Development Of The Prison System Essay, Research Paper

Development of the Prison System

Prisons were virtually non existent before the 1700s ; prison was non considered a serious penalty for offense, and was rarely used. Alternatively, authoritiess captive people who were expecting test or penalty whereupon they would have the more common capital or bodily types of penalty. Common penalties at that clip included stigmatization, enforcing mulcts, floging and the decease punishment ( capital penalty ) . The governments punished most wrongdoers in public in order to deter people from interrupting the jurisprudence ; this falls under the theory of disincentive. Some captives were punished by being made to row the oars on ships called galleys.

However, English and Gallic swayers kept their political enemies imprisoned in such prisons as the Tower of London and the Bastille in Paris. In add-on, people who owed money were held in debitors & # 8217 ; prisons. In many such instances, wrongdoers & # 8217 ; households could remain with them and come and ago as they pleased. But the debitors had to remain in prison until their debts were settled. Despite these two exclusions, these early prisons bore virtually no exclusion to the modern prison system.

During the 1700s, many people criticised the usage of executings, mutilations and other rough penalties. This was the beginning of the early prison reform. These critics included the British justice Sir William Blackstone. As a consequence, authoritiess turned more and more to imprisonment as a serious signifier of penalty.

Early prisons were dark, soiled, unhygienic and overcrowded. They locked all types of captives together, including work forces, adult females and kids, plus unsafe felons, debitors and the clinically insane. During the late 1700s, the British reformist John Howard toured Europe to detect prison conditions. His book, the State of the Prisons in England and Wales influenced the transition of a jurisprudence that led to the building of the first British Prisons designed partially for reform. These prisons attempted to do their inmates feel penitent ( sorry for making incorrect ) and became known as penitentiaries ; this is where the beginnings of the theory of rehabilitation are found.

One signifier of imprisonment was transit to a penal settlement. During the 1700s, British Convicts were sent to North America to work in cotton Fieldss. This ceased in 1776, when the United States achieved independency. After 1789, inmates were sent to Australia. The first inmates were sent to work as retainers. If they misbehaved, the authorities took them back and set them in concatenation packs to interrupt rocks and construct roads. Finally purpose built penal settlements were established, such as the 1 at Port Arthur, Van Diemens Land ( now Tasmania ) , founded in 1833.

At the beginning of the 1800s, prison reformists began to underscore the importance of maintaining captives entirely. It was thought that if they had clip to reflect in lone parturiency, captives would see the mistake of their ways and become reformed. Prisons were built dwelling of many bantam cells where the captives lived and worked entirely. Each cell had its ain exercising pace. Prisoners were separated even in church by tall screens to forestall them from seeing other inmates. By the 1850s, nevertheless, the separate system had been mostly superseded by the soundless system, chiefly because of overcrowding. In the soundless system, the captives worked and exercised with other inmates, but they were forbidden to speak to, even look at each other.

Subsequently reformists introduced the thought of an undetermined sentence, dependent on the captives behaviour. Good behavior and difficult work led to privileges and association with other inmates. These thoughts were tried in Ireland, France and the English penal settlement on Norfolk Island, off the seashore of Australia. There, captives gained Markss for good behavior and difficult work, or lost them for bad behavior. When they reached the needed figure of points, they could be released. Other reformists introduced the thought of a conditional release, whereby a captive was released before the terminal of his sentence provided he complied with certain conditions. If non, he was returned to prison. This led to the word system, widely used today.

Reforms in the 1900s have led to further betterment of prisons. In the 1930s, for illustration, prisons began to develop rehabilitation programmes based on the background, personality and physical conditions of the inmate. This attack made rehabilitation programmes more meaningful. But despite such attempts, efforts to rehabilitate wrongdoers had dissatisfactory consequences. Many failed because of ill trained staff, deficiency of financess, and ailment defined ends.

By the sixtiess, many people felt that felons could be helped better outside prison. As a consequence, many states began to put up community correctional Centres and halfway houses. Wrongdoers lived in these installations merely before the release and received reding to assist them set to life outside prison. The figure of prison inmates declined, but community rectification programmes besides failed to run into outlooks, and prisons once more become the most preferable establishment.

