The first ‘modern’ prisons did not come in to place until the early 19th century, and at the time often had extremely bad conditions and involved strict regimes of silence and aimless hard labour. Hard labour included the ‘shot drill’ (carrying cannon balls back and forth), the ‘crank machine’ (a device where prisoners had to turn a crank that merely pushed paddles through sand in a drum), and the ‘treadmill’. The idea behind hard labour was to make prison more of a deterrent to committing crime, and also because it helped to keep prisoners ‘in line’; tired, exhausted prisoners were less likely to be rebellious to the authority in the prisons. Also, as penal transportation was being phased out around this time it may have seemed too lenient to ‘merely’ imprison criminals.
Eventually however, hard labour began to be phased out as well; experts, such as psychiatrists and doctors wanted to ‘treat’ offenders, and so a shift towards rehabilitation became evident, (class notes). It became recognised that prison alone was not an effective enough deterrent and that when convicts completed their sentences and were released they had very limited options on how to ‘make a living’ other than through crime. Therefore rehabilitation involves educating prisoners to make them more employable, and perhaps some sort of therapy, to bring a criminal in to a more ‘normal’ state of mind, (Wikipedia).
As the welfare state came in to force (1948), the government were taking on more responsibilities and a state-run criminal justice system was developed, (Class Notes). Remand centres were introduced and hard labour was abolished under the Criminal Justice Act (1948). There was also the idea of delivering a short, sharp, shock to young offenders in order to deter them from re-offending. The short, sharp, shock typically involved sending a young offender to a (rough and unpleasant) borstal for two to three months to ‘scare’ them out of a life of crime. However this regime eventually proved unsuccessful; the first few weeks of imprisonment are usually the worst, but after this time individuals start to ‘get used to’ it`s unpleasant conditions, and even begin to make friends on the inside. Therefore the ‘short’, sharp shock was too long, and briefer sentences of a few weeks may well have proved more effective (as well as less expensive).
In 1965 the death penalty was finally abolished; a clear marker that society was becoming more rational and civilised. Punishment of the body is now a thing of the past, and sentences of torture and death seem incredibly in-humane by today`s standards. Reasons for this change over from ‘bodily’ punishments include the expansion of our knowledge; we now know considerably more about ‘who’ is more likely to commit crime, ‘why’ people commit crime, and have developed ways to help ‘prevent’ crime, and more advanced methods of ‘catching’ those responsible for crime. Furthermore the emergence of the police force means that the death penalty is less needed in deterring crime, as there is the greater risk of being caught by the authorities and consequently punished.
In addition executions ceased being public from 1868, long before the death penalty was abolished; this shows that the change in how we punish offenders has been a very gradual process. When executions were public they were a major ‘social’ events, and many would gather to the place of the execution to get a good view. However, it eventually became recognised that violent criminality increased in the ‘observers’ at the time and place of executions (Wikipedia); and so executions were soon carried out privately instead. Furthermore the recognition that violent punishment in turn increased violent behaviour may have contributed to the change to more ‘civilised’ forms of punishment.
Additionally crime and punishment have become increasingly political issues since the 1970s; and promises of ‘locking up’ criminals may well have helped to ‘popularise’ prison. Politicians in trying to appear hard on crime, (perhaps mainly to win elections) have brought about more and longer prison sentences; Michael Howard, the Home Secretary in the 1990s, was a firm believer that ‘prison works’, and wanted tougher sentencing for offenders (Class Notes). This rise in political interest has in turn seen an increase in the prison population; for example England and Wales had a prison population of 43,000 in 1993, which had increased dramatically to 81,000 by 2008, (Class Notes).
Michael Howard, being tough on crime, also wanted to ease the drug problem in prisons; and legislation for the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act granted the power to test prisoners for drug use, (drugtext.org). This initiative, (which seems like quite a good idea) was mentioned in Noel Smith`s autobiography; he wrote that this legislation actually made drugs ‘more’ of a problem in prisons. While cannabis, (a sort of ‘currency’ in prison) did become less used, heroin (arguably a much worse drug) became more popular. Noel Smith explained that this was because cannabis stays in the system and can be detected for up to nearly two months after use, whilst heroin passes through the body much quicker. Therefore it is difficult to decipher whether drug testing actually worked; if those using heroin were tested but there was nothing in their system at the time then they would not be caught, and a decrease in cannabis use would also make it appear as though the initiative had worked.
Also brought in by Criminal Justice Acts in the 1990s were ‘privately run’ prisons; these are prisons, jails, or detention centers in which individuals are physically confined or interned by a third party that is ‘contracted’ by a local, state or federal government agency, (Wikipedia). Prisons managed by private companies (such as G4S, Kalyx and Serco) are still subject to the same routine inspections as are public sector prisons. It has been argued that privately run prisons are more efficient, however critics of this initiative state that there have been some major problems with privately managed prisons; for example Ashfield prison for young offenders which opened in 1999 had prisoners withdrawn in 2003 by the Youth Justice board, due to repeated riots and reports of poor management, (Wikipedia).
In conclusion prison comes to dominant thinking in punishment due to the sociological changes that have taken place throughout history. It is now ‘morally’ unacceptable to punish people in physically painful ways, such as death and torture, and everyone, including criminals, have human rights which must be respected. In addition we now know much more about crime, who commits it and why; this, along with society’s technological advances, and the introduction of the police force means that more offenders can be caught and punished, and so ‘bodily’ punishments like death seem a rather unnecessary deterrent. Moreover, rehabilitation means that some offenders can be reformed and reintegrated in to society, (which further reduces the need for a death penalty).
1,588 words
References
Class Notes (2009)
Smith, N. (2004). A Few Kind Words and a Loaded Gun. London. Penguin Group.
(7/3/09)
(7/3/09)
(7/3/09)
