International University of Sarajevo

Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Faculty of Law

MODELS OF PRISONS
RESEARCH PAPER FROM CRIMINAL LAW I

Professor: Students:
Dr. sci. Ena Kazić – Çakar Adna Smajić
Dejna Kreštalica

Sarajevo, October 2022

 Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 3

THE HISTORY OF THE PRISON .................................................................................................... 4

THE FIRST MODELS OF THE PRISON ......................................................................................... 7

PRISON REFORM AND DEVELOPMENT THROUGH PRISON SYSTEMS ............................... 8

3.1. DEPORTATION SYSTEM ............................................................................................................. 9

3.2. JOINT PRISON SYSTEM ............................................................................................................ 11
3.3. CELLULAR SYSTEM ................................................................................................................. 12
3.4. SYSTEM OF SILENCE ................................................................................................................ 13
3.5. CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ........................................................................................................ 13
3.6. MAKONOCKI’S SYSTEM ........................................................................................................... 14
3.7. ENGLISH PROGRESSIVE SYSTEM ............................................................................................. 15
3.8. IRISH PROGRESSIVE SYSTEM................................................................................................... 16
3.9. REHABILITATION SYSTEM ....................................................................................................... 17
3.10. REINTEGRATION SYSTEM ...................................................................................................... 18

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS' INFLUENCE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRISON

MODELS .......................................................................................................................................... 19

MODERN PRISON SYSTEMS' BASIC CHARACTERISTICS AND TENDENCIES .................. 20

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 22

BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................................. 23
 INTRODUCTION

The last phase of the criminal justice process, which begins with the commission of
offenses, their investigation, the arrest of suspects, their custody, trial, and sentencing, is
imprisonment. The way the criminal justice system manages offenders influences the size of the
prison population, which has a considerable impact on how prisons are maintained. A facility for
the incarceration of people who have been remanded in custody by a legal authority or who have
been deprived of their liberty after being convicted of a crime is simply the definition of prisons
nowadays. Contrary to this definition we will see that the position and purpose of the prisons
throughout the history was not exactly the same as it is today. Throughout the history of
correctional philosophy and practice, there has been enthusiasm for new ways, dissatisfaction
with these approaches, and then replacement of yet another tactic. Many developments occurred
in the correctional system around the world. When a new concept fails, a new one takes its place.
People were imprisoned very early, even in the first organized human communities, as soon as
the conditions in such societies were developed to supply the required surplus food for prisoners.
Even the earliest laws recognize the prison as a means of isolating and restricting freedom of
movement. People. According to historical records, prisons existed in Mesopotamia, China,
India, Persia, Egypt, ancient Greece, Rome, and later in the Middle Ages when numerous
strongholds, cellars, wells, and other structures with intolerable living conditions were employed
as prisons. Prisons switched their emphasis from punishment to rehabilitation, then readmission
into society, and finally back to incarceration. As the requirements of the criminal justice system
and the times evolved, different prison concepts were developed in the intention of decreasing
crime rates. The medical model, the community model, and the criminal control model were the
three principal prison models that were established. Through our work, we will look back at the
very beginning of the use of the prison as well as its original purpose. We shall witness variances
in human thought that arise under the influence of different criminal schools, depending on the
demands of people at the time and criminal rate, through research and the connection of prison
systems. It is astonishing that modifying the prison paradigm had an effect on the mental health
of convicts, as well as exploitation in order to enhance the economic picture at the time.
Moreover, it is kind of bizarre to consider that in the past, the death penalty was more acceptable
than deprivation of liberty.

3
 THE HISTORY OF THE PRISON

Prisons existed in institutional form long before they were employed systematically as a
method of punishment. It was developed outside of the court system, at a period when processes
were being woven into the social fabric with the objective of separating, spatially arranging, and
tying persons to a permanent position, classifying them, and making the most use of their
strength and time. Before the law established prison as the main and most fitting punishment,
this broad kind of mechanisms for the subjugation, control, and exploitation of the individual
developed the model of the prison facility.
According to the oldest legal sources, imprisonment was still utilized in ancient Egypt
between 2050 and 1786 BC. The closure served a greater commercial purpose at the time,
limiting slave transportation. Even during the Roman period, people were imprisoned for debts,
and these prisons were known as "debt prisons" and were intended to enforce debt collection.
Debt slavery was also used in Greece and other nations. During the ancient time, the prison was
used to house those who were awaiting trial or the execution of one of the penalties, which
included death, exile, physical punishment, or property penalty. Depending on the reports,
Ulpian stated that "Prisons should only be used for protection, not punishment" (Carcet enim
adcontinendos homines non ad puniendos haberi debat). This approach was used throughout the
Middle Ages and much afterwards. Prisons, when viewed in this light, operated as "anterooms
for the execution of corporal and death sentences." (Atanackovic, 1988, p. 73.)
Even throughout the Middle Ages, imprisonment was not used as a form of punishment,
however there were certain signs that may lead to the conclusion that there were some
imprisonments that served as punishment in and of themselves. For instance, the well-known
medieval statute known as "Carolina" from 1532 permitted for life imprisonment. (Atanackovic,
1988, p. 73.) All of these penalties were sporadic, and there was no systematic restriction of
liberty penalty throughout the Middle Ages. It appears from the prison term, which was held in
the basements of city halls, municipal castles, and so on, according to city rights.
For most of Western history, punishment was dominated by a mix of execution and
physical punishment, rather than the prison as we know it today. Although "prisons" existed in
many jurisdictions, they were actually jails or local-level institutions designed to house a variety
of prisoners. Imprisonment existed, but only in rare circumstances, as a sporadic measure not

