physical exercise, or meditation to deal with thelack of stimulation. Individuals housed in controlunits evidence more internalized problems, inter-personal distress, and psychiatric symptoms thanthose in the general population. However, at leastone study found no empirical evidence that thesesymptoms deteriorated after confinement in controlunits for periods less than 60 days. The effects oflonger terms of solitary confinement have not beenstudied, although personal accounts suggest that itis stressful and may limit inmates’ coping abilities.

The use of control units has been criticized by sev-eral organizations including Amnesty International,Human Rights Watch, the American Friends ServiceCommittee, and the National Lawyers Guild, andsome have formed campaigns to shut down all con-trol units. These groups raise concerns about the neg-ative psychological impact that such confinementmay have on inmates. There is consensus thatinmates with serious mental health problems shouldnot be placed in control units. The high construc-tional and operational costs due to the enhancedsecurity features and intensive staffing necessary todeliver services and programs to inmates individu-ally are also a source of concern for some critics.

In contrast, correctional administrators usuallytout three benefits of control units. First, they reducethe level of violence in other correctional institu-tions throughout a correctional system. The threat oftransfer to control units serves as a deterrent to vio-lence, and thus makes the inmate population moremanageable. Second, control units house only themost violent prisoners who have demonstrated thatthey cannot be held at other prisons without jeopar-dizing the safety of other inmates and correctionalstaff. However, there is some evidence that in prac-tice broader criteria for entry are employed. Last, thereduction of violence that results from use of controlunits allows the security at other prisons in thatsystem to be relaxed. No empirical data have beencollected to test these claims.

CONCLUSION

In recent years, control units have become common-place in many penal systems. Given the controversies

that still rage over their effectiveness and impact onpsychological health, clearly more research needsto be done. Until it is clearer what this modern formof solitary confinement actually achieves, there is afairly strong case that its use should be kept to anabsolute minimum.

—Mary A. Finn

See also ADX (Administrative Maximum) Florence;Alcatraz; Disciplinary Segregation; Lexington HighSecurity Unit; Marion, U.S. Penitentiary; MaximumSecurity; Mental Health; Pelican Bay State Prison;Protective Custody; Solitary Confinement; SpecialHousing Unit; Supermax Prisons; Violence

Further Reading

American Friends Service Committee. (1997). National cam-paign to stop control unit prisons. Retrieved fromhttp://www.afsc.org/crimjust/controlu.htm

Barak-Glantz, I. L. (1983). Who’s in the “hole”? CriminalJustice Review, 8, 29–37.

Korn, R. (1988). The effects of confinement in the high secu-rity unit at Lexington. Social Justice, 15(1), 1–8.

LIS, Inc. (1997). Supermax housing: A survey of current prac-tice. Longmont, CO: U.S. Department of Justice.

Martel, J. (2001). Telling the story: A study in the segregationof women prisoners. Social Justice, 28(1), 196–215.

Riveland, C. (1999). Supermax prisons: Overview and generalconsiderations. Washington, DC: National Institute ofCorrections.

Shafer, C. (1998). It’s like living in a black hole: Women ofcolor and solitary confinement in the prison-industrialcomplex. New England Journal on Criminal and CivilConfinement, 24(2), 385–416.

Zinger, I., Wichmann, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2001). Thephysical effects of 60 days in administrative segregation.Canadian Journal of Criminology, 43(1), 47–83.

Legal Cases

Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472; 115 S. Ct. 2293; 132L. Ed. 2d 418; 1995 LEXIS 4069.

Wolff v. McDonnell, 416 U.S. 966; 945 S. Ct. 1987; 40L. Ed. 2d 556; 1974 LEXIS 346.

CONVICT CRIMINOLOGY

There are a significant number of former prisonersstudying criminology and becoming professors.As a result of their experiences of arrest, trial, and

Convict Criminology———169

C-Bosworth.qxd 11/16/2004 4:43 PM Page 169

years of incarceration, they have profound insightthat promises to update and inform what we knowabout crime and correction. Since 1997, ex-convictcriminology and criminal justice professors haveorganized sessions at annual meetings of theAmerican Society of Criminology, Academy ofCriminal Justice Sciences, and American Correc-tional Association. These professors discuss acade-mic response to and responsibility for deterioratingprison conditions.

