Prisons and Imprisonment An Introduction Cormac Behan All Chapter

Prisons and Imprisonment: An
Introduction Cormac Behan

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/prisons-and-imprisonment-an-introduction-cormac-be
han/
An Introduction
CORMAC BEHAN & ABIGAIL STARK

Prisons and Imprisonment
Cormac Behan · Abigail Stark
Prisons and Imprisonment

An Introduction
Cormac Behan Abigail Stark
School of Social Sciences, Law, and School of Justice
Education University of Central Lancashire
Technological University Dublin Preston, UK
Dublin, Ireland
ISBN 978-3-031-09300-5 ISBN 978-3-031-09301-2 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09301-2
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2023
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction
on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in
this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names
are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general
use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and
information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication.
Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied,
with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have
been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.
Cover credit: eStudio Calamar
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Contents
1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Why Prisons and Imprisonment?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Outline of the Book. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4 Using Prisons and Imprisonment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.5 A Note on Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.6 Geographic Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.7 Prisons, Imprisonment and Society. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
References/Further Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Part I Punishment and Prison

2 The Prison Emerges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2 Punishment Before the Prison. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3 The Search for the ‘Model’ Prison Begins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.4 From Imprisonment to Confinement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.5 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3 Justifying Imprisonment as Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.2 Justifying Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.3 Retributivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.4 Consequentialism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.5 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
v
vi Contents
4 Who Is Punished?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.2 A Place for the Most Dangerous and Violent Law-Breakers?. . . . . . 52
4.3 The Unequal Distribution of Punishment and Imprisonment . . . . . . 54
4.4 The Ripple Effects—Further Marginalising the Marginalised?. . . . . 63
4.5 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Part II Understanding the Experiences of the Prison

5 Life, Culture and Adaptation in Prison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
5.2 Power, Relationships and Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
5.3 The Origins of Prison Culture—Deprivation vs. Importation. . . . . . 78
5.4 A Universal Culture for a Single Prison Community?. . . . . . . . . . . . 88
5.5 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
6 The Gendered Nature of Imprisonment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
6.2 Gender, Punishment and Confinement of Women. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
6.3 Imprisonment of Women in a Global Context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
6.4 Who Are the Women Being Imprisoned?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
6.5 Women’s Experience of Imprisonment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
6.6 Masculinity and Imprisonment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
6.7 The Imprisonment of Transgender People. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
6.8 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
7 Prisoners and Protest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
7.2 Structure, Agency and Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
7.3 Uprisings, Strikes and Disturbances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
7.4 Prisoners’ Rights Movements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
7.5 Resistance: Outside and Inside. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
7.6 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
8 Prison in Popular Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
8.2 Prisons and News Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
8.3 Prison Films and TV Drama. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Contents vii
8.4 Documentaries as a Window into Life Inside?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

8.5 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Part III The Penal Framework

9 Prisoners’ Rights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
9.2 Punishment and Civil Death. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
9.3 Human Rights and Imprisonment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
9.4 Prison Rules and Prisoners’ Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
9.5 ‘Rights on the Books’ and ‘Rights in Action’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
9.6 Prisoners and Civil Rights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
9.7 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
10 Governing Prisons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
10.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
10.2 Prisons and Social Order. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
10.3 Prison Rules and Daily Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
10.4 Regime and Routine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
10.5 Oversight, Monitoring and Legitimacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
10.6 Self-Governance and Social Order. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
10.7 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
11 Working in Prison. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
11.2 The Demographics of Prison Staff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
11.3 The Role(s) of a Prison Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
11.4 Staff-Prisoner Relationships and Prison Work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
11.5 The Working Conditions and Challenges of Prison Work. . . . . . . . . 203
11.6 Prison Officer Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
11.7 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
12 The Architecture of Incarceration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
12.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
12.2 Symbolism and Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
12.3 International Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
12.4 Place and Space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
12.5 Improving the Penal Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
viii Contents
12.6 New Prisons—Old Philosophies? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

12.7 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
Part IV Politics and Penality

13 Comparative Penology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
13.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
13.2 Imprisonment Worldwide. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
13.3 Assessing Punitiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
13.4 Comparing Penal Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
13.5 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
14 The Future of the Prison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
14.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
14.2 The Possibility of a Better Prison: Arguments for Reform . . . . . . . . 258
14.3 The Limitations of Reform and the Case for Prison Abolition . . . . . 262
14.4 A World Without Prisons? The Barriers to Abolition . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
14.5 Alternatives to Prisons and Imprisonment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
14.6 Reflecting on Your Reading so Far: Where Next for Prisons
and Imprisonment?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
Part V Researching Prisons and Imprisonment

15 Prison Research: Methods, Approaches and Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
15.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
15.2 Prisoners on Imprisonment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
15.3 Telling Their Own Story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
15.4 The Prison Researcher. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
15.5 Evaluating Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
15.6 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
Appendix 1: Prisoner Autobiographies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
Appendix 2: Online Resources for Researching Prisons
and Imprisonment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
Glossary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
Abbreviations
ACA  American Correctional Association

ACLU American Civil Liberties Union
BAME Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic
BPP Black Panther Party
CPT European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment
CR Critical Resistance
CSC Close Supervision Centre
ECHR European Convention on Human Rights
ECtHR European Court of Human Rights
EPR European Prison Rules
FNP Foreign National Prisoner
GRC Gender Recognition Certificate
HMICFRS His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue
Services
HMIP His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons
HMP His Majesty’s Prison
HMPPS His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service
HMPS His Majesty’s Prison Service
HMYOI His Majesty’s Young Offender Institution
ICPR Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
IEP Incentives and Earned Privileges
IMB Independent Monitoring Board
IPP Imprisonment for Public Protection
IRA Irish Republican Army
ix
x Abbreviations
IWOC Incarcerated Workers’ Organising Committee

IWW Industrial Workers of the World
JLS Jailhouse Lawyers Speak
KPI Key Performance Indicator
LGBT Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender
LWOP Life Without Parole
MOJ Ministry of Justice
NPA National Prison Association
NPM National Preventative Mechanism
OPCAT United Nations Optional Protocol on the Convention Against
Torture
POA Prison Officers Association
P-NOMIS Prison National Offender Management Information System
PPO Prisons and Probation Ombudsman
PRI Penal Reform International
PROP Union for the Preservation of the Rights of Prisoners
PRT Prison Reform Trust
PSI Prison Service Instruction
PSO Prison Service Order
ROTL Release on Temporary Licence
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
TC Therapeutic Community
UN United Nations
UNDHR Universal Declaration on Human Rights
UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services
UNSMR United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of
Prisoners
VPU Vulnerable Prisoner Unit
WHO World Health Organization
WSPU Women’s Social and Political Union
List of Figures
Fig. 13.1 Comparative imprisonment rate 2022 (per 100,000)

(Source: Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research
[2022]) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
Fig. 13.2 Incarceration in the United States of America
(Source: Institute for Crime and Justice Policy
Research [2022]) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
Fig. 13.3 Comparing US States (Source: Sentencing
Project [2021b]) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
Fig. 13.4 Imprisonment in Norway (Source: Institute for Crime
and Justice Policy Research ([2022]) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
Fig. 13.5 Imprisonment in England and Wales (Source: Institute
for Crime and Justice Policy Research [2022]) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
xi
Introduction
1
Chapter Outline
This chapter will:
• Introduce the book, Prisons and Imprisonment.

• Outline the unique characteristics of the book.
• Consider the use of language around prisons and imprisonment.
• Set out the geographic scope of the book.
1.1 Introduction
This book is about prisons and imprisonment. Historically, prisons and impris-
onment have been a source of interest to the general public. Despite limited or
no public access to them, prisons continue to attract attention and engage our
consciousness today. Although there is near universal acceptance of an institu-
tion that represents our society, the reality of life behind bars is rarely revealed in
news reports, ‘real life’ documentaries, dramas, films and social media commen-
taries. Using academic scholarship, empirical research, government papers, pol-
icy reports, and accounts from lived experiences of the institution, this book will
examine prisons and imprisonment. It will sketch out the history of punishment,
consider the objectives of imprisonment, explore the complexities and contradic-
tions of prison life, analyse the place of prison in twenty-first century society, and
examine its prospects for the future.
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

Switzerland AG 2023
C. Behan and A. Stark, Prisons and Imprisonment,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09301-2_1
2 1 Introduction
1.2 Why Prisons and Imprisonment?
The power to punish is one of the primary demonstrations of the authority of

the modern state. Over time, different methods of punishment have become the
dominant means of sanctioning people, and today, punishment varies in differ-
ent countries. In Western society, by the end of the nineteenth century, imprison-
ment began to be seen, to varying degrees, as a natural, taken-for-granted, even
common-sense response to some types of deviant activity. Although many people
today might find it hard to imagine punishment without prisons, this book will
examine, and challenge readers to consider if prison is an effective, equitable and
justifiable method of dealing with law-breakers.
As the prison is now firmly established and plays a central role in the different
options available for punishment, this book aims to:
• Critically consider the theoretical foundations of imprisonment;

