Prisons, Production, and Profit - Reconsidering the Importance of Prison Industries

• NCJ Number: 86646
• Journal: Journal of Social History Volume: 14 Issue: 2 Dated: (Winter 1980) Pages: 257-275
• Author(s): J A Conley
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 19 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Earlier version presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, 1978.

Annotation

Using Oklahoma as an example, this paper argues that correctional industries have been a central feature of U.S. penal development and that policies and program changes were directly related to State officials' and private businessmen's desires to exploit inmate labor for profit.

Abstract

Oklahoma became a State in 1907 and 2 years later began constructing a massive penitentiary that was not only a model of modern corrections but also was envisioned as an institution that paid for itself and produced a profit through manufacturing and selling prison-made goods. The State used a combination of the contract, State account, and State-use systems of prison production and sales. The contract industries producing overalls, shirts, and brooms earned handsome profits in the 1920's, while brick and twine factories built inside the penitentiary showed good profits and provided Oklahoma residents with low-cost products. This success, however, was short-lived. Problems which eventually crippled correctional industries revolved around the prison's inability to continually produce a profit, to achieve full employment of inmates, to resolve the issue of prison goods competing with private firms, and to meet the political threat from the emerging coalition of business and labor interests who opposed prison industries. Idleness was a major problem faced by State prisons in the 1930's because of the depression, increased prison populations, and Federal legislation regulating the sale of prison products. Contracts for Navy clothing, furniture, rope, and brick revived Oklahoma's prison industries during World War II, but also delayed a fundamental reassessment of their role in the correctional system. The industries deteriorated after the war as equipment became outdated, product quality declined, and the inmate population grew and constantly turned over. Moreover, the State refused to recognize that exploiting inmate labor for profit was not a viable policy because of its assumption that inmates would work in a forced environment without incentives to make products for which they received little or no pay. Since the State had no commitment to rehabilitation or any alternative model, the penitentiary simply provided a custodial service for the courts with the primary goal of maintaining order within its walls. The paper contains 48 footnotes.