4
part of the punitive system. Death, corporal punishment, and property punishment were the
principal penalties, while restriction of liberty was not used. Prison conditions were
exceptionally harsh at the period, and it was thought that the death penalty was significantly
softer than life imprisonment since it outweighed the pain and suffering that those serving a life
sentence endured.
According to existing information, the first prison was established in 1553 in England, at
Bridwell Castle in London, which was transformed into a prison for vagrants, idlers, and beggars
who endangered order and tranquility. Later, this prison was used to house inmates who had
perpetrated different crimes. A prison was created in Amsterdam quite rapidly, in 1559. This
prison housed vagrants and criminals, ushering in the period known as the Dutch system.
Imprisonment as a punishment was used as the number of crimes and offenders increased, and it
was also used for minor offenses during the 16th and 18th centuries owing to a scarcity of labor
for the demands of the local economy. Rape was punishable by imprisonment beginning in the
early 18th century, while murder may result in a life sentence in Denmark. (Stevanovic, 2012, p.
16)
From the 15th through the 17th centuries, most European countries swiftly developed
numerous institutions for the lodging of vagrants, beggars, and criminals, which arose on a large
scale as a result of migration from the countryside to the city. Later, in the first part of the 17th
century, these institutions began to differentiate. Some correctional facilities begin to accept
exclusively criminals, taking on the role of true penitentiaries for prisoners. In England, different
kinds of such facilities are established on this basis: penitentiaries and correctional institutions.
Vagabonds and beggars who could work and wanted to work were sent to criminal facilities,
whereas persons who could work but did not want to work were sent to correctional institutes.
Therefore, in the 16th and 17th centuries, incarceration arises "quietly" as a transitional
phase to 18th century confinement. Such institutions can be considered to have aimed to teach
the aforementioned types of people to fulfill certain duties, hence discouraging criminal activity.
It also includes the concept of correction and therapy as a humane reaction to previous prison
treatment and procedures. In addition to the natural sciences, philosophy advanced throughout
the 16th and 17th centuries, breaking away from scholastic constraints and religious obscurity.
Philosophers of the time, such as Bacon, Hobbes, Descartes, Grotius, Locke, Rousseau, and
others, did not deal explicitly with criminal law, but instead addressed some criminal-legal

5
issues, but they provided new philosophical foundations for the science of criminal law. They
established demands for criminal law reform in conformity with present scientific and social
developments, which were critical in this field.
As a representation of the new bourgeois-democratic government, Locke creates the
principle of legality in the criminal-legal field, according to which only the law may be the
foundation of punishment and that citizens' equality is realized in criminal law. It also
necessitates proportionality of the seriousness of the offense with the type and quantity of
punishment, along with a variety of other advanced principles in criminal law at the time. The
French philosophers Montesquieu, Rousseau, Voltaire, Diderot, Helvecius Holbach, Lametri,
and others made significant contributions to the development of criminal law in the 18th century,
speaking out against judicial arbitrariness, feudal absolutist criminal justice, and the cruelty of
religious intolerance and obscurantism in their works. They campaigned for the humanization of
the criminal justice system. (Stevanovic, 2012, p. 19)
Following the French bourgeois revolution, appropriate conditions were established for
the establishment of institutions for the implementation of penalties of deprivation of liberty
based on the declared ideas of the revolution's humanists and champions. For many years, the
objective of all prison reforms has been the humanization of prisons. The first "real" prisons
were built gradually throughout the course of the so-known "dark years" of the contemporary
criminal system's inception. The papal San Michele prison in Rome and the prison in Ghent,
Belgium was the most evocative to modern prisons. They were comparable to present facilities
for the execution of prison terms in that they employed prisoner categorization. Convicts spent
their sentences in solitary prison and collaborated. The primary purpose of incarceration is re-
education. (Kambovski, 2005, p. 866.)
Along with the emergence of the punishment of loss of liberty and its forms, the
mechanism of prison sentence execution was enhanced. The early prisons at which punishment
of deprivation of liberty was used, were marked by inhumanity, harshness in treatment, poor
sanitary conditions, a high level of criminal infection, and so forth. Only subsequently, with the
development of prison systems, especially progressive systems, did prisons become institutions
attempting to reform and rehabilitate convicts' conduct.
The campaign for prisoner rights, led by John Howard, who highlighted out the
unsustainable circumstances in prisons and urged reform of the criminal system in his book "The

6
State of Prisons" towards the end of the 18th century, had a significant impact on the reformation
of punishment and the prison system. The theories of John Howard were widely accepted across
the world. (Atanackovic, 1988, p.77) Through his publications and practical engagements, he
impacted other theorists and practitioners, including Elizabeth Fry, Jeremy Bentham, and others,
to impact the reform of the criminal system in Europe and the United States of America. Prison
reform was founded on the premise that the punishment of denial of liberty should result in the
convict's correction, not only isolation or intimidation. Modern prisons are completely opposite
from the first in terms of construction, scale, correctional programs, prisoner circumstances,
philosophy of punishment, treatment of convicts, and so forth.

