2. The development of prisons
The 1823 gaols Act
Elizabeth Fry (1813), an English born philanthropist, also became involved in issues of penal reform and continued with Howard’s vision of a reformed prison system by establishing the ‘Association for the improvement of the female Prisoners of Newgate’ (Mclauglin et al, 2001) . Like Howard, she campaigned for improvements in the moral and physical welfare of women and children and tried to tackle the issue of overcrowding. She approached Sir Robert Peel, the then Home Secretary with her ideas of introducing educational aspects of incarceration. Sir Robert Peel persuaded parliament to pass the 1823 Gaol Act which included reformative measures, such as:-
- regular visits by prison chaplains
- imposed a standard of uniformity
- the classification and separation of men from women
2.1. The Bloody Code
The Du Cane era
The true foundations of the modern day prison system were established during ‘The Bloody Code’ era (see Appendix 1). Although many legislative measures had been implemented resulting from the work of ‘Whig’ reformists, prisons conditions remained relatively unimproved and reformation declined. In 1877 legislation was passed that transferred the responsibility of the prison system from the local justices to the Home secretary who established a Prison Commission which appointed a body of five members to oversee the administration of the system. Sir Edmund Du Cane’s, Chairman of the Prison Commission from 1877 - 1895, main objective was to introduce a uniform regime across the whole of the prison system (Edwards et al, 1982). The Prison Act, 1877 allowed for:-
- the closure of 38 of the 113 existing local prisons
- Uniformed Prison wardens were appointed, trained and paid for by the government.
Methods of punishment during the ‘Du Cane’ era were based on the principle of deterrence by severity of punishment rigidly and efficiently applied. Du Cane argued that ‘the purpose of imprisonment was to provide a general deterrence, rather than the deterrence of reformation of individuals’ (McLaughlin et al, 2001) (see Appendix 2)
2.2. The Gladstone Report
Changes in Penal Policy
The prison system during the end of the 19th century was based on punishment and deterrence. The prison policy of the use of the ‘tread wheel’ and ‘crank’ and ‘solitary confinement’ as a method of punishment was highly criticised by reformers as being undesirable. Penal Policy was hugely impacted by the efforts of The Gladstone Committee in1895 which produced a report that allowed for the abolition of the crank and tread wheel. It also made recommendations for the further classification of inmates, the use of educational facilities such as books and allowed for prison visits on a discretionary basis. The report also contained a request for a ‘juvenile reformatory’ to house young offenders up to the age of 23 for a period of between one and three years with the emphasis on individual treatment and after-care upon release (Edwards et al 1982). Habitual offenders were punished by way of longer prison sentencing to act as a deterrent. The recommendations made by the committee were slowly implemented into the prison system.
2.3. Origins of Borstal
Provisions for Juvenile Offenders
The origins of Borstal can be traced from the recommendations contained in the Gladstone Report. Prior to the recommendations made by the committee in regards to the need for a ‘juvenile institute’, it was clear that it was impractical to treat juvenile offenders with the same penal regime as adult offenders. The development of such an institution was slow. The first real step towards the creation of ‘Borstal’ happened in 1900 when a select group of juvenile male offenders from London were gathered in Bedford Prison to be rehabilitated by learning a trade and offered help upon release from prison (Edwards et al, 1982). The ideal of reformation was enforced mainly during the inter war period during1922-1947, under the control of the Prison Commissioner of the time, Sir Alexander Patterson who had previously directed the Borstal Association. Patterson is chiefly remembered for his impact on the Borstal system.
Table of Content Page
Task 2
3 Purpose of Imprisonment- Official and Unofficial
3.1 The Contemporary Prison Crises
- Overcrowding
- Funding
- Privatisation
- Does imprisonment work?
- Rehabilitation
- Re- offending Rate
5 Examples from Prison Inspection Reports
6 Conclusion
3. The Purpose of Imprisonment
Official and Unofficial
The impact on Penal Policy resulting from the Gladstone Report of 1895 saw the introduction of the direct central control of prisons and this has evolved into the modern prison system in which prison administration is the responsibility of the Home Office Prison Department. The Prison Service came into being in 1993 and is responsible for the 135 high security prisons, local prisons, young offenders institutions, remand centres and training prisons that can be found across England and Wales
From the findings of the report so far, it is clear that the value of punishment in the prevention of crime as being generally confirmed although, the purpose of incarceration as an effective crime deterrent has been the topic of many debates. By definition, punishing offenders is generally taken to imply the imposition of some form of hard treatment (Von Hirsch, 1993). Official purposes of imprisonment are described in the Prison Rules of 1964, r1 states that the purpose of the training and treatment of convicted offenders shall be to encourage and assist them to lead a good and useful life with emphasis on dignity and self-respect (Doherty, 2000). Unofficial views of the purpose of incarceration have been presented by Walker and Padfield (1996) who proposed many purposes of prison. They put forward six reasons for imprisonment:-
- To hold people- until trial, or until they can be sentenced.
- To coerce people to conform with court orders such as fines.