THE NEW SCHOOL OFCONVICT CRIMINOLOGY

The conference presentations were used to build aworking group of ex-convict and nonconvict criticalcriminologists to invent the “new school of convictcriminology.” This is a new criminology led byex-convicts who are now academic faculty. Thesemen and women, who have worn both prison uni-forms and academic regalia, served years behind pris-ons walls, and now as academics are the primaryarchitects of the movement. As ex-convicts cur-rently employed at universities, the convict crimi-nologists openly discuss their personal history anddistrust of mainstream criminology.

Regardless of criminal history, all the groupmembers share a desire to go beyond “managerial”and “armchair” criminology by conducting researchthat includes ethnography and the inside perspec-tive. In contrast to normative academic practice, the“convict criminologists” hold no pretense for value-free criminology and are partisan and proactivein their discourse. This includes merging convict,ex-convict, and critical voices in their writing. AsRideau and Wikberg (1992) wrote, “That’s the real-ity, and to hell with what the class-room bred,degree toting, grant-hustling ‘experts’ say fromtheir well-funded, air-conditioned offices farremoved from the grubby realities of the prisoners’lives” (p. 59).

CONVICT CRIMINOLOGISTS

The ex-convicts can be described, in terms of aca-demic experience, as three distinct cohorts. The first

are the more senior members, full and associateprofessors, some with distinguished researchrecords. A second group of assistant professors isjust beginning to contribute to the field. The third,only some of whom have been identified, are grad-uate student ex-convicts.

While all these individuals provide convictcriminology with unique and original experientialresources, some of the most important contributorsmay yet prove to be scholars who have never servedprison time. A number of these authors haveworked inside prisons or have conducted extensiveresearch on the subject. The inclusion of these“non-cons” in the new school’s original cohortprovides the means to extend the influence of theconvict criminology while also supporting existingcritical criminology perspectives.

Convict criminologists recognize that they arenot the first to criticize the prison and correctionalpractices. They pay their respects to those who haveraised critical questions about prisons and suggestedrealistic humane reforms. The problem they aremost concerned with is that identified by Todd Clearin the foreword to Richard McCleary’s DangerousMen (1978/1992): “Why does it seem that all goodefforts to build reform systems seems inevitablyto disadvantage the offender?” The answer is that,despite the best intentions, reform systems werenever intended to help convicts. Reformers rarelyeven bothered to ask the convicts what reforms theydesired. The new school “con-sultants” correct thisproblem by entering prisons and directly asking theprisoners what they want and need.

ETHNOGRAPHIC METHODOLOGIES:INSIDER PERSPECTIVES

Convict criminologists specialize in “on site” ethno-graphic research where their prior experience withimprisonment informs their work. They interviewin penitentiary cellblocks, in community penal facil-ities, or on street corners. Their method is to enterjails and prisons and converse with prisoners. Thismay include a combination of survey instruments,structured interviews, and informal observation andconversation. As former prisoners they know the

170———Convict Criminology

C-Bosworth.qxd 11/16/2004 4:43 PM Page 170

“walk” and “talk” of theprison, as well as howto gain the confidence ofthe men and women wholive inside. Consequently,they have earned a repu-tation for collecting qual-ity and controversial data.

Ex-convict academicshave carried out a num-ber of significant ethno-graphic studies. JohnIrwin, for example, whoserved a prison sentencein California, drew on hisexperience to write theThe Felon, Prisons inTurmoil, The Jail, and It’sAbout Time (with JamesAustin). Richard McCleary,who did both state andfederal time, wrote hisclassic Dangerous Menbased on his participantobservation of paroleofficers. Charles M. Terry,a former California and Oregon state convict, wroteabout how prisoners used humor to mitigate themanagerial domination of penitentiary authorities.Greg Newbold, having served prison time in NewZealand, wrote The Big Huey, Punishment andPolitics, and Crime in New Zealand to analyze crimeand corrections in his country. Stephen C. Richardsand Richard S. Jones, both former prisoners, used“inside experience” to inform their studies of pris-oners returning home. Finally, Jeffrey Ian Ross andStephen C. Richards coauthored Behind Bars andcoedited Convict Criminology.