THE FIRST MODELS OF THE PRISON

Toward the end of the eighteenth century, reform efforts that would result in anything
resembling a contemporary prison with its population confined to convicted criminals suffering
punishment while separated from the remainder of society by long-term detention in state-run
facilities appeared. Significant social, religious, economic, political, and demographic upheavals
occurred throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
In 1764, Beccaria authored a book against death penalty using new Enlightenment-era
political philosophy regarding man's and government's rights, along with preferences for logic,
reason, and rationality. Among his most crucial points was that capital punishment was indeed an
ineffective deterrence to crime. Death was employed for such a wide variety of misdeeds that
juries frequently shied away from finding plainly guilty offenders. He contended that a softer
punishment that is always implemented would be significantly more effective. To prevent the
perception of unduly harsh sanctions, officials should look for proportionality between the
punishment and the offence rather than harshness. (Rubin and Deflem, 2019, p. 5)
The next decade, John Howard authored a book pushing for considerable prison reform
from a less academic and more practical standpoint. Howard had repeatedly come into contact
with unpleasant, unsanitary, disease-ridden institutions in which inmates, including debtors were
malnourished, virtually or fully nude, and mistreated by their fellow inmates while touring
England's county prisons and obviously neglected by their jailers. In 1777, Howard advocated

7
for a new, healthier, and safer prison architecture that divided convicts by category and was
controlled by a higher type of prison guard. (Stevanovic, 2012, p. 21) While Beccaria addressed
to his readers' rationality, Howard appealed to their senses. The combination was especially
successful in America, as these tracts came in the middle of their revolution.
The requirement to construct constitutions and criminal laws provided opportunities for
the new governments to include Beccarian and Howardian demands. Pennsylvania's constitution
of 1776 asked for a reform in its laws "as quickly as possible," as well as punishments that were
"less sanguinary" and "more proportionate to the offense." It also asked for the establishment of
"houses" to "punish by hard work" all non-capital offenders. (Pennsylvania, 1776) Vermont,
Maryland, and South Carolina issued identical statements.
Three states approved the first state prisons in America between 1785 and 1794 as sites
of punishment for convicted offenders. Massachusetts authorized a state jail at a military fort on
Castle Island in 1785. The Castle Island prison was unique in that it was a state-run and state-
funded facility that would receive convicted criminals from all over the state, specifically,
anyone convicted to "confinement at hard labor," which typically would include relatively
serious offenders. Most notably, in 1794, Pennsylvania authorized Walnut Street Jail, a recently
reformed county prison in Philadelphia, to become its state prison. (Rubin and Deflem, 2019, p.
6-7)
Convicted criminals were to be segregated from debtors and vagrants, who would dwell
in a separate section of the institution, and males and women would also be separated. Prisoners
would be forced to work hard, but a tiny percentage, the most dangerous offenders would be
confined in solitary confinement in a "penitentiary house" on the prison grounds. By the mid-
1790s, three states had provided models for new proto-prisons facilities that still maintained a
striking similarity to colonial prisons but signified a substantial step toward the modern prison.

PRISON REFORM AND DEVELOPMENT THROUGH PRISON SYSTEMS

Penology has investigated various methods of execution of punishments of liberty

forfeiture throughout its growth route, however scientists disagree on the number of systems.
According to all accounts, this is a consequence of some methods of executing penalties of
deprivation of liberty not being used in all nations and at the same time, and a few of the systems

8
not having a wider application since they were not even acknowledged. Harsh criticism of the
common prison by experts in the disciplines of criminal law, criminology, and penology led to
the formation of a system in the implementation of the punishment of deprivation of liberty, led
by Howard and his supporters.
As the requirements of the criminal justice system and the times evolved, different prison
concepts were developed in the intention of decreasing crime rates in the whole world. The
medical model, the community model, and the criminal control model were the three principal
prison models that were established. The medical model is a correctional approach that assumes
criminal conduct is caused by social, psychological, or biological inadequacies that must be
addressed. This prisons concept intended to treat criminals' illnesses in the hopes that once freed,
the offender would be healed of their ailment and would not re-offend. The crime control model
underlines the importance of having an effective system, with the primary goal of suppressing
and controlling crime in order to maintain society secure and public order. Controlling crime is
more crucial to individual freedom under this concept. This model represents a more
conservative viewpoint. The crime control model would advocate for prompt and strong
punishment for offenders in order to protect society and guarantee residents are free of the threat
of crime.
Over a period of nearly six decades, the present system of executing criminal
punishments was classified into many systems, mostly based on the prevailing notion at the time.
Based on these insights, prison systems were divided into ten categories: Deportation system,
Joint Prison system, Cellular system, System of silence, English Progressive system, Irish
Progressive system, Makonocki's system, Classification system, Rehabilitation system and
Reintegration System. (Stevanovic, 2012, p. 23)

3.1. Deportation System

Deportation or exile can be viewed as a unique method of carrying out the sentence of
deprivation of liberty. The introduction of deportation as a sort of punishment had two primary
reasons, one is to protect the internal security of particular nations and to resolve the housing of
criminals and the other is to enable colonial settlement. The sole similarity between deportation
and the punishment of deprivation of liberty was that the criminal was denied the right and
freedom of travel and residence in a certain nation. Deportation, in essence, is not a penalty of