Prisons today are really different. Severe overcrowding is now the major job in most prisons. Cells originally built for one captive, now frequently house two or three work forces. Judges in the United States have ruled that many prisons are so crowded that they violate captives constitutional protection from cruel and unusual penalty. In the United Kingdom, conditions became so bad that captives were held in obsolete ground forces barracks and constabularies cells. Overcrowding was eased temporarily by let go ofing not serious wrongdoers on word.

Prisons face other jobs as good. A deficiency of equal support had made betterments hard. In add-on, tensenesss among captives and between captives and the prison staff frequently run high and lead to barbarous onslaughts. Such conditions, worsened by overcrowding, have contributed to a figure of prison public violences since the late sixtiess. In a push to cut costs and better efficiency, the British authorities began in 1993 to reassign the running of some prisons to private companies.

The current concern with offense and the jobs of prisons have helped concentrate public attending on the go oning argument about the intents and effectivity of prisons. Surveies have shown that even good rehabilitation programmes fail to reform many released captives. The evident failure of such programmes has led many people to emphasize imprisonment as penalty instead than as intervention. On the other manus, experts besides have failed to turn out that prisons cut down the offense rate either by disabling wrongdoers or by detering people from interrupting the jurisprudence. For this ground, some experts believe that it would be cheaper, more humane, and more productive to maintain all unsafe wrongdoers in community correctional Centres instead than in prisons. Some tribunals are experimenting with sentences that allow felons to stay out of prison. Some of these sentences require felons to refund the victims of their offenses, and others make wrongdoers execute assorted public services in the community.

In 1785, the United States and Prussia signed the first pact naming for just intervention for Prisoners of war. The Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907 and the Geneva Conventions of 1929 and 1949 established international regulations covering with the intervention of captives of war. About all states have agreed to follow these regulations. The Hague and Geneva conventions require that states keep their captives of war in safe, healthful cantonments. Representatives of nonfighting states must be allowed to inspect the cantonments. These inspectors make certain the captives of war receive nutrient, medical attention, and payment for work. The conventions besides rule that states must allow their captives to direct and have mail. Another ordinance requires that states return captured military physicians and chaplains to their ain forces. The conventions provide that a captive need non give the enemy any information except the captives name, rank, military consecutive figure and age.

In malice of the Geneva and Hague ordinances, much mistreatment of captives of war has occurred. During World War II, Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union treated their captives harshly. Millions of them died of cold, famishment, or mistreatment. During the Korean War, United Nations ( UN ) forces accused the Chinese and North Koreans of brainwashing their captives. But most states have respected the captive of war ordinances. As a consequence, 1000000s of captives have survived gaining control. By the terminal of the Vietnam War, 651 American and 1000s of North Vietnamese captives of war returned to their ain states.

There are assorted types of establishments that confine convicted violators or individuals expecting test. They may be known as penitentiaries, reform schools, or correctional Centres, every bit good as the more commonly known prisons or gaols. In the United States, a gaol by and large refers to a local prison keeping people convicted of less serious offenses or expecting test. Many people consider prisons to be merely those establishments that confine grownups convicted of major offenses. Institutions for immature wrongdoers include youth detention Centres and detainment Centres. In add-on, specially built remand Centres, separate from prisons, hold people who are expecting test.

Womans form a little proportion of all inmates in prisons. Most of them are held in prisons which house merely adult females. Experts classify prisons by the grade of security or control they provide. The chief types are ( 1 ) maximal security prisons, ( 2 ) medium security prisons, and ( 3 ) minimal security or unfastened prisons.

Maximum security prisons by and large hold captives functioning long sentences. These captives have commited slaying, robbery, snatch, lese majesty, or over serious offenses. High rock walls or strong concatenation fencings surround most maximal security prisons. Many of these barriers have electronic sensing devices and powerful limelights. Prisoners live in cells and eat either in their cells or in a dining hall. Prison functionaries limit the length and figure of visits by household and friends. During such visits, thick glass or wire screens separate some prisons and visitants to forestall the exchange of such forbidden points as drugs and arms. Other captives and visitants are allowed to be together. Some prisons use Ten beam devices to look into visitants for concealed arms.

Medium security prisons hold inmates who have commited less serious offenses, such as minor assaults and little larcenies. The inmates in medium security prisons are by and large less unsafe than those in maximal security prisons. Medium security prisons may be surrounded by fencings with guard towers. Some have educational and athletic installations similar to schools.