• Examine the social world of the prison and the sociology of prison life;
• Investigate the place of the prison in popular culture;
• Locate the institution within its wider social, political and cultural contexts;
• Encourage readers to engage in discussions about the use of imprisonment;
• Lay the foundations for readers to pursue further research on prisons and
imprisonment.
As you progress through this book, a few conclusions about prisons and impris-
onment will become clear. Firstly, there is a wide range of institutions that are
called prisons. These institutions differ in their purpose, levels of security, regime,
daily routine and architectural design. Despite this, they all share one common
objective—the secure confinement of those they house. Secondly, there is no sin-
gle characteristic that defines a prisoner, other than their confinement. Therefore,
people have different experiences of imprisonment. Similar to the study of all
human activity, the same life event or circumstances may be experienced differ-
ently, for a variety of reasons, including age, gender, race, creed, socio-economic
position and life history. These characteristics impact on a person’s experience
within the criminal justice system and, depending on where a prisoner serves
their time, this can influence their experience of imprisonment. Thirdly, the use
of imprisonment, and who is imprisoned reflects the society in which the prison is
situated.
This book is more than a study of prisons and imprisonment. As the use of
punishment, in particular imprisonment, reveals something deeper about the
social, cultural, economic and political environment in which it is located, it is
1.3 Outline of the Book 3
also a study of society. ‘The aims of prisons cannot be divorced from the char-
acteristics of the societies in which they take root’, according to O’Donnell
(2016: 48). He argues that: ‘Local legislative and policy contexts, together with
societal values and community sentiment, play a critical role’. Throughout the
book, the connection between the prison and society will be emphasised. Similar
to other public institutions, all that goes on therein (even if they are run by pri-
vate industry) is done in the name, and on behalf of, the state and society. Crewe
(2009: 9) reminded his readers that prisons are institutions ‘whose dynamics are
rarely exposed, even though they reveal important dimensions of state practice
and authority’. Throughout the book, we will use the study of prisons to reveal
characteristics of the criminal justice system, and uncover how state practice and
authority is exercised.
1.3 Outline of the Book
This chapter defines the parameters of the book. It begins with the aims and
objectives, outlines the scope and emphasises the importance of language in stud-
ying prisons and imprisonment. Beginning with Chapter 2, Part I examines con-
tinuities and changes in the history of imprisonment, as well as the theoretical
dimensions of the prison, including the philosophies of punishment. Chapter 2
outlines the history and development of the prison as an institution. With the
modern prison emerging in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, it
was argued by those who championed the institution that it was a more humane
form of punishment than the cruel and brutal practices that preceded it. Chapter 3
sketches out some of the debates around the justification/s for punishment. It
analyses several of the controversies about the objectives of prison. Chapter
4 examines the demographics of those who are sent to prison. This indicates a
remarkable similarity over time, and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, with a dis-
proportionate number of people imprisoned around the world from minority and
marginalised communities.
In Part II, the focus is on prison life: the varied experiences of incarceration,
including its portrayal in popular culture and representation in the media. Chapter 5
examines the sociology of prison life. Within this chapter, the ‘classics’ of prison
research will provide the reader with a more in-depth understanding of the social
world behind bars. Chapter 6 considers the role of gender in shaping experiences
of imprisonment. The prison is a highly gendered institution, experienced dif-
ferently depending on one’s gender, and impacting the performance of gendered
identities for imprisoned people. Chapter 7 examines prisons and protests. This
4 1 Introduction
includes an examination of resistance from those who were politicised outside and
others who became politically conscious inside prison. Chapter 8 concludes this
part by looking at the depiction of the prison in popular culture. The reality of the
institution usually stands in stark contrast to the common portrayals that are medi-
ated through drama, film and popular accounts. It draws attention to inaccuracies/
distortions in representation in order that readers can distinguish between accurate
(if indeed there is a unified, single authentic reality) and sensationalised portray-
als of prisons and prisoners in film and on television. These representations are
significant, not for their authenticity or accuracy, but for how they permeate into
popular consciousness, and may even provide justification for the existence of the
prison.
Part III analyses various frameworks within which the prison operates.
Chapter 9 on prisoners’ rights examines what rights people lose (and perhaps
should keep) on incarceration, beyond the denial of liberty. Chapter 10 on gov-
erning prisons examines prison rules, prison conditions and minimum accept-
able standards set out in various international documents, such as the United
Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Man-
dela Rules) (UNODC 2015). Chapter 11 surveys the emerging body of research
into the experiences of prison officers. The form of any building can indicate its
function, and Chapter 12 examines how different architectural designs of prisons
reflect the ideological perspectives of penal policymakers.
Part IV of the book will consider political ideologies and penal policies. Chap-
ter 13 considers the use of imprisonment in a global context. Examining the USA,
Norway, and England and Wales, it considers how the treatment of prisoners
reflects social, economic, political and cultural contexts. Chapter 14 examines the
future of the prison and the debates on reform and abolition. It assesses if the
prison can be a place of reform, and outlines alternative models of imprisonment.
It considers if the prison is an inevitable and indeed, permanent feature of mod-
ern society, or if there is a potential for a future without prisons.
The final section deals with researching prisons and imprisonment. Chapter
15 outlines some of the methods that can be used, and the materials and sources
available, for researching prisons. With limited access to closed institutions, it
offers some ideas on how to undertake further study of penology as you progress
through the book, and after you have finished reading it.
As you read through this book, remember the central themes include ques-
tions around the objectives of imprisonment, what activities are labelled deviant,
who is criminalised and imprisoned, and why penal policy and prison systems
differ. We encourage readers to reflect on an institution that has emerged to take
a prominent place in our understanding of punishment in the western world in
1.4 Using Prisons and Imprisonment 5
twenty-first century society. While it has become an institution with a significant