9
denial of liberty, but rather a punishment of removing the offender from a certain nation.
(Atanackovic, 1988, p. 65)
Deportation as a kind of punishment was adopted by England with a legislation in 1717,
and it remained the most enormous and significant punishment of the English courts, as well as
other countries such as France, Russia, and many others, until the middle of the nineteenth
century. The earliest English deportations took place in Virginia and East India. These were
prisoners condemned to the death penalty, which was inflicted at the time, and their sentences
were suspended promptly after their deportation, and they were given over to contractors who
had unfettered disposal of them. He was then condemned to deportation to another country for
7, 14, and 21 years. Fundamentally, the expulsion was intended to send workers to America,
where there was a perceived scarcity and demand. (Milutinovic, 1973, p. 460)
Following America's emancipation from colonialism, the most widespread deportation
occurred on the Australian continent, where criminals were forced to work in very arduous and
humiliating conditions. France embraced deportation as a method of punishment in the middle of
the nineteenth century, at a time when England was prepared to abolish deportation. The
criminals were initially transported to Guiana and the West Indian Islands, and then to New
Caledonia and other French territories. People sentenced to harsh labor or rigorous incarceration
were deported, and relegation was also used after 1885. (Stevanovic, 2012, p. 24-25) Relegation
is comparable to deportation in that it was declared after the execution of the main sentence and
that it was imposed to returnees and consisted of transferring the offender to the French colonies
after serving the term.
As a consequence, deportation represented a distinct manner of carrying out the penalty
of deprivation of liberty, with distinct features that distinguished it from other systems. There
was no activity to rehabilitate the deported criminals, that is, to modify their conduct, because the
penalty was deemed retaliation, and its execution as punishment for the committed unlawful act.
Although the convicts worked, it was not for the purpose of re-education, but as a component of
the punishment, and it was simply exploitation of the convicts. Deportation is regarded as one of
the methods of carrying out a sentence of deprivation of liberty, as it was in actuality. This is
notably true from the 17th century until the Second World War.

10
3.2. Joint Prison System

The joint prison system is the oldest method of carrying out a sentence of deprivation of
liberty, dating back to the prison reform movement in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
(Radoman, 2003, p. 105) This prison system is distinguished by the combined serving of all
convicted people' prison sentences, irrespective of age, gender, length of term, kind and intensity
of the crime, criminogenic traits of the personality, condition of health, and so on. All those
detained are housed in rooms in groups with no separation or grouping. Prisoners were treated
uniformly, with no individualization. It resulted in the criminalization of the bulk of previously
uncriminalized convicts, as well as horrific kinds of torture by the strong and adults against the
weaker and kids.
If we can speak of some benefits of this system, they include the fact that the joint prison
system is far more appropriate than the system of deportation and exile, as well as the fact that
convicts served their sentences collectively, which is much easier compared to complete
isolation in cells. Furthermore, this sort of structure permitted cheaper prison building, simpler
guarding of inmates from escape, and better organization of labor and employment of convicts,
resulting in lower prison maintenance expenses. (Popovic, 1968, p. 32)
Negative criticism of the common prison by criminal law, criminology, and penology
specialists headed by Howard in England, K. Wagnit in Germany, F. Ferey, and others resulted
in specific reform initiatives aimed at lessening the severity and improving life in prison. In
England, male and female criminals were separated, as were younger and older offenders, and
charity groups were founded to visit prisons. (Stevanovic, 2012, p. 28) Similar demands have
been raised in other nations, contributing to reform efforts in the domain of criminal punishment
enforcement.
Despite these reform concepts and efforts, as well as modest or considerable changes in
convicts' living circumstances, it is possible to conclude that the first prison reform was a failure.
The combined jail system was, without a doubt, the first structured governmental model
for dealing with offenders, and it represented the socioeconomic realities of the period.

11
3.3. Cellular System

Under the influence of the ideals of the period, important modifications were made in the
execution of prison sentences, and the prisons of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages also
served as a precedent, based on the example of certain new institutions. (Eliot, 1962, p. 489-490)
This approach began in America and quickly spread to several European countries. It was first
used in the United States in 1790, when it was decided to build a prison containing cells in
Philadelphia.
In consequence of this, the cell system is known as the Philadelphia or Pennsylvania
system. The creation of the cell system was the first substantial modification of the penalty of
deprivation of liberty. The 1818 statute mandates solitary imprisonment for all convicts, which is
described as a "miniature prison of its own." One of the most essential reasons for instituting this
system is to prevent prisoners from having a negative impact on one another. Proponents of the
cell system felt that the offender should be calmed down in the cell so that he might understand
his tough situation as a result of the crime he committed. It was a system of full seclusion
without employment in which the offender spent time in "grave silence" reading religious
material and reflecting on his crime in order to develop repentant habits and manners.
(Milutinovic, 1973, p. 467)
After the cellular system was established in America, the concept was soon extended to
Europe, first in Belgium, then to France, Hungary, Prussia, Sweden, Denmark, and other nations.
This is the first legally controlled system, and it was only with its foundation that the state began
to take a significant interest in the implementation of the judgment of deprivation of liberty.
(Atanackovic, 1988, p. 79) However, it was quickly discovered that the cellular kind of prison
has far more negative consequences than positives that are manifested on condemned prisoners,
and as a result of these deficiencies, the system of isolation of convicted persons was abandoned
as early as 1850. In any event, the cell system was the first step in modernizing the prison
system, and lessons learned from its implementation have long been employed in future
predictions and the creation of other, more contemporary systems, thus it made an undeniable
contribution to penological theory and practice.