LANGUAGE AND POINT OF VIEW

The convict criminologists all share an aversion tothe language used in most academic research writingon crime and corrections. Typically, researchers usewords such as offender and inmate. In comparison,convict criminology prefers to use convicts, prisoners,

or simply men or women. The distinction is impor-tant because it illustrates the different point of viewof researchers and authors who have never beenincarcerated with those that have. Offender andinmate are managerial words used by police, courtofficials, and criminal justice administrators to denythe humanity of defendants and prisoners. To theear of a former prisoner, being referred to as anoffender or inmate is analogous to a man beingcalled a boy, or a women a girl. Clearly, the strug-gle feminists fought to redefine how women wereaddressed and discussed taught an important lessonto the convict criminologists: Words are important.

RESPECT FOR CONVICTAUTHORS STILL IN PRISON

A number of the convict criminologists continuefriendships and working relationships with writersin prison, some of whom are well published in

Convict Criminology———171

Prison Writing

Officially, the Federal Bureau of Prisons supports the writing of prisoners, but there area number of ambiguous policy and program statements that allow the administrationto come out of nowhere, start writing you shots, and put you in SHU. My experienceis a perfect example of what happens to prison writers.

I started out getting published in underground magazines. My first publishedpieces were poems and essays on prison life. Then I started writing about prisonerswith special talents like musicians, basketball players, and other types of phenomenalathletes. Back then my writing never created a stir with the administration. Sometimes Iwould even show my case manager or counselor the pieces I had published.

Then one time I wrote a piece that was published in Don Diva magazine, a thuglifepublication based in New York City. The piece harshly criticized the war on drugs and Icompared the future drug war trials to the Nuremburg Trials. As soon as theadministration found out about this article I was shipped right out of the low securityprison I had resided in for three years with no problems to a higher security prisonwhere I was harassed and retaliated against for the next six months.

But I persevered and to this day I am still writing and getting published. I haveheard other stories about writers in prison too. For example, Dannie Martin, a.k.a. RedHog, who was thrown in and out of the hole for years, has finally got out and nowhas an agent and several books under his belt. I believe that prison writing is a goodprofession to try to start while in prison because when you get out you have viableoptions, plus it’s better than working at McDonald’s.

Seth FerrantiFCI Fairton, Fairton, New Jersey

C-Bosworth.qxd 11/16/2004 4:43 PM Page 171

criminology. This includes Victor Hassine, a prisonerin Pennsylvania who wrote Life Without Parole;Wilbert Rideau, a convict in Louisiana who wroteLife Sentences (with Ron Wikberg); and Jon MarcTalyor, serving time in Missouri and the author ofnumerous newspaper and journal articles. The ex-convict academics use correspondence, phone calls,and prison visits to communicate with these prison-ers in order to stay current with prison conditions.

The convict authors write serious commentarieson prison life. Unfortunately, much of their researchand writing, while critically informed, based on theirexperiences inside prisons, may be only partiallygrounded in the academic literature. After all, manyof these authors lack or have difficulties obtainingthe typical amenities that most scholars take forgranted. For example, they may not have access toa computer for writing, to a university library, and orto colleagues educated in criminology. They struggleto write by hand, or with broken or worn outmachines, and lack of supplies. They may be unableto procure typewriter ribbons, paper, envelopes,stamps, and so on. In addition, their phones calls aremonitored and recorded, and all their mail is opened,searched, and read by prison authorities. In manycases, they suffer the retribution of prison authorities,including denial of parole, loss of “good time” credit,physical threats from staff or inmates, frequent cellsearches, confiscation of manuscripts, trips to thehole, and disciplinary transfers to other prisons.

In comparison, convict criminologists have academicresources and credibility to conduct a wide range ofresearch and writing. These resources allow them to usedevelopments in theory, methodology, and public policyto hone their discourse. As academics they know thescholarly literature on prison, including theory, method-ologies, and how issues have been debated over theyears. This knowledge provides them with the opportu-nity to generalize from research findings and to under-stand better how prison conditions compare over time,from state to state, or country to country.