social, economic and political role, Morris and Rothman in The Oxford History of
the Prison (1998: xi) conclude that ‘it is apparent that Western societies typically
carry expectations of the prison that are unreal or contradictory’.
Finally, instead of considering the use of imprisonment solely within a crim-
inal justice framework, we try also to reflect on its use within a social justice
context. As we argue in this book, the prison does not operate in isolation from
the society in which it is located. It reflects wider social, economic, political and
cultural characteristics. As the criminal justice system does not operate in a neu-
tral manner, we challenge readers to reflect on the various elements of a system
that leads to a disproportionate number of people from minority and marginalised
communities ending up in prison. Imprisonment has a major impact on the lives
and prospects of individuals, along with significant detrimental consequences for
their families and communities. Therefore, we argue that we need to critically
think about the role and functioning of prison from a social justice perspective.
1.4 Using Prisons and Imprisonment
The aim of this book is to introduce some of the key issues around prisons and
imprisonment. Written for students of penology and the general reader, it is
intended to stimulate your interest and introduce some of the essential themes to
understand the subject. As outlined earlier, the chapters cover a range of topics,
and each is accompanied by a reference list/further reading to allow you to delve
more deeply into these issues. Each chapter begins with an outline and concludes
with a summary of the main points dealt with in the chapter. Throughout each
chapter, there are questions to consider, and an activity at the end to be used to
reflect on some of the central ideas dealt with in your reading. Spotlights high-
lighting key topics are contained within each chapter. A glossary providing an
explanation of specific terms is included at the end of the book. Each term in the
glossary is indicated in bold throughout the text.
In studying penology, try to avoid sensationalist accounts which only rein-
force stereotypes of prison and prisoners. As you read through this book, try to
go beyond the vision of the prison we have all seen dramatised on television or
at the cinema. These representations seldom reflect the complexity of prison life
and rarely incorporate the perspectives of those who have spent (or continue to
spend) time incarcerated. Popular versions of prison life that ignore, sensation-
alise, or sometimes disparage the voices of people who have direct experience
of imprisonment can present a skewed portrayal of the institution. As with any
6 1 Introduction
academic study, you should try to read as many reputable sources as you can, to
endeavour to get a rounded picture of the prison. Further, we should be careful
about foregrounding one perspective in narrative/s about the prison. This is par-
ticularly important in studying the experience of imprisonment, as many times
those who have direct experience of serving time in the institution can be silenced
in the ‘hierarchy of credibility’ (Becker, 1967: 241). Read with a critical eye, and
be careful not to take portrayals of prisoners and prisons at face value, even from
official and/or government sources.
1.5 A Note on Language
Penology is the study of punishment. It concerns not only the nature of these
sanctions, but questions their utility, impact and outcomes. As with all social
sciences, language use in penology is contested. Various names have been, and
are currently employed to describe places of confinement. These include house of
corrections, asylum, jail, prison, borstal, penitentiary, reformatory, detention cen-
tre and correctional institution (Morris & Rothman, 1998; Ugelvik et al., 2020).
The names used can reveal the penal philosophy of policymakers and their expec-
tations of the institution.
Historically, the language used to describe prisoners has been dehumanising
(Cox, 2020). In official discourse from governments and policymakers, and infor-
mally in the media and wider society, a range of words are used: ‘offender’, ‘con-
vict’, ‘prisoner’, ‘criminal’, ‘felon’ and other, more pejorative terms. Language
is powerful because it influences not only how society views an individual, but
the ‘words we use to refer to people predispose us to act towards them in a dif-
ferent way’ (Scott, 2014: 412). In many jurisdictions the discourse around pris-
oners is negative, indicating their exclusion and detachment from society. They
have become ‘othered’ (Garland, 2001). Othering prisoners labels them as differ-
ent from the rest of society, and reduces people to labels associated with their
imprisonment or past crimes. Further, it can also lead to an individual internalis-
ing a negative identity and can be counter-productive if the objective is desistance
from criminal activity and re-entry into society (Maruna, 2001). Even after serv-
ing their time, the prison follows them: individuals move from the label of ‘pris-
oner’ to ‘ex-prisoner’, from ‘convict’ to ‘ex-convict’. As Jahmaine, a person with
lived experience of the criminal justice system, argued in a discussion in Proba-
tion Quarterly (2021): ‘Language needs to be kept as neutral and respectful as
possible, otherwise it can make people feel not worthy and lead to reoffending.’
1.6 Geographic Scope 7
The term ‘offender’ has been controversial in the United Kingdom, with many
prisoners and scholars arguing that it should be removed from official and popu-
lar discourse, as it characterises the individual solely on the basis of their crime.
In 2016 the Scottish government, in its National Strategy for Criminal Justice,
encouraged government departments and partner organisations, when refer-
ring to former prisoners, to no longer use the term ‘offender’, but replace it with
the phrase ‘person with convictions’ or ‘person with an offending history’. The
Scottish government recognised that ‘defining people as “offenders” for the rest
of their lives, will not help to change their behaviours, or shift attitudes within
wider society’. They concluded: ‘We must be aware of the power of language
to facilitate or inhibit this process’ (Scottish Government, 2016: 14). HM Prison
and Probation Service in England and Wales in its 2021 probation reform pro-
gramme (2021: 4) stated that they ‘will also move away from the term “offender”
in those contexts where it is an unhelpful label, instead referring in this document
to supervised individuals or individuals’. Cox (2020: 4) has identified an increase
in destigmatising language in the US, and after studying the UN Nelson Mandela
Rules on the treatment of prisoners, she believes there is a ‘shifting global lan-
guage of imprisonment’, away from negative categorisation.
Despite these developments, there are still debates about the use of language
around prisons and people serving time in them, even amongst those who advo-
cate for more respectful language. Nevertheless, Cox (2020: 8) reminds us that
‘our choices and intentions with respect to language reflect a long and complex
history of struggle over the landscape of incarceration’. Many prison activists
and penal reformers reject the terminology of the state and penal authorities,
and campaign for a new language that recognises a person-first approach. While
we are aware of these debates, and accept that there is no neutrality in discus-
sions about prisons and imprisonment, for the purpose of this book, we will use
the word ‘prisoner’. We do this for the sake of brevity and the factual status of
imprisonment. However, throughout, we wish to remain sensitive to the dignity
and humanity of people serving time in prison, and would encourage readers to
do so as well.
1.6 Geographic Scope
With most research, higher level institutions, journals, resources and academics
located in the Global North (Carrington et al., 2019), this has led to a neglect of
Southern experiences of criminology (Carrington et al., 2016), while the growing
body of research available is not always published in English. This is particu-
8 1 Introduction
larly so with the social science subjects pertinent to our study—criminology and
penology. While it is changing, criminology is currently largely United States and
United Kingdom-centred (Ugelvik et al., 2020). In his study of life in an Ethio-
pian prison, O’Donnell (2019: 267) argued that our understanding of penology
‘tends to be rooted in research carried out in Europe and the United States’. As
the US has the largest incarceration rate in the world (Institute for Crime & Jus-
tice Policy Research (ICPR), 2022), it is perhaps understandable that there is con-
siderable research about its penal system. With England and Wales having one of
the highest rates of imprisonment in Western Europe (ICPR, 2022), it also has a
wide range of literature available about its penal system.
This book draws on literature, reports and data available in English, with a
primary focus on England and Wales. Therefore, much of the processes, language
and terminology that we use will be in this context. However, we will seek to
draw comparisons with other jurisdictions throughout, to better situate England
and Wales within the global context of imprisonment. While this book concen-
trates on research available in the English language, we are acutely aware that this
not only limits the scope but that there is research available in other languages on
the themes and subjects covered in this book. That we have not included studies,
policy analysis and research that is published in other languages reflects our own
lack of linguistic competency, rather than a judgement on their significance.
1.7 Prisons, Imprisonment and Society
Finally, before you embark on your journey studying penology, remember that
you are not just researching prisons and imprisonment, you are scrutinising a
society. Many criminologists (and indeed other commentators, as we will see
in this book) believe that the use of imprisonment reveals characteristics of the
treatment of minority and marginalised groups in society, who, throughout his-
tory, and in most (if not all) countries throughout the world tend to be dispropor-
tionately represented in the prison population. We argue in this book that how a
state defines crime, who it decides to punish and imprison, and how it treats those
it incarcerates can be used to examine any jurisdiction. As an activist with the
African National Congress, Nelson Mandela (1918–2013) was convicted of sab-
otage and attempting to overthrow the government. He spent 27 years incarcer-
ated in some of South Africa’s most notorious prisons, including Robben Island.
He later wrote: ‘No one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails.
A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens but its lowest
ones’ (cited in Green, 2013: 93).
References/Further Reading 9
Other people who have been imprisoned have recorded their experiences,
their views on the role of prison in society, and whether it achieves its objectives.
While you may agree or disagree with their views on punishment, and indeed
their perspectives on incarceration, their lived experiences provide frames of ref-
erence that help in our understanding of prisons and imprisonment and provide
perspectives that cannot be gained by those without this experience. These chal-
lenge us to reflect on the role, impact and usefulness of an institution that has
become embedded in western society. When you read this book, try to keep in
mind that the use of a particular form of punishment represents the social, polit-
ical, economic and cultural character of a society at a moment in time. As you
begin to engage in debates and discussion around the use of imprisonment as
punishment, consider what it says about how a state treats its citizens, and how
the use of punishment can be used as a baromter to judge a state and society. In
Western society, it seems that the use of prison has become embedded, not only
in the structures that house prisoners but in how society views punishment. How-
ever, always be mindful, as we will see in the next chapter, that the prison arrived
relatively late in human history as a form of punishment. We must therefore
understand its development, inquire into its objectives, continue to consider the
reasons for its existence, and even reflect on what, if any, is the future for prisons
and imprisonment.
Chapter Summary
• This chapter introduced the book and some of the themes in the study of
prisons and imprisonment.
• It is important to be sensitive to language usage when referring to people in
prison.
• Punishment and imprisonment must be understood in a wider social, politi-
cal and economic context.
• A study of prisons and imprisonment can reveal important characteristics
of a society.
References/Further Reading
Becker, H. (1967). Whose side are we on? Social Problems, 14(3): 239–249.
Carrington, K., Dixon, B., Fonseca, D., Rodriguez Goyes, D., Liu, J., & Zysman, D.
(2019). Criminologies of the global South: Critical reflections. Critical Criminology,
27(1): 163–189.
10 1 Introduction
Carrington, K., Hogg, R., & Sozzo, M. (2016). Southern Criminology. British Journal of
Criminology, 56, 1–20.
Cox, A. (2020). The language of incarceration. Incarceration: An International Journal of
Imprisonment, Detention and Coercive Confinement, 1(1): 1–13.
Crewe, B. (2009). The prisoner society: Power, adaptation and social life in an English
prison. Oxford University Press.
Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary soci-
ety. Oxford University Press.
Green, R. (2013). Mandela: The Life of Nelson Mandela. Thomas Dunne Books.
Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS). (2021). The target operating model
for probation services in England and Wales: Probation reform programme. HMPPS.
Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research (ICPR). (2022). World prison brief. https://
www.prisonstudies.org/world-prison-brief-data (accessed on 19 January 2022).
Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. American
Psychological Association Books.
Morris, N., & Rothman, D. (Eds.). (1998). The oxford history of the prison: The practice of
punishment in Western society. Oxford University Press.
O’Donnell, I. (2016). The aims of imprisonment. In Y. Jewkes, B. Crewe, & J. Bennett
(Eds.), Handbook on prisons (pp. 39–54). Routledge.
O’Donnell, I. (2019). The society of captives in an Ethiopian prison. The Prison Journal,
99(3): 267–284.
Probation Institute. (2021). Probation quarterly: Guidance on the use of language. https://
static1.squarespace.com/static/5ec3ce97a1716758c54691b7/t/60d9c35377db-
0f12778bd351/1624884051251/Language+policy.pdf (accessed on 4 October 2021).
Scott, R. (2014). Using critical pedagogy to connect prison education and prison abolition-
ism. Saint Louis University Public Law Review, 33(2): 401–414.
Scottish Government. (2016). National strategy for community justice. Scottish Govern-
ment.
Ugelvik, T., Jewkes, Y., & Crewe, B. (2020). Editorial: Why Incarceration. Incarceration:
An International Journal of Imprisonment, Detention and Coercive Confinement, 1(1):
1–5.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) (2015). Standard minimum rules for
the treatment of prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules). UNODC.
Part I
Punishment and Prison
The Prison Emerges
2
Chapter Outline
This chapter will explore:
• Punishment prior to the emergence of the modern prison.

• How the modern prison retained some of the features of the old regime.
• Why the prison was designed to deter, punish, and reform.
• The birth of the modern prison in the United States and the United Kingdom.
2.1 Introduction
To study the history of punishment, we must examine the society in which it

occurred. To understand any society, we must consider who, why and how it pun-
ishes. Different methods of punishment reflect the characteristics of a society at a
moment in time. This chapter outlines some of the key approaches to punishment
prior to, and in the early years of the prison: from the 1700s to the 1900s. During
this time, there were significant developments in how society was governed in the
Western world, the birthplace of the modern prison, moving from monarchical
to democratic forms of governance. In economics, societies evolved from feudal-
ism to capitalism. In terms of punishment, these economic and political changes
had a knock-on effect on how deviant activity was conceptualised, law-break-
ing defined and subsequently punished. By the twentieth century, the prison had
achieved hegemony in the options for punishment in modern penality. Today, it is
the prison ‘on which the public imagination is mostly focused’ (Ryan, 2012: 22).
However, it was not always this way.