12
3.4. System of Silence

The system of silence first arose in the United States of America, as a particular system
of executing penalties of loss of liberty, at the prison erected in Auburn (New York state) in
1823, and began to be implemented in 1824, earning it the name Auburn or Auburn system. This
system was created in response to strong criticism of the Pennsylvania system and a desire for
significant reform in terms of adapting to the demands of man as a social creature. (Cornil, 1955,
p. 175-187)
The principle of this system is the separation of convicts at night and the organization of
joint work throughout the day, with any conversation between convicts strictly prohibited, which
is why this system is known as the "silence system." Work in this system is being considered for
the first time as a way of re-educating criminals and professional training, despite the fact that
work is largely centered on extracting as much profit as possible. (Atanackovic, 1988, p. 80)
Convicted people were not allowed to communicate or even look at them, with the goal
of preventing criminal infection, which, given the absence of categorization, posed a serious risk.
In Europe, unlike in America, the Auburn system had far less effect than the Pennsylvania
system. It was implemented for experimental purposes in various European countries such
as Switzerland, England, France, Germany, and Denmark and lasted only until the introduction
of the progressive system. (Fuko, 1997, p. 230)
Critics claim that this method improves the situation of guilty people very little and that
the system's underlying idea, which has resulted in a significant number of abnormal types of
conduct, is incorrect. (Stevanovic, 2012, p. 34) One of the most significant flaws is the
prohibition on communication between convicts, which significantly complicated internal
organization and, as a result, increased cruelty in the treatment of prisoners in order to respect the
system's essence - the prohibition on communication between convicts.

3.5. Classification System

Since the categorization system initially debuted in Geneva in 1834, it is also known as
the Geneva system in professional circles. This technique was not extensively adopted and was
only accepted in a few Swiss prisons. (Popovic, 1968, p.34) The core of this method is that
criminals are divided into groups or departments based on individual characteristics like as age,

13
kind and duration of sentence, crime committed, degree of education, and other factors relevant
to working with convicts. Prisoners began serving their sentences in the cell section of the
prison, where they stayed for some time, and later served their sentences in the conditions of a
common prison, divided into groups based on the classification characteristics to which they
belong.
Only much later did the concept of categorization emerge, which was founded on
subjective criteria, namely, the prisoner's personal qualities, and which is far more nuanced in
analyzing the personality of the prisoner. The classification system featured forward-thinking
concepts and answers for the period, but it was swiftly abandoned due to a shortage of scientific
understanding in the areas that were expected to study and analyze personality, as well as the
strong traditionalism that is characteristic of prison systems. (Stevanovic, 2012, p. 35-36)

3.6.Makonocki’s System

Makonoki's approach represented a change in prison sentence execution at a period when

prison sentences were carried out in the most violent and merciless manner. This model of
imprisonment emerged during the period of deportation in England that used deportation as a
form of punishment for the longest time. (Popovic, 1968, p. 37) This technique was used for
convicted criminals who were deported from England to Australia and committed additional
crimes while there. These individuals were sent to Norfolk Island. This jail was controlled by
Captain Aleksandar Makonocki of the Royal Navy, who invented a unique method of carrying
out prison terms, hence the name of the system. Makonocki's concept was to encourage prisoners
to work independently, to compete for job outcomes, and therefore contribute to better relations
within the convict collective. He transformed the whole sentence for each criminal into points to
accomplish this. The criminal is liberated after he has collected the number of points equivalent
to the amount of the punishment.
Convicts worked and lived under severe control and discipline throughout the first phase.
At the conclusion of that period, the convicts were permitted to form smaller groups of five to
seven persons and work together, coordinating events within the prison and taking care of all key
living activities. That time constituted the system's second phase. The group shared a certain
number of points that were derived from the daily earnings of points from which each participant
was subtracted for meals and disciplinary penalties. The purpose of this phase was for the

14
prisoners to realize the significance of the group. The groups were disbanded in the last step,
known as the "individualization stage," and each prisoner was committed to criminal work but
otherwise free. He was given his own house and garden, as well as room for raising small
livestock. This system had aspects of a progressive system since it was founded on the premise
that criminals gradually better their situation and advance towards freedom through their own
governance and labour. (Atanackovic, 1988, p 85) This method also included components of a
behavioral approach, which was, of course, unknown at the time. Notwithstanding the intriguing
concept, the social realities of the period did not allow it to be accomplished in reality.

