1
<< Criminology >>
<< Fundamentals of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice>>
<<Prison System: Historical Perspective and Contemporary Relevance
>>
2
Items Description of Module
Subject Name Criminology
Paper Name Fundamentals of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice
Module Name/Title Prison System: Historical Perspective and Contemporary Relevance
Module Id 21
Objectives Learning Outcome:
To make the learners understand the evolution of imprisonment as a mode of punishment
To make the learners understand the origin and development of the prison system from the ancient to the modern times.
To acquaint the learners with the different types of prison systems
To acquaint the learners with the contemporary relevance of prison system.
Prerequisites General understanding of the punishment provided under the Indian Penal Code 1861
Key words Penology, punishment, sanction, sentencing, correction
Role Name Affiliation
Principal Investigator Prof. (Dr.) G.S. Bajpai Registrar, National Law University Delhi
Paper Coordinator Dr. Debdatta Das Assistant Professor, Amity Law College, Kolkata
Content Writer/Author Dr. Paromita Chattoraj Associate Professor and Associate Dean (Academics), School of Law, KIIT University
Content Reviewer Dr. Kavita Singh Associate Professor, West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata
3 Description of Module
1. Introduction
Punishment has been a response to wrong committed by any person from time immemorial. However, there are varying rationales to justify such infliction of punishment. According to Jeremy Bentham "all punishment is mischief: all punishment in itself is evil" (Bentham, 1789). Since causing of deliberate pain is wrongful, does this make punishment wrong? There are two lines of thoughts here, one believing that inflicting pain as punishment is fundamentally different from inflicting pain on innocents, and therefore is not inherently wrong. Second believing that punishment is a wrong that can be justified only if it results in a ―greater good‖
(Murphy 1995). Those who hold the first view do not feel it necessary to justify punishment beyond the fact that the individual deserves it. This would be considered a retributive approach. The second view justifies punishment through the secondary rationales of deterrence, incapacitation, or rehabilitation. This is the utilitarian approach (Durham 1994).
Punishments in society are as old as civilization itself, though imprisonment as a mode of punishment per se was not always in use. Gaol or jail, the two forms of the word are due to the parallel dual forms in Old Central and Norman respectively. The form "gaol" still commonly survives in England whereas the term 'jail' is in vogue in the American system (Mohanty and Hazary, 1990). Gaol is derived from the Latin words jaole, gaiole or gayolle that means to seize. Prison as a place of detention have been there both inside India and outside since a very long time, however the idea of imprisonment in the prison system as we know it today is not that old an idea.
2. Historical Perspectives
Punishment targets one‘s possessions, one‘s body, or one‘s psyche. Punishments throughout the ages have attacked the body allowing different forms of Corporal punishment (meaning ―to the body‖) including drawing and quartering, flaying, whipping, beheading, dismembering, and numerous other means of torture or death (Newman 1978). Fines and dispossession of property also have been common throughout history. Conley (1992) writes that fines were more common than physical
4
torture during many time periods. Execution was an economic as well as a corporal punishment because the person‘s estate was forfeited to the monarch.
Fig. 1 Alternatives to imprisonment
Alternatives to imprisonment
• Death by hanging
• Hurling over a rock
• Crucifixion
• Beheading
• Drowning in a sack
• Banishment
• Transportation
Economic and physical sanctions gradually have given way to imprisonment or lesser deprivations of liberty (probation or parole). As early as the end of the 14th century, the purpose of imprisonment changed from custody until physical punishment was inflicted, to custody as punishment itself. An increasing number of laws emerged with precisely defined prison sentences. The church also used imprisonment as a punishment for clerics (Conley 1992).
It came to be realized that the process of imprisonment, involving in isolation from family and community, under not so pleasant conditions, could itself be considered as a convenient mode of punishment to replace corporeal punishment. Although, prisons in shape of dungeons had existed from time immemorial in all the old civilizations of the world, it was only in the middle of the nineteenth century that imprisonment became the main form of punishment. Cantor observed, ―Imprisonment is the modern major method of disposing serious offenders. It is difficult to imagine surrendering this method. It was just as difficult to surrender the practice of torture in the Middle Ages or public execution for every felony in England. A brief sketch of the methods
5
of punishment in the past will show how firmly different ages clung to those current practices which to us today appear barbaric‖ (Cantor, 1930)
2.1 In Europe
In England in 1166, King Henry II issued the Assaize of Clarendon, which ordered his sheriffs to build a jail in each county. Jails held debtors and felons awaiting trial.
