an alarming support from the whites on chain gangs following a successful practice in the good roads movement (Banks, 2005; Thomas, 2004; Colin, 2005). The tragic fate of the black lawbreaker still featured and compromised their freedom. Jurisdictions set more strict and tough conditions for the black prisoners that gave them no option other than volunteering for the chain gangs. With a prospect of working in plantation, toiling in the coalmines and many other demanding law enforcement punishments, the blacks could seek refuge in the chain gangs without any other option.

The chain gangs compromised the earlier efforts of rehabilitating prisons to comfortable places (Gelb, 1973; John, 1986; Mariana,2002; Theresa, 1995). The effort had started in many states including Georgia and Arizona after the abolishment of slave trade and the spotlight of the prisons from the human rights watch. The chain gangs only made the prison environments worse other than conditioning them to better places suitable for prisoners’ rehabilitation. Prisoners labored and slept together locked up in chains that they could not free themselves. The fastened chains through their feet as well as around their ankles perpetuated worse health conditions as maggots infested their rations (Banks, 2005; Thomas, 2004; Colin, 2005).

Brutality

Thomas (2004) argued that there was also reintroduction of brutalities in prisons a case that was so far diminishing. It facilitated the reintroduction of corporal punishments in the prisons around the country compromising all efforts of rehabilitating the institutions. Some of the most featuring brutalities reintroduced include leather strap beating, rifle butts thumping, and outright torture.  There were also atrocities for instance staking treatment that involved chaining an inmate and inhumanely pouring molasses over the entire body causing flies, bees as well as other insects to crawl all over him (Theresa, 1995). All these inhuman treatments reintroduction was courtesy of claimed disobedience on the part of prisoners in carrying out their duties a case that featured during slavery. It worsened the state of prisons rather than promoting the efforts of rehabilitation.

The linkage to slavery

The spectacle of chain gangs is a deliberation and a feature of slavery that is a black history in the country (Gelb, 1973; John, 1986; Mariana,2002; Theresa, 1995). The images of chain gangs do not differ from slavery. It serves as a forceful reminder of the dark age of racial oppression of the blacks in America.It brings images to mind of the blacks linked by iron collars and leg irons showing that it is not different from the human oppression during slavery as espoused in the transportation of salves to the plantations (Theresa, 1995). With the iron chains, serving as an emblem of humiliation and degradation the use of chain gangs would revive the oppression practices and bring about the revolutionary movements in the country bringing about instability in the country as the case of slavery after the civil war movements. The result of the chain gangs would be the undermining of the moral legitimacy precisely of United States criminal justice system a fact that should be handled well in hand before it breaks loose and makes it difficult to control.

Slavery and human rights

Thomas (2004) speculates that chain gangconnection to slavery isindubitable since the practice precisely offends human dignity, there should be a condemnation of the practice as a form of unusual and cruel punishment. This is possible through the mandate of the perpetual Eighth Amendment of the law (Theresa, 1995). There have been critics pointing to the Thirteenth Amendment as the solution to the practice. The constitutional prohibition on any form of involuntary servitude is ideal in providing an exception for the convicted of crime. Even with the Supreme Court prohibiting forms of prison abuse, there is need to address the chain gangs issue constitutionally and in script write it and pass it in the constitution to make it a public law and enforce its abolishment (Gelb, 1973; John, 1986; Mariana,2002; Theresa, 1995).

Juvenile chain gangs

Majority of the convicts in the chain gangs composed of young people who were in for petty crimes as per the reports from the country legal system. The young people needed better approaches for rehabilitation taking note of juvenile delinquency as the major concept explaining their criminal behavior (Colin, 2005). Corporal punishment merely does not justify reforms in individuals but rather sounds crude and worsens the behavior of the juveniles. The country has over 40 well-established rehabilitation centers for the juveniles meaning that caging and chain gangs would only be the last resort if it has to when dealing with abject crimes.

In the practice of chain gangs, the main aims of the practiced as espoused by the country jurisdictions was on two broad reasons including reducing inmates’ idleness  and serving as a form of crime deterrent (Theresa, 1995). Considering that there are many other forms of deterring crime, such a practice would be the last option for the jurisdictions in crime deterrence.  Imprisonment, community services and all forms of punishment for the offenders are some of the serving approaches that would as well apply in many situations other than chain gangs. Bearing in mind that most of the prisoners were on board for petty crimes and needed little efforts to conform and rehabilitate, chain gangs would only make criminal more hardened and enhancing the recidivism concept that is a danger to the societal control of crime (Colin, 2005).