3.7. English Progressive System

In the middle of the nineteenth century, new calls for dramatic reform of the existing
penal system arose. The so-called "Progressive System" was devised in the creation of a new
system that would meet all the standards established prior to the punishment. (Kupcevic, 1972, p.
101) The primary concept behind this approach is to allow the criminal to better his status in
prison while serving his term depending on his activity and behavior. It is named progressive
because it is constructed in such a manner that the convict's situation in prison is always
improved, namely, he is constantly making advancement in terms of the regime within which he
serves his sentence. (Atanakovic, 1988, p. 81)
The progressive system's basic premise was to give the convict control over his own fate
by rewarding him with a more favorable regime in exchange for hard labor and improved
behavior. The English version of the progressive system was used in prisons where criminals
were serving extended terms in 1853. The punishment was carried out in three stages: solitary
incarceration, concurrent service, and conditional release. The length of each of these phases was
determined by the length of the sentence, the convict's behavior, and the prison administration's
evaluation. (Stevanovic, 2012, p. 40) The first phase of the English progressive system is
distinguished by the extreme isolation of criminals in the cell type, with no interaction with other
inmates or the outside world permitted. Work was required, and discipline was strictly enforced.
The second part is the period of serving the sentence together, in which the guilty persons
work and live together during the day and are separated in their cells at night. During this era,
criminals were categorized into individual groups and departments that afforded major
advantages and rewards, which motivated the convicts. Convicts who were categorised by

15
classes or groups could not mix. The third stage was parole, which signified the highest level of
privileges that the offender might acquire. This stage was required, and parole was not the
convict's right, but the opportunity he deserved.
The English progressive system was motivated by the concept of having a constructive
impact on convicts in the direction of their re-education and resocialization. Of course, in in
addition to several positive qualities, the English progressive system did not significantly change
the convict's personality, and it largely associated only adjustment to the established mechanisms
of the system's functioning rather than the convict's desire to truly change his behavior and
habits.

3.8. Irish Progressive System

The Irish progressive system is an improved and polished version of the English
progressive system, which is likewise based on the premise that convicts are driven to change
their conduct and strive, at their own pace, to obtain more favorable circumstances and regimes
in prison. The distinction between this system and the English progressive system is that, in
response to the perceived flaws of the abrupt shift from the period of serving the sentence to
release on parole, a new phase of freedom was established. Thus, the Irish progressive system
comprises four phases: isolation-loneliness, serving the sentence together, referral to the
freemen's department, and parole.
The English Captain W. Grofton, a member of the Commission for the Review of Penal
Institutions in Ireland, founded the Irish progressive system. (Umicevic, 1938, p. 54) The free
phase was carried out at the freelancers' section, which was located outside the prison. The
inmate is not subject to any particular supervision and, to a large measure, organizes his
activities and lifestyle. In this approach, the Irish system granted the criminal greater freedom
while also conducting trials to determine if the convict had grown sufficiently after serving part
of his sentence to be released. (Stevanovic, 2012, p. 43)
The progressive system, as adapted in this fashion, has demonstrated substantial good
features, which are evident in the ability to individualize and differentiate convicts based on their
traits and displayed conduct, activity, and willingness to accept re-education and change.
Experience has demonstrated that the progressive system provided a substantial contribution to
the development of penology in specific social situations and at a certain degree of scientific

16
understanding, but current knowledge and demands need a new response to criminal
perpetrators.

3.9. Rehabilitation System

By overcoming the repressive concept of punishment in criminal policy and penology,

conditions were formed for the realization of the idea of the subjective side of the problem, that
is, of the perpetrator whom punishment, particularly deprivation of liberty, should resocialize
throughout its execution. (Boskovic and Radoman, 2002, p. 74) The technique of implementation
of the sentence of loss of liberty became an universal issue that the international community had
to address throughout time. The approach, which is based on re-education and rehabilitation of
prisoners, strives to teach criminal perpetrators to respect societal values and standards, to
behave creatively in social life, and thus to become valuable members of society. (Milutinovic,
1973, p. 489)
Besides prison terms, the criminal system is evolving to include probation, suspended
sentences, fines, security measures, educational and disciplinary measures, and serving a
sentence of deprivation of liberty is increasingly addressed through parole. In all phases of
treatment, the rehabilitation idea demands beginning with the offender of the crime from his
personality. The period following World War II, that is, after the UN's adoption of the Minimum
Rules for the Treatment of Convicts, can be considered a period in which re-education and
possible rehabilitation were unquestionably believed in and represented an ideal in which
penologists believed. (Stevanovic, 2012, p. 46-47)
Re-education services are introduced and strengthened in the domain of prison system
organization, educators, psychologists, social workers, social pedagogues, psychiatrists,
criminologists, and other professional profiles are included in the work with convicts. Convict
labor is viewed as a method of re-education, with the employment becoming less exploitative
and more rehabilitative in nature. Furthermore, the health service becomes a very essential part
in the running of the prison system since, in addition to treating sick inmates, it also plays a role
in disease prevention and thorough management of prisoners' health conditions.
As a result, many prisons across the world, in terms of their amenities such beds, living
rooms, dining rooms, schools, sports grounds, libraries, movie halls, workshops, and their

17
equipment, resemble micro social communities that are similar to the mood that prevails in an
open society.
The rehabilitation concept's fundamental ideas are as follows: first, individualization of
the treatment of prisoners in the re-education process in line with their psychological,
educational, moral, and physical features. (Boskovic and Radoman, 2002, p. 119) Secondly,
humanism and legality in the treatment of prisoners, with regard for their dignity and human
rights, and finally, preparation of convicts for involvement in the social society following release
from prison. (Stevanovic, 2012, p. 49)
The decision to conceptually introduce the rehabilitation prison system into the
nomenclature of prison systems is based on the recognition that the concept of re-education and
rehabilitation necessitated an entirely new approach to most issues concerning the execution of
criminal sanctions. On the other hand, a substantial number of researchers found in their studies
on the effectiveness of therapy that resocialization is ineffective, which is shown in the increase
in crime and recidivism.

