OLCPCAD1 (Compressed)

MODULE:
Institutional Corrections
Chapter 1
At the end of this chapter the student should be able to:
• Understand the history of punishment and

corrections
• Recognize the objective of imprisonment
THE CODE OF HAMMURABI
The Code of Hammurabi was one of the

earliest and most complete written legal codes
and was proclaimed by the Babylonian king
Hammurabi, who reigned from 1792 to 1750 B.C.
Hammurabi expanded the city-state of Babylon
along the Euphrates River to unite all of southern
Mesopotamia. The Hammurabi code of laws, a
collection of 282 rules, established standards
for commercial interactions and set fines and
punishments to meet the requirements of justice.
Hammurabi’s Code was carved onto a massive,
finger-shaped black stone stele (pillar) that was
looted by invaders and finally rediscovered in
1901.
Hammurabi
Hammurabi was the sixth king in the Babylonian dynasty, which ruled
in central Mesopotamia (present-day Iraq) from c. 1894 to 1595 B.C.
Page 1 of 5
MODULE:
His family was descended from the Amorites, a semi-nomadic tribe in
western Syria, and his name reflects a mix of cultures: Hammu, which
means “family” in Amorite, combined with rapi, meaning “great” in
Akkadian, the everyday language of Babylon.
In the 30th year of his reign, Hammurabi began to expand his kingdom
up and down the Tigris and Euphrates river valley, overthrowing the
kingdoms of Assyria, Larsa, Eshunna
and Mari until all of Mesopotamia
was under his sway.
Hammurabi combined his military
and political advances with
irrigation projects and the
construction of fortifications
and temples celebrating Babylon’s
patron deity, Marduk. The Babylon
of Hammurabi’s era is now buried
below the area’s groundwater
table, and whatever archives he
kept are long dissolved, but clay
tablets discovered at other ancient sites
reveal glimpses of the king’s personality and statecraft.
One letter records his complaint of being forced to provide dinner

attire for ambassadors from Mari just because he’d done the same for
some other delegates: “Do you imagine you can control my palace in the
matter of formal wear?”
What Is the Code of Hammurabi?
The black stone stele containing the Code of Hammurabi was carved
from a single, four-ton slab of diorite, a durable but incredibly
difficult stone for carving.
At its top is a two-and-a-half-foot relief carving of a standing

Hammurabi receiving the law—symbolized by a measuring rod and tape—from
the seated Shamash, the Babylonian god of justice. The rest of the seven-
foot-five-inch monument is covered with columns of chiseled cuneiform
script.
The text, compiled at the end of Hammurabi’s reign, is less a
proclamation of principles than a collection of legal precedents, set
between prose celebrating Hammurabi’s just and pious rule. Hammurabi’s
Code provides some of the earliest examples of the doctrine of “lex
talionis,” or the laws of retribution, sometimes better known as “an eye
for an eye.”
Page 2 of 5
MODULE:
Stele of Hammurabi Rediscovered
In 1901 Jacques de Morgan, a French mining engineer, led an

archaeological expedition to Persia to excavate the Elamite capital of
Susa, more than 250 miles from the center of Hammurabi’s kingdom.
There they uncovered the stele of Hammurabi—broken into three

pieces—that had been brought to Susa as spoils of war, likely by the
Elamite king Shutruk-Nahhunte in the mid-12th century B.C.
Code of hammurabi
The Code of Hammurabi includes many harsh punishments, sometimes

demanding the removal of the guilty party’s tongue, hands, breasts, eye or ear.
But the code is also one of the earliest examples of an accused person being
considered innocent until proven guilty.
The 282 edicts are all written in if-then form. For example, if a man steals an
ox, then he must pay back 30 times its value. The edicts range from family law
to professional contracts and administrative law, often outlining different
standards of justice for the three classes of Babylonian society—the propertied
class, freedmen and slaves.
A doctor’s fee for curing a severe wound would be 10 silver shekels for a
gentleman, five shekels for a freedman and two shekels for a slave. Penalties
for malpractice followed the same scheme: a doctor who killed a rich patient
would have his hands cut off, while only financial restitution was required if
the victim was a slave.
THE CODE OF UR-NAMMU
The Code of Ur-Nammu is the oldest surviving

law code. This text was written on clay tablets in
the Sumerian language and is reckoned to have been
produced towards the end of the 3rd millennium BC.
The Code of Ur-Nammu may be divided into two parts,
the first is the prologue and the second is the
laws themselves. Apart from being the oldest
surviving law code, the Code of Ur-Nammu is also
important as it gives us a glimpse of the way
justice was conceived in ancient Sumerian society.
Page 3 of 5
MODULE:
A Law Code Divided in Pieces
Earlier law codes, such as the Code of Urukagina, are known to

exist. Nevertheless, the Code of Ur-Nammu is different in the sense that
the text itself has survived to a large extent. The actual contents of
the Code of Urukagina, by comparison, is now lost, and is only known
through references made by other texts that have been discovered.
As for the Code of Ur-Nammu, the first copy of

this legal text was discovered in two fragments at
Nippur, an ancient Sumerian city situated in modern
day Iraq. Unfortunately, due to the poor state of
preservation, only the prologue and five of the laws
were discernible. They were translated into English
in 1952 by the renowned Assyriologist, Samuel Kramer.
Subsequently, other fragments of the code were
unearthed. The ones found in Ur, for example, were
translated in 1965, and resulted in the
reconstruction of about 40 laws. Fragments were also
discovered in another Sumerian city, Sippar, though
with some slight variants.
Creator of the Code of Ur-Nammu
The Code of Ur-Nammu has been attributed

to Ur-Nammu, as the laws are credited directly
to him in the prologue. Others, however, have
argued that the law code was written by Shulgi,
the son and successor of Ur-Nammu. In any case,
Ur-Nammu was a king of the Sumerian city state
of Ur. Scholars are not entirely in agreement
as to when this king reigned, though it may
have been during the last century of the 3rd
millennium BC. Nevertheless, the reign of Ur-
Nammu is generally regarded to have been a
peaceful and prosperous one, with some
considering it to be part of the ‘Sumerian
Renaissance’.
The Code of Ur-Nammu begins with a prologue, which is a standard

feature of Mesopotamian law codes. Here, the deities for Ur-Nammu’s
Page 4 of 5
MODULE:
kingship, Nanna and Utu, are invoked, after which the king is said to
have established equity in the land. This included the banishment of
malediction, violence, and strife, as well as the protection of society’s
weakest individuals. After the prologue, the text deals with the laws
themselves.
“If (Insert Crime), Then (Insert Punishment)”
The laws in the Code of Ur-Nammu follow a set pattern, i.e. If

(insert crime), then (insert punishment). This formula would be followed
by almost all law codes that came after the Code of Ur-Nammu. In the law
code, different categories of crime, as well as their resulting
punishments, may be distinguished. For example, there are a number of
capital offences, such as murder, robbery, and rape. The punishment for
such crimes was death. For example, “If a man commits murder, that man
must be killed.”, and “If a man violates the right of another and
deflowers the virgin wife of a young man, they shall kill that male.”
Those who committed offences that were less serious in nature, on

the other hand, would have been punished by imprisonment and / or fines.
For instance, “If a man commits a kidnapping, he is to be imprisoned and
pay 15 shekels of silver.”, and “If a man knocks out a tooth of another
man, he shall pay two shekels of silver”.
There are also laws that ensure that if the innocence of an accused
person is proven, his / her accuser would be punished instead. For
example, “If a man is accused of sorcery he must undergo ordeal by water;
if he is proven innocent, his accuser must pay 3 shekels”, and “If a man
accused the wife of a man of adultery, and the river ordeal proved her
innocent, then the man who had accused her must pay one-third of a mina
of silver.”
References:
• https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/hammurabi
• https://www.ancient-origins.net/artifacts-ancient-
writings/code-ur-nammu-when-ancient-sumerians-laid-down-
law-everyone-obeyed-009333
Page 5 of 5
MODULE:
Chapter 2
• describe Jeremy Bentham’s ideas of utilitarianism and

the “greatest happiness,” and his moral calculus;
• Recognize the principles of philosophical approach
GALILEO GALILEI
(1564-1642) is considered the father of modern science and made
major contributions to the fields of physics, astronomy, cosmology,
mathematics and philosophy.
Galileo invented an improved telescope that let him observe and describe
the moons of Jupiter, the rings of Saturn, the phases of Venus, sunspots
and the rugged lunar surface. His flair for self-promotion earned him
powerful friends among Italy’s ruling elite and enemies among the
Catholic Church’s leaders. Galileo’s advocacy of a heliocentric universe
brought him before religious authorities in 1616 and again in 1633, when
he was forced to recant and placed under house arrest for the rest of
his life.
Galileo’s Early Life, Education and Experiments
Galileo Galilei was born in Pisa in 1564, the first of six

children of Vincenzo Galilei, a musician and scholar. In 1581 he
entered the University of Pisa at age 16 to study medicine, but was
soon sidetracked by mathematics.
Page 1 of 7
MODULE:
From 1589 to 1610, Galileo was chair of mathematics at the
universities of Pisa and then Padua. During those years he performed
the experiments with falling bodies that made his most significant
contribution to physics.
Galileo had three children with Marina Gamba, whom he never
married: Two daughters, Virginia (Later “Sister Maria Celeste”) and
Livia Galilei, and a son, Vincenzo Gamba. Despite his own later
troubles with the Catholic Church, both of Galileo’s daughters became
nuns in a convent near Florence.
Galileo, Telescopes and the Medici Court
In 1609 Galileo built his first telescope,

improving upon a Dutch design. In January of 1610 he
discovered four new “stars” orbiting Jupiter—the
planet’s four largest moons. He quickly published a
short treatise outlining his discoveries, “Siderius
Nuncius” (“The Starry Messenger”), which also
contained observations of the moon’s surface and
descriptions of a multitude of new stars in the Milky
Way. In an attempt to gain favor with the powerful
grand duke of Tuscany, Cosimo II de Medici, he
suggested Jupiter’s moons be called the “Medician
Stars.”
“The Starry Messenger” made Galileo a celebrity in Italy. Cosimo
II appointed him mathematician and philosopher to the Medicis, offering
him a platform for proclaiming his theories and ridiculing his opponents.
Galileo’s observations contradicted the Aristotelian view of the
universe, then widely accepted by both scientists and theologians. The
moon’s rugged surface went against the idea of heavenly perfection, and
the orbits of the Medician stars violated the geocentric notion that the
heavens revolved around Earth.
Page 2 of 7
MODULE:
Galileo Galilei’s Trial
In 1616 the Catholic Church placed Nicholas

Copernicus’s “De Revolutionibus,” the first
modern scientific argument for a heliocentric
(sun-centered) universe, on its index of
banned books. Pope Paul V summoned Galileo to
Rome and told him he could no longer support
Copernicus publicly.
In 1632 Galileo published his “Dialogue
Concerning the Two Chief World Systems,” which
supposedly presented arguments for both sides of the heliocentrism
debate. His attempt at balance fooled no one, and it especially didn’t
help that his advocate for geocentrism was named “Simplicius.”
Galileo was summoned before the Roman Inquisition in 1633. At
first, he denied that he had advocated heliocentrism, but later he said
he had only done so unintentionally. Galileo was convicted of “vehement
suspicion of heresy” and under threat of torture forced to express sorrow
and curse his errors.
Nearly 70 at the time of his
trial, Galileo lived his last nine
years under comfortable house
arrest, writing a summary of his
early motion experiments that became
his final great scientific work. He
died in Arcetri near Florence, Italy
on January 8, 1642 at age 77 after
suffering from heart palpitations
and a fever.
What Was Galileo Famous For?
Galileo’s laws of motion, made from his measurements that all

bodies accelerate at the same rate regardless of their mass or size,
paved the way for the codification of classical mechanics by Isaac
Newton. Galileo’s heliocentrism (with modifications by Kepler) soon
became accepted scientific fact. His inventions, from compasses and
balances to improved telescopes and microscopes, revolutionized
astronomy and biology. Galilleo discovered craters and mountains on
the moon, the phases of Venus, Jupiter’s moons and the stars of the
Page 3 of 7
MODULE:
Milky Way. His penchant for thoughtful and inventive experimentation
pushed the scientific method toward its modern form.
In his conflict with the Church, Galileo was also largely
vindicated. Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire used tales of his
trial (often in simplified and exaggerated form) to portray Galileo as
a martyr for objectivity. Recent scholarship suggests Galileo’s actual
trial and punishment were as much a matter of courtly intrigue and
philosophical minutiae as of inherent tension between religion and
science.
In 1744 Galileo’s “Dialogue” was removed from the Church’s list
of banned books, and in the 20th century Popes Pius XII and John Paul
II made official statements of regret for how the Church had treated
Galileo.
Page 4 of 7
MODULE:
JEREMY BENTHAM
An influential early classical theorist was the British philosopher