Government role

The chain gangs were perpetuated by the government with the introduction of policies that abolished finances for road construction (Gelb, 1973; John, 1986; Mariana,2002; Theresa, 1995).  The economic forces were central in playing a role to its demise. During the global Great Depression, there were eventualities of scarce jobs and crime was on a high. The events lead to majority of people engaging in crimes especially the blacks. Ethically, it would have been wise for the government to find measures, deal with the issue from grass roots, and find remedies for the menace other than introducing the chain gangs as a means of combating crime and a deterrence approach (Theresa, 1995). Seeking approaches including financial support and economy construction would have been a ready approach supporting communities and reducing criminal practices that was desperation from individuals in the society to earn daily bread.

Out rightly, chain gangs have served for long as inhuman practices in the name of crime deterrence (Gelb, 1973; John, 1986; Mariana,2002; Theresa, 1995). The country has had major experiences even more severe than covered in the popular literatures some, which were behind the bars with prospects of rape and other inhuman torture courtesy of chain gangs. Perpetuating the practice means more violation of human rights that sincerely would mean more crime and resurgence of protests and instability in the country. Thomas (2004) claims that there are many other rehabilitation and punishment approaches that the country has tested over time and found them working for instance community service, juvenile centers among many others.

Legal position

If only the judicial system would implement clear policies on punishment and the offenders and instill that in the constitution of the country, chain gangs would be a historical practice and resurgence would be a forgotten experience (Theresa, 1995). However, there is need for corporation among the country’s system including the judicial, civil and the human rights practitioners to implement change and focus in elimination of chain gangs from the system completely.

Objections to the chain gang system have included outrage over prison abuses, the loss of jobs available to the public, and concern over the allusion to slavery images of chain gangs display. Research might help the prison systems to discover how they can implement a chain gang system and have it be seen in a positive light by the public. The specific research that needs to be done concerns formatting different processes for the system and presenting these processes to the public to gauge their reaction. On the other side, research also needs to be done on the effects of chain gangs on the convicts, both during participation in the system and after release from prison.

Research

There are many ways that the research on chain gangs could be carried out. Basic research techniques such as flyer surveys to individual households presenting scenarios for application of the system could be used. If this were done in conjunction with advertising of the issue and the mailed surveys in local and national media it could serve very useful for gauging where the general public stands on what is considered allowable protocol for forced work programs for convicts. Public forums, such as city hall meetings, and focus study groups could also contribute to generating productive and focused conversation on the topic. In this way ideas for implementation in the system could be garnered directly from the public, helping to ensure practices that would not meet with objections. Research methods concerning the effects of chain gangs on convicts would have to be long-term. This research could be done through observational studies by neutral researchers, interviews with prison employees, and interviews with the convicts themselves. Information for research after release from prison could be obtained through regular parole interviews and further in time from voluntary participation by former chain gang members.

References

Banks, C. (2005). In Punishment in America: a reference handbook (pp.154-156). Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO Chain-Gangs.html

Colin, F. (2005). Private use of prisoners’ labor: Paradoxes of international human rights law. Human Rights Quarterly, 27(1), 249-293. DOI: 10.1353/hrq.2005.0005

Gelb, J. (1973). Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 32(1/2), 70-98. http://www.jstor.org/pss/543472

McCarthy, T. (2004). Coming to Terms with Our Past, Part II: On the Morality and Politics of Reparations for Slavery. Political Theory 32(6) 750-772. DOI: 10.1177/0090591704268924

Online Encyclopedia, Chain Gangs, 2010, http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/6045/

Theresa, A. (1995). The archaeology of slavery in North America. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24/ (October, 1995), 119-140. doi:10.1146/annurev.an.24.100195.001003

Thomas, M. (2004). Coming to Terms with Our Past, Part II: On the Morality and Politics of     Reparations for Slavery. Political Theory, Vol. 32, No. 6 (Dec., 2004), pp. 750-772

Valverde, M. (2002). Justice as Irony: A Queer Ethical Experiment. Law and Literature. 14(1) (spring, 2002), 85-102. http://www.jstor.org/pss/743587

Wilson, J. (1986). Subjective Probability and the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Management Science. 32(1), 45-55. http://www.jstor.org/pss/2631398