RECENT POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Convict criminologists have come up with severalpolicy recommendations. First, the group advocates

dramatic reductions in the national prison populationthrough diversion to probation or other communityprograms. Today, many men and women are sen-tenced to prison for nonviolent crime. These peopleshould be evaluated as candidates for early release,with the remainder of their sentence to be servedunder community supervision. The only goodreason for locking up a person in a cage is if he andshe is a danger to the community. A prisoner shouldhave an opportunity to reduce his or her sentence byearning good-time credit for good behavior andprogram participation. Unfortunately, many statecorrectional systems, following the federal model,have moved toward determinate sentencing. This“truth in sentencing” has limited provisions forgood-time reductions in sentences, and no parole.

One problem with reducing the prison populationis predicting who might commit new crimes.Despite numerous attempts, we still have no reli-able instruments to predict the potential risk ofeither first-time or subsequent criminal behavior byeither free or incarcerated individuals. The prob-lems are many, including “false positives,” whichpredict a person to be a risk who is not. Conversely,“false negatives” are persons predicted not to bedangerous who turn out to be so. Even so, the factthat our science is less than successful at devisingclassification schemes and prediction scales is notan adequate rationale for failing to support reduc-tions in prison admissions and population.

Second, convict criminologists support the closingof large-scale penitentiaries and reformatories, whereprisoners are warehoused in massive cellblocks.Over many decades, the design and operation ofthese “big house” prisons has resulted in murder,assault, and sexual predation. A reduced prisonpopulation housed in smaller institutions would beaccomplished by constructing or redesigning prisonhousing units with single cells or rooms. Smallerprisons, for example, with a maximum of 500 pris-oners, with single cells or rooms, should become thecorrectional standard when we begin to seriouslyconsider the legal requirement for safe and secureinstitutions. As a model, we should turn to Europeancountries that have much lower rates of incarcera-tion, shorter sentences, and smaller prisons.

172———Convict Criminology

C-Bosworth.qxd 11/16/2004 4:43 PM Page 172

Third, we need to listen carefully to prisonercomplaints about long sentences, overcrowding,double celling, bad food, old uniforms, lack of heatin winter and air-conditioning in summer, inade-quate vocational and education programs, and insti-tutional violence. The list grows longer when wetake a careful look at how these conditions con-tribute to prisoners being poorly prepared forreturning home and the large number that return toprison.

Fourth, we have strong evidence that prisonprograms are underfunded, since administrators andlegislators continue to emphasize custody at theexpense of treatment. Prisoners should be provided withopportunities for better-paid institutional employ-ment, advanced vocational training, higher educa-tion, and family skills programs. It is true that mostinstitutions have “token” programs that serve a smallnumber of prisoners. For example, a prison may havepaid jobs for 20% of its prisoners, low-tech training,a general equivalency diploma (GED) program, andoccasional classes in life skills or group therapy ses-sions. The problem is that these services are dramat-ically limited in scope and availability.

We need to ask convicts what services and pro-grams they want and need to improve their ability tolive law-abiding lives rather than assume and thenimplement what we believe is good for them. Onerecommendation is that prisoners be provided withpaid employment, either inside or outside of theprison, where they will earn enough to pay for theirown college tuition. At the very least, all prisonsshould have a program that supports prisoners tocomplete college-credit courses by correspondence.

At the present time, most U.S. prisons systemsbudget very little for prisoner programs. Insteadthey spend on staff salaries and security. This isbecause prison administrators are evaluated on pre-venting escapes and maintaining order in their insti-tutions. So the prisons are operated like zoos wherehuman beings live in cages, with few options todevelop skills and a new future.

Fifth, convict criminology advocates votingrights for all prisoners and felons. The United Statesis one of the few advanced industrial countries thatcontinues to deny prisoners and felons voting

rights. We suggest that if convicts could vote, manyof the recommendations we advocate wouldbecome policy because the politicians would beforced to campaign for convict votes. State andfederal government will begin to address thedeplorable conditions in our prisons only whenprisoners and felons become voters. We do not seeprisoners as any less interested than free persons inexercising the right to vote. To the contrary, if vot-ing booths were installed in jails and prisons, wethink the voter turnout would be higher than in mostoutside communities.

Sixth, we advocate that prisoners released fromprison have enough “gate money” that would allowthem to pay for three months’ worth of rent andfood. The ex-cons could earn some of this moneyworking in prison industries, with the balance pro-vided by the institution. All prisoners exiting correc-tional institutions should have clothing suitable forapplying for employment, eyeglasses (if needed),and identification including a social security card,state ID or driver’s license, and a copy of their insti-tutional medical records. They should be givencredit for time served on parole supervision. Finally,we need to address the use of drug and alcohol test-ing as the primary cause of parole violations.