Jeremy Bentham, born in 1748. He believed that people have the ability
to choose right from wrong, good from evil. His explanation for criminal
behavior included the idea that people are basically hedonistic, that
is, they desire a high degree of pleasure and avoid pain. People who
choose to commit criminal acts think they stand to gain more than they
risk losing by committing the
Jeremy Bentham was an early crime. Bentham believed that the
classical theorist who based his ideas on criminal justice system should
utilitarianism, felicitious calculus, deter people from making this
and “the greatest happiness.” choice.
UTILITARIANISM
Jeremy Bentham, a major contributor to the classical school of
criminology, based his theories on the principle of utilitarianism.
Bentham’s perspectives on
human behavior had its roots in
Utilitarianism is the doctrine that
the concept of utilitarianism,
the purpose of all actions should be
to bring about the greatest happiness
which assumes that all of a
for the greatest number of people. person’s actions are calculated.
Utilitarianism is the doctrine
that the purpose of all actions should be to bring about the greatest
happiness for the greatest number of people. For Bentham, people
calculate actions in accordance with their likelihood of obtaining
pleasure or pain. Bentham stated that an act possesses utility if it
“tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good or happiness (all
this in the present case comes to the same thing) or (which again comes
to the same thing) to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil or
unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered.”
Bentham developed a felicitous calculus, or moral calculus, for
estimating the probability that a person will engage in a particular
kind of behavior. People, he believed, weigh the possibility that a
particular behavior pattern or action will cause current or future
pleasure against the possibility that it will cause current or future
pain. In response to the question of why a person commits a crime,
Bentham would probably reply that the pleasure that the person
anticipated from the criminal act was much greater than the subsequent
pain that might be expected from it.
Page 5 of 7
MODULE:
THE GREATEST HAPPINESS AND SOCIAL CONTROL
Bentham advocated the “greatest happiness” principle and the use
of punishment to deter crime.
Bentham expounded a comprehensive code of ethics and placed much emphasis

on the practical problem of decreasing the crime problem. He aimed at a
system of social control—a method of checking the behavior of people
according to the ethical principle of utilitarianism. He believed that
an act should be judged not by an “irrational system of absolutes but
by a supposedly verifiable principle. The principle was that of ‘the
greatest happiness for the greatest number’ or simply ‘the greatest
happiness.’”
For Bentham, checks or sanctions
needed to be attached to criminal
Felicitous calculus is a moral calculus
behavior and set up by
developed by Jeremy Bentham for
estimating the probability that a
legislation, which would then
person will engage in a particular kind serve “to bring the individual’s
of behavior. pursuit of his own happiness in
line with the best interests of
the society as a whole.” Punishment, Bentham believed, was a necessary
evil—necessary to prevent greater evils from being inflicted on the
society and thus diminishing happiness. Social control based on degrees
of punishment that both fit the crime and discourage offending is part
of our system of criminal justice today. As you can see, Jeremy Bentham,
Cesare Beccaria, and the classical school of criminology had many
influences on the American system of criminal justice.
INFLUENCES OF THE CLASSICAL SCHOOL

The U.S. Bill of Rights is rooted in Beccaria’s writings. Beccaria
and Bentham also influenced the development of the modern
correctional system.
Beccaria’s groundbreaking essay strongly influenced the first ten

amendments (the Bill of Rights) to the United States Constitution and
played a significant role in bringing about many of our present-day
penal practices. It was also of primary importance in “paving the way
for penal reform for approximately the last two centuries.” Reviewing
European history, we see that the essay greatly influenced the French
penal code adopted in 1791, Russian law at the time of Catherine the
Great, Austrian law during the reign of Emperor Joseph II, and
Prussian law during the reign of Frederick the Great. By stressing
that the goal of punishment is to deter criminal behavior in people,
Beccaria reflected Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarian concepts of free will
and hedonism.
Page 6 of 7
MODULE:
Both Beccaria and Bentham advocated a new philosophy and a new
system of legal and penal reform. These classical theorists argued
that the proper objective of punishment should be to protect society
and its laws. It was their view that punishment should not be
inflicted for vengeance; rather, the primary purpose of punishment
should be the reduction or deterrence of crime. They advocated that
the excessively brutal punishments of mutilation and death be
abolished and that penal reforms be introduced so that the punishment
fit the crime. Thus, it was their belief that
• the punishments inflicted should be just severe enough to

outweigh any pleasures, either contemplated or actually
experienced, that could be derived from the commission of the
criminal act;
• in this way, the threat of punishment would deter most people
from committing crimes in the first place;
• the actual infliction of punishment would deter an offender from
committing additional criminal acts.
Beccaria also presented convincing arguments for imprisonment as a

form of punishment, saying it would be the most effective and
efficient method for carrying out punishment. As it happened, a more
than adequate number of jails and prisons were already conveniently in
existence throughout Europe. Prior to this time, these buildings were
used for the temporary confinement of minor offenders and those
awaiting trial, and they were easily adapted for use in implementing
Beccaria’s and Bentham’s programs.18 Thus, the classical theorists
influenced the development of the modern correctional system.
References:
• https://www.history.com/topics/inventions/galileo-galilei
• http://www.ablongman.com/html/productinfo/glick/images/61
832_CH03_058-085-r.pdf
Page 7 of 7
MODULE:
Chapter 3
• Understand the history of punishment and

corrections
• Recognize the principles of philosophical approach
CESARE LOMBROSO
In his view on crime, Lombroso called for scientific
explanations, focused on internal biological factors, and
believed that people who engage in crime are throwbacks.
Cesare Lombroso was born in Venice,

Lombroso was one of the first
Italy, in 1835. Educated in medicine
theorists who attempted to and psychiatry, he became a professor
scientifically study criminal of criminal anthropology at the
behavior. University of Turin in 1906. In his
book The Criminal Man, published in
1876, Lombroso explained criminal behavior on the basis of biological
characteristics and heredity. Using various physiological and cranial
measurements of known criminals, Lombroso developed the theory that
certain persons who engage in criminal behavior are “born criminals.”
Lombroso believed that criminals could be distinguished from
noncriminal by a variety of what he termed physical stigmata, such as
a long lower jaw, flattened nose, and long, apelike arms. The stigmata
themselves did not cause criminal behavior; rather they were visible
indicators of a personality type that was, in essence, a primitive
atavism, a throwback on the Darwinian scale of human evolution.
Page 1 of 6
MODULE:
Lombroso’s approach “suggested that criminals are distinguished
from noncriminal by the manifestation of multiple physical anomalies,
which are of atavistic or degenerative origin. The concept of atavism
(from Latin atavus, ancestor) postulated a reversion to a primitive or
subhuman type of man, characterized physically by a variety of
inferior morphological features reminiscent of apes and lower
primates, occurring in the more simian fossil men and, to some extent,
preserved in modern ‘savages.’” In addition, Lombroso’s theory implied
that the “mentality of atavistic individuals is that of primitive man,
that these are biological ‘throwbacks’ to an earlier stage of
evolution, and that the behaviour of these ‘throwbacks’ will
inevitably be contrary to the rules and expectations of modern
civilized society.”
Although Lombroso is considered the father of criminology, there
are many criticisms of and misconceptions about his ideas. Many
scholars, including Lombroso’s most ardent advocates, criticized his
Lombroso’s Study of a Criminal’s Brain

Lombroso was unhappy with the abstract, judicial methods of studying
crime in his day. He wanted to apply the experimental method in studying
the differences between criminals and noncriminal. He did his research by
studying criminals in Italian prisons, where he became acquainted with a
famous bandit named Vilella. When Vilella died and Lombroso did a
postmortem examination, he found a distinct depression at the base of the
skull, a “characteristic found in inferior animals, and a depression correlated
with an overdevelopment of the vermis, known in birds as the middle
cerebellum.”1 In reviewing this moment in his life, Lombroso later stated:
“This was not merely an idea, but a revelation. At the sight of that skull, I
seemed to see all of a sudden, lighted up as a vast plain under a flaming sky,
the problem of the nature of the criminal—an atavistic being who reproduces
in his person the ferocious instincts of primitive humanity and the inferior
animals. Thus, were explained anatomically the enormous jaws, high
cheekbones, prominent superciliary arches, solitary lines in the
palms, extreme size of the orbits, handle-shaped or sessile ears found in
criminals, savages, and apes, insensibility to pain, extremely acute sight,
tattooing, excessive idleness, love of orgies, and the irresistible craving for evil
for its own sake, the desire not only to extinguish life in the victim, but to
mutilate the corpse, tear its flesh, and drink its blood.”2
M. E. Wolfgang, “Cesare Lombroso,” in Pioneers in Criminology, H. Mannheim,

ed., 2nd ed., Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith, 1972, p. 248.
C. Lombroso, from his opening speech at the Sixth Congress of Criminal
Anthropology, Turin, Italy, April 1906; quoted in ibid.
Page 2 of 6
MODULE:
methods of research, such as his sources of information, his use of
statistics, and the absence of adequate control groups in his
experiments (although he did challenge his opponents to test his
research and ideas by a controlled investigation of criminals and
noncriminal).
Lombroso not only focused on the “born criminal,” atavism, and
degeneracy; as a positivist, he also expressed concern for factors
such as the social and physical environment of the offender. In Crime,
Its Causes and Remedies (1899), he reported that economic and
political developments give rise to the appearance of abnormalities
that induce social reactions. In discussing socioeconomic factors, he
emphasized a mutual interactive relationship between heredity and
environment and, in other written works, stressed environmental
conditions as causing or having an effect on criminality. For example,
he discussed the influences of poverty on crime, the relationship
between the cost of food and crimes against property and person, and
the relationship between alcohol and crime.
Lombroso also investigated the etiology (or origins) of crime. He used
a wide variety of research techniques and procedures, ranging from
historical and clinical methods to anthropometric and statistical
techniques. These were important strides in the study of crime;
nevertheless, Lombroso’s research methods would not be accepted today
as scientific.
Page 3 of 6
MODULE:
ENRICO FERRI
Ferri coined the term “born criminal” and developed a fivefold
scientific classification of criminals.
Enrico Ferri was born in Mantua, Italy, in 1856. His dissertation,

published in 1878, was entitled Criminal Sociology. It was in its
fifth edition when Ferri died in 1929. He was, for many decades, an
acknowledged leader of the positivist school of criminology. Ferri
studied under Lombroso at the University of Turin because of his
belief that, “in order to formulate principles concerning crimes,
penalties and criminals, it is first necessary to study... criminals
and prisons, since facts should precede theories.”
Enrico Ferri, was a positivist who
In 1880, Lombroso began to edit his
developed a scientific classification periodical, the Archive of Psychiatry. In
of criminals and focused on the its first volume, Ferri contributed a
causes of crime, criminal sociology, paper on the relationship between
social reform, and effective criminal criminal anthropology and criminal law.
justice. In this paper, Ferri first coined the
term “born criminal,” to designate
Lombroso’s atavistic type of criminal, and developed one of his basic
ideas: a scientific classification of criminals.31 Ferri’s
classification included the following:
✓ The born or instinctive criminal, who carries from birth, through

unfortunate heredity from his progenitors,...a reduced resistance
to criminal stimuli and also an evident and precocious propensity
to crime
✓ The insane criminal, affected by a clinically identified mental
disease or by a neuropsychopathic condition which groups him with
the mentally diseased
✓ The passional criminal, who, in two varieties, the criminal
through passion (a prolonged and chronic mental state), or
through emotion (explosive and unexpected mental state),
represents a type at the opposite pole from the criminal due to
congenital tendencies
✓ The occasional criminal who constitutes the majority of
lawbreakers and is the product of family and social milieu more
than of abnormal personal physiomental conditions
✓ The habitual criminal, or rather, the criminal by acquired habit,
who is mostly a product of the social environment in which, due
to abandonment by his family, lack of education, poverty, [and]
bad companions..., already in his childhood begins as an
occasional offender.
Page 4 of 6
MODULE:
Ferri carefully pointed out that not every criminal would fit
into his classification system, nor would criminals in daily life
appear so well defined as the system suggested. Classes of criminals
do not exist in nature, according to Ferri. However, they are a
necessary “instrument by which the human mind can better understand
the
Ferri Believed in Social Reform