In 1556, the first ‗house of correction‘ was established at Bridewell and, in 1906, James I made such houses of correction (popularly referred to as ‗Bridewells‘) obligatory in every English county. These facilities held people who were sent to prison for a very short sentences. (Scott, David, 2008)
Alongside this, the workhouse enshrined the principle of less eligibility and was intimately linked to the birth of the prison. However, by the 18th century, Work houses or Bridewells had lost their original purpose because judges increasingly resorted to corporeal punishments or transportation to the colonies for vagrants. (Roy Chowdhury, 2002)
Fig. 2 A depiction of workhouse
The sheriff and Magistrates of the English counties did not assume any direct responsibility for maintenance of jails or for treatment of occupants. This was turned over to the private keeper as a concession. The keepers were not paid any salary and
6
their income came from fees exacted from the prisoners or their friends and relatives.
The fee system continued in England for several centuries. (Mahaworker, 2006) The sixteenth century Protestants impulse to banish idleness and beggary provided a second precursor to the penitentiary in the Amsterdan Rasp House and Skin House founded in 1596 and 1597 respectively. Through these work houses the Magistrates sought to establish ―houses of discipline‖ where inmates could be put to work in order to learn industrious habits. Amasterdan provided a model of European house of correction where new classes of deviants and convicts sentenced to force public labours. In practice, these state workshops were used not as reformatories but used as places where a diverse population of unfortunate ingredients was coerced into hard labour. But neither the English Bridewells nor the continental work houses served the purposes of penitentiary. (Khadish, 1986)
The two institutions that influenced the prison system in America and England are the firstly the Hospice of San Michele which was a reformatory for boys established in Rome by Pope clement XI in 1703. Secondly, the Maison de Force, a house of correction opened by Jean Jacques Philippe Vilain in Ghent, Belgium I 1773. The Rome reformatory has been accepted by some leading authorities as the first modern prison. Its principal purpose was moral regeneration through penitence and reflection in cellular isolation at night and congregate work under strict rule of silence during day. The House of Correction of Belgium could be considered as the one of the first long-term convict prisoners. (Mahaworker, 2006)
During the eighteenth century John Howard emerged as a formidable prison reformer.
Howard began a series of inspection to his county prisons as county sheriff of Bedfordshire from 1773 onwards. His contribution lay in his effort in his systematic statistical reporting and comprehensive proposals for change. He advocated for solitary confinement and hoped to translate the ascetic vigil of the priest into disciplinary regiment for the criminal. His plans for better prison food, clothing and hygiene were but part of a programme intended to reset minds as well as disciplined bodies. Howard‘s humanitarian reforms were sometimes criticized as too expensive and lenient but he was still regarded as one of the great reformers of prison.
(Mahaworker, 2006)
7 Fig. 3. Design of the prison
The other significant reformer in this era was Jeremy Bentham.The ―Panopticon‖, or the perfect prison as it was known, was designed by Jeremy Bentham and would become the model of prisons for the next century. Its design (a square wheel with cell blocks arranged like spokes around the hub) enabled total separation of prisoners while allowing a guard to be placed at a central location to thus observe all the prisoners in the various wings. The separation, isolation, and design as a whole were considered integral for rehabilitation and thus its intrinsic features were extensively argued amongst dueling reformers. Borrowing from Foucault, it was said that:
The features of separation and surveillance were intended to divide time, space, and bodies in such a way as to purify the pathological, prevent the spread of ―disease‖, and render each man arbiter of his own monitoring and control (Blomberg & Lucken, 2010)
In 1750, England was a small parochial society and its population stood at 6.5 million.
