Abstract
As Jodi Schorb tells us in her new book, Reading Prisoners, the title has a double meaning. Not only is the book about the reading practices of inmates but it also explores the public’s appetite for reading about prisoners during the 18th and early 19th centuries. Schorb, an assistant professor of English at the University of Florida, has crafted a very well-written book. She writes with great clarity and her engaging writing style makes Reading Prisoners an interesting read.
Organized chronologically, Reading Prisoners begins by focusing on the confessions of the condemned during the early stages of the 18th century. During much of the 1700s, offenders frequently received corporal punishment for the crimes they committed. But following Becarria’s influential work, incarceration began being used as a means of punishment in the latter part of the 18th century, ultimately giving rise to the first penitentiaries in the early 19th century. Although the late 1700s may thus seem like the logical starting point for historical scholarship on prisoner literacy, Schorb argues that “execution narratives” were an important literary feature of colonial America.
During the early 1700s, narratives that recorded the confessions of criminals prior to their executions were frequently disseminated to the public. In these accounts, which were sometimes written by inmates themselves, offenders typically recounted the ways in which their sinful lives led to crime and, ultimately, their deaths. At the same time, however, the confessions also focused on inmates’ religious conversions prior to their executions and, more narrowly, the centrality of scriptural reading to their redemption. Thus, the execution narratives not only served pedagogical purposes but they also provided early portraits of literate prisoners.
Beginning in the mid-1700s, Schorb writes that the era of the “writing prisoner” emerged. The popularity of the confessions of condemned criminals remained strong, but here we see more inmates writing their own last words rather than relying on others to record their accounts. Perhaps as a result, these narratives became more secular, and they began to increasingly emphasize the sensational aspects of the crimes the inmates committed. As Schorb points out, a growing number of the condemned confessions were written by those convicted of counterfeiting, an offense that, by the 1770s, carried the death penalty due to the impact it had on the economy.
In the second half of the book, Schorb turns her attention to the role of prisoner reading and literacy in the nation’s first penitentiaries, first in Pennsylvania and later in New York. Philadelphia’s Walnut Street Jail opened in 1773 and was later converted into a penitentiary in the 1790s. In contrast to the Auburn congregate system, which placed an emphasis on offenders working in silence alongside other inmates, Pennsylvania’s separate system required prisoners to be completely isolated from one another. The Pennsylvania system thus seemingly fostered an environment conducive to reading, for offenders had little else to occupy their time when they were not working. Although some scholars have claimed that reading and literacy figured prominently in the early penitentiary movement, Schorb argues that efforts to educate prisoners were marked, to a large extent, by ambivalence.
As in Pennsylvania, Schorb notes that the New York penitentiary experience during the early 1800s did not demonstrate a strong commitment to prisoner education. Although inmates were allowed to form night schools and serve as tutors to other prisoners due to the congregate system, offender reading and literacy was not considered essential. Moreover, the degree to which education was emphasized during the first decades of the 19th century depended, for the most part, on the value that individual prison administrators placed on offenders learning how to read and write.
In examining prisoner reading and literacy prior to 1845, Schorb frequently draws upon the stories of prisoners as well as the individuals who were key players in the early penitentiary era. For example, to illustrate how writing prisoners were able to inject their own perspectives in public discourse on imprisonment, Schorb shares the stories of inmates such as Patrick Lyon, Ann Carson, and George Ryno. Although these personal stories enliven the book and help illustrate its broader themes, Schorb is also adept at linking these themes to the broader social, political, and economic forces at work in the 18th and early 19th centuries.
If there is one criticism that could be leveled against Reading Prisoners, it is that it does not attempt to link its findings with modern trends in American corrections. Despite recent calls for increased efforts to educate prisoners, especially in New York, the public remains largely ambivalent about providing educational programming to offenders. Although the available evidence suggests obtaining a degree, especially for postsecondary education, can improve employment, recidivism, and cost avoidance outcomes for offenders, there continues to be opposition to “rewarding” prisoners with educational opportunities.
What is also apparent from Reading Prisoners is that religious and faith communities were very much involved in prisoner education during the early penitentiary era. To be sure, educational programming is arguably more secular now than it was then. At the same time, however, recent experience suggests that “faith-based educational programming” may be making a comeback of sorts. Indeed, along with the more well-established seminary programs for prisoners in New York and Louisiana, similar programs have been implemented over the last several years in at least nine states, including California, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia.
Notwithstanding the lack of a connection to contemporary issues in American corrections, Schorb’s book illustrates that the many of the challenges and debates over prisoner education remain with us today. In doing so, Reading Prisoners makes a solid contribution to the literature on prisoner reading and literacy.