3.10. Reintegration System

The examination of the efficacy of criminal rehabilitation indicated that the notion of re-
education and rehabilitation generates virtually no effects in the correction of criminal conduct,
and that the rate of crime and recidivism rises to worrisome proportions year after year. The
contemporary proponents of re-education are increasingly becoming the most radical proponents
of non-re-education and non-rehabilitation.
Today, the majority of criminologists think that rehabilitation is not an acceptable reason
for incarceration (History of American Penal System, 2004, p. 3), since none of the approaches
to rehabilitation worked to the level planned. If there is a consistent notion in today's correctional
philosophy, it is the reintegration of offenders into society. Although it frequently refers to the
process of returning an offender from a penal institution to the community, it also includes any
attempt to facilitate conflict resolution, such as providing an opportunity for victim
compensation, instilling a sense of responsibility through community service, or enabling
treatment aimed at eliminating or mitigating the cause. (Konrad, 2005, p. 4) Such a concept also
necessitated the adaptation of the prison system to the concept of "community correction."
(History of American Penal System, 2004, p. 5)

18
 Thus, in accordance with the reintegration concept's needs, new forms of social response
were established in the form of an alternative system of punishment, namely, penalties that
replaced the penalty of loss of liberty. It was proposed at the United Nations Congress in Milan
in 1985 to expand the network of semi-open and open prisons and to replace prisons with other
initiatives such as suspended sentences, court warnings, fines, and, most importantly, alternatives
to prison sentences and treatment outside the prison institution. (Boskovic and Radoman, 2002,
p. 88) Two penological topics were discussed at the Congress in Havana in 1990: "Criminal
policy in relation to the punishment of deprivation of liberty, other criminal sanctions, and
alternative measures" and "Results of research in connection with the application of alternative
measures of punishment of deprivation of liberty." (Stevanovic, 2012, p. 53)
Contemporary trends in prison system organization point to the increase of services that
focus on the preparation of the prisoner, his family, and the local environment in order to accept
and active the convict in the local community. One significant disadvantage of the reintegration
idea is that it is not actually applicable to all groups of offenders. Penologists now believe that
reintegration programs are a realistic prospect for crime prevention, and that they can be more
effective than present prison systems in addressing delinquent conduct.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS' INFLUENCE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF

PRISON MODELS

Because the entire world community is involved in preventing crime, international

organizations and professional associations have had a considerable impact on jail and prison
system reform. The rise in crime and the emergence of new forms of organized crime with
international elements, such as terrorism, drug trafficking, kidnapping, trafficking in human
beings, human organs, and so on, necessitate international mechanisms to prevent crime, control
prisoners, and find new prison models that can have a greater and even more positive influence
on criminals.
The United Nations is without a doubt the most significant international organization
with the most authority, having had a dominant influence on the standardization of rules and the
adoption of unique, universal mechanisms in the fight against crime through its specialized

19
institutions and commissions. The United Nations decided to adopt worldwide preventative
measures in 1948. Ever since, they have been creating a broad and rather efficient activity inside
the area for social defense. In addition to the UN, a number of international and regional
organizations, professional organisations, and specialized institutions are involved in crime
prevention, and their operations are developed independently of particular countries.
The international community, in collaboration with its institutions and worldwide
professional groups, has created a set of rules that UN members are required to follow and
implement into their laws and penological practice. The following are extremely essential acts:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, the Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and many others. Aside from the
aforementioned international legal criteria for establishing and administering criminal penalties,
a number of texts issued by the UN General Assembly are also relevant, but without a
technically legally binding nature. (Milutinovic, 1973, p. 442)
Unfortunately, despite considerable accomplishments in the field of criminal science, no
viable types of offender treatment that would produce adequate outcomes for all kinds of
offenders have been discovered. Even today, the participation of international and national
institutions, organizations, professional commissions, and associations has a considerable impact
on the design and drafting of criminal-legal and penological solutions. International
organizations, institutions, professional groups, and the media all have a great impact in
standardizing prisoner care in the prevention of crime. This effect is positively reflected in
altering conservative attitudes and stereotypes in and about prison, which is favourably reflected
in prison reforms and criminal-punishment ideas.

MODERN PRISON SYSTEMS' BASIC CHARACTERISTICS AND TENDENCIES

Under the impact of globalization and neoliberal ideals, as well as increasingly prevalent
neoconservative views regarding effective punishment and the role of criminal justice in crime
prevention, theoretical understandings emerging from risk theory emerge. Their effect in the
sphere of criminal sentence implementation may be seen in the inception and development of the
so-called new prudentialism and new penology. The fundamental concept of new prudentialism
is the need to "neutralize" maladaptive or criminogenic persons so that they do not harm society.

