The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Conscience and Convenience: The Asylum and Its Alternatives in Progressive America
Abstract
Conscience and Convenience was quickly recognized for its masterly depiction and interpretation of a major period of reform history. This history begins in a social context in which treatment and rehabilitation were emerging as predominant after America's prisons and asylums had been broadly acknowledged to be little more than embarrassing failures. The resulting progressive agenda was evident: to develop new, more humane and effective strategies for the criminal, delinquent, and mentally ill. The results, as Rothman documents, did not turn out as reformers had planned. For adult criminal offenders, such individual treatment could be accomplished only through the provision of broad discretionary authority, whereby choices could be made between probation, parole, indeterminate sentencing, and, as a measure of last resort, incarceration in totally redesigned prisons. For delinquents, the juvenile court served as a surrogate parent and accelerated and intensified individual treatment by providing for a series of community-based individual and family services, with the newly designed, school-like reformatories being used for only the most intractable cases. For the mentally ill, psychiatrists chose between outpatient treatments, short-term intensive care, or as last resort, long-term care in mental hospitals with new cottage and family-like arrangements. Rothman shows the consequences of these reforms as unmitigated disasters. Despite benevolent intentions, the actual outcome of reform efforts was to take the earlier failures of prisons and asylums to new, more ominous heights. In this updated edition, Rothman chronicles and examines incarceration of the criminal, the deviant, and the dependent in U.S. society, with a focus on how and why these methods have persisted and expanded for over a century and a half despite longstanding evidence of their failures and abuses.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Nagin, D. S., Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2009) · Crime and Justice · doi:10.1086/599202 · Cited by 640
Democratic Contraction? Political Consequences of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States
Uggen, C., & Manza, J. (2002) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/000312240206700601 · Cited by 497
Changing Conceptions of Race: Towards an Account of Anomalous Findings of Sentencing Research
Peterson, R. D., & Hagan, J. (1984) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2095557 · Cited by 330
Deinstitutionalization: An Appraisal of Reform
Mechanic, D., & Rochefort, D. A. (1990) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.so.16.080190.001505 · Cited by 299
HAGAN, J. (1989) · Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency · doi:10.1177/0022427889026002002 · Cited by 220
Metadata
- Authors
- Zuckerman, M., & Rothman, D.
- Venue
- The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-)
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1982
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1803
- ISSN
- 0091-4169 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2070479005
- Cited by
- 528
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Conscience and Convenience: The Asylum and Its Alternatives in Progressive America. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1143309
- The paper
- Zuckerman, M., & Rothman, D. (1982). Conscience and Convenience: The Asylum and Its Alternatives in Progressive America. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-). https://doi.org/10.2307/1143309
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.