Ferri’s contributions to the etiology of criminal conduct were “incidental
means for achieving a greater understanding of the course which the
reformation of criminal justice should take.” That is, Ferri was basically a social
reformer. He desired to achieve a “demonstrably effective criminal justice,
which would afford maximum protection or defence of society against the
criminal.” In his writings, Ferri examined many crime-preventive measures, or,
as he termed them, “substitutes for punishments,” such as “free trade,
abolition of monopolies, inexpensive workmen’s dwellings, public savings
banks, better street lighting, birth control, [and] freedom of marriage and
divorce.” These preventive measures were very much in line with his political
theory, which was that “the state is the principal instrument through which
better conditions are to be attained.” Ferri was the chief architect of the
positivist school, which stood in clear opposition to the classical school. Ferri
felt that a positivist perspective was necessary to “put a stop to the
exaggerated individualism in favour of the criminal in order to obtain a greater
respect for the rights of honest people who constitute the great majority.”
multiform reality of things.” Ferri expressed interest in Lombroso’s

ideas of the basic biological causation of criminal behavior, but he
stressed the importance and interrelatedness of social, economic, and
political factors as well. In Criminal Sociology, Ferri presented his
original thesis on the causes of crime, which centered on the
following factors:
• physical (race, climate, geographic location, seasonal effects,

temperature, etc.)
• anthropological (age, sex, somatic [body] conditions,
psychological conditions, etc.)
• social (density of populations, customs, religion, organization
of government, economic and industrial conditions, etc.).
For Ferri, the positivist school cultivated a “science of

criminality and of a social defence against it.” This science involved
“an individual fact (somatopsychological condition of the offender) by
anthropology, psychology, and criminal psychopathology; and a social
fact (physical and social environmental conditions) by criminal
statistics, monographic studies, and comparative ethnographic studies
Page 5 of 6
MODULE:
for the purpose of systematizing
social defence measures (a) of a
Ferri developed the field of
preventive nature, either indirect or criminal sociology and was the
remote (through ‘penal substitutes’) chief architect of the positivist
or direct or proximate (by the police); school of criminology.
or (b) of a repressive nature through
criminal law and procedure, techniques of prison treatment, and
aftercare.” Ferri called this science criminal sociology.
References:
832_CH03_058-085-r.pdf
Page 6 of 6
MODULE:
Chapter 4
• describe Cesare Beccaria’s ideas of the social

contract and the pleasure principle and their
implications for criminal justice.
CESARE BECCARIA
Cesare Beccaria, a major contributor to the classical school of

criminology, was born in Milan, Italy, on March 15, 1738, and died in
1794. Born an aristocrat, he studied in Parma and graduated from the
University of Pavia.3 In 1763, the protector of prisons, Pietro Verri,
gave his friend Beccaria an assignment that would eventually become
the essay “On Crimes and Punishments.” It was completed in January,
1764, and first published anonymously in July of that year. The
article caused a sensation, but not everybody liked it. The fact that
it was first published anonymously suggested that “its contents were
designed to undermine many if not all of the cherished beliefs of
those in a position to determine the fate of those accused and
convicted of crime.... [An] attack on the prevailing systems for the
administration of criminal justice, ...it aroused the hostility and
resistance of those who stood to gain by the perpetuation of the
barbaric and archaic penological institutions of the day.”
EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY CRIMINAL LAW

Cesare Beccaria, a major contributor to the classical school of
criminology, responded to eighteenth-century criminal law, which
was repressive, uncertain, and barbaric.
Page 1 of 7
MODULE:
To understand why Beccaria’s essay created such controversy, one need
only consider the state of criminal law in Europe at the time.
Eighteenth-century criminal law was repressive, uncertain, and
barbaric. It also permitted, as well as encouraged, abusive and
arbitrary practices. The law gave public officials unlimited power to
deprive people of their freedom, property, and life with no regard to
principles embodied in the concept “due process of law”:
Secret accusations were in vogue and persons were imprisoned on

the flimsiest of evidence. Torture, ingenious and horrible, was
employed to wrench confessions from the recalcitrant. Judges were
permitted to exercise unlimited discretion in punishing those
convicted of crime. The sentences imposed were arbitrary,
inconsistent, and depended upon the status and power of the
convicted. . . . A great array of crimes were punished by death
not infrequently preceded by inhuman atrocities....In practice no
distinction was made between the accused and the convicted. Both
were detained in the same institution and subjected to the same
horrors of incarceration. This same practice prevailed in regard
to the convicted young and old, the murderer and the bankrupt,
first offenders and hardened criminals, men and women. All such
categories of persons were promiscuously thrown together, free to
intermingle and interact.
The preceding description applies to

the status of criminal law when
Cesare Beccaria focused on
Beccaria wrote his essay on crime. It
eighteenth-century law; social
contract theory; guilt and
helps us to understand why his essay
punishment; punishment, was considered humane and
pleasure, and pain; and the revolutionary in character. For
purpose of punishment. Beccaria, it was bad laws, not evil
people, that were the root of the
crime problem. A modern system of law that guaranteed people equal
treatment was needed to replace the old, unenlightened criminal
justice system of his time.
Page 2 of 7
MODULE:
Beccaria’s Proposed Reforms
Beccaria’s specific suggestions for a system of criminal justice based

on the social contract covered the areas of guilt and punishment.
Even though people had to surrender part of their liberty for
protection, Beccaria believed they would want to give up “the least
possible portion”: “The aggregate of these least possible portions
constitutes the right to punish; all that exceeds this is abuse and not
justice; it is fact but by no means right.” Given this view, Beccaria
advocated that only legislators should be the creators of laws. He
stated that the authority for “making penal laws can reside only with
the legislator, who represents the whole society united by the social
contract.” In addition, unless it was ordained by the laws, judges were
not permitted to inflict punishment on any member of society.
Beccaria also made some important points about being termed
“guilty”: “No man can be called guilty before a judge has sentenced
him, nor can society deprive him of public protection before it has
been decided that he has in fact violated the conditions under which
such protection was accorded him. What right is it, then, if not simply
that of might, which empowers a judge to inflict punishment on a
citizen while doubt still remains as to his guilt or innocence?” This new
concept, “innocent until proven guilty,” underlies our criminal justice
system today.
Source: C. Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishments, translated by H.

Paolucci, New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1963, pp. 8–13, 30–33, 45–58, 62–
SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY

Beccaria based his call for reform on the theory that citizens
and the state have a “social contract” that entitles people to
legal protections against crime.
Beccaria’s blueprint for reform had its roots in social contract

theory, which stresses the idea that people were originally without
government. People then created the state through a “social contract,”
by which they surrendered many of their “natural liberties.” In
return, people received the security that government could provide
“against antisocial acts.” Beccaria wrote, “Laws are the conditions
under which independent and isolated men united to form a society.”
Page 3 of 7
MODULE:
Weary of living in a continual state of war, and of enjoying a liberty
rendered useless by the uncertainty of preserving it, they sacrificed
a part so that they might enjoy the rest of it in peace and safety.
The sum of all these portions of liberty sacrificed by each for his
own good constitutes the sovereignty of a nation, and their legitimate
depository and administrator is the sovereign.”
PLEASURE, PAIN, AND PUNISHMENT

Pleasure and pain, according to Beccaria, are the only “springs
of action,” and the purpose of punishment is to prevent a
criminal from doing any further injury to the community and to
prevent others from committing similar crimes.
Beccaria believed that punishment should be based on the pleasure/pain

principle. For him, pleasure and pain were the only “springs of
action” in people who are in possession of their senses: “If an equal
punishment be ordained for two crimes that injure society in different
degrees, there is nothing to deter men from committing the greater
[crime] as often as it is attended with greater advantage.” He also
believed that punishment and penalties should be imposed on the guilty
according to a scale determined by the degree of danger the given
crime poses for the community: “If mathematical calculation could be
applied to the obscure and infinite combinations of human actions,
there might be a corresponding scale of punishments descending from
the greatest to the least.” With such an exact scale of crimes and
punishments, people would know which penalties were attached to which
criminal acts. What, then, was the purpose of punishment? For
Beccaria, its purpose was to prevent a criminal from doing any further
injury to the community or society. The purpose of punishment was also
to prevent others from committing similar crimes. These purposes
required setting penalties that would make strong and lasting
impressions on others with the “least torment to the body of the
criminal.” Punishment should be no more severe than deemed necessary
to deter individuals from committing crimes against others or the
state. Maximizing the preventive, or deterrent, effect would be
achieved by prompt, effective, and certain punishment: “The more
promptly and the more closely punishment follows upon the commission
of a crime, the more just and useful will it be....I have said that
the promptness of punishments is more useful because when the length
of time that passes between the punishment and misdeed is less, so
much stronger and more lasting in the human mind is the association of
these two ideas, crime and punishment; they then come insensibly to be
considered, one as the cause, the other as the necessary inevitable
effect.” After proposing that the rich should be punished in the same
way as the poor, and that both torture to obtain confessions and
Page 4 of 7
MODULE:
capital punishment should be abolished, Beccaria concluded: “So that
any punishment be not an act of violence of one or of many against the
other, it is essential that it be public, prompt, necessary, [as]
minimal in severity as possible under given circumstances,
proportional to the crime, and prescribed by the laws.”
Page 5 of 7
MODULE:
JOHN HOWARD
A philanthropist and social reformer, Howard was dedicated to
prison reform and public health improvements.
John Howard was born in Hackney, in east London in

1726, the son of a partner in an upholstery
business. On his father's death in 1742, he
inherited considerable wealth and settled on an
estate in Bedfordshire.
In 1773, he was appointed high sheriff of

Bedfordshire and supervision of the county jail
became of one his responsibilities. He was shocked
by the conditions he found there and visited others
in England, where the situation was no better.
Jailers were not salaried but lived off fees paid by prisoners for
food, bedding and other facilities. This system meant that poorer
prisoners lived in terrible conditions. Many jailers demanded payment
before prisoners were released, meaning that some stayed in jail even
if they were innocent or had served their sentences.
Howard's concerns led to two 1774

In 1866, the Howard League
parliamentary acts - one abolished
for Penal Reform was founded jailers' fees, the other enforced
in his honour. improvements in the system leading to
better prisoner health. Howard,
however, felt that the acts were not strictly obeyed. In 1775, he
embarked on a tour of prisons in Europe visiting Scotland, Ireland,
France, Holland, Flanders, some German states and Switzerland. He
travelled on a similar route two years later, and in 1781 added
Denmark, Sweden and Russia to the list. He visited Spain and Portugal
in 1782. At a time when travel was uncomfortable and frequently
dangerous, he travelled nearly 80,000 kilometres, making seven major
journeys between 1775 and 1790, the first two of which are described
in his book 'The State of Prisons in England and Wales... and an
Account of Some Foreign Prisons'.
While examining Russian military hospitals, Howard contracted typhus

in Kherson, Ukraine, and died there on 20 January 1790.
Page 6 of 7
MODULE:
References:
832_CH03_058-085-r.pdf
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/howard_john.sht
ml
Page 7 of 7
MODULE:
Chapter 5
• Study the development of corrections;

• Defined how technical terms are being used;
WALNUT STREET PRISON

The Walnut Street Prison was a pioneering effort in prison
reform.
Originally built as a conventional jail just before the American

Revolution, it was expanded in 1790 and hailed as a model of
enlightened thinking about criminals. The prison, in fact, was known
as a "penitentiary" (from the Latin word for remorse). It was designed
to provide a severe environment that left inmates much time for
reflection, but it was also designed to be cleaner and safer than past
prisons. The Walnut Street Prison was one
of the forerunners of an entire school of
thought on prison construction and reform.
The prison was built on Walnut Street, in

