The Wrath of the Cat
Introduction
The Diary written by Isaac T. Hopper served as a record of all commitments to the State prisons, the crimes for which each prisoner was convicted, the dates of commitment and subsequent discharge from prison, employment opportunities, and financial burdens [1]. In essence, the Diary was the primary means by which Hopper documented his interactions with discharged convicts. In the early years of the New York Prison Association, the Diary focused primarily on prisoners' crimes, the duration of imprisonment, and the assistance provided to each discharged convict by the Association. However, Hopper began to write increasingly of punishments in the prisons, and in particular punishment in Sing Sing in the year 1848. What was prison discipline? And why did Hopper begin writing about abuses in Sing Sing four years after beginning the Diary?
Types of Punishment
The 1846 Sing Sing Constitution, which outlined the structure, organization, and policies of the prison, detailed the various types of acceptable punishment for a breach of prison rules. There were ten 'legal' forms of punishment in Sing Sing ranging from non-violent punishments, including deprivation of books or change of clothing, to physically harmful punishments including the shower bath and the cat-o-nine-tails [2].
The showering bath and the cat-o-nine tails were perhaps the most notorious and harmful forms of punishment inflicted on prisoners in Sing Sing. The cat-o-nine-tails was a type of whip/lash that consisted of nine ‘tails’ or cords each containing knots at the end. The knots were specifically designed to leave “wounds resembling cat scratches on the backs of convicts.”[3]
The shower bath was also harmful to prisoners, although it did not leave visible and permanent marks on the victim. In the shower bath, prisoners were bound by the ankles and writs and a tin tunnel was held over the prisoner's head, which was securely confined on both sides so as to prevent movement. Water of an "ordinary temperature" (typically 32 degrees Fahrenheit) was then poured in a “steady stream” over the prisoner [4]. The challenge posed by the shower-bath was that prisoners seemed submissive or appeared frozen in place, therefore Keepers (or prison officers responsible for the maintenance and order of the prison) had no sense of when it was time to cease punishment [5].
While all of these punishments were considered ‘legal’ in Sing Sing, the New York Prison Association aimed to slowly reform the acceptable forms of punishment in prisons across the state.
The Prison Discipline Committee
In 1846, the state of New York adopted a new state Constitution which contained a request submitted by the New York Prison Association to reform the religious and educational instruction in prisons, improve prison meals, and enhance overall prison conditions [6]. The new reforms required external oversight and yearly inspections to assess the quality of prison conditions. As a result, the Prison Association was granted the
power to visit, inspect, and examine all of the prisons in the state and annually report to the legislature their state and condition.”[7]
With power and legal authority, the Prison Association created a committee tasked solely with inspecting and reporting on the state of the prisons in New York – The Prison Discipline Committee. The general duties of the Discipline Committee included assessing the internal organization and structure of the prisons and ensuring that the prisoners were not subject to undo moral and physical influences from prison officials [8]. In 1846, the Association had eleven different sub-committees designed to inspect the various prisons in New York state. The committee assigned to inspect Sing Sing prison included – John Duer, John D. Russ, Judge John W. Edmonds, Rensselaer N. or Henry W. Havens (The Annual Report does not distinguish which Havens was a member of the inspection committee at Sing Sing), Abner Benedict, and Cyrus Curtiss.
The Committee's First Report
Despite having legal authority to enter the prisons, in the first year of its existence the Prison Discipline Committee experienced difficulty in completing inspections. Particularly challenging was the fact that the Wardens and Keepers were reluctant to permit inspections, which they considered unwarranted intrusions of privacy [9]. Nevertheless, the Committee was able to enter Sing Sing and compile a report on the prison conditions and the treatment of prisoners.
In 1846, the Association uncovered instance of abuse and brutality, especially in Sing Sing. In the report from Sing Sing, inspectors identified 691 violations of prison rules, of which 267 warranted lashes. In one year, the Wardens at Sing Sing administered a total of 2,421 lashes which averaged over 9 lashes for each violation of prison rules. In addition, in the year 1846, prisoners at Sing Sing also experienced the showering bath 77 times and the deprivation of food (stoppage of diet) 101 times.
Upon inspection of the prison, the Committee on Prison Discipline compiled and published its findings in the Prison Association's Annual Report of 1846. Despite the high number of punishments administered at Sing Sing, the Prison Discipline Committee expressed great excitement and enthusiasm at the condition of the prison. The Committee wrote that
in Sing Sing, where three years ago nearly 100 blows a day were struck, and where the whipping post was never dry; weeks and even months now elapsed without a blow ... but there is a possibility that it may get bad again so the system needs to be monitored [10].
Despite what appears to be a high number of punishments, the Prison Discipline Committee argued that the number of punishments had drastically decreased, for while 1846 was the first year that the Prison Association completed inspections of Sing Sing, state inspectors has been compiling reports for years prior. The Prison Discipline Committee used previous records in conjunction with findings from their inspection to document improvement and express optimism with the reforms in Sing Sing in 1846. Nevertheless, the committee recognized the potential for regression and noted the continued need for inspections of Sing Sing, its prisoners, and the actions of the Keepers.