Switzerland AG 2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09301-2_2
14 2 The Prison Emerges
The modern prison dates back to the end of the eighteenth century. Before
then, confinement was generally used for a person awaiting punishment. The
denial of liberty alone was not considered punishment. This chapter begins by
looking at some examples of punishment in the past, prior to the more widespread
use of the prison. It then examines how the early advocates of the prison wanted
to leave behind the infliction of physical pain and replace the cruel and brutish
penalties with a more humane approach. They believed that they found their
solution in the prison: retribution, deterrence, containment and reform could be
combined in one institution. However, the prison was soon found wanting and the
next section of this chapter considers how, instead of dispensing with the prison,
advocates of this new form of punishment believed that with modifications, the
prison could be successful in achieving its aims and objectives. The final section
considers different forms of confinement.
2.2 Punishment Before the Prison
Prior to the emergence of the modern prison, there were places of confinement.
Potter (2019) dates the first royal place of confinement in England to Norman
times, with the building of the Tower of London. However, confinement alone
was not considered sufficient to sanction law-breakers. Punishments tended to be
more physical in character. They could be swift and barbaric, with pain inflicted
on the body. In stark contrast to the privacy of the prison, punishment was usu-
ally done in public, which had the added dimension of community humiliation. It
was employed as a warning to others, in the hope that it would deter them from
committing a crime (we will examine deterrence as an objective of punishment in
Chapter 3). A range of penalties was available that would be considered as cruel
and inhumane today, and contrary to human rights protections that exist (in aspi-
ration, if not in reality) in many jurisdictions throughout the world.
Before the widespread use of the prison, punishments included stocks and
pillory. These were normally wooden devices usually located in a town’s market
square. Stocks were used to punish lower-level offences, and the pillory for more
serious crimes. The person sat in the stocks and their ankles were locked into it.
A pillory was a similar device, with the distinction that the person stood, and their
head and hands were locked in place. Townspeople could throw rotten vegetables
or stones at those convicted of crimes (Emsley et al., 2022). While undoubtedly
an individual could be hurt in both stocks or pillory, the main purposes of these
forms of punishment were to publicly humiliate, and to act as a deterrence to
others. ‘For a respectable person, someone who depended on reputation to make
2.2 Punishment Before the Prison 15
his living’, writes McGowen (1999: 123), ‘appearing in the pillory in the very
place where he carried on business, must have been a terrible event’. There were
other forms of corporal punishment, including whipping for those convicted of
theft (Examples of some gruesome punishments can be found on the Old Bai-
ley online, with details not only of the punishments meted out, but fascinating
accounts of everyday life in London, from the late seventeenth to early twentieth
centuries: https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/).
By the end of the eighteenth century, 220 offences were punishable by death, a
sharp increase from the 50 capital crimes in 1688 (Knowles, 2015: 9). This period
has been described as the ‘Bloody Code’ due to the laws and punishment for
capital offences. These ranged from the ‘serious to the trivial to the bizarre, and
included: forgery; poaching; damaging Westminster Bridge; stealing items above
a certain value; associating with gypsies; cutting down a tree; being out at night
with a blackened face; and robbing a rabbit warren’ (Knowles, 2015: 9). As the
spectacle of the scaffold (Foucault, 1977) was central to the process of execution,
capital punishment by hanging was carried out in public, both as a punishment
and a deterrence.
During the Middle Ages, exile was used as punishment. A revised version of
exile was introduced in 1718 with the Transportation Act. This began transpor-
tation to the British Colonies in North America. It was introduced, according
to the Act, because punishments ‘have not proved effectual to deter wicked and
evil-disposed persons from being guilty of the said crimes’. There was also a con-
cern for labour shortages. The Act continued: ‘in many of his Majesty’s colonies
and plantations in America, there is great want of servants, who by their labour
and industry might be the means of improving and making the said colonies and
plantations more useful to this nation’. Morgan (1987: 416) found that from 1718
until transportation was effectively ended with the American War of Independ-
ence in the 1770s, only a minority were convicted of serious crimes. Those trans-
ported were ‘largely people who had resorted to petty theft during hard times. It
is therefore safe to conclude that the typical transport was young, male and poor
but not an habitual criminal’.
As the United States was lost to Britain with the Declaration of Independ-
ence in 1776, so too was the potential for transportation. The ‘Hulks Act’ of 1776
authorised confinement on decommissioned vessels in the Thames and else-
where. However, soon, due to increasing demand, hulks were located at various
locations, including Deptford, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Chatham and Woolwich.
Conditions on board were harsh, and with poor hygiene, disease quickly spread.
There was strict discipline, with those below deck often locked in irons. ‘Infrac-
tions were punished with flogging, extra irons and, for the worst offenders, con-
finement in the “black hole”’ (Digital Panopticon, 2022). Although the conditions
were regularly criticised, people detained in Hulks were soon used for labour on
public works projects. With the opening of new prisons and different locations
found for transportation, the reliance on Hulks began to be reduced, but their use
was not finally ended until 1857.
In 1784, a new Act was passed, for transportation ‘beyond the sea, either
within His Majesty’s dominions or elsewhere outside His Majesty’s domin-
ions’. Thus began the transportation of convicts to Australia. There were a num-
ber of punishments for people sent there for a period of time. On completion of
the sentence, those released on a Conditional Pardon were not allowed to return
home. Those released under Absolute Pardons could return or stay in Australia.
However, even when the sentence was complete, many of them did not have the
resources to return to the United Kingdom, and ended up staying in their new
‘home’ for the rest of their lives (Shaw, 1966).
The Age of Enlightenment in Europe led to major changes in society. Mir-
roring developments in wider society, punishment was changing too. Penal
reformers of this period believed that punishing the body was no longer useful,
or humane. Many of the philosophers of the Enlightenment were concerned with
the subject of punishment. Italian jurist, Cesare Beccaria (1738–1794) wrote On
Crimes and Punishments (1764) which still stands as one of the founding texts of
criminology. Beccaria argued that judicial torture should end, and he wanted to
abolish the death penalty.
With the emergence of early industrialisation and capitalism, the lack of a
work ethic was seen as a major deficiency in a law-breaker’s character. Many
who wanted to reform the system of punishment were inspired by Christian faith:
Idle hands, they believed, were the devil’s tools. Discipline, regularity and hard
work would engender reform in the wrongdoer. They wanted a system that while
punishing, was also educating the prisoner by instilling in them the monotonous
routine of labour, which they hoped would lead to their reformation. The modern
prison became the educational technique, as it was to be used for schooling in
industrious habits.
Measures dealing with the infliction of pain did not disappear suddenly, but
were only slowly abolished. The last sentence of branding at the Old Bailey was
handed down in 1789 (Emsley et al., 2022). In 1817, public whipping of women
was abolished. It was ended for men in the early 1830s, although it was not for-
mally abolished until 1862. (However, whipping was still permitted in prisons
until it was abolished with the Criminal Justice Act 1948. Corporal punishment
in prison was finally abolished with the passing of the Criminal Justice Act 1967).
Punishment in the pillory was abolished in 1837.
2.3 The Search for the ‘Model’ Prison Begins 17
In 1868, the Capital Punishment Amendment Act was passed which ended
public executions as concerns grew about social order surrounding this pub-
lic spectacle. However, the United Kingdom was not yet ready to abolish cap-
ital punishment and from 1868 when it was last carried out in public, until the
last hanging in 1964, executions took place behind prison walls (Knowles, 2015).
Transportation to Australia was abolished under the Penal Servitude Acts of 1853
and 1857. In replacing transportation, penal servitude—essentially imprison-
ment with hard labour—was introduced. It remained on the statute books until the
Criminal Justice Act 1948 (Cox, 2021).
In pre-prison times, punishments were harsh, even for minor crimes, but they
were ‘swift, salutary and far more effective and less expensive than locking peo-
ple up for prolonged periods’ (Potter, 2019: 14). The spectacle was important,
to demonstrate the power and authority of the ruler, and to act as a deterrent to
others who may be considering criminal activity. However, by the beginning of
the nineteenth century, both public displays of punishment and inflicting pain on
the body were deemed to be inhumane and ineffective. As part of the ‘civilising
process’, penal sanctions were changing (Pratt, 2002, 2011). No longer would the
body be punished. Reform and redemption would be found in punishing the soul
and the mind.
Question
• Why do approaches to punishment change?
2.3 The Search for the ‘Model’ Prison Begins
With the demise of public punishments and the moving away from infliction of
pain on the body, a new form of punishment and deterrence was deemed neces-
sary. As transportation from the United Kingdom ended, the prison began to be
used more widely. Instead of people being held for short periods of time in gaols
before real punishment, the denial of liberty using the metric of days, months and
years became an attractive alternative. However, there was not a smooth transi-
tion to this new form of punishment. As soon as the prison was created, problems
emerged. Several different approaches and regimes were tried out, as the criminal
justice establishment moved to utilise the denial of liberty, and the prison began
to be established as the central mode of punishment.
While the modern prison may have been seen as part of the Enlightenment
and the civilising process (Pratt, 2011), it was still an austere and harsh form of
punishment. Instead of simply replacing the delivery of pain to the body with
punishing the mind and soul, there were elements of the old regime in the new.
The treadmill was one such method. A civil engineer, William Cubitt created
the treadmill or treadwheel in the early 1800s (Peters, 2018). Prisoners stood on
a wheel and climbed, in a pointless action to stimulate the spirit of industry in
them. In some prisons, it could also be used to pump water or grind grain. Prison-
ers could spend up to ten hours a day on the treadmill and, in some instances, the
public spectacle endured, as the people outside the prison could watch them. With
an improved model developed in 1822, it was installed in many prisons (Hen-
riques, 1972). Some people advocated for their use, concerned that as bed and
board began to be provided in prisons for free (in the early institutions, prisoners
had to pay for their own food, etc.), poor people might commit a crime to get
access to prison. Therefore, they believed that some element of pain was essen-
tial to put them off committing a crime to get to prison (Peters, 2018). Even in
the era of Enlightenment, the punishment was severe. Eighteenth and nineteenth
century prison reformers, according to O’Donnell (2016: 45) ‘devised dietary
scales that ensured prisoners’ appetites were never sated while starvation was
kept at bay (just). They tallied the number of times the crank had been turned
and the treadwheel spun and adjusted the resistance so that these pointless exer-
cises brought prisoners to the brink of exhaustion but did not render them unfit
for the next day’s exertions.’ The use of the treadmill faded out towards the end
of the 1800s, as it began to be considered as torture, and concerns were expressed
about prisoners’ health. The Prisons Act 1898 effectively abolished the treadmill,
as well as creating restrictions on corporal punishment for transgressions of cer-
tain prison rules.
Amongst the first modern prisons to emerge in the United States and the
United Kingdom were penitentiaries. They were based on a cloistered system of
separation and silence. Inspired by the religious idea of spending time alone with
one’s maker, early prisons were designed to be places of silence and contempla-
tion. Prisoners engaged in hard labour in their cell, on the treadmill, or in work-
shops. Their only break from the monotony of the regime was the opportunity
(for those who were literate) to read or be instructed in Scripture. The objective
of this institution was punishment and moral reformation. In his study of the new
philosophy of punishment emerging in England between 1750 and 1850, Michael
Ignatieff (1978: 213) argued that the penitentiary ‘was conceived as a machine for
the social production of guilt’ which was hailed by the reformers, many of whom
were inspired by Christian ideals.
United States of America
On arrival in the United States, the European colonisers set out to destroy the
native way of life and began creating new political and social structures of gov-
ernance. After the United States declared its independence from British colonial
rule in 1776, a new country needed a new system of punishment. In 1829, the
first purpose-built penitentiary, the Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia was
opened. Charles Williams, convicted of burglary was described as ‘Prisoner Num-
ber One’. His details were recorded:
Light Black Skin. Five feet seven inches tall. Foot: eleven inches. Scar on nose. Scar
on Thigh. Broad Mouth. Black eyes. Farmer by trade. Can read. Theft included one
twenty-dollar watch, one three-dollar gold seal, one, a gold key. Sentenced to two
years confinement with labor. Received by Samuel R. Wood, first Warden, Eastern
State Penitentiary. (Eastern State Penitentiary, 2021)
Those who established the penitentiary were convinced that crime was the result
of moral failings of law-breakers and their environment. They believed that crim-
inality was a disease that could be spread from prisoner to prisoner. This neces-
sitated the separation of prisoners from each other for the entire period of their
prison sentence. Solitude would give prisoners the time and space to reflect on
their criminal activity and it would encourage them to become penitent, hence
the name, penitentiary. All contact between prisoners was prohibited. In order to
achieve this, masks covered the prisoners’ heads on the rare trips outside their
cell. Prisoners had their own individual exercise yard. Even contact with prison
guards was limited, and their meals were passed to them through a slit in the door
(Eastern State Penitentiary, 2021). This became known as the ‘Pennsylvania Sys-
tem’, or the ‘separate system’.
An alternative to this approach emerged, named after the prison of its origin in
New York, the ‘Auburn System’. It was also called the ‘silent system’. It enforced
silence at all times, but prisoners worked in groups during the day and were con-
fined to their cells alone at night. Prisoners were supposed to walk, eat and work
in complete silence. Those who were seen speaking or looking at each other were
punished with flogging (Henriques, 1972). In contrast to the ‘Pennsylvania Sys-
tem’, those who advocated for the ‘Auburn system’ believed that this would be
more effective in rehabilitating prisoners. It would inspire in them a work ethic
and personal discipline.
The prison system in America became a source of curiosity and study to many
Europeans. With new forms of incarceration establishing themselves, a ‘proces-
sion of British and European visitors came to America, saw and admired’ the
institutions (Henriques, 1972: 73). They returned home and took sides between
the separate and silent systems. In 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville and Gustave de
Beaumont undertook a visit to the United States on behalf of the French govern-
ment to study their prison system. Although the ‘Auburn’ and ‘Pennsylvania’ sys-
tems were different, both isolated prisoners which they believed could potentially
bring redemption. ‘Placed alone in the presence of his crime’, argued de Beau-
mont and de Tocqueville (1833: 27), ‘he learns to hate it: and if his soul is not
yet desensitized to evil, it is in isolation that remorse will come to assail him.
Solitude is a severe punishment, but such a punishment is merited by the guilty’.
They were more impressed with the isolation of prisoners than another visitor,
Charles Dickens.
Charles Dickens and the Prison