Philadelphia, as a city jail in 1773 to
alleviate overcrowding in the existing
city jail. Although designed by ROBERT
SMITH, Pennsylvania's most prominent
architect, the building was a typical U-
shaped building, designed to hold groups
of prisoners in large rooms. By and large the
role of prisons was to incarcerate criminals. There was
Page 1 of 5
MODULE:
little regard for their physical well-being, nor were there any
attempts to rehabilitate them. Prisons were overcrowded and dirty, and
It was the Quakers of Philadelphia who came up with the concept for what
they called a penitentiary—a place where prisoners could reflect on their
crime and become truly sorry for what they had done. The Quakers believed
that through reflection and repentance, inmates would give up crime and
leave prison rehabilitated. Shortly after the American Revolution, a group of
Quakers formed the Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public
Prisons, whose goal was made clear in its name. (Later the group became
known as the Pennsylvania Prison Society.) In the years after the Revolution
this group worked to encourage prison reform, and its efforts finally paid off
in 1790 when the Walnut Street Jail became the first state penitentiary in the
country.
inmates attacked each other regularly. Those who served their

sentences came out of prison probably more inclined toward a criminal
life than they were before their incarceration.
The main addition to the Walnut Street complex was a new cellblock
called the "Penitentiary House." Built in the courtyard of the
existing structure, it included a series of small cells designed to
hold individual prisoners. The cells and the corridors connecting them
were designed to prevent prisoners from communicating with each other.
Windows were high up (the cells had nine-foot high ceilings) and
grated and louvered to prevent prisoners from looking onto the street.
Each cell had a mattress, a water tap, and a privy pipe. Inmates were
confined to their cells for the duration of their confinement. The
only person they saw was the guard and then only briefly once a day.
They were sometimes allowed to read in their cells, but for the most
part they sat in solitude. The Quakers saw this solitary confinement
not as a punishment but as a time for reflection and remorse. That was
the reason the inmates were not put to work. Labor, said penitentiary
proponents, would preoccupy the inmates and keep them from reflecting
on their crimes.
Other prisons built on the

The Walnut Street Prison Pennsylvania model included a prison
became in part the model for in Pittsburgh in 1821, the Eastern
what became known as the State Penitentiary (Cherry Hill) in
"Pennsylvania System" of eastern Philadelphia in 1836, and the
prison design and philosophy. Trenton State Prison in New Jersey the
Page 2 of 5
MODULE:
same year. The concepts of solitary confinement and repentance were
key components of prison life at these institutions, although some
Pennsylvania System prisons did introduce labor to the inmates.
Visitors from overseas who were interested in prison reform visited
Walnut Street, Eastern State, and similar prisons to see how they
operated and to gain knowledge about prison reform strategies.
In 1821 a prison was opened in the small upstate New York town of Auburn.
That prison, which relied on individual cellblock architecture, required
inmates to work 10 hours per day, six days per week. A number of prison
reformers believed that by making the inmates work in an atmosphere free of
corruption or criminal behavior, they would build new sets of values. The
work would rehabilitate them because it would give them a sense of purpose,
discipline, and order. This system became known as the "Auburn System,"
and it was followed in 1826 with the opening of Sing Sing prison on the banks
of the Hudson River.
Soon it was clear that the Auburn system worked better at

rehabilitating prisoners than the Pennsylvania system, and in the next
century the Auburn system became the dominant one. Many prisons built
to operate under the Pennsylvania System switched to the Auburn
System. Vestiges of the Pennsylvania System exist in the philosophy of
humane punishment, although no prison in the U.S. as of 2003 would
place anyone in near-total isolation except in extreme circumstances.
As for Walnut Street, its success was short-lived despite the good
intentions of the Quakers. The practical matter of housing prisoners
became more pressing than the desire among prison officials to
rehabilitate the inmates. Walnut Street became overcrowded and dirty,
and there was no sign that isolated prisoners were being rehabilitated
through solitude.
Page 3 of 5
MODULE:
James V. Bennett
James Van Benschoten Bennett (born 29 August 1894

in Silver Creek, New York, United States; died
1978) was a leading American penal reformer and
prison administrator who served as director of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) from 1937 to 1964.
A U.S. Army Air Corps veteran from World War I, he
became an Investigator for the U.S. Bureau of
Efficiency in 1919 while studying law in night
school at George Washington University. In 1928,
he authored "The Federal Penal and Correctional
Problem," a study that called for a number of
reforms to the U.S. prison system whose population
and responsibilities had expanded considerably
with the enforcement of Prohibition. Bennett's study eventually led to
the creation of Bureau of Prisons, which was originally ran by the
Sanford Bates, the commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of
Corrections.
Bennett argued that U.S.

In 1938, a year after he succeeded Bates prisons were inhumane and
as director, Mr. Bennett established poorly operated and that
the nation's first open prison at extensive reform was needed in
Seagoville, Texas. It had no walls or bars order to make them viable
and the guards went unarmed. agents of rehabilitation. From
as early as 1939 he was a
strong critic of Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary. During the 1950s he
was an advocate in the movement to persuade Congress to close Alcatraz
and replace it with a new maximum-security prison. He was also a long-
time opponent of capital punishment, pushed for the expansion of
vocational training in prisons, and sought to expand probation and
reentry services for incarcerated people.
Bennett was a prominent member of numerous U.S. delegations to the

International Penal and Penitentiary Congress and the United Nations'
Congress on the Prevention of Crime and President of many institutions
such as the National Association for Better Broadcasting and American
Correctional Association (ACA), and was chairman of the American Bar
Association Section on Criminal Law.
Beginning on August 11, 1943, eighteen conscientious objectors of

World War II at the Danbury Correctional Institution in Connecticut,
went on a 135-day work strike to end Jim Crow in the prison dining
room. The strike ended on December 22, 1943, after the warden promised
Page 4 of 5
MODULE:
to initiate an integration policy starting February 1, 1944. He wrote
to Lowell Naeve, a Danbury prisoner involved in the work strike for
integration, charging him with resorting to "undemocratic methods of
coercion to force a change." Bennett also denounced the tactics used
by pacifists in prison. "Strikes, boycotts, and civil disobedience,"
he argued, "certainly are not the democratic method of accomplishing
the solution of racial problems. They merely engender discord and race
riots." Bennett and the Bureau of Prisons were among the first federal
agencies to push forward with integration, and he denounced penal
segregation, especially those rooted in “southern practices or
customs." Despite opposition, Bennett held the line on this policy of
desegregation. “I don’t know whether you are a southern institution or
not,” he explained to one warden in Virginia who had complained about
the recent changes. “You are first and last and all the time a federal
institution and your race problems have got to be in accordance with
those of the Bureau regardless of the views of any of your good
friends, neighbors or the personnel.”
References:
• https://law.jrank.org/pages/11192/Walnut-Street-Prison.html
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1978/11/21/jam
es-v-bennett-dies/b1f08b4e-5a30-43b9-bae3-fb7487b90904/
Page 5 of 5
MODULE:
Chapter 6
• Study the development of corrections;

• Defined how technical terms are being used;
SING SING PRISON
In full Sing Sing Correctional Facility, maximum-security prison located

in Ossining, New York. In use since 1826, it is one of the oldest penal
institutions in the United States. It is also among the most well-known
in the country, especially notable for its harsh conditions in the 19th
and 20th centuries.
Originally known as Mount
Pleasant Prison, it was constructed
in the village of Sing Sing on the
east bank of the Hudson River, some
30 miles (48 km) north of New York
City. It was designed to provide
additional prison space and to
replace Newgate Prison.
Construction was undertaken in
1825 by convict labourers under
the supervision of Elam Lynds,
warden of Auburn State Prison. He
officially became head of the new prison when
it opened in 1826, though it was not completed until 1828. The initial
facility had 800 cells. The prison population rose in the mid-19th
century, resulting in more construction. The four-story complex was soon
Page 1 of 6
MODULE:
six stories, and the prison eventually housed more than 1,600 inmates.
Because most of the early convicted criminals traveled by boat to Sing
Sing, the phrase “up the river” came to mean going to prison.
One of the notable visitors to the prison was Alexis de

Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America. The French government sent
him and Gustave de Beaumont to the United States in 1831 to gather
information about the American penal system. The two men were amazed at
the total subjugation under which prisoners worked and the administrative
power the warden wielded at Sing Sing.
Lynds resigned as warden of Sing Sing in 1830 and returned to

Auburn in 1838. He was asked to leave that prison a year later after the
death of a prisoner who was punished severely for feigning illness.
Despite this record, Sing Sing rehired Lynds in 1843.
Sing sing prison
Whippings and floggings were commonplace punishments at Sing Sing.

Frequently used was the cat-o’-nine-tails, a cruel whipping contraption whose
lashes were often tipped with metal or barbs; its use was finally abolished by
the New York State legislature in 1848. In addition, while Lynds was warden,
inmates were expected to refrain from making noise, which included talking.
With the advent of the electric chair in 1891, Sing Sing became notorious for
its executions. Although the electric chair was developed at neighbouring
Auburn, almost all executions within the state were carried out at Sing Sing
until 1963. The infamous “death chair” was later moved to Green Haven
prison.
Sing Sing was also the site of reforms that affected the national
penal system. Reformer Thomas Mott Osborne, who developed his penology
theories while voluntarily incarcerated for a year at Auburn, served as
Sing Sing’s warden in 1914–15 and 1916. But his immediate, sweeping
changes were assailed, and he resigned under intense political pressure.
During his tenure, however, the first psychological work with inmates
began. More reforms were instituted under Lewis Edward Lawes, who served
as warden from 1920 to 1941. He notably improved the living conditions
within the prison and allowed inmates to participate in sports.
In 1901 the residents of Sing Sing village changed its name to

Ossining. They wanted to distance, if not disassociate, the town from
Page 2 of 6
MODULE:
the notorious prison. For that same reason, in 1970 the state renamed
the prison Ossining Correctional Facility. The change did not stick,
however. Local merchants got the previous name restored in 1983, thinking
the cachet of “Sing Sing”—by then the prison was part of American
popular culture, frequently appearing in movies, TV shows, and books—
would translate into tourism.
AUBURN STATE PRISON
Auburn State Prison, prison located

in Auburn, New York. Opened in Elam Lynds, the first warden
1816, it established a disciplinary of the Auburn Penitentiary, is credited with
and administrative system based on creating the "Auburn (or Congregate) system."
silence, corporal punishment, and
“congregate” (group) labour. In architecture and routine, Auburn became
the model for prisons throughout the United States.
In the early 19th century, many Americans believed that industrialization

and dramatic demographic, economic, and political upheavals had
“conspired” against the traditional controls of family, church, and
community. From their perspective these moral guardians could no longer
adequately control disorder. They saw crime as the product of social
chaos. Necessary to its eradication was a structured environment in which
deviants could be separated from the disorder of society and the contagion
of one another. Their solution was to create the “penitentiary”—a new
institution for “reforming” offenders and, ultimately, restoring social
stability.
Auburn originally used congregate

cells, but in 1821 Warden William
Brittin borrowed the concept of
solitary cells from the so-called
Pennsylvania system. Brittin designed
a unique five-tiered cell-block of
two rows of single cells, placed
back to back in the centre of the
building. Cells measured only 3.5
feet (1.06 metres) wide, 7.5 feet
(2.3 metres) long, and 7 feet (2.1
metres) high; doors faced outer
walls lined with grated windows that provided
indirect light and air. This pattern of small inside cellblocks was later
adopted by most state prisons in the United States. Whereas the
Pennsylvania system’s inmates did handicraft work in their cells, Auburn
prisoners laboured in congregate workshops, offsetting imprisonment costs
Page 3 of 6
MODULE:
by fulfilling private-industry contracts. A hidden passageway with small
openings surrounded the work area, allowing inspectors and visitors to
surreptitiously monitor the inmates. Auburn briefly (1821–25) implemented
a three-level classification system. Under it, minor offenders laboured in
workshops during the day and retired to separate cells at night; serious
offenders alternated their days between solitary confinement and
congregate work. The most-hardened criminals were placed in solitary
confinement without work. After numerous suicides, instances of mental
illness, and attempted escapes, the governor of New York terminated the
classification system and the experiment in solitary confinement.
Subsequently, all male inmates worked in

congregate shops by day, returning to
Females, first committed to individual cells at night. To ensure that
Auburn in 1825, were relegated to an inmates did not corrupt one another,
attic and excluded from regular work Brittin’s successor, Elam Lynds, enforced a
and exercise. quasi-military routine of absolute silence,
strict discipline, and economic
productivity. In response to bells, head-shaven inmates dressed in striped
clothing silently marched in lockstep formation to and from their cells
for meals and work assignments. Letters were banned, and the chaplain was
the only occasional visitor. Flogging and other forms of corporal
punishment enforced the rules. Such regimentation was thought necessary to
restrain the rebellious nature of the offenders.
Auburn state prison
Overcrowding made the silence system unenforceable, and Auburn’s system

of discipline deteriorated into corrupt and lax routines of harsh punishment.
After the Civil War, the spirit of reform withered, and contract labour was no
longer profitable. Despite the demise of the “ideal” system, Auburn remained
the model for nearly a century, primarily because it had been inexpensive to
construct and maintain.
Eastern State Penitentiary
In the early 19th century, a system of punishment was created that could
be traced back to the Quakers. Called the Pennsylvania system because it
was first used here, this method involved the use of solitary confinement
to rehabilitate criminals sent to prison. The underlying belief of the
Pennsylvania System was that solitary confinement would give prisoners
Page 4 of 6
MODULE:
time to reflect on their lives and change the wrongs within it. In other
words, if prisoners were forced to think about their crimes, they would
become penitent (this is also the origin of the word “penitentiary”).
By 1821, the Philadelphia Society for