Seventy five percent of the the population lived in the countryside and three quarter
8
worked in agriculture. Local Land owners were the local magistrates and these enforced the law. At this time there were over 200 separate Acts that commanded the penalty of death (by hanging). This system of laws and punishments has become known as the ‗Bloody Code‘. Alongside public hangings, the Transportation Act 1718 introduced the transportation of offenders and from 1718 to 1775; over 30,000 were transported to the USA. The US War of Independence ended this practice, but 12 years later in 1787, transportation was reintroduced and from 1787 to 1869 162,000 people were transported to Australia. (Scott, David, 2008)
The emergence of penitentiary as a response of the criminal justice system was part of a broader process of institution building that included the rise of factory, free elementary schools, general hospitals, mental hospitals, orphanages and other asylums for the dependant and deviant. The prisoners by remodeling the society for better public mutations and executions seemed to have lost their efficiency as a deterrent to crime. (Roy Chowdhury, 2002)
In 1779 the British Parliament abolished branding and amended the laws relating to transportation, imprisonment and other punishment. To take care of the prisoners who had been formerly transported to America, Britain passed the Hulk Act of 1776, which was the first move towards a convict prison. These floating prisons were actually ―floating hells‖ rife with disease and many prisoners lost their lives in this miserable wooden coffins. Thereafter prison reformers like William Eden, William Blackstone and John Howard introduced the Penitentiary Act 1779 (Scott, David, 2008) These reforms have been introduced in response to end of transportation to the USA and when transportation to Australia started, the reform movement lost some momentum. In 1810, however, Samuel Romily, a renowned reformer argued that Penitentiary Act should be resurrected. The government responded by appointing the Holford committee, which recommended that a convict prison should be built. It was to be placed at Millbank, London. (Macconville, 1995) The convict prison was born, although it had clearly been a hard labour. In 1842, Her Majesty‘s Prison (HMP), Pentonville, was opened. It held 520 prisoners in separate cells and became the new model prison of the Victorian era. Its regime was based on solitude, hard labour, religious indoctrination and surveillance.
9
In 1865, the Prison Act finally ended the official difference between ‗jails‘ and
‗houses of correction‘, renaming them ‗local prisons‘ and, in 1877, the Prison Act gave the Home Office control of prison system. Following this period the modern prison was to become the ultimate sanction of state. (Scott, David, 2008)
2.2 In America
In 1786, America began to examine its own prison system, and during this time the first prison reform societies started to form. The Quaker group called the Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons worked in the 1780s and 90s to replace corporal punishment with the use of imprisonment to treat criminals for their wrongdoings. They suggested this be done by combining the ideas of American prisons along with those of the English workhouse, which would allow for a more permanent dwelling for the accused. Their ideas did not remain in force for very long throughout the colonies, but their influence was everlasting. Even after the Revolutionary War, their new criminal codes which approached punishment more humanely rapidly spread from Philadelphia to other states.
The Enlightenment perhaps played a huge role in prison reform, as the idea that social institutions formed character came into play. This led to the first penal system in America in the form of Pennsylvania system.
2.2.1. Pennsylvania system
This method of punishment was based on the principle that solitary confinement fosters penitence and encourages reformation. The Quakers, advocated this idea. In 1829 the Eastern State Penitentiary, on Cherry Hill in Philadelphia, applied this so- called separate philosophy. Prisoners were kept in solitary confinement in cells 16 feet high, nearly 12 feet long, and 7.5 feet wide (4.9 by 3.7 by 2.3 m). An exercise yard, completely enclosed to prevent contact among prisoners, was attached to each cell.
Prisoners saw no one except institution officers and an occasional visitor. Solitary penitence, however, was soon modified to include the performance of work such as shoemaking or weaving. The Pennsylvania system spread until it predominated in European prisons. Critics in the United States argued that it was too costly and had
10
deleterious effects on the minds of the prisoners. The Pennsylvania system was superseded in the United States by the Auburn system. (Kirk , 2014)
2.2.2 Auburn system
This was the penal method of the 19th century in which persons worked during the day and were kept in solitary confinement at night, with enforced silence at all times. The silent system evolved during the 1820s at Auburn Prison in Auburn, N.Y., as an alternative to and modification of the Pennsylvania system of solitary confinement, which it gradually replaced in the United States. Later innovations at Auburn were the lockstep (marching in single file, placing the right hand on the shoulder of the man ahead, and facing toward the guard), the striped suit, two-foot extensions of the walls between cells, and special seating arrangements at meals — all designed to insure strict silence. (Kirk , 2014)
The Auburn and Pennsylvania systems were both based on a belief that criminal habits were learned from and reinforced by other criminals. Auburn became known as the
―congregate‖ system while Pennsylvania became known as the ―separate‖ system as it espoused silence and separateness of prisoners at all times. While the two systems differed primarily regarding the time spent in solitary confinement, they maintained numerous similarities. They both strove to maintain discipline by enforcing stringent rules, which revolved around mandatory labor, silence and discipline (Rotman, 1990).
