The Evolution of the Modern English Prison System
| Date | 01 October 1939 |
| Published date | 01 October 1939 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1939.tb00751.x |
| Author | Leon Radzinowicz |
MODERN
ENGLISH
PRISON SYSTEM
121
THE EVOLUTION
OF
THE MODERN
ENGLISH PRISON SYSTEM
N
the pcriod following the centralisation of and unification of
the English prison system opinion regarding the aims of that
system may be observed to have passed through three stages.
During the first phasc deterrence and retribution were held to be
its proper objects. This phase can be said to coincide with the
so-called Du Cane regime, i.e. the period when the prisons
of
Great Britain were under the administration of Sir Edmund du
Cane
(1878
to
1894).
Du Cane admitted the need for combining
penal
and
reformative elements but in practice the place reserved
for the reformation
of
the prisoners was exceedingly small. The
first attack on this principle was made by the Gladstone Report
(Report
fyomz
the Departntental Committee
on
Prisoias,
1895)
which
was to play a vital rBle in the further development
of
the British
prison system.1
The second phase was that when the prison system was
administered by Sir Evelyn Ruggles Brise
(1895
to
1922)
and it
was recognised that apart from the function
of
deterrence and
retribution the prisons should also exercise a reformatory in-
fluence. This reformative function
was
accepted as an important
and essential feature
of
the prison system, but it was accepted
as
a
distinctly secondary function.2
It is most noteworthy for the evolution which has taken place
in this domain that the views presented by the above-mentioned
Report in
1912-13
as those of “loose thinkers and loose writers”
I
”
. . .
prison treatment should have as its primary and concurrent objects
deterrence and reformation
”
and should be “effectually designed to maintain,
stimulate or awaken the higher susceptibilities
of
prisoners
. . .
and whenever
possible to turn them out of prison better men and women. both physically and
morally, than when they came in.” Report from the Uepartmcntal Committee
on Prisons.
1895,
para.
47,
p.
IS,
and para.
25,
p.
8.
a
This point of view was very clearly expressed by the Annual Report of the
Prison Commissioners for England and Wales
(1912-1913).
This Report states
that if the aim of the prison system is to be retributory, deterreet and reformatory
none the less,
‘I
the important thing is as to the order of precedence of the three
attributes,” and in this connection, the Report defines the issue moEe closely as
follows:
“If
by ‘retributory’ is meant, not the vulgar and exploded instinct of
vengeance or personal revenge. but the determination of the human consciousness
that the system of rights shall be maintained and that he who offends against it
shall be punished, and that the punishment shall be of such
a
nature as to deter
him and others from anti-social acts; if by ‘reformatory’ is meant the accepted
axiom of modern penology that
a
prisoner has reversionary rights of humanity
and that these must be respected consistently with the due execution
of
the law,
and that no effort must be spared to restore that man to society as
a
better and
a
wiser man and
a
good citizen-any inversion of these factors of punishment
would be fatal
;
but among loose thinkers and loose writers the impression seems
to be gaining ground that this historic order of the factors
of
punishment should
be inverted, and that the object of punishment shall be altogether reformatory,
as little
as
possible deterrent, and not at all retributory.”
Pp.
22-23.
To continue reading
Request your trial