Alleviating the Miseries of Public
America's Most Historic Prison
Prisons (founded in 1787 by Benjamin
Rush) had successfully lobbied the state
Eastern State Penitentiary was once the
legislature for funding to build Eastern
most famous and expensive prison in the
State Penitentiary, where this
world, but stands today in ruin, a haunting Pennsylvania System of treatment could be
world of crumbling cellblocks and empty tried. Here mingling among prisoners was
guard towers. Its vaulted, sky-lit cells once avoided, so much so that inmates were
held many of America's most notorious hooded when they went outside their
lawbreakers, including "Slick Willie" Sutton cells. The Pennsylvania System as it was
and "Scarface" Al Capone. enacted had some opponents however, who
believed this method of punishment caused
mental illness among the prisoners. One such opponent, Charles Dickens,
wrote: “I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the
brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body.”
Eastern State Penitentiary was built in 1829 to architect John Haviland’s

design. As it was originally built, the prison would hold 250 inmates.
Haviland chose a radial layout, finding inspiration in criminologist
Jeremy Bentham’s 1791 circular prism plan. He included many details that
made Eastern State one of the more secure prisons of its time. It was the
first to use a central rotunda as the prison’s “communications hub and
nerve center” (Haviland 8). By the time the prison closed in 1970, ESP had
expanded to provide for as many as 900 prisoners.
Eastern state penitentiary
Mathias Maccumsey is placed in an iron gag, a tortuous punishment device,

by prison administrators for trying to communicate with the prisoner in the
cell next to him. He dies later in the day, and prison administrators record his
official cause of death as “apoplexy,” an antiquated term for a stroke.
Finally, on October 23 1829, prisoner number one was admitted. Charles

Williams was sentenced to two years with labor for the crime of burglary.
Several infamous criminals would follow him to becoming inmates at ESP,
including Al Capone, bank robber Willie Sutton, and Pep “the Cat-Murdering
Dog.” Pep was allegedly sentenced to life in prison in August of 1924 by
then-governor Gifford Pinchot. The dog, inmate number C2559, was in for
murdering Pinchot’s wife’s cat.
Page 5 of 6
MODULE:
After its closure in 1970, Eastern State Penitentiary sat largely as a
ruin. However, in 1988 efforts to preserve the site began. The site was
also used as a set for movies such as “12 Monkeys.” Since 1996, efforts to
stabilize the site have been made to preserve the site as a ruin and to
ensure it may continue to be open for public tours.
References:
• https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sing-Sing
• https://www.britannica.com/topic/Auburn-State-Prison
• https://www.phillyhistory.org/blog/index.php/2007/06/ea
stern-state-penitentiary/
Page 6 of 6
MODULE:
Chapter 7
• Orient themselves on the development of prisons

• Explain the history of correctional agencies in the
Philippines
PRE-COLONIAL AND SPANISH REGIMES
During the pre-colonial times, the informal prison system was community-
based, as there were no national penitentiaries to speak of. Natives who
defied or violated the local laws were meted appropriate penalties by
the local chieftains. Incarceration in the community was only meant to
prevent the culprit from further harming the local residents.
The formal prison system in the Philippines started only during
the Spanish regime, where an organized corrective service was made
operational. Established in 1847 pursuant to Section 1708 of the Revised
Administrative Code and formally opened by Royal Decree in 1865, the Old
Bilibid Prison was constructed as the main penitentiary on Oroquieta
Street, Manila and designed to house the prison population of the
country. This prison became known as the “Carcel y Presidio Correccional”
and could accommodate 1,127 prisoners.
The Carcel was designed to house 600 prisoners who were segregated
according to class, sex and crime while the Presidio could accommodate
527 prisoners. Plans for the construction of the prison were first
published on September 12, 1859 but it was not until April 10, 1866 that
the entire facility was completed.
Page 1 of 5
MODULE:
The prison
occupied a quadrangular
piece of land 180 meters
long on each side, which
was formerly a part of the
Mayhalique Estate in the
heart of Manila. It housed
a building for the offices
and quarters of the prison
warden, and 15 buildings
or departments for
prisoners that were
arranged in a radial way to form spokes. The central tower formed the
hub. Under this tower was the chapel. There were four cell-houses for
the isolated prisoners and four isolated buildings located on the four
corners of the walls, which served as kitchen, hospital and stores. The
prison was divided in the middle by a thick wall. One-half of the enclosed
space was assigned to Presidio prisoners and the other half to Carcel
prisoners.
In 1908, concrete
modern 200-bed capacity
hospitals as well as new
dormitories for the
prisoners were added. A
carpentry shop was
organized within the
confines of the facility.
For some time, the shop
became a trademark for
fine workmanship of
furniture made by
prisoners. At this time,
sales of handicrafts were
done through the
institutions and inmates were compensated depending on the availability
of funds. As a consequence, inmates often had to sell through the retail
or barter their products.
Page 2 of 5
MODULE:
On August 21, 1869, the San Ramon Prison and Penal Farm in
Zamboanga City was established to confine Muslim rebels and recalcitrant
political prisoners opposed to the Spanish rule. The facility, which
faced the Jolo sea had Spanish-inspired dormitories and was originally
set on a 1,414-hectare sprawling estate.
The American and Commonwealth

Government
When the Americans took over

in the 1900s, the Bureau of
Prisons was created under the
Reorganization Act of 1905
(Act No. 1407 dated November
1, 1905) as an agency under
the Department of Commerce
and Police.
It also paved the way for the re-

establishment of San Ramon Prison in 1907 which was destroyed during
the Spanish-American War. On January 1, 1915, the San Ramon Prison was
placed under the auspices of the Bureau of Prisons and started
receiving prisoners from Mindanao.
Before the reconstruction

of San Ramon Prison, the
Americans established in 1904
the Iuhit penal settlement (now
Iwahig Prison and Penal Farm) on
a vast reservation of 28,072
hectares. It would reach a total
land area of 40,000 hectares in
the late 1950s. Located on the
westernmost part of the
archipelago far from the main
town to confine incorrigibles with little hope of rehabilitation, the
area was expanded to 41,007 hectares by virtue of Executive Order No.
67 issued by Governor Newton Gilbert on October 15, 1912.
Page 3 of 5
MODULE:
Other penal colonies were established during the American regime.

On November 27, 1929, the Correctional Institution for Women (CIW) was
created under Act No. 3579 to provide separate facilities for women
offenders while the Davao Penal Colony in Southern Mindanao was opened
in 1932 under Act No. 3732.
TRANSFER OF BILIBID PRISON TO

MUNTINLUPA
The increasing number of

committals to the Old Bilibid Prison,
the growing urbanization of Manila
and the constant lobbying by
conservative groups prompted the
government to plan and develop a new
site for the national penitentiary,
which was to be on the outskirts of the
urban center. Accordingly, Commonwealth Act No.
67 was enacted, appropriating one million (P1,000.000.00)
pesos for the construction of a new national prison in the southern
suburb of Muntinlupa, Rizal in 1935. The old prison was transformed into
a receiving center and a storage facility for farm produce from the
colonies. It was later abandoned and is now under the jurisdiction of
the Public Estates Authority.
On November 15, 1940, all inmates
of the Old Bilibid Prison in Manila
were transferred to the new site.
The new institution had a capacity
of 3,000 prisoners and it was
officially named the New Bilibid
Prison on January 22, 1941. The
prison reservation has an area of
587 hectares, part of which was
arable. The prison compound proper
had an area of 300 x 300 meters or
Page 4 of 5
MODULE:
a total of nine hectares. It was surrounded by three layers of barbed
wire.
References:
• Bureau of Corrections: http://www.bucor.gov.ph/

• http://www.bucor.gov.ph/history/history%201.html
•
Page 5 of 5
MODULE:
Chapter 8

Philippines
DEVELOPMENTS AFTER WORLD WAR II
After World War II,

there was a surplus of
steel matting in the
inventory and it was
used to improve the
security fences of the
prison. A death chamber
was constructed in 1941
at the rear area of the
camp when the mode of
execution was through
electrocution. In the
late ‘60s, fences were
further reinforced with
concrete slabs. The
original institution became the maximum-security compound in the 70s and
continues to be so up to present, housing not only death convicts and
Page 1 of 5
MODULE:
inmates sentenced to life
terms, but also those
with numerous pending
cases, multiple
convictions and
sentences of more than 20
years. In the 1980s, the
height of the concrete
wall was increased and
another facility was
constructed, 2.5
kilometers from the main
building. This became
known as Camp Sampaguita
or the Medium Security
Camp, which was used as a military stockade during the martial law years
and the Minimum-Security Camp, whose first site was christened “Bukang
Liwayway”. Later on, this was transferred to another site within the
reservation where the former depot was situated.
Under Proclamation No. 72 issued on September 26, 1954, the
Sablayan Prison and Penal Farm in Occidental Mindoro was established. In
the Leyte Regional Prison followed suit under Proclamation No. 1101
issued on January 16, 1973.
NON-OPERATIONAL NATIONAL PRISONS
FORT BONIFACIO PRISON:

A committee report
submitted to then
President Carlos P.
Garcia described Fort
Bonifacio, formerly known
as Fort William McKinley,
as a military reservation
located in Makati, which
was established after the
Americans came to the
Philippines. The prison
Page 2 of 5
MODULE:
was originally used as a detention center for offenders of US military
laws and ordinances.
After the
liberation of the
Philippines, the
reservation was
transferred to the
Philippine government,
which instructed the
Bureau of Prisons to use
the facility for the
confinement of maximum-
security prisoners. For
several years,
incorrigibles were mixed
with political prisoners
(those convicted of
rebellion) at the Fort Bonifacio facility until June 30, 1968, when it
was converted into a prison exclusively for political offenders.
After a bloody April 1969 riot at the Muntinlupa facility, however,
incorrigible prisoners from Muntinlupa were transferred to Fort
Bonifacio.
During the administration of President Diosdado Macapagal, the Fort
was renamed Fort Andres Bonifacio. The correctional facility was
also renamed Fort Bonifacio Prison. The one-story building now stands
on a one-hectare area.
The Fort Bonifacio Prison continued to be a satellite prison of
the national penitentiary even after martial law was lifted. It was
only in the late 1980’s that the facility was vacated by the Bureau of
Prisons.
CORREGIDOR PRISON STOCKADE: In 1908 during the American regime, some
100 prisoners were transferred from the Old Bilibid Prison to Corregidor
Island to work under military authorities. This move was in accordance
with an order from the Department of Instructions, which approved the
transfer of inmates so they could assist in maintenance and other
operations in the stockade.
The inmates were transported not to serve time but for prison
labor. Until the outbreak of the Second World War, inmates from Old
Bilibid Prison were regularly sent to Corregidor for labor purposes.
Page 3 of 5
MODULE:
When the War broke out, prisoners on Corregidor were returned to
Bilibid Prison. The island prison was never reopened.
BONTOC PRISON: The Philippine Legislature during the American regime
passed Act No. 1876 providing for the establishment of a prison in Bontoc
in Mountain Province. The prison was built for the prisoners of the
province and insular prisoners who were members of the non-Christian
tribes of Mountain Province and Nueva Viscaya.
Bontoc prison could be reached only through narrow, poorly
developed mountain roads. Due to the enormous expenses incurred in
transporting personnel, equipment and supplies to the prison, the
facility.
TRANSFER OF BILIBID PRISON TO MUNTINLUPA
The increasing number of

committals to the Old
Bilibid Prison, the growing
urbanization of Manila and
the constant lobbying by
conservative groups prompted
the government to plan and
develop a new site for the
national penitentiary, which
was to be on the outskirts of
the urban center.
Accordingly, Commonwealth
Act No. 67 was enacted,
appropriating one million
(P1,000.000.00) pesos for the construction of a new national prison in
the southern suburb of Muntinlupa, Rizal in 1935. The old prison was
transformed into a receiving center and a storage facility for farm
produce from the colonies. It was later abandoned and is now under the
jurisdiction of the Public Estates Authority.
Page 4 of 5
MODULE:
On November 15, 1940, all
inmates of the Old Bilibid
Prison in Manila were
transferred to the new site.
The new institution had a
capacity of 3,000 prisoners
and it was officially named
the New Bilibid Prison on
January 22, 1941. The prison
reservation has an area of
587 hectares, part of which
was arable. The prison
compound proper had an area
of 300 x 300 meters or a total
of nine hectares. It was surrounded by three layers of barbed wire.
References:

Page 5 of 5
MODULE:
Chapter 9

Philippines
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION FOR

WOMEN (CIW): In a report
dated January 22, 1959,
submitted to a committee
created by Administrative
Order No. 287 by the
President of the
Philippines, it was noted
that “before a separate
building was constructed
especially for women
prisoners, all female
convicts were confined at
the Old Bilibid Prison on
Azcarraga St., Manila. The male prisoners were confined in dormitories
near the women’s quarters. Because of these conditions, vocational
activities of the women prisoners were limited to embroidery. When they
became ill, the women were confined in a separate building which served
as a hospital with nurses and prison physicians. When women prisoners
Page 1 of 6
MODULE:
needed surgery, they were operated on at the Bilibid Prison. After the
operation, they were transferred to the infirmary for convalescence.
Prison authorities
were aware of the conditions
that the women prisoners had
to endure. Consequently,
the transfer of the women to
a separate site became
inevitable. After a series
of negotiations started by
Prison Director Ramon
Victorio, the Philippine
Legislature passed Republic
Act No. 3579 in November,
1929. It authorized the
transfer of all women inmates to a building in Welfare Ville at
Mandaluyong, Rizal and appropriated P60,000 for the move.
On February 14, 1931, the women prisoners were transferred from
the Old Bilibid Prison to the building especially constructed for them.
Its old name, “Women’s Prison, was changed to “Correctional Institution
for Women.” This was in keeping with emerging trends in penology, which
emphasized correction rather than punishment. Convicts were brought back
into the social mainstream adjusted and rehabilitated with a better
outlook in life.
CIW, according to a Senate report, occupied 18 hectares. The
original structure was a one-story building which housed the office, the
brigades, mess hall, kitchen, chapel, infirmary, bathrooms and
employees’ restrooms. The building has a central courtyard with trees
and flowering plants. The prisoner’s vocational activities were expanded
to include poultry and piggery as well as cultivation of crops, flowers
and fruits. Living quarters for the institution’s employees were later
constructed in the compound. During the Japanese occupation, the CIW,
despite a drastic reduction in the number of its employees, continued
with its work. A number of female military prisoners were also confined
in the institution. They were later freed by the U.S. Army.
After the war, the CIW resumed its normal operations. Weekly
catechism classes were introduced. A dental clinic was built. Local
telephones were installed in the guard’s quarters. The Bureau of Public
Works made major repairs on the main building and a workshop and
Page 2 of 6
MODULE:
infirmary were constructed for the inmates use. The infirmary during
that time could accommodate around 16 patients.
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN

In 2000, a new four-story building was constructed by the Department
of Public Works within the grounds of CIW. It eased the growing congestion in
the facility. The CIW, with a capacity for only 200 inmates, had to
accommodate 1,000 inmates.
DAVAO PRISON AND PENAL FARM
DAVAO PENAL COLONY: The

Davao Penal Colony is the
first penal settlement
founded and organized
under Filipino
administration. The
settlement, which
originally had an area of
approximately 30,000
hectares in the districts
of Panabo and Tagum, Davao
del Norte, was formally
established on January 21,
1932 by virtue of Act No.
3732. This Act authorized the Governor-General to lease or sell the
lands, buildings and improvements in San Ramon Prison and Iwahig Penal
Colony. It also granted authority to the Secretary of Justice to
establish a new prison and penal colony in a suitable public land. A
budget of P500,000 was allocated. Several committees were created to
pick a suitable site for the Penal settlement. In accordance with the
recommendation of these committees, Governor Dwight Davis signed
Proclamation No. 414 on October 7, 1931, which reserved a site for the
penal colony in Davao province in Mindandao. The site offered ideal
conditions for agricultural activities.
Page 3 of 6
MODULE:
During World War II, the
colony was converted into a
concentration camp where
more than 1,000 Japanese
internees were committed by
the Philippine-American
Armed Forces. The Japanese
were treated in accordance
with the orders of the
American commanding officer.
On December 20, 1941, the
Japanese Imperial Forces
attacked Davao and the colony was among the establishments taken over
by the invading army. The entire settlement was thrown into confusion
and a great number of prisoners escaped. Normal operations were
inevitably disturbed. November 8, 1942, a representative of the Director
of Prisons transferred the colony and its properties to the Japanese
authorities. The remaining colony employees, their families and the
inmates evacuated to Iwahig where they organized the Davao Penal Colony
at Inagawan sub colony (Palawan). The organization of the colony in exile
was authorized by virtue of Memorandum Order No. 60 dated June 28, 1943
and signed by the Director of Prisons.
After the liberation of the Philippines, the colony-in-exile in Palawan returned

to its old site in Davao. A great deal of rebuilding and repair had to be done
because the war had almost completely destroyed the colony.
IWAHIG PRISON AND PENAL FARM
IWAHIG PENAL COLONY: This facility was established during the American
occupation. It was however, during the Spanish regime that Puerto
Princesa was designated as a place where offenders sentenced to
banishment were exiled. A specific area of Puerto Princesa was
selected as the site for a correctional facility. The American military
Page 4 of 6
MODULE:
carved out a prison facility in the rain forest of Puerto Princesa. The
institution had for its first Superintendent Lt. George Wolfe, a member
of the U.S. expeditionary force, who later became the first prisons
director.
Governor Luke Wright
authorized the
establishment of a penal
colony in the province of
Palawan on November 16,
1904. This penal
settlement, which
originally comprised an
area of 22 acres,
originally served as a
depository for prisoners
who could not be
accommodated at the
Bilibid Prison in Manila.
In 1906, however, the
Department of Commerce
and Police (which later
became the Department of Public Instruction) moved to turn the
institution into the center of a penal colony supervised in
accordance with trends at the time. Through the department’s efforts,
the Philippine Commission of the United States government passed Act No.
1723 in 1907 classifying the settlement as a penal institution.
The settlement was at first beset by attempted escapes. But under
the supervision of Col. John R. White of the Philippine Constabulary,
who would become superintendent of Iwahig in 1906, the colony became a
successful settlement. A merit system was devised for the prisoners and
vocational activities were offered. These included farming, fishing,
forestry, carpentry, and hospital paramedical work. Prisoners could
choose the vocational activities they wanted.
In 1955, Administrative Order No. 20 was promulgated by the
President and implemented by the Secretary of Justice and the Secretary
of Agriculture and Natural Resources. This order allowed the
distribution of colony lands for cultivation by deserving colonists.
The order also contained a list of qualifications for colonists who
wished to apply for a lot to cultivate, the conditions for the settler’s
stay in his land, loan requirements and marketing of the settlers’
produce. Lots granted did not exceed six hectares.
Page 5 of 6
MODULE:
On August 16, 1959, a
committee was created by
President Carlos P.
Garcia to study the state
of national prisons.
Accordingly, prisoners in
Iwahig were divided into
two groups: the settlers
and colonists. The
settlers are those
engaged in farming for
their own benefit; they
are the ones whose
applications for land to
cultivate have been
approved. The government
furnishes the land and initial requirements for tools, dwellings and
beast of burden. They are required to reimburse expenditures incurred
for their maintenance and that of their families out of the products of
their farms. Upon their release from the colony, they receive whatever
amount of money they have credited in their favor, after deducting the
obligations they have.
Iwahig is subdivided into four zones or districts: Central sub-
colony with an area of 14,700 hectares; Sta. Lucia with 9,685 hectares;
Montible with 8,000 hectares and Inagawan with 13,000 hectares.
Recent developments and presidential proclamations have dramatically

reduced the size of the prison reservation of Iwahig.
References:

Page 6 of 6
MODULE:
Chapter 10

Philippines
SAN RAMON PRISON AND PENAL FARM
SAN RAMON PRISON AND PENAL

FARM: According to
historical accounts, the
San Ramon Prison was
established in southern
Zamboanga on August
21,1870 through a royal
decree promulgated in
1869. Established during
the tenure of Governor
General Ramon Blanco
(whose patron saint the
prison was named
after), the facility was
originally established for
persons convicted of political crimes.
Considered the oldest penal facility in the country, prisoners in
San Ramon were required to do agricultural work.
Page 1 of 4
MODULE:
During the Spanish-American
War in 1898, the prisoners in
San Ramon were hastily
released and the buildings
destroyed. In 1907, the
American administration re-
established the prison farm.
In 1912, Gen. John Pershing,
chief executive of the
Department of Mindanao and
Sulu, classified the
institution as a prison and
penal colony and therein
confined people sentenced by
the courts under his jurisdiction. Under Pershing’s supervision,
several buildings with a capacity for 600 prisoners were constructed.
After several years, the colony became practically self-supporting,
with 75,000 coconut trees, which were planted at the beginning of
Pershing’s administration, contributing to the colony’s self-
sufficiency. Aside from coconuts, rice, corn, papaya and other crops
were also cultivated.
On November 1, 1905, Reorganization Act No. 1407 was approved
creating the Bureau of Prisons under the Department of Commerce and
Police, integrating the Old Bilibid Prison, San Ramon Penal Colony and
Iwahig Penal. The Philippine Coconut Authority took over management of
the coconut farm from San Ramon.
SAN RAMON PRISON AND PENAL FARM
In 1995, Congresswoman Maria Clara Lobregat proposed the transfer of San

Ramon Prison to Bongiao town, in the mountainous area of Zamboanga, to
give way to a special economic zone.
Page 2 of 4
MODULE:
SABLAYAN PRISON AND PENAL FARM
SABLAYAN PRISON AND PENAL

FARM: Nearer to Manila than
other penal colonies, the Sablayan
Penal Colony is located in
Occidental Mindoro and relatively
new. Established on September 26,
1954 by virtue of Presidential
Proclamation No. 72, the penal
colony has a total land area of
approximately 16,190 hectares.
Prison records show that the first
colonists and employees arrived in
Sablayan on January 15,
1955. Since then several buildings
have been constructed, including the
colonist’s dormitories, employees’ quarters,
guardhouse, schoolhouse, chapel, recreation hall, and post
exchange.
Three sub-colonies
Sablayan prison is a facility where prisoners
were
later organized. One is a
from NBP are brought for decongestion
reservation which this day remains
purposes. It follows the same colony standards
as other penal farms.
part of a protected rainforest.
Another is in a coastal area. The third was used by the national
government as a relocation site for refugees from the eruption of Mt.
Pinatubo eruption in 1991.
Sablayan prison is a facility where prisoners from NBP are brought

for decongestion purposes. It follows the same colony standards as other
penal farms.
Page 3 of 4
MODULE:
LEYTE REGIONAL PRISON
LEYTE REGIONAL PRISON: The

Leyte Regional Prison was
established on January
16, 1973 under
Proclamation No. 1101.
The Leyte Regional
Prison, situated in
Abuyog, Southern Leyte,
was established a year
after the declaration of
martial law in 1972 by
virtue of Presidential
Decree No. 28. While its
plantilla and
institutional plan were
almost ideal, lack of
funds made the prison unable to realize its full potential and its
facilities are often below par compared with those of other
established penal farms.
The LRP has an inmate capacity of 500. It follows the same

agricultural format as the main correctional program in addition to
some rehabilitation activities. The prison admits convicted offenders
from Region VI and from the national penitentiary in Muntinlupa.
References:

Page 4 of 4
MODULE:
Chapter 11
• Understand the study of institutional agencies in the

Philippines
• Know the BJMP structure, policies and standards
• Know the JJWC structure, policies and standards
•
CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM IN THE PHILIPPINES
Page 1 of 16
MODULE:
The Correctional System in the Philippines is composed of six agencies
under three distinct and separate departments of the national government:
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT - under this are the Bureau
of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) which runs the city, municipal,
and district jails; and the provincial jails through their respective
provincial governments.
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT - under this is Juvenile
and Justice Welfare Council which oversees the rehabilitation of young
offenders.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - under this are the Bureau of Corrections, Parole
and Probation Administration and the Board of Pardons and Parole.
What is DILG and its function?

The Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) is the
executive department responsible for promoting peace and order, ensuring
public safety, and strengthening the capability of local government units
to effectively deliver basic services to the citizenry.
The following agencies are attached to the DILG:
Bureau of Fire Protection
Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP)
Local Government Academy
National Police Commission
Philippine National Police (PNP)
Philippine Public Safety College
BUREAU OF JAIL MANAGEMENT AND PENOLOGY
The Bureau of Jail Management and Penology is an attached

agency of the Department of the Interior and Local Government
mandated to direct, supervise and control the administration and
operation of all district, city and municipal jails in the
Philippines with pronged tasks of safekeeping and development of
persons deprived of liberty.
Page 2 of 16
MODULE:
OVERVIEW
As one of the five pillars of the Criminal
Justice System, the BJMP was created to address
growing concern of jail management and
penology problem. Primarily, its clients are
detainees accused before a court who are
temporarily confined in such jails while
undergoing investigation, waiting final
judgement and those who are serving sentence
promulgated by the court 3 years and below. As
provided for under R.A. No. 6975, the Jail
Bureau is mandated to take operational and
administrative control over all city, district and
municipal jails.
The Bureau has four major areas of rehabilitation program, namely:
Livelihood Projects, Educational and Vocational Training, Recreation and
Sports, and Religious/ Spiritual Activities. These were continuously
implemented to eliminate the offenders' pattern of criminal behavior and
to reform them to become law-abiding and productive citizens.
Although the workplace of the Jail Bureau is confined inside the
portals of jail to safeguard inmates, nonetheless, the Bureau has an
inherent function of informing the public of jail operations and other
matters concerning the corrections pillar of the Philippines.
Coincidentally, being a new and growing Bureau, BJMP aims to keep the
public abreast of information regarding jail management and penology.
HISTORY
On January 2, 1991, the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology was
created thru Republic Act 6975 as a line Bureau under the Department of
Interior and Local Government. The Jail Bureau is the upgraded version
of its forerunner, the Office of Jail Management and Penology of the
defunct PC/INP last headed by BRIG GEN Arsenio E. Concepcion.
As mandated by law, the BJMP shall operate under the reorganized
Department of the Interior and Local Government.
Starting from scratch with 500 personnel in 1991 the BJMP weaned
from its mother PC/INP as a mere component, to become a full-fledge
bureau. Director Charles S. Mondejar took his oath of office on July 1
of 1991 as the first Chief of the Bureau.
Page 3 of 16
MODULE:
The Bureau of Jail Management and Penology supervises and controls
all district, city and municipal jails.
FUNCTION
In line with its mission, the Jail
Bureau endeavors to perform the following
functions:
>Formulate policies and guidelines in the
administration of all district, city, and
municipal jails nationwide;
>Implement strong security measures for
the control of inmates;
>Provide for the basic needs of inmates;
>Conduct activities for the development of
inmates;
>Improve jail facilities; and,
>Promote the general welfare and development of personnel.
ORGANIZATION AND KEY POSITIONS

The Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, also referred to as
the Jail Bureau, was created pursuant to Section 60 to 65, Chapter V,
RA No. 6975, and initially consisting of uniformed officers and members
of the Jail Management and Penology service as constituted under
Presidential Decree No. 765. RA 9263 provides that the Bureau shall be
headed by a Chief who is assisted by two (2) Deputy Chiefs, one (1) for
Administration and another for Operations, and one (1) Chief of
Directorial Staff, all of whom are appointed by the President upon the
recommendation of the DILG Secretary from among the qualified officers
with the rank of at least Senior Superintendent in the BJMP. The Chief
of the BJMP carries the rank of Director and serves a tour of duty that
must not exceed four (4) years, unless extended by the President in times
of war and other national emergencies. Officers who have retired or are
within six (6) months from their compulsory retirement age are not
qualified to be appointed as Jail Director or designated as BJMP Chief.
Page 4 of 16
MODULE:
The second officer in command of the BJMP is the Deputy Chief for
Administration, the third officer in command is the Deputy Chief for
Operations, and the fourth officer in command is The Chief of the
Directorial Staff, all of whom carry the rank of Chief Superintendent.
They are assisted by the Directors of the Directorates in the National
Headquarters who carry the rank of at least Senior Superintendent.
The BJMP operates and maintains Regional Offices in each of the
administrative regions of the country, headed by a Regional Director for
Jail Management and Penology, with the rank of at least Senior
Superintendent. The Regional Director is assisted by an Assistant
Regional Director for Administration, Assistant Regional Director for
Operations, and Regional Chief of Directorial Staff, who are all officers
with the rank of at least Superintendent.
The National Headquarters is the Command and Staff Office of the
BJMP, and is composed of the Command Group, Directorates and Management
Support Staff, namely:
COMMAND GROUP:
1) Chief, BJMP
2) Deputy Chief for Administration
3) Deputy Chief for Operation
4) Chief of Directorial Staff
DIIRECTORATES
1) Directorate for Personnel and Records Management
2) Directorate for Human Resource Development
3) Directorate for Operations
4) Directorate for Inmates Welfare and Development
5) Directorate for Logistics
6) Directorate for Comptrollership
7) Directorate for Program Development
8) Directorate for Intelligence
9) Directorate for Investigation and Prosecution
10) Directorate for Information Communication and Technology
Management
Page 5 of 16
MODULE:
11) Directorate for Health Service
SUPPORT SERVICES
1) Office of Program Management
2) Office of Legal Services
3) Office of General Services
4) Office of Accounting Services
5) Office of Finance Services
6) Office of Supply Accountable Office
7) Office of Internal Audit
8) Office of Chaplaincy Services
9) Office of Community Relations Services
10) NESJO
REGIONAL OFFICE
The BJMP operates and maintains Regional Offices in each of the
administrative regions of the country, headed by a Regional Director for
Jail Management and Penology, with the rank of at least Senior
Superintendent. The Regional Director is assisted by an Assistant
Regional Director for Administration, Assistant Regional Director for
Operations, and Regional Chief of Directorial Staff, who are all officers
with the rank of at least Superintendent.
JAIL PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE
In every province, the BJMP operates and maintains a Provincial Jail
Administrator’s Office headed by a Provincial Administrator, to oversee
the implementation of jail services of all district, city and municipal
jails within its territorial jurisdiction.
DISTRICT JAIL
Within large cities or a group of clustered municipalities, a District
Jail headed by a District Warden may be established.
CITY AND MUNICIPAL JAILS
Page 6 of 16
MODULE:
The BJMP operates and maintains City and Municipal Jails, each headed
by a City or Municipal Warden, as the case may be.
MANDATE AND MAJOR PROGRAMS
MANDATE
BJMP is mandated to direct, supervise and control the
administration and operation of all district, city and municipal jails
nationwide with pronged tasks of safekeeping and development of inmates.
MAJOR PROGRAM
There are four (4) major programs under the mandate of bjmp and
they are the following:
1. Inmates custody, security and control program
2. Inmates welfare and development program
3. Decongestion program
4. Good governance
To enhance public safety by ensuring humane safekeeping and

development of Persons Deprived of Liberty (PDL) in all district, city, and
municipal jails for their reintegration to society.
A premier institution highly regarded by society for the secure and

humane treatment of Persons Deprived of Liberty (PDL) by its competent
and motivated corps.
Page 7 of 16
MODULE:
What is DSWD?
The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) is mandated
by law to develop, administer and implement comprehensive social welfare
programs designed to uplift the living conditions and empower the
disadvantaged children, youth, women, older persons, person with
disabilities, families in crisis or at-risk and communities needing
assistance.
Legal Bases
1. Republic Act No. 4373 as amended by RA 5175 - Regulating the
Practice of Social Work in the Philippines.
2. Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991, Chapter
2, Section 17.
3. Executive Order 15 s. 1998 “Redirecting the Functions and
Operations of the DSWD” as amended by Executive Order 221 (2003)
defined the mandate, roles, powers and functions of the DSWD.
4. Administrative Order 11 series 2007 “Revised Standards on
Residential Care Services.
5. RA 9344 “Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006”
6. RA 9262 “Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of
2004”.
7. RA 9257 “Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003”
8. RA 8505 “Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998”.
9. RA 7610 “Special Protection of Children Against Abuse Exploitation
and Discrimination Act”
The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council
Revised Rules and Regulations Implementing

Republic Act No.
9344, as amended by R.A. 10630
The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council,
pursuant to Section 69 of Republic Act No.
9344, the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act
of 2006 and Section 14 of Republic Act
10630 or “An Act Strengthening the Juvenile
Justice System in the Philippines, Amending
for the Purpose Republic Act No. 9344,”
Page 8 of 16
MODULE:
Definition of Terms
1. “Act” refers to Republic Act No. 9344,
as amended by Republic Act No. 10630
2. “Bahay Pag-asa” – refers to a 24-hour
child-caring institution established,
funded and managed by local government
units (LGUs) and licensed and/or
accredited non-government
organizations (NGOs), providing short-
term residential care for children in
conflict with the law, who are above
fifteen (15) but below eighteen (18)
years of age, and who are awaiting court
disposition of their cases or transfer to other agencies or
jurisdiction.
3. “Bail” refers to the security given for the release of the person
in custody of the law, furnished by a bondsman or a bonding company,
to guarantee the appearance of the person before any Court.
4. “Best interest of the child” refers to the totality of
circumstances and conditions that are most beneficial for the
survival, protection and feelings of security of the child, and
most likely to promote the child’s physical, psychological and
emotional development. It also means the least detrimental
available alternative for safeguarding the growth and development
of the child.
5. “Child” refers to a person under the age of eighteen (18) years.
6. “Child who is above twelve (12) years of age” refers to a child
who is at least twelve (12) years and one (1) day old.
7. “Child who is above fifteen (15) years of age” refers to a child
who is at least fifteen (15) years and one (1) day old.
8. “Children-at-risk” or “CAR” refers to children who are vulnerable
or at-risk of behaving in a way that can harm themselves or others,
or vulnerable and at risk of being pushed and exploited to come
into conflict with the law because of personal, family and social
circumstances, such as, but not limited to, the following:
a. being abused by any person through sexual, physical,
psychological, mental, economic or any other means, and the
parents or guardians refuse, are unwilling, or unable to
provide protection for the child;
b. being exploited sexually or economically;
Page 9 of 16
MODULE:
c. being abandoned or neglected, and after diligent search and
inquiry, the parents or guardians cannot be found;
d. coming from a dysfunctional or broken family or being without