―Convicts‖ were forced to wake, eat and sleep at predetermined times. Food portions were similarly uniform consisting primarily of bread, potatoes and ―Indian meal‖ (a type of grain) made into mush or broth. It was said, ―A half-quart of molasses to every four prisoners was permitted on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday‖ (Weld, 1839). The mandated silence was thought to induce retrospection and thus foster penance, which was considered a prerequisite for change.
In 1821, Prison administrators at Auburn designed an experiment to test the efficacy of the Pennsylvania System. They took 80 of the men they felt were the most resistant to reform and placed them in solitary confinement, enforcing idleness for a period ranging from Christmas 1821 to Christmas 1823. While the design was criticized as certain facets did not accurately match that of the Pennsylvania system, the results
11
were however conclusive. Most of the men became mentally or physically sick leading to the early termination of the experiment (Allen & Simonsen, 1995).
Proponents of the Auburn system would also site its ability to produce income via its utilization of prison labor, and its classification of prisoners according to their crimes as factors to favor that model. With its ability to produce income via industry, most states would make Auburn the prison model over the next half century. From 1825 to 1869, 35 prisons would be built from the North to the South with Auburn as the prototype. (Allen & Simonsen, 1995).
Various reports over the following few years served to illuminate conditions of what had been deemed an ―advance system.‖ In some institutions it was reported that as a form of discipline, offenders were suspended in the ―air by their toes or thumbs.‖ An investigation into Pennsylvania prison practices found that water was allowed to freeze on the heads, hands and feet of individuals as punishment during the winter months (Blomberg & Lucken, 2010).The level of brutality being carried out in the prisons had reached a new level of low.
As the economy and idealism that precipitated the period of ―enlightenment‖ began to wane, the south began to adopt a new perspective regarding the penal system, basically disregarding the Auburn model. The South adopted a punishment philosophy based on impending economic needs. Their system was based not on philanthropic ideas, but on the idea that the ―possession of a convict‘s person is an opportunity for the state to make money (Cable, 1884). This philosophy took the form of the convict lease system, which served as a slavery model for rebuilding a war-ravaged economy and infrastructure (e.g., railroads). (Blomberg & Lucken, 2010)
In the leasing system; ―inmates‖ were sent anywhere in the United States that demanded their labor. Vagrancy laws and ambiguous ones such as insulting gestures (such as a Black man holding up his face as he passes a White person) were enforced primarily against poor Blacks leading to what some consider the first prison boom (Oshinsky, 1996). Their treatment and living conditions were deplorable.
12
The voice of dissent and outrage regarding the system began to grow, as did the levels of crime. Various reporting agencies and commissions began to report that the system was actually increasing recidivism rates. ―It was concluded that the likelihood of recidivism was far greater than the odds of reform‖ (Blomberg & Lucken, 2010,).
Many questioned the rational of prisons, including David Rothman (1990) who has researched the history of prisons extensively in the United States. He was quoted as saying: ―if nothing else, penal institutions were convenient because they housed the strange alien hordes‖ such as ―negroes‖, immigrants and other challenges to the status quo. Advocates of the early penitentiary defended it as a ―human enterprise‖ able to turn men and women who would offer nothing to society, into a financial gain for the state (Hirsch, 1992).