Seventh, our most controversial policy recom-mendation is eliminating the snitch system inprison. The snitch system is used by “guards” inold-style institutions to supplement their surveil-lance of convicts. It is used to control prisoners byturning them against each other and is thereforeresponsible for ongoing institutional violence. Ifour recommendations for a smaller population,housed in single cells or rooms, with better foodand clothing, voting rights, and well-funded institu-tional programming were implemented, the snitchsystem would be unnecessary. In a small prison,with these progressive reforms, prison staff wouldno longer be forced to behave as guards, insteadhaving the opportunity to actively “do corrections”as correctional workers. The staff would be theirown eyes and ears, because they would be activelyinvolved in the care and treatment of prisoners.

Finally, we support the termination of the drugwar. Military metaphors continue to confuse our

Convict Criminology———173

C-Bosworth.qxd 11/16/2004 4:43 PM Page 173

thinking and complicate our approach to crime anddrug addiction. For example, the theory of judicialdeterrence, discussed as a rationale for sentencingin nearly every criminal justice textbook, is derivedfrom the Cold War idea of nuclear deterrence. Thisidea evolved into mutually assured destruction(MAD), which was the American rationale forbuilding thousands of nuclear bombs to deter a pos-sible Soviet nuclear attack. The use of deterrenceand war has now bled over from the military strate-gic thinking to colonize criminal justice. The resultis another cold war, this one against our own people.We advocate an end to the drug war, amnesty fordrug offenders, and a reexamination of how ourcriminal justice priorities are set.

PROS AND CONS OFCONVICT CRIMINOLOGY

The first strength of convict criminology is that itis based on a bottom-up, inside-out perspective thatgives voice to the millions of men and women con-victs and felons. The second is that the group iscomposed of men and women who have servedprison time in many different environments includ-ing the Federal Bureau of Prisons, various state sys-tems, different countries, and at different levels ofsecurity. Altogether, the founding members of thegroup have served more than 50 years in prison.Finally, it should be remembered that it would havebeen much easier for the ex-convict professors toconceal their past and quietly enjoy their academiccareers. Instead, they decided to “come out of thecloset,” develop their own field of study, and takeup the fight against the liberal-conservative consen-sus that continues to ignore the harm done by massincarceration in the United States.

There are two glaring weaknesses of this newfield. First, most of the ex-convict professors arewhite males. This is the result of two facts: Very fewminorities leave prison prepared to enter graduateschool, and over 90% of prisoners are male. To someextent, this problem is being addressed throughactive recruitment of minorities and women into thegroup. For example, the group does include feministnon-con criminologists who conduct prison research.

Second, because the group is partisan and activistit is clearly biased in its approach to research andpublication. On the other hand, the convict crimi-nologists would argue that given the prejudice mostpeople, academics included, have against criminals,convicts, and felons, the idea of value-free prisonresearch is at best a polite fantasy. The only solutionto this dilemma is for all researchers who contributeto the literature to discuss their biases openly,including former criminal justice personnel.

CONCLUSION

Convict criminology is a new way of thinking aboutcrime and corrections. The alumni of the penitentiarynow study in classrooms and serve as university fac-ulty. The old textbooks in criminology, criminal jus-tice, and corrections will have to be revised. A newfield of study has been created, a paradigm shiftoccurred, and the prison is no longer so distant.

—Stephen C. Richards and Jeffrey Ian Ross

See also Jack Henry Abbott; Celebrities in Prison;Constitutive Criminology; Angela Y. Davis;Education; Gary Gilmore; John Irwin; GeorgeJackson; Literature; Malcolm X; Prison Culture;Prisoner Writing; Resistance

Further Reading

Austin, J., Bruce, M. A., Carroll, L., McCall, P. L., & Richards,S. C. (2001). The use of incarceration in the United States.American Society of Criminology National PolicyCommittee. Critical Criminology: An InternationalJournal, 10(1), 17–41.