Although he was never sent to prison for a crime, Charles Dickens spent
some time in prison and was a keen advocate of penal reform. His father
John Dickens spent three months in the Marshalsea Prison, London in 1824
for failure to pay a debt. So porous were the institutions at the time that
Charles could breakfast with his father and the rest of the family, prior to
going to work each day. He returned to the prison each evening for dinner
before going home to his lodgings. These experiences had such a profound
impact on him that he wrote about debtors’ prisons in his novels, The Pick-
wick Papers and David Copperfield. In Little Dorrit, the main character,
Amy, is born in the Marshalsea (Scott 2020). When he went to America
in the 1840s Dickens was keen to visit the Eastern State Penitentiary. He
wrote a chapter about his visit in the account of his travels, American Notes
(1842: 84):
In its intention, I am well convinced that it is kind, humane, and meant for refor-
mation; but I am persuaded that those who devised this system of Prison Disci-
pline, and those benevolent gentlemen who carry it into execution, do not know
what it is that they are doing. I believe that very few men are capable of estimat-
ing the immense amount of torture and agony which this dreadful punishment,
prolonged for years, inflicts upon the sufferers; and in guessing at it myself, and
in reasoning from what I have seen written upon their faces, and what to my
certain knowledge they feel within, I am only the more convinced that there is
a depth of terrible endurance in it which none but the sufferers themselves can
fathom, and which no man has a right to inflict upon his fellow-creature. I hold
this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain, to be immeasurably
worse than any torture of the body…
Separation and silence, which today would be considered essentially solitary con-
finement, came in for much censure, with critics arguing that it was causing dam-
age to prisoners’ mental capacity. It may even be counter-productive to reform.
Therefore, throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, there were many
other attempts to create an institution that would both punish and reform. In Octo-
ber 1870, a National Congress on Penitentiary and Reformatory Discipline in the
United States met to discuss prison discipline, and the punishment of prisoners.
At this Congress, the National Prison Association (NPA) was established (later
to become the American Correctional Association). The Declaration of Principles
(cited in ACA, 2021) set out some of the objectives: ‘The treatment of criminals
by society is for the protection of society. But since such treatment is directed to
the criminal rather than the crime, its great object should be his moral regenera-
tion’. While in prison, the state had a duty to give the ‘convict an improved mind
and heart’ and ‘the capacity for industrial labor and the desire to advance himself
by worthy means’. However, society also had a further responsibility because,
‘having lifted him up, it has further duty to aid in holding him up’ after release
and not deny the ‘opportunity of earning honest bread’ (ACA, 2021).
Further attempts were made to modify and improve the new method of punish-
ment. Reformatories were established. Conditions within prisons were improved;
basic education was provided; in certain institutions, an element of prisoner
self-governance was trialled to improve the potential for reform (Gehring, 2021).
In 1913, although it was no longer being used, as the ‘system had broken down
decades earlier’, the Eastern State Penitentiary finally abolished the ‘separate
system’ of confinement (Eastern State Penitentiary, 2021). Henriques (1972: 93)
argued that, although it was a failure, the separate system was ‘the most serious
attempt to reform criminals made in the nineteenth century’. At this time, Euro-
pean legislators and penal reformers were also looking for a system of punish-
ment that did not involve the barbaric practices of pre-Enlightenment times.
United Kingdom
In 1779, the Penitentiary Act was introduced after campaigns by prison reform-
ers such as John Howard. According to the Penitentiary Act, it became neces-
sary to ‘amend the Laws relating to the Transportation, Imprisonment, and other
Punishment of certain offenders’. Two new penitentiaries were to be built—one
male and one female—to begin replacing the use of Hulks and as an alterna-
tive to transportation. Mirroring the American penitentiary system, there was to
be single cell accommodation, prisoners had to work and they were to receive
religious instruction. The preamble to the Act stated that it ‘might be the means,
under Providence, not only of deterring others from the Commission of the like
Crimes, but also of reforming the Individuals, and inuring them to Habits of
Industry’. Although the penitentiaries were not built according to the stipulations
in the 1779 Act, this was the beginning of a national prison system throughout the
United Kingdom, and it was the ‘most forward-looking English penal measure of
its time’ (Devereaux, 1999: 405).
John Howard and Penal Reform