2.3 In India
2.3.1. Ancient India
In India, the early prisons were only places of detention where an offender was detained until trial and judgment and the execution of the latter. The structure of the society in ancient India was founded on the principles enunciated by Manu and explained by Yagnavalkya, Kautilya and others. Among various types of corporal punishments – branding, hanging, mutilation and death, the imprisonment was the mildest kind of penalty known prominently in ancient Indian penology. Imprisonment occupied an ordinary place among the penal treatment and this type of corporal punishment was suggested in Hindu scriptures, the evil doer was put into prison to segregate him from the society. These prisons were totally dark dens, cool and damp, unlighted and unwarmed. There was not proper arrangement for the sanitation and no means of facility for human dwelling. (Mohanty and Hazare, 1990)
A few Smiriti writers supplied some information concerning jail. Yajnavalkya had narrated that person who was instrumental for the escape of a prisoner had undergone capital punishment. Vishnu suggested the penalty of imprisonment to a person who hurt the eyes of a man. (Mohanty and Hazare, 1990) Kautilya described the place of prison location as well as the occasions when the prisoners can be released. The officers of the jail were known as Bhandanagaradhyaksa and Karka. The former was superintendent and the latter was one of his assistants. Kautilya has further described
13
the duties of the jailor who always keeps eyes on the movements of prisoners and the proper functioning of the prison. (Mohanty and Hazare, 1990)
2.3.2. Mediaeval India
The legal system in the Mediaeval India resembled that of Ancient India and the contemporary Muslim rulers seldom, if at all, attempted to tamper with the day to day administration of Justice. During the Mughal period sources of law and its character essentially remained Quranic. Crimes were divided into three groups, namely, a) Offences against God, b) offences against State, c) offences against private persons.
Punishment for these offences were of four classes, they were, 1) Hadd 2) tazir 3) Quisas 4) Tasir. Imprisonment was not resorted as a form of punishment in the case of ordinary criminals. It was used mostly as a means of detention only. There were fortress situated in different part of the country, in which the criminals were detained pending trail and judgement. (Mohanty and Hazare, 1990) There used to be three
‗Noble prisons or Castles‘ in Mughal India. One was at Gwalior, second one at Ranathambore and the last one at Rohtas. Orders for the prisoner‘s release were issued on special occasions. On the occasion of the celebrations of recovery from illness of the favorite Princes Begum Sahib, Shahajahan ordered the release of prisoners in 1638 AD. Some rooms in forts popularly known as the Bhandhikahanas or Adab – Khanas were reserved for prisoners, and culprits who had committed serious crimes were sent to such from different places.
During the Maratha period also, imprisonment as a form of punishment was not very common. Death, Mutilation, fine were common forms of punishments. The form of punishment, as during the ancient and Mughal period, continued in Maratha period also. The main features of the prison system prevailed in pre- British period may be summarized as below: a) There were no prisons in Modern sense. b) There was no description of internal administration of prisons. c) No separate prison service existed and courts were not feeding centers for prisons. d) There were no rules for maintenance of prisons. (R N Datia)
2.3.3. Modern India
The prison system as it operates today in our country is a legacy of the British rule. It was an ingenious creation of the colonial rulers Over our indigenous penal system with the prime motive of making imprisonment ―a terror to wrong doers‖ (Mallaiah,
14
1982). In 1784 the British Parliament empowered the East India Company to rule India and since then some attempts were made to introduce reforms in the administration of Law and Justice. At that time there were 143 civil jails, 75 criminal jails and 68 mixed jails.26. In fact these jails were an extension Mughal rule which were managed by the personnel of the East India Company in their efforts to maintain peace and establish their trade.(Singh, 1979) In 1835 Lord Macauly drew the attention of Legislative Council of India to the deplorable conditions of the Indian Jails and proposed to appoint a committee ― for the purpose of collecting information as to the state of Indian Prisons and of preparing an improved plan of prison discipline……and to suggest such reforms as may make the place (the jail at Alipore) a model for other prisons‖. The council accepted Macauly‘s proposal and appointed ‗The Prison Discipline Committee‘ with Hon‘ble H Shakespeare as President and Lord Macauly as one of the members. The report of the Committee came out in 1838. The Enquiry Committee was a landmark in the history penal administration in India. Prisons were given different treatment, the nature and character of the institution assumed a changed meaning, though it was punitive basically. The committee directed for the first time the attention of the English rulers of India to various vices of the administration of Indian Jails. It criticized the corruption of subordinate establishment, the laxity of discipline and the system of employing prisoners in extra mural labour or public roads. The purposes the prisons according this committee was to make ―the goal a place of dread‖ through a ruthless process of ―severe privation, really hard work, solitude, silence and separation‖. (Roy, 1989)
In pursuance of the recommendations of the committee a Central Prison was constructed at Agra in 1846. This was the first Central Prison in India and was followed by the construction of central prisons at Bareilly and Allahabad in 1848, at Lahore in 1852, at Madras in 1857, at Bombay in 1864, at Alipore in 1864 at Banaras and Fatehgarh in 1864 and at Lucknow 1867. (Report of the Indian Jail Committee, 1919) In 1844 the first inspector General of Prisons was appointed in the North Western Province on an experimental basis for two years and was extended further, in 1850 the Government of India Made it a permanent post and suggested that each province should appoint an Inspector General of Prisons. In 1862 the North Western Province employed civil Surgeons as Superintendents of District Jails.