A Glimmer of Hope
The publication of the Association's Report of 1846 resulted in a public outcry against the abuses suffered by prisoners in Sing Sing and prompted a series of legislative actions designed to reform the prison system. In 1847, the legislature abolished the cat as a form of punishment for a three-year trial period. Initially, Wardens feared that riots and disorder would ensue, however conditions in the prisons actually improved. There were fewer escapes and production increased in the various workshops. Other reforms in the year 1847 included a requirement that inspectors visit and report on the conditions at Sing Sing at least four times annually [11].
In 1847, it seemed as though the Prison Discipline Committee had successfully navigated the challenges posed by the Wardens and Keepers of the New York State prisons and that the inspections had prompted the beginnings of change within the prison system.
Limited Capabilities: Barred from Sing Sing
Despite the legislative reforms of 1847, the Prison Discipline Committee continued to experience difficulties in entering the prisons to conduct inspections. Especially challenging was the 1848 election of Alexander Hamilton Wells as the Warden of Sing Sing, for Wells denied entry outright for inspectors from the Prison Association. Unable to visit prisoners, the Association relied on Hopper’s Diary, filled with ex-convict stories, as material to compile its Annual Report. The Association acknowledged the problem with using “uncorroborated testimony,” but insisted Hopper’s notes were the “only clue” about the events in Sing Sing [12].
Re-Admitted to Sing Sing
Being barred from Sing Sing was one of the greatest “embarrassments” for the Prison Association for it prevented the Prison Discipline Committee from“rendering those active services to the cause in which it engaged which, under other circumstances, it would have felt a privilege and duty to have performed.”[13] For approximately four years, the Prison Discipline Committee was unable to fulfill its assigned role, until A H Wells retired as Warden of Sing Sing in 1852, after which time the Committee on Prison Discipline was again granted access to Sing Sing [14].
The New York Prison Association expressed great excitement at the rapid progress made in 1852. The Annual Report stated that
in no former year has the Association been more active in the discharge of its duties. [15]
The Association was successful in its work in the year 1852, however the Annual Report did not contain an inspection from Sing Sing, for there were a series of challenges that further limited the Committee's ability to conduct inspections on all the prisons. While prisons including Richmond County Prison and Kings County Jail were inspected by the Prison Discipline Committee, a lack of funds prevented inspections of all prisons. Therefore, while Wells retirement meant that Sing Sing was again open to outside inspectors, the Committee was still unable to adequately assess Sing Sing and compile a report [16].
Conclusion
The Prison Discipline Committee's 1846 inspection of Sing Sing revealed not only the frequency and type of punishments, but also the positive effects of reforms on prison discipline. For the New York Prison Association, the information collected in 1846 was vital to the push for reforms, which were implemented by the legislature in 1847. However, changes in the Warden at Sing Sing in 1848 created challenges for the Prison Discipline Committee. In order to document the progress, or lack thereof, that Sing Sing made in terms of improving treatment and punishment of prisoners, the Prison Discipline Committee used Hopper's Diary as a form of inspection and published the stories told by discharged convicts as evidence in the Annual Report. In all, the Diary was essential to maintaining the integrity of the Association's efforts in documenting the wrath of the cat (cat-o-nine-tails) and in advocating for reform.
Footnotes
[1] New York Prison Association. First Annual Report of the New York Prison Association to the Legislature of the State of New York, 1844. "By-Laws." (Albany: Charles van Benthuysen, 1845)
[2] Documents of the Senate of the State of New York vol. 1 no,1-40. (Albany, New York, Charles von Benthuysen, 1847). 110.
[3] Michael Welch, "Suffering and Science.” In Escape of Prison, 167-194. University of California Press, 2015.
[4] Fred. A Packard, Memorandum of a late visit to the Auburn Penitentiary. Prepared for the Philadelphia Society for the Alleviation of the Miseries of Public Prisons. Philadelphia: J. Harding, 1842. Accessed April 21, 2019 from https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/ss:21820100
[5] Prison Discipline Society. Twenty Third Annual Report of the Board of Managers of the Prison Discipline Society (Boston, MA: T.R. Marvin, 1848), 716.
[6] M.J Heale.“The Formative Years of the New York Prison Association, 1844-1862. A Case Study of Antebellum Reform.” New-York Historical Society Quarterly 59, no. 3 (July 1975): 335-336
[7] Heale, 336
[8] New York Prison Association. Third Report of the New York Prison Association. “By-Laws” (New York, NY: Bruce & Baner, 1847).
[9] New York Prison Association. Third Report of the New York Prison Association. (New York, NY: Bruce & Baner, 1847). 59.
[10] New York Prison Association. Third Report of the New York Prison Association. (New York, NY: Bruce & Baner, 1847). 43.
[11] Denis Brian, The Inside Story of a Notorious Prison: Sing Sing. (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2005). 35.
[12] Jennifer Graber, The Furnace of Affliction: Prisons and Religion in Antebellum America, (Chapel Hill : The University of North Carolina Press. 2011) 165
[13] New York Prison Association. Eighth Annual Report of the New-York Prison Association to the Legislature of the State of New York. (Albany: Charles van Benthuysen, 1853). 8-9.
[14] Heale, 337
[15] New York Prison Association. Eighth Annual Report of the New-York Prison Association to the Legislature of the State of New York. (Albany: Charles van Benthuysen, 1853). 9.
[16] Heale, 337