John Howard (1726–1790) is considered as one of the founders of the
prison reform movement in the Western world, with penal reform organi-
sations in England and Wales, Scotland and former British colonies in New
Zealand and Canada named after him. After being appointed Sheriff of
Bedford, England in 1773, Howard decided to educate himself about pris-
ons by visiting institutions throughout England and Europe. He made sev-
eral suggestions for reforming prisons, including separating prisoners, their
classification, and paying jailers. At the time, many prisoners had to pay for
their own imprisonment. The objective of imprisonment was, he believed,
not just punishment, but reform and rehabilitation too. In keeping with the
Christian ethos, Howard believed that hard labour, religious instruction
and a regime of solitary confinement would be successful in reforming
law-breakers. In 1774, John Howard’s evidence to a parliamentary commit-
tee was instrumental in passing the Gaol Act, which sought to improve con-
ditions in prison. In 1777, he published the first edition of The State of the
Prisons in England and Wales (Howard League for Penal Reform, 2021).
One of the philosophers of the Enlightenment Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) put

forward an innovative design for a prison: the panopticon. Bentham’s prison com-
prised a circular structure, and at the centre was an inspection area in which a
prison officer could observe prisoners. As guards could observe each prisoner,
and the prisoner did not know if they were being watched, this would, it was
hoped, control their behaviour (Digital Panopticon, 2022). It became known as
the ‘all-seeing eye’. Bentham (cited in O’Donnell, 2016: 41) described the panop-
ticon as ‘a mill for grinding rogues honest and idle men industrious’.
In 1817, Millbank Prison opened in London—then the biggest prison in
Europe—on a regime of solitude, hard labour and a meagre diet. Initially, it was
to follow the design of Bentham’s panopticon, however, these plans were soon
abandoned. Millbank was to begin replacing the Prison Hulks. Although they
were still in use, they were increasingly being seen as no longer viable. Reflecting
the pride in the new institution, Millbank was seen to be ‘very much a national
resource, a prestige project rather more befitting an imperial Britain than the other
state resource, the dismal and decaying hulks’ (Potter, 2019: 188). However:
Unlike them it would be no transitory expedient but a permanent part of the penal
estate and the flagship. It had no problem in constituting its superintending com-
mittee from the great and the good. Dukes, bishops and members of parliament
were only too eager to be associated with this grand endeavour […] The country
was convinced that, straddling the twin objectives of individual reform and general
deterrence, Millbank was the answer to crime… (Potter, 2019: 188)
The new prison, despite being well-funded and lauded by the establishment, was
a failure (Turner, 2016: 242). There were problems with the construction, and
vast sums of money were spent to rectify these issues. Prisoners rioted about
the type of food, and between 1822 and 1824, 30 prisoners died from diarrhoea.
Disease led to the whole prison population being evacuated for a period (Wil-
son, 2002). Throughout its 74 years Millbank was, at various times, the National
Penitentiary housing men and women, a local prison, an institution for prisoners
awaiting transportation and a military prison (Ford, 2021). Despite these various
iterations of confinement, it was finally closed in 1890.
After campaigns for improvements in prison conditions by Elizabeth Fry and
other penal reformers, the Gaols Act of 1823 was passed. This Act hoped to cre-
ate comparable and improved standards in prisons throughout the United King-
dom and included reforms to prisons. It set out a system of classification. Male
and female prisoners were to be separated, with the latter to be guarded by female
officers. It introduced regular visits to prisoners by chaplains. Regulations on
health, hygiene, education and labour were introduced and alcohol was banned.
This Gaols Act 1823 was just one of many introduced, but political and financial
commitment was needed to improve conditions. Reformers demanded that inde-
pendent oversight and inspection be an integral part of the system (see Chapter
10 for modern-day equivalents). The beginnings of an inspection regime were
introduced with this Act, as gaols were to be visited by visiting justices at least
three times a year, with a report to be submitted to the Home Secretary annually
(Stockdale, 1983). The Prisons Act 1835 introduced independent inspectors who
made annual reports to the Home Office. This should have led to improvements in
penal conditions, but with only five inspectors and limited powers, the impact of
this Act was minimal.
In light of the problems with Millbank, the decision was taken to build a new
National Penitentiary, a ‘model prison’ in North London. Although not follow-
ing exactly Bentham’s panopticon, the objective of Pentonville Prison was to
keep prisoners isolated, with a central hall and four radiating wings which were
visible to staff at the administrative hub of the prison. Opened in 1842, Penton-
ville Prison followed the ‘Pennsylvania System’ at the Eastern State Penitentiary.
Thick walls were built in individualised cells to prevent their inhabitants from
communicating with each other. Silence was to be the norm and communication
between prisoners was forbidden. Prisoners were made to undertake work, such
as picking tarred rope and weaving. Prisoners were hooded when outside their
cells, they exercised in separate yards and even had separate stalls in the prison
chapel (Marland & Cox, 2021). Pentonville ‘operated “like a machine”, with
every minute of the convicts’ day from the first bell at 5.30 a.m. until lights out at
9 p.m., regimented, directed and observed in meticulous detail’ (Marland & Cox,
2021: 2, italics in original). Eight years later, built on a similar design, Mountjoy
Prison in Dublin, Ireland was opened. It was, according to newspaper reports at
the time, ‘the new Model Prison, one of the most complete structures of its class
in the British Empire’ (cited in Carey, 2000: 50).
Despite numerous Acts of Parliament and legislative innovations dealing with
prisons in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, all was not well in British pris-
ons. In 1895, the Report from the Departmental Committee on Prisons (which
became known as the Gladstone Committee Report) began ‘from the principle
that prison treatment should have as its primary and concurrent objects, deter-
rence and reformation’ (Gladstone Committee, 1895: para. 25). The Committee
recommended that the treadmill should be abolished and labour in association
be allowed in all prisons. Books should be made more widely available and
educational facilities extended (Cross, 1971: 5). The Report recommended the
classification of prisoners and concluded ‘that prison discipline should be more
effectually designed to maintain, stimulate or awaken the higher susceptibilities
of prisoners to develop their moral instincts’. It set an ambitious objective: ‘to
train them in orderly and industrial habits and whenever possible to turn them out
of prison better men and women, both physically and morally, than when they
came in’ (Gladstone Committee, 1895: para. 25).
By the beginning of the twentieth century, although moving from inflicting
pain on the body, punishment remained severe. Prison life was bleak. Food was
meagre, work was grinding, boring and hard. The delivery of pain by means of
corporal punishment was replaced primarily with the new mode of punishment.
As the prison emerged, no longer was a punishment to be delivered as part of the
public spectacle, it would now be carried out behind prison walls.
2.4 From Imprisonment to Confinement 25
Questions
• Which form of imprisonment was more humane: the ‘silent’ or the ‘sepa-
rate’ system?
• Which was the more ‘effective’ form of punishment?
2.4 From Imprisonment to Confinement
The modern prison, through its buildings, administration, regimes and technol-
ogies, hoped to engender change in those it confined (O’Donnell, 2016). By the
mid to late nineteenth century, the ‘prison had become the predominant form of
punishment in England and other Western societies’ (Jewkes & Johnson, 2006: 4).
The prison was now firmly established. This was not just in the bricks and mortar,
but rather it was seen as a natural or common-sense response to some types of
deviant behaviour. The denial of liberty spread as ‘prisons were exported as part
of the civilizing mission of the imperialist powers’ (Gibson, 2011: 1057). Other
places of confinement were established too. In recent years, research has been
undertaken into different institutions, such as workhouses, reformatories, bor-
stals and Magdalene homes which are now understood to have formed part of the
penal and welfare landscape (Ugelvik et al., 2020). New research examining sites
of ‘coercive confinement’ has found that although ‘some of them were ostensibly
directed at the welfare and reform of their inhabitants, they were usually experi-
enced as degrading, stigmatising and punitive places from which easy egress was
not possible’ (O’Donnell & O’Sullivan, 2020: 2). While other places and forms
of confinement are outside the scope of this book, coercive institutions have been
used to deal with people in poverty, migrants, people with mental health issues,
the vulnerable and those labelled ‘deviant’ (Bosworth, 2014; O’Donnell & O’Sul-
livan, 2020).
Today, prisons around the world come in many different forms, with diverse
approaches to punishment. While the prison remains an institution primarily for
people convicted for breaking the criminal law (although as we will see in Chapter 4
remand prisoners can be held for long periods of time), today there is a wide range
of institutions that are termed ‘prison’. The name may be the same, but the institu-
tions differ so widely, they may seem to have little else in common. Norvall Morris
wrote in The Oxford History of the Prison (1998: 202):
Prisons range in security from double-barred steel cages within high walled, elec-
tronically monitored perimeters to rooms in unlocked buildings in unfenced fields.
They range in pain from windowless rooms of close-confined, sensory deprived iso-
lation to work camps of no physical adversity whatsoever. There are “open prisons”
indistinguishable from farms and “prisoners” who spend their days working unes-
corted and unsupervised in the community; there are “weekend prisons” and “day
prisons”; there are “coeducational prisons” and there are prisons of grindingly dull
routine interrupted by occasional flashes of violence and brutality. There are prisons
with tennis courts and prisons where the only out-of cell exercise is an hour of pac-
ing an outdoor cage three times a week; there are prisons of excessively crowded
congregation and prisons of utter isolation. There are community-based pre-release
centres, called “prisons,” indistinguishable from workers’ hostels.
Some prisons have the traditional characteristics that we associate with the
institution: bars, uniforms, cells, strict routine, harsh regime and exacting rules.
At one end of the spectrum, there are various types of high-security institutions
called Supermax prisons in the United States, with features that distinguish
them from other institutions: they tend to be for long-sentenced prisoners and
those labelled dangerous; prisoners are held in effective solitary confinement
(cell confinement for up to 23 hours a day) with restricted communication with
the outside world and very limited programmes and educational activities (Sha-
lev, 2009). At the other end of the spectrum, there are some open prisons which
have few of the features that we associate with the modern prison: no locks on
doors, or bars on windows, prisoners wear their own clothes, officers do not wear
uniforms and the ultimate penal measure - no gate to keep a prisoner confined
against their will (James, 2005). We will examine different forms of imprison-
ment and different approaches in the treatment of prisoners in later chapters.
Questions
• How would you define a prison?
• How does a prison differ from other places of confinement?
2.5 Conclusion
This chapter has outlined how the prison emerged and developed. Advocates for
the use of prison believed that they had found in the institution a formula to pro-
vide retribution, and deter, punish and reform; it could become a place to instil
industrious habits in those it housed, sending them out into the world as produc-
tive members of society. The emergence of the prison normalised the denial of
liberty as punishment. It set down roots in its home countries, and other forms of
confinement were used alongside the prison. While the original objective of the
institution might have been moral reformation and instilling industrious habits,
2.5 Conclusion 27
questions were soon raised, about how, or whether these could be achieved in the
institution. The search for the ideal form of punishment, or the ‘model’ prison
continues. Whether it is possible to create a form of punishment to meet the
objectives of retribution, deterrence, incapacitation and reform will be explored in
the next chapter.
Chapter Summary
• The prison emerged in tandem with changes in wider society.
• Punishment moved from inflicting pain on the body to pain on the mind
and soul.
• Early modern prisons were used to instil industrious habits in those who
were considered morally deficient.
• The search for the model prison—that can punish and reform—began in
the early 1800s and continues today.
Activity
Read the Following Extracts:
‘Until 1783 most defendants actually executed were hanged at Tyburn (where Mar-
ble Arch stands today). Execution was a public spectacle, meant to act as a deterrent
to crime. Convicts were drawn in a cart through the streets from Newgate, and, after
they were given a chance to speak to the crowd (and, it was hoped, confess their
sins), they were hanged. Huge crowds were attracted to these events […] The con-
vict was placed in a horse drawn cart and blindfolded. The noose was then placed
around his/her neck, and the cart pulled away. Until the introduction of a sharp drop
in 1783, this resulted in a long and painful death by strangulation (friends of the
convicts often helped put them out of their misery by pulling on their legs). Some of
the most serious offenders were hanged near the place of their crime, as a lesson to
the inhabitants of that area’. Extract from ‘Punishment Sentences at the Old Bailey’,
cited in Emsley et al. (2022).
‘A UN human rights expert [Mr. Nils Melzer, Special Rapporteur on torture and
other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment] today raised concerns
about the holding of prisoners for prolonged or indefinite periods in isolation in
restrictive control units, known as Close Supervision Centres (CSC), calling on the
British Government to review and regulate their use.
[…] a life sentence prisoner has been kept in CSC [Close Supervision Centres]
units since March 2010, from the age of 23 […] According to the expert, “for the
past 11 years, he is being held alone in a cell for more than 22 hours a day, is not
permitted to participate in regular prison activities, receives his food through a
hatch, and does not even have a privacy screen when using the toilet inside his cell
[…] ‘Physical and social isolation for prolonged periods may cause severe mental
and physical pain or suffering. When used for more than 15 consecutive days, these
conditions of detention amount to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treat-
ment or punishment and, therefore, are neither legitimate nor lawful.’ Extract from
‘United Kingdom: UN expert raises alarm over abuse of Close Supervision Cen-
tres’, cited in United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
(2021).
After reading the extracts above, discuss the extent to which punishment has
become more civilised.
References/Further Reading
American Correctional Association. (ACA) (2021). Declaration of principles. https://www.

