'The Victorian prison was a more 'civilized' method of punishment than hanging'

University Degree Historical and Philosophical studies

05183723

‘The Victorian prison was a more ‘civilized’ method of punishment than hanging’

In this essay, an argument will be shown that will make it apparent that Victorian prisons were indeed a more civilized way of dealing with criminals, as opposed to subjecting them to a public hanging. There could have been better ways of dealing with Victorian prisoners, such as rehabilitation schemes and re-education schools, however a prison sentence was still a more humane option than the alternative of being publicly hanged and up to 1793 burned afterwards. Although the regimes inside Victorian prisons were harsh at times, they also offered the inmate a way to embrace the ethics of a hard days work, which was very much a part of the day-to-day lives of a worker in the new industrialised society of 19th century Britain. Tasks such as crank-labour and tread-wheel walking were designed to make a prisoner work to a set goal or time period and were monotonous and repetitious. Another activity that was used in penal institutions was oakum picking, which required the prisoner to sit and pick apart a length of tarred naval rope into its various strands. The preciseness of this labour was so much so ‘that the strands of the rope had to be pulled apart till they were as fine as silk’. The very aims of these tasks were to break the spirit of the convict and to reinforce the idea that this was a punishment. Although some tasks were monotonous and without point, other work projects such as weaving were done by the prisoners in their cells and would have allowed them to learn a trade, that if they wished, could be used to their advantage once released into the general population.

The main downside to hanging for a convicted felon is in its state of permanency. Convicts of the 19th century, given a choice, would probably have opted for the alternative sentences that could have been made available to them, rather than have to submit to the ‘long drop’. The upside for the authorities with hanging a convict is that it can be quickly administered, is very cost effective and requires very little attention to the aftercare of the convicted person.

But were the alternatives really better? Transportation to a far distant and unknown land, incarceration on a cramped, leaky hulk moored in the harbour or imprisonment in an institution, designed so it seemed, merely to punish the wrongdoings of the inmate. Whatever the degradations and limitations to personal liberty that came about by being given a prison sentence, at least there was a chance of release, something wholly lacking from an invitation to the hangman’s noose.

Edward Royle states that up until the first part of the 19th century prisons usually took the form of either local common gaols that were used for housing those accused of crimes until their trial or houses of correction (also known as Bridewells) under the control of the justices and used for petty criminals and ‘sturdy beggars’. There was no government-organised system of penitentiary detention between the 12th and early 19th century, as long-term imprisonment was not the normal practice. In this period, any crime that would later warrant a longer-term prison sentence would most likely have brought the death sentence and an execution of it within a short time after.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Newgate prison in the 18th and early 19th century was the main prison in London and was where felons were held before their execution. It also doubled as a debtor’s prison. Newgate was notorious for its overcrowded and unhealthy environment. There was a lack of good air or water and it was subject to frequent outbreaks of gaol fever due to the filthy and unsanitary conditions. Prisons in the 18th century, Newgate included, did not supply their prisoners with bedding and clothing. These items had to be purchased from the gaolers. Additionally, prisoners were also expected to pay a fee upon admission. They also needed to continue to pay money if they wanted any of the ordinary comforts of life. Then, when released, they were expected to pay yet another fee before they were allowed to leave. Payments of this sort were ended in 1815 with the introduction of the Gaol Fees Abolition Act and heralded the end of the entrepreneurial gaoler. The introduction of this act would mark the beginning of a new penal system that would radically alter the way that prisons were run.

With the knowledge of prisons like Newgate, Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794) an Italian aristocrat and philosopher wrote Dei delitti e delle pene. This was translated into French and then into English and published in 1767 as an essay on crime and punishment. He argues against the use of capital punishment as a deterrent, as he believes that it does not work for determined criminals. He states that a punishment too severe, for example, hangings that are seen regularly by people throughout the country, desensitise the watcher and repetition makes the spectacle pointless:

‘In proportion as punishments become more cruel, the minds of men … grow hardened and insensible’(¶ 27.3)

Some spectacles, such as public burning were ended in Beccaria’s lifetime possibly as a direct result from his writings. ‘Having been found guilty of High Treason (coining), Catherine Murphy was executed by strangling and her body burnt outside Newgate. This was the last body burning in England. In 1793 the crime of Petty Treason (which included husband murder) was abolished, becoming simply murder.’

In the same chapter he further warns against harsh punishment as it can lead to other criminal acts to avoid detection of the original offence:

‘If punishments be very severe, men are naturally led to the perpetration of other crimes, to avoid the punishment due to the first.’ (¶ 27.2)

He goes on to outline a large number of measures for ensuring that criminals are properly dealt with, but learn from the punishment meted out. In chapter nineteen: Of the Advantage of immediate Punishment he states:

‘An immediate punishment is more useful; because the smaller the interval of time between the punishment and the crime, the stronger and more lasting will be the association of the two ideas of crime and punishment; so that they may be considered, one as the cause, and the other as the unavoidable and necessary effect.’ (¶ 19.2)

The emphasis in this statement is the idea of reforming and educating the criminal by association of ideas and not by punitive measures to enforce the moral point.

