Change Your Face, Change Your Life? Prison Plastic Surgery as a Way to Reduce Recidivism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper explores the history and ethics of prison plastic surgery programs, which ran from the 1950s through as late as 1988 in the UK, the US, and Canada. I focus in particular on the Oakalla Prison, the Haney Young Offenders Correctional Unit, and the Kingston Penitentiary in Canada; the Huntsville Penitentiary in Texas; the Camp Hill Borstal in England; and the collaboration between Montifiore Hospital and Sing-Sing Prison in New York. Sometimes federally funded, these programs were designed to reduce rates of recidivism, operating under the notion that a changed face could lead to a changed character. The surgeries were rooted in a commitment to rehabilitation through medicine, offering participants access to surgery in exchange for good behavior, participation in an experimental protocol, and in some cases, providing training for medical students and residents. As I show, these programs were consonant with prevailing experimental and ethical ethos, and maintain deep continuity with the idea that changes in appearance could lead to changes in behavior.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".