15
In 1870 the Government of India passed Prisons Act. It lay down that there should be a Superintendent, a Medical Officer, a Jailor and such subordinate officers as the local government thinks necessary.(Vidya Bhusan, 1 970) This act categorically specified the duties of the prison officials. It also made provision for the separation of prisoners of male from females, of children offenders from adults, of criminal from civil offenders. (Section 7 Prison Act 1870)
I n 1877 and 1889 third and fourth enquiry committees were instituted. Based on the recommendations of the committees the Prison Act of 1894 was passed. By this the jails appeared to have achieved considerable material progress during this period. In 1919 the British Government appointed a Joint Commission of officials to investigate the whole subject of jail management and to suggest improvement. The commission recommended the establishment of separate institutions like Borstal School for juvenile delinquents. The under trials were to be kept separate from the convicted and the adult convicts were to be classified as habitual and casuals. The committee report also took serious views on transportation of convicts to Andaman Islands and recommended for the discontinuation of the practice. Solitary confinement was abolished. All convicts below 29 years of age were to be cared under adult education programmes and libraries were to be established in all Jails. Quality of food to be improved and prisoners were to be provided with two sets of clothing. The commission underlined the idea of reform of inmates as ultimate objective of imprisonment and rehabilitation of prisoners as social necessity.( Report of the Indian Jail Committee, 1919) .The other significant Prison reforms committees are represented in Fig. 3.
Fig. 4 Prison Reforms Committees
16
Unfortunately the prison reform movement received a sudden setback due to the constitutional changes brought about by the Government of India Act of 1919. The Act transferred the jail department from the control of the Government of India to that of Provincial Government. With the dawn of independence, prison reform was given increased attention. Indian leaders were ready with a blue print for the industrial development of the country, but the jail reform could not escape their eyes as all of them passed their prime life in the jails. Prison administration is a state subject under the constitution of India. The organization, headed by the Inspector General of Prisons consists of central prisons, sub jails or district jails. Different states have adopted different patterns of jail administration. The central Jails are intended for long term prisoners who are convicted in courts.
3.1 Contemporary relevance of Prison System
Prison institutions are known by different names by different countries like
‗Correctional Facilities‘, ‗Detention Centre‘, ‗Jails‘, ‗Remand Centre‘ etc. Earlier notion of prison as a facilities in which inmates are forcibly confined and deprived of a variety of freedom as a form of punishment has changed with a change in social perception towards prison and prisoners. It is now treated as correction or improvement facility which itself indicates that there is more emphasis on reformation
17
of prisoners than to punish them. To achieve this goal, a congenial atmosphere is required to be created in jails for reformation of the inmates. Apart from emphasis on social and ethical values for amalgamation in mainstream society after release they also require education, recreational and vocational training facilities so that they not only correct their hostile attitude towards society which will help them to integrate with the mainstream of society but also provide alternate source of livelihood. (Prison in India, 2015)
Fig. 4 Types and number of prisons (Prison in India, 2015)
In last few decades prison population have increased tremendously which create number of challenges before prison administration like security & safety in prison, hygienic issues, overcrowding etc. The just deserts rationale and the retributive notion has taken a back seat in the Prison System in most civilized jurisdictions. The modern
18
prison system incorporate the rehabilitative ideals and that is why the period of incarceration is oriented to using the time spent by the inmate for reforming him through education, vocational and other skill based training and further with mind modulation techniques like yoga and meditation. Although, the major challenge is posed by the over-prisonisation that leads to over-crowding of prisoners, different response mechanisms in the form of privatization of prisons and open prison system and other therapeutic correctional approaches like community service etc.