- To protect members of the public from offenders by taking them out of circulation.
- To hold a person long enough to make possible a prolonged course of treatment.
- To show disapproval of the offence.
- To protect a very unpopular offender against retaliation by victims or sympathisers of the victim.
3.1 The Contemporary Prison Crises
The Contemporary “crises” experienced within the modern prisons of England and Wales are issues of funding, overcrowding and privatisation. Each problem raises many issues with regards to the justification of imprisonment as an effective deterrent. The average population in custody in 1998 was 65,298, an increase of 4,289 (7 per cent) on the previous year (White, 1999). White, (1999) was also of the opinion that the rise could be explained in terms of an increased use of custodial sentences by the courts and longer custodial sentences (Doherty, 2000). Figure 1.1, gives an example of the steady rise in the average prison population in custody during 1990-2000 (Home Office Prison Statistics, England and Wales, 2000). The number of women incarcerated has also increased dramatically, by 146 percent over the last 10 years, to 4,463. Thirty eight percent of sentenced female prisoners were there for theft and handling and 15% for drug offences (Home Office, 1999).
Within the last decade there has been a move away from reformation of the conditions experienced by inmates to a large focus on the issue of security resulting from the Strangeways riot on the 1st April, 1990. An inquiry was performed to establish the causes of the disturbances. In order to achieve a proper balance between security, control and justice in prisons, Lord Woolf identified Overcrowding as one of the most damaging features of prison lifemade twelve major recommendations (see Appendix 3) that were intended to be moved forward together over time. Only limited progress has been made (Doherty, 2000).
Overcrowding
Overcrowding is a big issue for our present prison system and has been for the last decade. More than half the prisons in England and Wales are officially classed as overcrowded (80 out of 138 jails). In 2003 over 16,000 prisoners were doubling up in cells designed for one. (Home Affairs Select Committee oral hearing, 2003). Prison reform campaigners say that 11 have exceeded the maximum safe capacity (see Appendix 4) (Reydt, 2004).
The effects of Overcrowding on the welfare of inmates have been well documented. The annual report for England and Wales for 2002/2003 by the Chief Inspector of Prisons published a graphical report. On conclusion the report found that the explosion in prison numbers was directly related to a staggering rate of suicides and self-harm in English and Welsh prisons (Reydt, 2004).
. The Chief Inspector reported, “Almost two people a week kill themselves in our prisons: and they are the most vulnerable people: often new to prison, with mental health and substance misuse problems. One in four women in local prisons self-harms some repeatedly. In the worst of our overcrowded local prisons, inmates may spend 23 hours a day in a shared cell with an unscreened toilet.” (Reydt, 2004).Reports have also indicated that the personal problems faced by many prisoners are greatly exacerbated by the conditions in prisons themselves. In November, 2004 the prison service had reported that Gloucester Prison was so overcrowded that it was creating “unacceptable living conditions (Doherty, 2000).
Funding
The funding of the prison system is seen to be extremely costly. The Average cost of a prison sentence in 1997-1998 was about £2,000 per month but is substantially more in maximum security prisons and costs the taxpayer about £1.8 billion (Home Office, 1999).
Privatisation
There are 11 privately managed prisons within the UK. There are three main arguments for private operation of prisons. Firstly, the private sector will deliver cheaper and better prisons. This is because it is subject to the rigours of competition, it is free from bureaucracy, and it is more innovative. Secondly, private prisons will set new benchmarks for the public sector and act as a catalyst for reform of the entire prison system. Thirdly, privatisation will strengthen accountability through competition, establishment of objective performance standards and also because the state should be able to monitor a private operator better than it can monitor itself (Doherty, 2000).
Although critiques such asking et al, (1995) argue that imprisonment is an essential state function that should not be delegated and, separately, that it is morally wrong to allow profits to be made from the infliction of punishment. They also contend that privatisation will weaken accountability. Furthermore, they argue that the profit motive will conflict with prisoner welfare as private operators have an incentive to cut costs at the expense of standards and an incentive to make decisions that increase the length of an inmate’s stay. Critics also fear that private corporations will form a powerful lobby for high-imprisonment policies.
4. Does Prison work?
Rehabilitation
The aim of prison to provide a chance for inmates to change their attitudes and to provide skills and education with the emphasis being in the behaviour of the offender opposed to the actual offence, so that they are less likely to commit offences in the future. Is there evidence to suggest that this type of therapy is effective? Bottoms and Preston argue in The Common Crisis (1980) that rehabilitative sentences are fundamentally flawed. First such sentences assume that all crime is the result of some deficiency or fault in the individual offender
There have been many offending behaviour programmes have been developed in many prisons, namely ‘Reasoning and Rehabilitation Programmes’ and ‘Enhanced Thinking Skills’, but the effectiveness of the many programmes has been highly acclaimed. A recent report of the Parliamentary Penal Affairs Group, ‘Changing Offenders Behaviour’(1999), found that ‘cognitive behaviour’ programmes did work- but in addition, they argued that there is increasing evidence that programmes focused directly on the needs of the offender in relation to the offending behaviour are successful in reducing the risk of re-offending.
