1 Penal policy under challenge
What were the reasons for such a dramatic shift in the direction of penal policy during the 1860s?
Activity 1 The causes and effects of change in penal policy
Watch the video for this session in which Rosalind Crone explains the development of penal policy in the 1860s and examines its impact on one institution, Lincoln Castle Gaol. As you watch, try to do the following:
- Briefly summarise the causes of the change in penal policy (you could, for example, create a bullet-point list).
- List the key changes in penal policy which focused attention on the punishment, rather than the reformation, of prisoners.
- Summarise the effects of these new measures on imprisonment at Lincoln Castle Gaol.
Transcript
[GENTLE MUSIC]
Discussion
Don’t worry if you found it hard to summarise, especially from a video. You were asked to do this because creating brief summaries (such as bullet-point lists) is a really useful skill, especially as it helps you to remember the important information. Also, you can refer back to it. Here is an example answer:
Causes:
- Disillusionment with separate prisons – concerns about mental health of prisoners and/or prisoners being too comfortable.
- Growing uncertainty about ability of religious instruction to reform prisoners.
- Replacement of transportation with penal servitude (long term imprisonment) – meant convicts had to be released into British society – public fears about these ‘hardened offenders’. (The last of about 164,000 convicts arrived in Western Australia in 1868.)
- A perceived crime wave fuelled by lots of reports about garrotting (robbery) in the newspapers.
Changes in penal policy were realised through legislation and (in the case of convict prisons) Standing Orders (mandatory instructions on procedure) issued by the Convict Prison Directors (you will look at these in more detail shortly). A list of key changes might include:
Convict prisons (1864 Penal Servitude Act and Standing Orders):
- increased the minimum sentence of penal servitude to five years
- intensified the separation of convicts during their probationary stage
- reduced the diet
- curtailed religious facilities available to convicts
- introduced a system of surveillance for prisoners released on licence.
Local prisons (1865 Prison Act):
- separate confinement
- strict performance of truly hard and unproductive labour (such as the treadmill, shot drill, hand crank and stone breaking)
- reduced diet
- plank beds.
- Lincoln Castle Gaol was a local prison, so we need to measure the experience of imprisonment there against the rules laid out in the 1865 Prison Act. There was little change at this prison. This was mainly because prisoners held here were on remand (awaiting trial). After conviction, they were transferred to other prisons (primarily convict prisons) to serve sentences of imprisonment, which was when provisions for punishment were meant to be enforced. Still, there were many other local prisons, including those which held convicted prisoners, which did not implement some or many of the new measures promoted by the 1865 Prison Act. This was because local prisons were still under the control of local authorities. Some authorities continued to believe in reformatory regimes while others baulked at the cost of implementing the new rules. Mechanisms for the enforcement of this legislation also remained weak.
As explained in the video, between 1853 and 1857, sentences of transportation were replaced with sentences of penal servitude – or long-term imprisonment – which were served by convicts in ‘stages’. A more detailed account of those stages is provided in Table 1.
Historians have shown how the garrotting panic of 1862 played a key role in the reformulation of penal policy (Davis, 1980; Sindall, 1987). Although concerns were already being expressed in some circles about discipline within prisons, and while it drew on public unease about the end of transportation, voluminous newspaper coverage of violent crime galvanised public opinion and put pressure on legislators to act. This is not the only time in history when criminal justice policy has been based on a knee-jerk reaction.
Crucially, the garrotting panic promoted the idea of the existence of a professional and identifiable ‘criminal class’: men (and to a lesser extent, women) who, through immorality and laziness, had chosen to pursue a ‘criminal career’ over honest employment. Undeterred by the relatively ‘soft’ punishment of penal servitude, once released from prison they returned to lives of crime. There were doubts about whether these habitual criminals could be reformed. Instead, many argued that criminal justice policy should aim to control them.
Historians have called into question the existence of a distinct ‘criminal class’ in the 1800s, arguing that most crime was committed to supplement low wages or during periods of unemployment (Davis, 1980, p. 213). The garrotting panic of 1862 demonstrates how perceptions of crime are often more important than the reality. The belief in the existence of a ‘criminal class’ also shaped views of prison learners. Some chaplains argued that the pursuit of ‘criminal lives’ had rendered some convicts incapable of learning.
ON CONVICTION (Those accused of serious offences which carried a penalty of penal servitude were held on remand (awaiting trial) in local prisons, and also for a period of time after conviction, until their transfer to a convict prison could be organized) |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Britain | Ireland | |||
| Men | Womena | Men | Women | |
| Stage One | Separate confinementa 9 months (Prisons: Pentonville, Millbank) |
Separate confinement 4 months (Prison: Millbank) |
Separate confinement 9 months (Prison: Mountjoy) |
Separate confinement 4 months (Prison: Mountjoy) |
| Stage Two | Hard labour (associated) at public works (Prisons: Portland, Portsmouth, Chatham, Dartmoor, Woking) |
Associated labour (domestic focus) (Prison: Brixton; from 1869 Woking) |
Hard labour (associated) at public works (Prison: Spike Island, Phillipstown) |
Associated labour (Prison: Mountjoy) |
Intermediate Stage |
None |
Preparation for release. For prisoners who show promise in stage two. (Prison: Fulham) Abolished 1869. |
Preparation for release. For convicts deemed fit. Convicts given short periods of liberty on condition of return to the prison. (Prisons: Smithfield, Lusk) |
Best conducted prisoners in second stage sent to Catholic (Golden Bridge) or Protestant (Haytesbury Street) refuges. |
Stage Three (earned through good conduct and industry) |
Release ‘on licence’ (i.e. parole) to serve remainder of sentence ‘at large’. | Release ‘on licence’ (i.e. parole) to serve remainder of sentence ‘at large’. | Release ‘on licence’ (i.e. parole) to serve remainder of sentence ‘at large’. | Release ‘on licence’ (i.e. parole) to serve remainder of sentence ‘at large’. |