Our dataset is a record of admissions from 1830 to 1839 of prisoners number 20 through 1124 to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania State Penitentiary. The dataset includes the prisoners’ names, crimes they committed, sentencing length, birthplace, race/ethnicity, time in/time out, and notes on their moral behaviors and educational levels. All the data was taken from the original admission book of The State Penitentiary for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Records, American Philosophical Society. This dataset was created and compiled by Library Science students from Drexel University. The data sets were published “as is”, so please be aware there may be mistakes within the datasets themselves.
DATASET ONTOLOGY - The data is able to convey the unique cultural values and moral standards of the 1800s time period as well as lend insight into the nuances of the era. For example, the “description” section ranges from simple, one-word entries to very short anecdotes of certain prisoners’ experiences during and after their time in prison with focus on their guilt, faith, and family morals as a measure of their correction and sanity. These evaluation methods for prisoners’ modalities are useful in understanding what the record keeper deemed worthy of noting and therefore what he found important during this era.
ABSENCES AND INCONSISTENCIES - The dataset features the inconsistencies that were within the admissions book because all data were inputted, “as is”. The original Eastern State Penitentiary admission book was handwritten by a single person and therefore lends room for human error and biases. The data does not provide a comprehensive understanding of events that may have taken place within the prison. Because it is an admission book, it only provides basic information about each prisoner and a few notes after their release. Thus, each entry has a several-year gap of information on any re-sentencing, crimes committed in prison, or general activity that may have occurred during their sentence. One inconsistency within the data is in regards to the prisoners’ ethnicities, religions, and occupations, as all this information was placed in a single category. There are significant gaps within this category with only some of the prisoners having all 3 pieces of information recorded. When dealing with ethnicity specifically, it appears it was only recorded if the person was of an ethnicity other than “the standard”, caucasian. This inconsistency can be seen by the majority of the inmates having no ethnicity on record, only those who were of another ethnicity. Additionally, there are significant, unexplained time gaps between 1830 and 1832, with only 4 prisoners listed in 1830 and no others listed in 1831 and 1832. It is unknown whether this is an intentional absence or if there really was just a limited amount of prisoners admitted during this time.
WHAT THIS DATA CAN SHOW US - The dataset provides a snapshot of the “start’ and “finish” of the prisoners’ sentences but lacks information on the events in between. Without in-depth research, the dataset will not be able to tell us what exactly occurred within the prison, and what methods were actually implemented. We, therefore, cannot determine whether this prison reform system can be considered “successful” or “unsuccessful” in their prison reform strategies. Instead of drawing causal conclusions, we will be studying correlations between the data categories and the connections they therefore convey. By analyzing these prisoners as an output of the Eastern State Penitentiary solitary confinement system, we can yield insights on what type of people were sent to this type of prison and how they ended up upon their exit from this revolutionary yet controversial system.