In the late 1980's, prison systems across the country began experiencing serious overcrowding of correctional facilities. The overcrowding served as a catalyst for lawmakers to develop new options for sentencing criminal offenders. Parole and probation have always been a way of community correction, but with technological advancement and considering the psychology of convicted people, correction programs have widened to accommodate work releases, day fine programs, electronic monitoring, home confinement, community service, half way houses, boot camp prisons, restitution, check-in programs, mediation, curfews, restorative justice centers, drug checks, alcohol checks and other methods where there is a certain level of trust between the offenders and the people involved.
3.2.1. Open Prison System
Criminologists have expressed different views about the definition of open prison some scholars have preferred to call these institutions as open air camps, open jail or parole camps. The United Nations Congress on prevention of crime and Treatment of offenders held in Geneva in 1955, however, made an attempt to define an open prison thus –―An open institution is characterized by the absence of material and physical precautions against escape such as walls, locks, bars and armed guards etc. and by a system based on self-discipline and innate sense of responsibilities towards the group in which he lives.‖( Paranjape, 2000)
Open peno-correctional institutions, open prisons and open colonies for prisoners, in the recent past, have emerged as effective institutional reformatory and correctional measures. These institutions, which ostensibly eliminate the ‗tensions‘ and ‗barriers‘
created by the restrictions and physical restraints placed on inmates of a ‗closed‘ jail - a prison with walls - and provide them better opportunity for re-interaction and re-
19
assimilating with ‗free community‘ and ‗family‘ strive to bridge the gulf between the traditional ‗closed prison‘ and ‗free community‘. They in fact furnish a ‗half-way- home‘ to their inmates for their smooth and effective socio-psychological rehabilitation and re-integration into the social mainstream. By providing maximum opportunity to their inmates to re-mould their ‗attitudes‘ and to bring positive changes in their ‗behavioral patterns‘, these institutions, it is believed, make prisoners ‗fit‘ to lead a law-abiding and self supporting life after their release.
Fig. 5. Features of an Open Prison Institution
Features of an open
prison Informal and institutional
living in small groups with minimum measure of
custody.
Efforts to promote consciousness among
inmates about their social responsibilities.
Adequate facilities for training inmates in agricultural and other
related occupations.
Meeting with relatives and friends
Liberal remissions to the extent of 15 days
in a month.
Proper attention towards the health and recreational facilities
Managements of open jail institutions by especially
qualified well trained personnel.
Improved diet with arrangements for
weak and sick inmates.
Payment of wages in part to the inmates and sending part of it
to his family.
Financial assistances to inmates through liberal
bank loans.
Free and inmate contact between staff and the inmates and among the
inmates themselves.
Regular and paid work for inmates under expert supervision as a method of
reformation, and
Avoidance of undue long detention.
20 3.2.2. Community Service
Community service programmes began in the United States with female traffic offenders in Alameda County, California in 1966, with local initiatives following in several counties throughout the United States. In the United Kingdom, Parliament enacted legislation in the early 1970's giving the courts specific powers to order community service as a sentencing sanction, and not just a condition of probation.
Community service grew as part of the probation scheme and probation officers were delegated sole responsibility of securing support for and organizing community service programmes. (Etter and Hammond, 2001)
Community service can be a reparative sanction that links the nature of the service to the offence to be sanctioned; it can be a positive sanction that evokes responsibility from the offender for his/her actions; it can reduce the burden on the system of incarceration. (Etter and Hammond, 2001)
The emphasis of community service is not on punishment nor on rehabilitation;
rather, it is on accountability. It focuses "not on offenders' needs but their strengths;
not on their lack of insight but their capacity for responsibility; not on their vulnerability to social and psychological factors but their capacity to choose". These differentiate a rehabilitative response from a restorative/community service response to crime. And punitive elements of community service orders may attend its imposition, within a restorative system, only as by-products of the offender's commitment of time and effort.