Re-offending rates
If prison is to be considered as an effective form of rehabilitation, then why are re-offending rates so predominant? Kershaw et al (1999) examined the data on reconvictions of offenders sentenced or discharged from prison in 1995. The message to be derived from the evidence in this report is that imprisonment and indeed other sentences fail in terms of preventing recidivism. Table 1.2 provides the data for a two-year follow up. It includes alternative solutions to imprisonment.
Table 1.2
_____________________________________________________ _____ ___
__________Percentage Reconviction Rates by Sentence________________ _
Imprisonment 58%
Community penalties 56%
Conditional Discharge 44%
Fines 43%
Probation 59%
Community service 52%
Combination orders 60%
(source: Reconvictions of Offenders Sentenced or Discharged from Prison in 1995)
From the results of the re-offending data, it is clear that prison does not appear to offer a general deterrent. Alternative solutions to sentencing are currently being implemented as part of the Criminal Justice Act, 2003
Appendix 1
The Bloody Code- This is a term used to refer to the Criminal Law of Victorian Britain. The Law was based on its provisions for capital punishment, the punishment of death. By 1795, there were over 200 crimes that were punishable by execution such as murder, theft and treason (Ryley Scott, 1996).
Appendix 2
Conditions of incarceration during the ‘Du Cane’ era- Inmates were held on a separate confinement basis, in singular cells in an attempt to allow the criminal to reflect on the error of his ways. Contact with other prisoners was forbidden. Penal labour remained harsh and was intended to enforce discipline and deter the inmate of further offending (McLaughlin et al, 2001).
Appendix 3
The Woolf Report made12 central recommendations, they are as follows:-
- Closer co-operation between the different parts of the criminal justice system. For this purpose a national forum and local committees should be established
- More visible leadership of the Prison Service by a Director General who is and is seen to be the operational head and in day to day charge of the Service.
- Increased delegation of responsibility to Governors of establishments.
- An enhanced role for prison officers.
- A “compact” or “contract” for each prisoner setting out the prisoner’s expectations and responsibilities in the prison in which he or she is held.
- A national system of Accredited Standards, with which, in time, each prison establishment would be required to comply.
- A new Prison Rule that no establishment should hold more prisoners than is provided for in its certified normal level of accommodation, with provisions for Parliament to be informed of exceptionally there is to be a material departure from this rule
- A public commitment from Ministers setting a time table to provide access to sanitation for all inmates at the earliest practicable date not later than February 1996.
- Better prospects for prisoners to maintain their links with families and the community through more visits and home leaves and through being located in community prisons as near to their homes as possible.
- A division of prison establishments into small and more manageable and secure units.
- A separate statement of purpose, separate conditions and generally a lower security categorised for remand prisoners.
- Improve standards of justice within prisons involving the giving of reasons to a prisoner for any decision which materially and adversely affects him; a grievance procedure and disciplinary proceedings which ensure that the Governor deals with most matters under his present powers; relieving Boards of Visitors of their adjudicatory role; and providing for final access to an independent Complaints Adjudicator.
Appendix 4
Prisons that have exceeded maximum capacity are Ashwell in Rutland, Birmingham, Cardiff, Doncaster, Hull, Lancaster, Leicester, Lincoln, Stafford, Wandsworth in south London and Wormwood Scrubs in west London
Bibliography
Task 1
Doherty, M (2000). Criminal Justice and Penology. Old Bailey Press. London
Foucault, M (1991). Discipline and Punish. The Birth of the Prison. Second Vintage Books Edition.
Gibson, J (1971). John Howard and Elizabeth Fry (Methuens Brief Lives): Methuen’s.
Haralambos + Holborn (1995). Sociology, Themes and Perspectives. 4th Edition: Collins Educational.
Mclaughlin, E & Muncie, J (2001). Controlling Crime (Crime, Order and Social Control). London: Sage.
Riley Scott, G (1996). The History of Corporal Punishment: Senate.
Articles
Bunting, J (2001). Take a look: Stocks and Houses of Correction. The Peak Advertiser.
Gaols and Houses of Correction. England and Wales: First Report, Houses of Lords. Select Committee on Gaols and Houses of Correction, (1835). HMSO. University of London Library.
Online Sources
A, Edwards + R, Hurley (1982). Prisons over Two Centuries. Home Office Bicentinary Report: Home Office Extract.
Task 2
Doherty,M (2000). Criminal Justice and Penology: Old Bailey Press. London
King, G & McDermott, K (1995). The State of Our Prisons, Oxford; Clarendon Press
Reydt, P (2004). Britain, Prison Overcrowding rates reach Breaking Point.: ICFI
Roth, L (2004). Privatisation of Prisons: Press Release
Von Hirsch, A (1993). Censure and Sanctions, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Walker, N & Padfield, N (1996). Sentencing: Theory, Law and Practice, London: Butterworths.
White, P (1999). The Prison Population in 1998: A Statistical Overview, London: HMSO