Beccaria’s conclusion to all his statements is ‘that the severity of punishments ought to be in proportion to the state of the nation’. He is saying that the more civilised a nation sees itself then the less need there is for a severe punishment. He finalises the book with an absolute rejection of capital punishment, as an effective punitive measure and reinforces that the punishment must fit the crime, it must be lawfully enacted, it should be done in the openness and sight of everyone and that it should be proportionate in relation to the law:

‘That a punishment may not be an act of violence, of one, or of many, against a private member of society, it should be public, immediate, and necessary, the least possible in the case given, proportioned to the crime, and determined by the laws.’ (¶ 47.3)

Beccaria’s book was a very important and highly influential piece of writing, which shaped the thinking of a number of late 18th century prison reformers, including utilitarianist Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) an English philosopher and political radical. He was the inventor of the Panoptican, a circular style penitentiary building allowing all inmates to be viewed in their individual cells from a central vantage point. Although the idea was liked by the government it was not commissioned due to the high costs involved, however elements of his idea were incorporated in Pentonville prison which opened in 1842. During the latter part of the 18th century there was an increased awareness that reforms were needed in the ‘bloody code’, a capital code of execution that had steadily grown after 1660 and which by 1815 had around 225 offences that were punishable by the death sentence. Stealing just 5 shillings could result in a capital conviction. The problem was that with so many crimes of a lesser nature liable for the ultimate punishment, it would be infeasible and unpalatable for officials to carry them all through. A French observer in the early 1800s is quoted as having remarked ‘if these sanguinary sentences were rigorously carried into effect, the scaffolds of England would stream with blood and the whole nation would rise up in horror against them’. Consequently there were a large number of conditional pardons given out that steadily increased from the middle of the 18th century. As there was a rise in population during this period, so the resultant numbers of prosecutions and pardons rose in line. In the period 1770-1830 the population in England and Wales increased from 7 to 14 million. In London between 1801 and 1831 the population grew from 1 to 1.7 million. Therefore a change was needed in the code and the way criminals were dealt with, as the high number of pardons were making the law look ineffective, as the chance of being hanged for an offence were becoming less likely.

By the 1860s prison regimes had become better regulated and managed. Starting in 1816 with Millbank prison, the first national penitentiary, the government of the early post war years embarked on a systematic programme of prison building, and refurbishment and extension of older institutions such as coldbath fields.

They used two main systems of non violent discipline, the silent system that allowed association in communal working areas but no communication of any sort, including gestures, eye signals or coughs and the separate system, that used individual cells and separated pews in chapel services and lack of contact and recognisance of other prisoners by the use of the brown scotch cap ‘whose large peak came down to the chin like a mask, with holes for the eyes’. This system was seen by the late 1840s to be inappropriate, as it was having detrimental effects on the minds of the prisoners. An annual report of the commissioners of Pentonville prison in 1848 stated that ‘some instances of partial aberration of mind not amounting to insanity’ was being exhibited by some prisoners and that there was ‘the occurrence of hysterical convulsions in some of the convicts on their first being embarked for transportation’. Consequently the periods of time that solitary confinement was imposed was reduced over the course of the second half of the 19th century from eighteen to twelve months (1848) then to nine months (1853) and eventually over a longer period to six months (1899).

In conclusion, It can be seen that although the Victorian prison was far from perfect when it was started, that changes and alterations to the working practices of the prison authorities in relation to how it viewed convicts, made the penal system by the end of the 19th century a better alternative than hanging. The main reason for this is that whatever rigours a person is subjected to under the condition of captivity, there is at least a chance of redemption and the possibility of going on from it and forging a better life. Victorian sensibilities would also have been better satisfied with a ‘prisoner society’ to that of a ‘hanging society’. Victorian Britain was very much the time of social reformers and of those who were given to charity and philanthropy, seen in the formation of social societies and charitable institutions that rose at an expanding rate throughout the 19th century. It is stated that in 1861 there were 640 charities in London and that by the 1870s Londoners were donating in the region of £5.5-£7 million per annum. The Victorian period saw a great change in the way that prisoners were dealt with and the way that prisons were managed. No prison system can ultimately be 100% perfect, but the years 1816-1877, which by the end of this period saw the nationalisation of all prisons, showed a society that was trying to do its best for those held at Her Majesty’s pleasure, in a way that they considered to be appropriate. Whether or not prisons work has always been open to debate. As it was recently said by the wife of the chief inspector of prisons to her husband ‘If prison worked, we would be shutting prisons not opening more’.

Bibliography

Books

Beccaria, C 1764 Of Crimes and Punishments available at

Emsley, Clive, Crime & society in England 1750-1900 3rd ed (Harlow: Pearson education, 2005)

Gatrell, V.A.C, The hanging tree, (Oxford :OUP, 1994)

Potter, Harry, Hanging in judgement (London: SCM press, 1993)

Priestley, Phillip, Victorian prison lives 1830-1914 (London and New York: Methuen, 1985)

Royle, Edward, Modern Britain, a social history 1750-1985 (London and New York: Arnold, 1987)

Thomas, Donald, The Victorian underworld, (London, John Murray,1998)

Websites

Roberts, Andrew 7.3.2000/crimeline - Crimtim: A criminology and deviancy theory history timeline <http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www/study/crimtim.htm> Middlesex University