aca.org/ACA_Member/About_Us/Declaration_of_Principles (accessed on 20 June
2021).
Beccaria, C. (1764 [2009]). On crimes and punishments. G. Newman & P. Marongiu
(trans.) Routledge.
Bosworth, M. (2014). Inside immigration detention. Oxford University Press.
Carey, T. (2000). Mountjoy: The story of a prison. The Collins Press.
Cox, D. (2021). Fitted both morally and physically to fulfil his proper duties in the battle of
life?—The effectiveness or otherwise of penal servitude and imprisonment 1853–2021.
Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 60(SI): 47–55.
Cross, R. (1971). Punishment, prison and the public. Stevens and Sons.
de Beaumont, G., & de Tocqueville, A. (1833 [2018]). On the penitentiary system in the
United States and its application in France. E. K. Ferkaluk (trans.) Palgrave Macmillan.
Departmental Commitee on Prisons (1895). Report. (Gladstone Commitee Report). Depart-
mental Commitee on Prisons.
Devereaux, S. (1999). The making of the penitentiary act, 1775–1779. The Historical Jour-
nal, 42(2), 405–433.
Dickens, C. (1842 [2000]). American notes for general circulation. P. Ingham (Ed.) Pen-
guin.
Digital Panopticon. (2022). Convict hulks. https://www.digitalpanopticon.org/Convict_
Hulks#:~:text=The%20Hulks%20as%20a%20Form,and%20soil%20from%20its%20
shores (accessed on 12 March 2022).
Eastern State Penitentiary. (2021). Timeline. https://www.easternstate.org/research/histo-
ry-eastern-state/timeline (accessed on 21 September 2021).
Emsley, C., Hitchcock, T., & Shoemaker R. (2022). Crime and justice—Punishments at the
Old Bailey. Old Bailey Proceedings Online. http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/static/Pun-
ishment.jsp (accessed on 12 January 2022).
Ford, M. (2021). Thinking beyond the prison. Available at: https://www.crimeandjustice.
org.uk/resources/thinking-beyond-prison (accessed on 21 November 2021).
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. A. Sheridan (trans.)
Penguin.
References/Further Reading 29
Gehring, T. (2021). Our banner portraits: Prison educators and reformers. https://scholar-
scompass.vcu.edu/jper/ourbannerportraits.html (accessed on 20 June 2021).
Garland, D. (1990). Punishment and modern society: A study in social theory. Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Gibson, M. (2011). Global perspectives on the birth of the prison. American Historical
Review, 116(4), 1040–1063.
Henriques, U. R. Q. (1972). The rise and decline of the separate system of prison disci-
pline. Past and Present, 54, 61–93.
Howard League for Penal Reform (2021). The life and work of John Howard. https://how-
ardleague.org/john-howard/ (accessed on 21 October 2021).
Ignatieff, M. (1978). A just measure of pain: The penitentiary in the industrial revolution,
1750–1850. Macmillan.
James, E. (2005). The home stretch: From prison to parole. Guardian Books.
Jewkes, Y., & Johnston, H. (2006). Introduction: Prisons in context. In Y. Jewkes & H.
Johnston (Eds.), Prison readings: A critical introduction to prisons and imprisonment
(pp. 1–12). Willan.
Knowles, J. (2015). The abolition of the death penalty in the United Kingdom: Why it hap-
pened and why it still matters. The Death Penalty Project.
McGowen, R. (1999). From the pillory to the gallows: The punishment of forgery in the
age of financial revolution. Past and Present, 165(1), 107–140.
Marland, H., & Cox, C. (2021). Prisoners, insanity and the pentonville model prison exper-
iment. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/chm/research/current/prisoners/outputs/
pentoville_experiment.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2022).
Morgan, K. (1987). English and American attitudes towards convict transportation 1718–
1775. History, 72, 416–432.
Morris, N. (1998). The contemporary prison. In N. Morris & D. Rothman (Eds.), The
oxford history of the prison: The practice of punishment in Western society (pp. 203–
234). Oxford University Press.
Morris, N., & Rothman, D. (1998). Introduction. In N. Morris & D. Rothman (Eds.), The
oxford history of the prison: The practice of punishment in Western society (pp vii-xiv).
Oxford University Press.
O’Donnell, I., & O’Sullivan, E. (2020). Coercive confinement: An idea whose time has
come? Incarceration: An International Journal of Imprisonment, Detention and Coer-
cive Confinement 1(1): 1–20.
O’Donnell, I. (2016). The aims of imprisonment. In Y. Jewkes, B. Crewe, & J. Bennett
(Eds.), Handbook on prisons (pp. 39–54). Routledge.
Peters, H. (2018). Treadmills were meant to be atonement machines. https://daily.jstor.
org/treadmills-were-meant-to-be-atonement-machines/#:~:text=William%20Cubit-
t%2C%20a%20civil%20engineer,Queen%20Victoria%20for%20his%20efforts
(accessed on 21 January 2022).
Potter, H. (2019). Shades of the Prison House: A History of Incarceration in the British
Isles. Boydell Press.
Pratt, J. (2002). Punishment and civilisation: Penal tolerance and intolerance in modern
society. Sage.
Pratt, J. (2011). Norbert Elias, the civilizing process and penal development in modern
society. Sociological Review, 59(1) (supp): 220–240.
Ryan, M. (2012). Delivering pain in the big society. Criminal Justice Matters, 89: 22–23.
Scott, L. (2020 December 24). Charles Dickens, the writer who saw lockdown everywhere.
New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/charles-dickens-the-writer-
who-saw-lockdown-everywhere (accessed on 27 November 2021).
Shalev, S. (2009). Supermax: Controlling risk through solitary confinement. Willan Pub-
lishing.
Shaw, A. (1966). Convicts and the colonies: A study of penal transportation from great
Britain and Ireland to Australia and other parts of the British empire. Faber and Faber.
Stockdale, E. (1983). A Short History of Prison Inspection in England, British Journal of
Criminology, 23(3): 209–228.
Turner, J. (2016). The prison boundary: Between society and carceral space. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Ugelvik, T., Jewkes, Y., & Crewe, B. (2020). Editorial: Why Incarceration. Incarceration:
An International Journal of Imprisonment, Detention and Coercive Confinement, 1(1):
1–5.
United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2021). United King-
dom: UN expert raises alarm over abuse of close supervision centres. https://www.
ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx (accessed on 29 January 2022).
Wilson, D. (2002). Millbank, The panopticon and their Victorian audiences. Howard Jour-
nal of Crime and Justice, 41(4): 364–381.
Justifying Imprisonment as Punishment
3
Chapter Outline
This chapter will explore:
• Why it is necessary to justify punishment and imprisonment.