4. Conclusion
In spite of the fact that there are several maladies in the prison system in the country, it would not be appropriate to totally condemn the whole set-up. Obviously, there are difficulties of man-power, funds, training and right kind of attitude to deal with socially handicapped inmates, but all these ills need to be corrected with the joint effort of the government, the people and the staff manning prison institutions. Some prisons are an example of the best utilization of the resources available, and it is educative to see them. Rehabilitative ideals of punishment seeks to present such justification for imprisonment whereby, the seclusion for the sentence duration could
21
be utilized to modulate the offender in such a manner that he could be granted re- entry into the society or community. Imprisonment serves a two-way purpose of protecting the community and reforming the offenders. Of late, the idea that prison officials serve only to lock and unlock prisoners and to keep them secure, is getting replaced by a more inter-actionist approach. They are being given the responsibility to actively engage with prisoners and participate in their rehabilitation, which inspite of criticisms remains the ultimate goal of imprisonment .
References
1. Allen, Harry E., Simonsen, Clifford E. (1995). Corrections in America: An introduction Englewood Cliffs: NJ.
2. Bhusan, Vidya. (1 970). Prison Administration in India, S. Chand: Delhi 3. Blomberg Thomas G., Lucken,Karol, (2011). American Penology: A History
of Control, Transaction Publisher, NJ
4. Cabel,( 1884-85) Administration Report of The Indian Relegraph , N.P.
5. Cantor, Natheniel F. (1930), Crime and Society, Henry Holts and company, n.p.
6. Chowdhury, Nitai, (2002), Indian Prison Laws and Correction of Prisoners, Deep & Deep Pub, New Delhi, p. 17
7. Conley, J. (1992). The Historical Relationship Among Punishment, Incarceration, and Corrections. In S. Stojkovic and R. Lovell (Eds), Corrections: An Introduction,. Cincinnati, Anderson: OH
8. Durham, A. (1994). Crisis and Reform: Current Issues in American Punishment, Little, Brown: Boston
22 9. ESF,
http://www.esf.gov.uk/archive/2000_2006_esf_programme/case_studies/, visited on 21.06.2012
10. Etter, Gregg W , Hammond, Judy, Community Service Work as a Part of Offender Rehabilitation. (2001) Corrections Today. December. retrieved at http://restorativejustice.org/restorative-justice/about-restorative-
justice/tutorial-intro-to-restorative-justice/lesson-3-programs/community- service/
11. Hirsch, Andrew Von, (1992), Principled sentencing,Northeastern University Press:IL
12. I.J. Singh, (1979), Indian Prison, Concept Publishing Co: Delhi 13. James , Kirk A .(2014), History of Prisons in Americaretrieved at
https://medium.com/@kirkajames/the-history-of-prisons-in-america- 618a8247348#.6cqi4ylev
14. Khadish, H.K.(ed.). (1986), Encylopedia of Crime and Justice , Macmillon Free Press: New York
15. Macconville , S. (1995). The Victorian Prison: England, 1865-1965, in N Morris, Dj Rothman (eds.) The Oxford History of Prison, Oxford University Press: Oxford.
16. Mahanty Amarendra, Hazary Narayan, (1990), Indian Prison System, Ashish Publishing House: New Delhi
17. Mahaworker, M.B., (2006), Prison Management – Problem and Solutions, Kalipaz Publications: New Delhi
18. Mallaiah,CS. (1982). Development of Prison Administration in India‘ Social Defence. Ministry of social welfare.
19. Murphy, J. (1995). Punishment and Rehabilitation, Wadsworth.: Belmont, CA
20. Neier, Aryeh, Rothman, David J. (1991), Prison Conditions in India,Human Rights Watch, N.P.
21. Newman, G. (1978). The Punishment Response, Lippincott: New York 22. Paranjape, N.V. (2000). Criminology and Penology.
23
23. PRISON STATISTICS INDIA. (2014) .retrieved at
ncrb.nic.in/statpublications/psi/prison2014/prisonstat2014rev1.htm 24. Priti Bharadwaj,Ed., (2008). CommunityParticipation in Prisons- A Civil
Society Perspective‖, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative Prayas (A field action project of TISS).
25. R N Datia, N.Y.,Prisons as a Social System, N.P.
26. Rotman, Edgardo, (1990) ,Beyond punishment: a new view on the rehabilitation of criminal , Greenwood Press, N.P.
27. Roy, J.G. (1989). Prisons and Society, Gyan Publishing House: New Delhi 28. Scott , David, (2008), Penology, Sage Publication : London
29. Weld, Theordore Dwight . (1839). American Slavery As It Is: Testimony of a Thousand Witnesses Reprint NY 1969 Ed. William Loren Katz, N.P.
24