Minimal security or unfastened prisons are the least restrictive prisons. Inmates of minimal security prisons are non considered unsafe and are improbable to fly prison. Many of these inmates were convicted of such nonviolent offenses as concern larceny, counterfeit, obstructor of justness and bearing false witness. They live in comfy suites and normally may travel about within the prison as they please. Minimum security prisons range from big establishments to little farm or forestry cantonments.

Juvenile correctional Centres by and large hold wrongdoers under the age of 18. The establishments maintain immature captives off from the bad influence of unsafe grownup felons. Remand centres keep immature people who have been accused of perpetrating offenses and are expecting test. Detention Centres, or young person detention Centres, are establishments where convicted young persons serve their sentences. Most of these sentences last about a twelvemonth. The Centres offer guidance, instruction, occupation preparation and diversion.

Prisons have four major intents. These intents are requital, incapacitation, disincentive and rehabilitation. Retribution means penalty for offenses against society. Depriving felons of their freedom is a manner of doing them pay a debt to society for their offenses. Incapacitation refers to the remotion of felons from society so that they can no longer harm guiltless people. Disincentive means the bar of future offense. It is hoped that prisons provide warnings to people believing about perpetrating offenses, and that the possibility of traveling to prison will deter people from interrupting the jurisprudence. Rehabilitation refers to activities designed to alter felons into jurisprudence staying citizens, and may include supplying educational classs in prison, learning occupation accomplishments and offering reding with a psychologist or societal worker. The four major intents of prisons have non been stressed every bit through the old ages. As a consequence, prisons differ in the make-up of their staffs, the design of their edifices and their operations.

The prison staff is headed by a governor, who directs the operation of the prison. This functionary is held responsible if there are such jobs as public violences, flights, prison misdirection and ferociousness towards captives. Prison edifices vary greatly in design. Prisons built in the radial design resemble the hub and radiuss of a wheel. The cells, dining hall and other installations extend from the control Centre at the hub. Warders at the control Centre can detect all activity within the edifice. Some maximal security prisons use a different design consisting of a long corridor crossed by short corridors that hold the cells and other installations. Prisoners must utilize the cardinal corridor when they move from topographic point to put This design allows close supervising by the warders. The high rise design is a perpendicular version of the corridor design. Prisoners move from floor to floor by lift. Juvenile establishments and unfastened prisons frequently consist of a group of edifices surrounded by a cardinal square. These edifices may include a library, chapel, dining hall or schoolrooms.

In my sentiment, the modern prison system has been mostly unsuccessful. Statisticss show that prisons have failed to cut down the offense rate, and rehabilitation programmes have been chiefly unsuccessful with many captives go oning to perpetrate offenses. Besides, the quality of life in prisons in the 90s is so high, that it can be seen as an inducement by people who are stateless, or hapless ; they may be encouraged to travel out and perpetrate non-serious offenses in an effort to be imprisoned. Do we truly want to handle felons alternatively of penalizing them? It does look that early capital and bodily penalties were much more effectual at detering ( and really penalizing ) offense ; possibly it is clip for a return of these two methods of penalty.

Even now, there are people runing to do prisons even more humanist surveies show that the theory of rehabilitation merely does non work, and more prison reform will non alter this. With a lifting offense rate, do we truly want the quality of life in prisons improved? I believe the stairss the authorities should take is: heavy unemployment degrees so less people turn to offense when they can non acquire a occupation, doing the instruction maintain gait with the extremely proficient occupation market that has evolved ; If the in-between category of the 1970s required several GCSE equivalents, and the in-between category of 1990 requires several A degrees so it should be merely as easy for kids of the 90s to acquire A degrees as it was for kids of the 70s to acquire GCSE equivalents. Although, my ain personal sentiment, is that a return of capital penalty would be most effectual ; this has been proven to work, and at that place was truly no ground for it to alter.

Bibliography:

G.M. Trevelyan, History of England, 1985

Sir L. Woodward, The Age of Reform ; 1815-1870, 1962

L. Stone, Social Change and Revolution in England, 1965

James Walvin, Victorian Values, 1987

Microsoft, Encarta, 1998

Sydney Wood, Living in Victorian Times, 1985

Roy D. King, The Future of the Prison System, 1980

Kenneth O. Morgan, The Oxford Illustrated History of Britain, 1984

Britannica, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1997

Home Office, Report on the Work of the Prison Department, -1977

Labour Party, The Labour Party Website: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.labour.org.uk, 1998