a parent or guardian;
e. being out of school;
f. being a street child;
g. being a member of a gang;
h. living in a community with a high level of criminality or
drug abuse; and
i. living in situations of armed conflict.
Children-at-Risk also includes those children who violate the
ordinances enacted by local governments, concerning juvenile status
offenses enumerated in Section 57-A of the Act, such as, but not
limited to, curfew violations, truancy, parental disobedience,
anti-smoking and anti-drinking laws, as well as light offenses and
misdemeanors against public order or safety such as, but not
limited to, disorderly conduct, public scandal, harassment,
drunkenness, public intoxication, criminal nuisance, vandalism,
gambling, mendicancy, littering, public urination, and
trespassing. The enactment of ordinances providing for juvenile
status offenses by local government units (LGUs) shall primarily
promote greater protection for children, by identifying children-
at-risk, and not for purposes of employing enforcement or punitive
action.
Children-at-Risk also includes those who commit any of the
following:
1) Status offenses under Section 57 of the Act;
2) Prostitution under Section 202 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended;
3) Mendicancy under Presidential Decree No. 1563; and
4) Sniffing of rugby under Presidential Decree No. 1619.
The JJWC shall, from time to time, issue resolutions identifying
other offenses for which a child shall be considered as a child-
at-risk and not a child in conflict with the law.
9. “Child in conflict with the law” or “CICL” refers to a child who
is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having committed an
offense under Philippine laws.
10. “Community-based programs” refers to the programs provided in
community setting, developed for purposes of intervention,
Page 10 of 16
MODULE:
diversion, and rehabilitation of the child in conflict with the
law, which are intended for the purpose of reintegrating the child
into the family and/or community.
11. “Court” refers to a Family Court, or in places where there
are no Family Courts, any Regional Trial Court.
12. “Deprivation of liberty” refers to any form of detention or
imprisonment, or to the placement of a child in conflict with the
law in a public or private custodial setting, from which the child
in conflict with the law is not permitted to leave at will, by
order of any judicial or administrative authority.
13. “Diversion” refers to an alternative, child-appropriate
process of determining the responsibility and treatment of a child
in conflict with the law, on the basis of the child’s social,
cultural, economic, psychological or educational background,
without resorting to formal court proceedings.
14. “Diversion Program” refers to the program that the child in
conflict with the law is required to undergo after being found
responsible for an offense, without resorting to formal court
proceedings.
15. “Duty-bearer” shall refer to persons who are responsible for
providing care, addressing the needs and protecting the rights of
a child within the juvenile justice and welfare system.
16. “Initial contact with the child” refers to the apprehension
or taking into custody of a child in conflict with the law by law
enforcement officers or private citizens. It includes the time when
the child alleged to be in conflict with the law receives a subpoena
under Section 3(b) of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure or summons under Section 6(a) or Section 9(b) of the same
Rule, in cases that do not require preliminary investigation or
where there is no necessity to place the child alleged to be in
conflict with the law under immediate custody.
17. “Intensive Juvenile Intervention and Support Center” or
“IJISC” refers to a special program or unit within the “Bahay Pag-
asa” or any child-caring facility of the DSWD or licensed and
accredited NGOs, to address the needs of the CICL for intensive
intervention programs and services.
18. “Intervention” generally refers to programmatic approaches or
systematic social protection programs for children that are
designed and intended to:
a. Promote the physical and social well-being of the children;
b. Avert or prevent juvenile delinquency from occurring; and
c. Stop or prevent children from re-offending.
Page 11 of 16
MODULE:
19. “Juvenile Justice and Welfare System” refers to a system of
dealing with children-at-risk and children in conflict with the
law, which provides child39 appropriate proceedings, including
programs and services for prevention, diversion, rehabilitation,
reintegration and after-care to ensure the child’s normal growth
and development.
20. “Offense” refers to any act or omission punishable under
special penal laws or the Revised Penal Code. For purposes of
providing appropriate services for children, the term ‘offense’
shall include violations of ordinances of local government units.
21. “Probation” refers to a disposition under which a defendant,
after conviction and sentence, is released, subject to the
conditions imposed by the Court and the person is placed under the
supervision of a probation officer.
22. “Recognizance” refers to an undertaking, in lieu of a bail
bond, assumed by a parent or custodian, who shall be responsible
for ensuring the appearance in Court of the child in conflict with
the law, whenever required.
23. “Referral” shall refer to a process where a duty-bearer,
within the juvenile justice and welfare system, endorses the CICL
to the appropriate service providers for appropriate care or
intervention. ‘Referral’ includes the endorsement of the victim
for appropriate assistance and intervention.
24. “Victimless Crimes” refers to offenses where there is no
private offended party.
The CICL shall enjoy the rights laid down in the Act and these Rules,
and shall enjoy the protection of the other laws, whenever applicable
from the first time that the child comes in contact with the Juvenile
Justice and Welfare System.
Taking Custody of a Child Without a Warrant.

The law enforcement officer or a private person taking into custody a
child in conflict with the law without a warrant shall observe the
provisions in Sections 5, 8 and 9 of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, and shall forthwith deliver the child to the nearest
police station. The child shall be proceeded against, in accordance with
Section 7 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Procedure for taking a Child into Custody.
Page 12 of 16
MODULE:
From the moment the child is taken into custody, the law enforcement
officer shall faithfully observe the following procedures, as provided
in Section 21 of the Act:
(1) Properly identify oneself and present proper identification to
the child.
(2) Immediately notify the child’s
parents or guardians, the Local Social
Welfare and Development Officer (LSWDO),
and the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) of
the child’s apprehension. The
notification shall be made not later than
eight (8) hours after apprehension.
(3) Explain to the child, in simple
language and in a language or dialect,
which the child can understand:
a. The reason for placing the child
under custody;
b. The offense allegedly committed;
and
c. The child’s constitutional rights
and the child’s rights under Republic Act
7438 or An Act Defining Certain Rights of
Person Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial
Investigation as well as the Duties of the Arresting, Detaining
and Investigating Officers, and Providing Penalties for Violations
Thereof [R.A. 7438]. If the child cannot understand the language or local
dialect or suffers from disability, an interpreter or a mental health
professional shall be provided.
(4) Determine the age of the child, in accordance with the
guidelines provided in Rule 37.b herein.
(5) Take the child immediately to the proper medical or health
officer for a thorough physical and mental examination. Whenever medical
treatment is required, steps shall be immediately undertaken to provide
the same.
(6) Immediately but not later than eight (8) hours after
apprehension, turn over the custody of the child to the Local Social
Welfare and Development Office or other accredited NGOs. However, in
cases where the child is fifteen (15) years old or below, the law
Page 13 of 16
MODULE:
enforcement officer shall immediately release the child to the custody
of the child’s parents or guardian, or in their absence, the child’s
nearest relative, upon assessment and recommendation of the Local Social
Welfare Development Officer, in accordance with Rule 36.a herein.
The above procedure must be followed, in strict observance of the
prohibitions provided in Section 21 of the Act and in RULE 32 herein,
while the child is in the custody of a law enforcement officers.
A child in conflict with the law shall only be searched by a law
enforcement officer of the same gender, as prescribed in Section 21 of
the Act.
It is the duty of the enforcement officer to refer the child to the LSWDO
for the determination of discernment as provided under Rule 38.
Duty of Law Enforcement Officer When Interviewing the Child

The law enforcement officer may
interview a child for the purpose
of determining the child’s
personal circumstance including
among others, his or her name,
name of his or her parents, the
child’s date of birth, and home
address.
No law enforcement officer shall
compel any child to make any
statement or provide any
information that might incriminate the child. The law enforcement officer
shall have the duty to inform the child of his or her rights under the
Constitution and under RA 7438.
Any statement or information made by the child referring to the crime
shall require the presence of the following persons provided in Section
22 of the Act:
(1.) The child’s counsel of choice or in the absence thereof, a
lawyer from the Public Attorney’s Office;
(2) The child’s parents, guardian, or nearest relative, as the case
may be; and
(3) The LSWDO.
Page 14 of 16
MODULE:
The law enforcement officer from the Women and Child Protection Desk
shall conduct the interview of the child.
Where the Case Shall be Referred

After the initial investigation, the law enforcement officer shall
determine if the case of the child shall be referred to:
(1) The LSWDO for intervention in accordance with Sections 20, 20-
A and 20-B of the Act and PART IX of these Rules if the child is:
(a) Fifteen (15) years old or below; or
(b) Above 15 but below 18 years of age and acted without
discernment.
(2) Diversion, in accordance with Section 23 of the Act and PART X
of these Rules, to be administered by the:
(a) Law enforcement officer, if the child is above 15 but below 18
years of age, acted with discernment, and allegedly committed an offense
with an imposable penalty of not more than six (6) years of imprisonment;
or
(b) LSWDO, if the child is above 15 but below 18 years of age,
acted with discernment, and allegedly committed a victimless offense
with an imposable penalty of not more than six (6) years of imprisonment.
(3) The Prosecutor or Judge, if the child is above fifteen (15)
but below 18 years of age, acted with discernment, and allegedly
committed an offense with an imposable penalty of more than six (6) years
of imprisonment.
The report on the initial investigation, as required under RULE 27, shall
state where the case shall be referred to, and the basis for such
disposition, which shall include the following information:
(1) The nature of the offense allegedly committed by the child;
(2) The corresponding imposable penalty for the commission of the
offense; and
32 (3) Where the case of the child shall be referred in the event of an
assessment that the child acted with discernment, as provided in RULE
38.
Turn Over of Custody
Page 15 of 16
MODULE:
In all cases, the law enforcement officer shall turn over the physical
custody of the child to the LSWDO within eight (8) hours from
apprehension, as required under Section 21(i) of the Act. The physical
custody of the child shall be transferred to the LSWDO, even if the law
enforcement officer has not yet exhausted all measures to determine the
age of the child under Rule 35.b and even if the initial investigation
under RULE 27 has not yet been terminated.
After the physical custody of the child is turned over, the LSWDO shall
then explain to the child and the child’s parents or guardians, the
consequences of the child’s act with a view towards providing counseling
and rehabilitation; diversion from the criminal justice system; and
whenever appropriate, obtaining reparation for the victim or victims; as
required by Section 21(i) of the Act.
In the event that a child whose custody is turned over by the law
enforcement officer is fifteen (15) years old or below, the LSWDO shall
take all measures to release the child to the parents or guardians, or
to any of the persons or organizations provided in Rule 38.b herein, and
proceed with the development of appropriate diversion programs, as
provided under Part VII of these Rules, except in cases covered under
Section 20, Section 20-A and Section 20-B of the Act.
Detention
A child in conflict with the law shall
never be locked up in a detention cell,
such as the barangay lock-up, police
station lock-up, jails managed by BJMP,
provincial jails and other similar
facilities, but shall only be placed in a
“Bahay Pag-asa” or youth care facility.
References:
• BJMP: https://www.bjmp.gov.ph/
• JJCW: https://jjwc.gov.ph/
Page 16 of 16

OLCPCAD1 (Compressed)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

OLCPCAD1 (Compressed)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MODULE:

At the end of this chapter the student should be able to:

• Understand the history of punishment and

THE CODE OF HAMMURABI

The Code of Hammurabi was one of the

One letter records his complaint of being forced to provide dinner

What Is the Code of Hammurabi?

At its top is a two-and-a-half-foot relief carving of a standing

In 1901 Jacques de Morgan, a French mining engineer, led an

There they uncovered the stele of Hammurabi—broken into three

The Code of Hammurabi includes many harsh punishments, sometimes

THE CODE OF UR-NAMMU

The Code of Ur-Nammu is the oldest surviving

Earlier law codes, such as the Code of Urukagina, are known to

As for the Code of Ur-Nammu, the first copy of

Creator of the Code of Ur-Nammu

The Code of Ur-Nammu has been attributed

The Code of Ur-Nammu begins with a prologue, which is a standard

“If (Insert Crime), Then (Insert Punishment)”

The laws in the Code of Ur-Nammu follow a set pattern, i.e. If

Those who committed offences that were less serious in nature, on

At the end of this chapter the student should be able to:

• describe Jeremy Bentham’s ideas of utilitarianism and

Galileo’s Early Life, Education and Experiments

Galileo Galilei was born in Pisa in 1564, the first of six

Galileo, Telescopes and the Medici Court

In 1609 Galileo built his first telescope,

In 1616 the Catholic Church placed Nicholas

Galileo’s laws of motion, made from his measurements that all

An influential early classical theorist was the British philosopher

Bentham expounded a comprehensive code of ethics and placed much emphasis

INFLUENCES OF THE CLASSICAL SCHOOL

Beccaria’s groundbreaking essay strongly influenced the first ten

• the punishments inflicted should be just severe enough to

Beccaria also presented convincing arguments for imprisonment as a

At the end of this chapter the student should be able to:

• Understand the history of punishment and

Cesare Lombroso was born in Venice,

Lombroso’s Study of a Criminal’s Brain

M. E. Wolfgang, “Cesare Lombroso,” in Pioneers in Criminology, H. Mannheim,

Enrico Ferri was born in Mantua, Italy, in 1856. His dissertation,

✓ The born or instinctive criminal, who carries from birth, through

Ferri Believed in Social Reform

multiform reality of things.” Ferri expressed interest in Lombroso’s

• physical (race, climate, geographic location, seasonal effects,

For Ferri, the positivist school cultivated a “science of

At the end of this chapter the student should be able to:

• describe Cesare Beccaria’s ideas of the social

Cesare Beccaria, a major contributor to the classical school of

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY CRIMINAL LAW

Secret accusations were in vogue and persons were imprisoned on

The preceding description applies to

Beccaria’s Proposed Reforms

Beccaria’s specific suggestions for a system of criminal justice based

Source: C. Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishments, translated by H.

SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY

Beccaria’s blueprint for reform had its roots in social contract

PLEASURE, PAIN, AND PUNISHMENT

Beccaria believed that punishment should be based on the pleasure/pain

John Howard was born in Hackney, in east London in

In 1773, he was appointed high sheriff of

Howard's concerns led to two 1774

While examining Russian military hospitals, Howard contracted typhus