Austin, J., & Irwin, J. (2002). It’s about time: America’s incar-ceration binge (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Irwin, J. (1970). The felon. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Irwin, J. (1985). The jail. Berkeley: University of California Press.McCleary, R. (1978/1992). Dangerous men: The sociology of

parole. New York: Harrow and Heston.Newbold, G. (1982/1985). The big Huey. Auckland, New

Zealand: Collins.Richards, S. C., & Jones, R. S. (1997). Perpetual incarceration

machine: Structural impediments to post-prison success.Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 13(1), 4–22.

Richards, S. C., & Ross, J. I. (2001). The new school of con-vict criminology. Social Justice, 28(1), 177–190.

Rideau, W., & Wikberg, R. (1992). Life sentences: Rage andsurvival behind bars. New York: Times Books.

174———Convict Criminology

C-Bosworth.qxd 11/16/2004 4:43 PM Page 174

Ross, J. I., & Richards, S. C. (2002a). Behind bars: Survivingprison. New York: Alpha.

Ross, J. I., & Richards, S. C. (Eds.). (2002b). Convict crimi-nology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Terry, C. M. (1997). The function of humor for prison inmates.Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 13(1), 23–40.

CONVICT LEASE SYSTEMConvict leasing refers to a particular means ofputting inmates to work that originally developed inthe South following the end of the Civil War, butwas eventually used all over the United States. Inthis system, persons convicted of criminal offenseswere sent to sugar and cotton plantations, coalmines, turpentine farms, phosphate beds, brick-yards, sawmills, and cotton mills. They were leasedto businessmen, planters, and corporations in one ofthe harshest and most exploitative labor systemsknown in American history. Though this practice nolonger strictly exists in the United States, remnantsof it can be found in joint venture programs whereprisoners work for the profit of private corporations.

HISTORY

Convicts have been used as a source of cheap andprofitable labor for centuries. The ancient Greeksand Romans both put convicted criminals to workon state-operated public works. In the Middle Ages,convicts were routinely sold into slavery, especiallygalley slavery. By the late 15th and 16th centuries,workhouses were established to confine beggarsand vagabonds, to put them to work grinding corn,making nails, spinning fabric, or other labors.

This same trend occurred in the Americancolonies. In 1699, Massachusetts “declared thatrogues and vagabonds were to be punished and set towork in the house of correction” (Rothman, 1971,p. 26). Other colonies followed suit. Inmates of thefirst American prisons were forced to labor as partof their incarceration. The Walnut Street Jail, whichbegan to accept prisoners in 1790, set its inmates towork under what we now call the piece-price system.With the rise of the penitentiary system in the early1800s, convict labor was a central focus of reform.

THE AMERICAN CONTEXT

The early debate over the merits of the Pennsylvaniaand Auburn systems focused on the uses of convictlabor and, ultimately, on profitability. The Pennsylvaniasystem reflected a plan for solitary confinement ofinmates. Each inmate worked alone in his cell with-out contact with other inmates. Work was mostlymenial and unprofitable for the institution. TheAuburn system combined separate confinement withsilent, collective work. This system became the modelfor most prisons in the United States.

A few years after the first prison opened inAuburn, New York, in 1817, a local citizen wasgiven a contract to operate a factory within theprison walls. Prisoners were also leased out to pri-vate bidders to be housed, fed, and worked forprofit. This practice provided the beginnings of thelease system.

Eventually, three systems of convict laboremerged in the 19th century: the contract system, thestate use system, and the convict lease system. Thecontract system dominated prisons in the northernpart of the country. Under this system, the statefeeds, clothes, houses, and guards the convict. To dothis, the state maintains an institution and a force ofguards and other employees. The contractor pays thestate a stipulated amount per capita for the servicesof the convict and sells the final product on the openmarket. In the lease system, the state enters into acontract with a lessee who agrees to receive the con-vict; to feed, clothe, house, and guard him; to keephim at work; and to pay the state a specified amountfor his labor. The state does not maintain an institu-tion to house prisoners. In the state use system, thestate conducts a business of manufacture or produc-tion but the sale of the goods produced is limited tostate agencies. Today, the state use system is themost commonly used of the systems.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEENSLAVERY AND CONVICT LEASING

The convict lease system was inexorably inter-twined with the post–Civil War economic recoveryof the South. Emancipation moved the Southern

Convict Lease System———175

C-Bosworth.qxd 11/16/2004 4:43 PM Page 175