20
Criminal punishment and the imposition of prison sentences are just two of the cautious
measures used to reduce the danger of crime. The moral component is reduced to risk assessment
and a logical analysis of the costs, benefits, and consequences of the actions performed, initially
in terms of crime prevention and now also in terms of therapeutic success. (Mrvic, 2007, p. 181-
182)
In recent decades, the phrase "new penology" has been increasingly popular, referring to
the belief that modern punishment is increasingly focused on risk management and differs
dramatically from previous understandings of punishment. By using punishment, the state tends
to limit the dangers that exist in a modern "risky" society, striking a suitable balance between jail
costs and societal benefits through a new approach to management. When it comes to the
expenses of prison systems, there is rising worrying evidence indicating the costs of prison
systems are increasing year after year, to the point where it is becoming a major difficulty in
most affluent nations to give funding for regular operating through the budget or in other ways.
(Stevanovic, 2012, p. 195-196)
In such sociopolitical and economic circumstances, the prison system was forced to
abandon its prior philosophy of comprehending the execution of the sentence of loss of liberty
and redefine the entire notion of the execution of criminal penalties. Such an approach confirms
the understanding that punishing individuals by depriving them of their freedom is ineffective as
a way of teaching them to live in freedom. Even now, when important efforts are continuously
performed in the process of humanizing conditions, democratizing interactions, and
permissiveness in dealing with condemned individuals, the aims of such treatment are not clearly
defined, as evidenced by a failed resocialization process.
The statistics on the number of inmates in the world's 214 sovereign countries best
demonstrate the gravity of the situation when it comes to criminality and working with criminals.
According to figures from national statistical agencies or relevant ministries for prison systems,
more than 9.25 million people were imprisoned worldwide in 2006. Many penologists have
identified negative trends and crisis signs in prison systems in recent decades. This is applicable
not only for transitional countries, but also for developed countries with extensive prison
systems, which have major operational issues. (Stevanovic, 2005, p. 581-582)

21
 CONCLUSION

All through the history of the development of prison concepts, there have been variances
in both the approach to convicts and the outcomes. From the outset, we could observe prison
systems in which the person's healing and genuine prevention of reoffending were subordinated
to the economic interests of exploiting inmates as workers. On the other hand, in later
development, worker exploitation fades into the background, and focus is devoted to the mental
health and re-education of inmates. At the time, the primary purpose of serving a prison sentence
was to prepare the inmates for reintegration into the society. In the face of a serious problem in
prison operations, modern prison systems are abandoning the notion of prisoner rehabilitation
and re-education in favor of a more daring managerialist approach to prison administration. In
recent decades, the "new penology" has advocated the view that prison administration is, in
reality, risk management, and that it differs dramatically from previous ideas of punishment and
the execution of custodial sentences. The inefficiency of social mechanisms in the fight against
crime, the increasing number of convicts serving long sentences, complex political and economic
conditions, a large number of local wars, and so on, as well as the inefficiency of the prison
system, all influence the increase in crime and thus the increase in the number of prisoners, to the
point where there is nowhere to house them. There is no Western European country that does not
have more convicts than it can handle. Looking worldwide, prison systems are evolving in two
directions. One route embraces and promotes the notion of reintegration, which shows itself in
the building of a growing number of open, semi-open prisons and different open-type
settlements, as well as the implementation of correctional programs. The second route involves
the use of retributive measures against inmates who have committed the most heinous crimes
that pose a major societal risk on a national and worldwide scale. Special attention is made in all
international and national actions to the respect and preservation of prisoners' human rights, and
their rights are limited only to the amount necessary by the stated sentence. However, modern
design and construction are not always related with improving administration and operations,
lowering overcrowding, or rehabilitating inmates. Unfortunately, when we look at the current
circumstances, we can recognize that, despite so much expertise and progress, the prison picture
of today does not provide entirely favorable consequences.

22
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Atanackovic, D. (1988) Penologija, Naucna knjiga, Belgrade.

Boskovic, M., Radoman, M. (2002) Penologija, Novi Sad.
Cornil, P. (1955), La peine de prison, Reviue internationale de criminologije et de police
technique, Geneve.
Eliot, M. (1962) Zlocin u savremenom drustvu, Sarajevo.
Fuko, M. (1997) Nadzirati i kažnjavati, Biblioteka Theoria, Novi Sad.
Kambovski, V. (2005), Kazneno parvo, opšti dio, II izdanje.
Konrad, J. (2002) Justice and the Modern Penal System, from
https://directionjournal.org/15/1/justice-and-modern-penal-system.html
Kupcevic-Mladenovic, R. (1972) Osnovi penologije, Svjetlost, Sarajevo.
Martinson, R. (1974), Questions and anwers about prison reform, from
https://www.gwern.net/docs/sociology/1974-martinson.pdf
Milutinovic, M. (1973) Kriminologija, Savremena administracija, Belgrade.
Mrvic-Petrovic, N. (2007) Kriza zatvora, Pravna biblioteka, Belgrade.
Popović, V. (1968), Sistem izvršenja kazni lišenja slobode u Jugoslaviji, Beograd
Radoman, M. (2003), Penologija i sistem izvršenja kriviĉnih sankcija, Pravni fakultet u Novom
Sadu, Novi Sad-Belgrade.
Rubin, A. and Deflem, M. (2019) History of the Prison, from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330335915_History_of_the_Prison
Stevanović, Z. (2005), Mogućnosti i ograniĉenja izgradnje savremenog zatvorskog
Sistema,Belgrade.
Stevanovic,Z.(2012), Zatvorski sistemi u svetu, Institut za kriminološka i sociološka istraţivanja,
Belgrade.

23