• The different philosophical rationales that have been used to justify punish-
ment.
• The challenges associated with particular philosophical rationales.
• The ways different penal philosophies are evident and fulfilled (or not) in
the use of imprisonment.
3.1 Introduction
The use of imprisonment as a tool of punishment has grown substantially since

the establishment of the modern prison. The way societies choose to punish
law-breakers is often considered to reflect society more broadly, and the same
can be said of the prison as an institution. The use of imprisonment is justified in
various ways, as evidenced in the different mission statements of prison services
around the world. These justifications—symbolic or pragmatic—do not only pro-
vide the formal rationales for the work of prison services. They are also used to
justify the infliction of harm or restriction of liberties, through punishment, which
would otherwise be unacceptable in society.
The philosophical justifications of punishment are well rehearsed in aca-
demic literature and are often considered to indicate the possible aims of penal
sanctions, including imprisonment, which legitimise their use. This chapter will

Switzerland AG 2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09301-2_3
32 3 Justifying Imprisonment as Punishment
examine the various justifications of imprisonment as punishment, and their phil-

osophical underpinnings, before considering the extent to which the prison is suc-
cessful at fulfilling these aims.
3.2 Justifying Punishment
The desire or need to punish law-breakers is an oft taken-for-granted principle

embedded within criminal justice. However, for practices of the state to have
legitimacy they must be morally justified, and with the act of punishing this is
particularly important. Punishment cannot occur without justification because,
as Duff and Garland (1994: 2) explain, it is ‘morally problematic’. Punishment
involves the ‘conscious infliction’ of pain or suffering on an individual (Christie,
1981: 16) which in any other context would be considered immoral or wrong. It is
this harm that the state may inflict, through their power to punish, which necessi-
tates rigorous justification of punishment (Matravers, 2016; Scott, 2018).
Despite its supposed emergence as a more ‘civilised’ approach to punishment
(discussed in Chapter 2), imprisonment is the ultimate punishment in many juris-
dictions, except where practices of capital or corporal punishment continue. Jus-
tifying imprisonment requires adoption of a philosophical position to determine
what the intended aims of punishment are to be—only with these established can
we make any assessment of whether the prison ‘works’ and the restriction of lib-
erty can be considered justified. This chapter will outline four key philosophical
justifications which have been used to rationalise the use of punishment more
broadly and the practice of imprisonment in particular. Each of these penal phi-
losophies has a bearing not only on how punishment is justified but also on how
the appropriate amount of punishment is determined (Zedner, 2004).
Question
• Why is it important that the use of imprisonment has a philosophical justifi-
cation?
3.3 Retributivism
Calls for justice to be done demonstrate widespread acceptance of the principle

that punishment is just or right when a law is broken—a position central to the
philosophical approach of retributivism or retribution. Retributivist theory justi-
3.3 Retributivism 33
fies punishment on the basis that the harm or suffering imposed is deserved where
a voluntary criminal offence has taken place. There is an acceptance that pun-
ishment can be good, in and of itself, rather than focusing on any instrumental
consequences that may flow from punishment. As such, it is the position of some
retributivists that punishment is not only a good, but a ‘categorical imperative’
(Kant, 1797: 141); punishment is not only an appropriate response to crime but a
necessary one.
This focus on the law-breaker as deserving of some suffering, necessar-
ily leads to a concern with the proportionality of the punishment imposed. The
emphasis on desert requires consideration of the severity of harm caused and/or
the level of culpability attached to the offence, in order to determine how severe
punishment should be in any given case. This approach has often been linked to
the principle of lex talionis—an eye for an eye (Cavadino et al., 2020). This core
principle of retributivism is evident in the rationale of just deserts, that the punish-
ment should fit, or be commensurate with, the crime. As outlined by Von Hirsch
(1976: 47), a key proponent of the just deserts theory, this connection between the
seriousness of the offence and punishment given is necessary to redress balance;
by inflicting some disadvantage on the individual, the unfair advantage gained
from their offence is counterbalanced and ‘equilibrium is restored’.
Through emphasising deserved punishment, a retributivist approach does not
necessarily advocate a punitive, harsh response to offending (Cavadino et al.,
2020)—this is a common misconception, where retributivism is often associated
with emotive calls for revenge through draconian measures. In contrast, retribu-
tivist thought may serve to mitigate against penal severity through its emphasis
on proportionality—for retributivists, it would be immoral to impose punishment
exceeding that deserved. Further, penal philosophers have proposed hybrid the-
ories where retributivist thought may have the effect of restraining otherwise
heightened punishment justified under reductivist rationales, focused on reduc-
ing offending if punishment should be both deserved and instrumental. Proposing
the approach of ‘limiting retributivism’, Morris (1974: 75) argues that ‘a dis-
criminating clemency’ is not incompatible with desert, and the proportionate or
deserved punishment according to retributivist thought is not a required level of
punishment, but a maximum; in such hybrid theories, where other considerations
suggest punishment of lesser severity may have more valuable consequences for
reducing crime (Robinson, 2008), or be more humane or parsimonious, then no
obligation to reach this level of punishment exists (Frase, 2012).
For retributivists, punishments should be graded in relation to the severity of
infractions, for example with tariffs, in order that the punishment reflects the
crime and that similar cases are treated alike (Cavadino et al., 2020). Variation
34 3 Justifying Imprisonment as Punishment
in the length of time spent imprisoned—based on the severity of an offence—

might be seen as an appropriate strategy for ensuring offenders receive their just
deserts; time provides the means by which the amount of punishment is quanti-
fied, according to the gravity of the offence and culpability of the individual.
However, there are some challenges to the legitimacy of the power entailed in
imprisonment—and punishment more broadly—when thinking about how retrib-
utivism might play out in practice. Firstly, the emphasis of retributivism on pro-
portionality suggests a need for consistency and fairness in the way punishment
is meted out; those individuals who commit a similar offence, with similar levels
of culpability, should be treated similarly in terms of both likelihood and amount
of punishment. However, with imprisonment this does not happen, with evi-
dence suggesting the likelihood of conviction, imprisonment and length of sen-
tence varies on the basis of race and class (see Chapter 4). Further, consistency
in punishment requires us to calculate how much harm or pain is equivalent to
that caused in the offence committed. When not strictly following an ‘eye for an
eye’ approach, or when seeking to inflict suffering in a different form, this is an
extremely difficult task, not least due to the subjectivity with which pain is expe-
rienced (Hayes, 2018). Calculating the equivalence of pain is also more challeng-
ing when taking into account variation in prison conditions and regimes, between
and within jurisdictions. As Katz et al. (2003: 320) have argued, ‘the lower the
quality of life in prison, the greater the punishment for a fixed amount of time
served.’ In this respect, graded tariffs, which increase the length of imprisonment
in line with the gravity of an offence, may ignore variations in experience which
impact on the potential proportionality of a prison sentence as punishment.
The use of indeterminate prison sentences also presents challenges of legit-
imacy, given proportionate determinacy is key to the just deserts approach. Such
sentences, with the potential to continue imprisonment beyond the period initially
intended, do not adhere to the retributivist focus on the gravity of the crime—the
amount of punishment is increased beyond that deserved for the offence itself, on
the basis of future potential offending. As such, indeterminate custodial sentences
present a significant challenge to the legitimacy of the prison from a retributivist
perspective.
3.4 Consequentialism
While retributivist justification of punishment is largely focused on the offence

which has taken place, other philosophical justifications of punishment and
imprisonment place greater emphasis on future offending and its reduction. These
3.4 Consequentialism 35
potential aims rely on the philosophy of utilitarianism, shaped by the ideas of

Jeremy Bentham (1789) who was also influential in advocating for the panop-
ticon model of imprisonment (see Chapter 2). Utilitarian thought states that an
action or decision is ‘moral’ when it results in the greatest good or happiness for
the greatest number (Mill, 1867). From this perspective, a range of philosoph-
ical approaches has been used to legitimise punishment, and the prison, on the
grounds that the inevitable harms of punishment are outweighed by the preven-
tion of greater harm or suffering in future. From a utilitarian perspective, this is
the only circumstance in which punishment, which is inherently morally prob-
lematic, can be permissible. Rather than seeking to justify punishment based on
the offence which has gone before—as with retributivism—these penal philoso-
phies are focused on future actions of either the law-breaker or the wider com-
munity, presenting a ‘social defence’ of punishment (Mathiesen, 2006: 24). These
approaches draw upon consequentialist and reductivist thinking (Cavadino et al.,
2020), being focused on the potential of punishment to reduce future offending
through either deterrence, incapacitation or rehabilitation, each of which will now
be discussed in turn.
Deterrence
Justification of imprisonment based on deterrence is predicated on an assump-

tion that those who break the law are rational offenders, weighing up the costs
and benefits of a particular course of action, and that such calculations are based
on maximising pleasure over pain. As such, it is crucial the suffering imposed
through punishment outweighs any potential gain from offending. Following
this logic, the longer the prison sentence and the harsher the conditions, the more
likely it is that the benefits of a crime will be outweighed, and the greater the
chance an individual is deterred from offending. This aim of reducing offending
through deterrence may be applied to the individual themselves (individual deter-
rence), or to the broader population (general deterrence):
When we consider that an unpunished crime leaves the path of crime open, not only
to the same delinquent but also to those who may have the same motives and oppor-
tunities for entering upon it, we perceive punishment inflicted on the individual
becomes a source of security for all.
(Bentham, 1830: 20–21)
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Fig. 3
Now, as you look at this picture of the apple flower (Fig. 3), you
see a circle made up of five pretty leaves. Sometimes these are
white; again they are pink. And in the center what do you see? Why,
there you see a quantity of odd-looking little things whose names
you do not know. They look somewhat like small, rather crooked
pins; for on the tips of most of them are objects which remind you of
the head of a pin.
If you were looking at a real flower, you would see that these pin
heads were little boxes filled with a yellow dust which comes off
upon one’s fingers; and so for the present we will call them “dust
boxes.”
But besides these pins—later we shall learn their real names—
besides these pins with dust boxes, we find some others which are
without any such boxes. The shape of these reminds us a little of the
pegs or pins we use in the game of tenpins. If we looked at them
very closely, we should see that there were five of them, but that
these five were joined below into one piece.
Now suppose we take the apple blossom and pull off all its pretty
white flower leaves, and all the pins with dust boxes, what will be
left?
Fig. 4
This picture (Fig. 4) shows you just what is left. You see what
looks like a little cup or vase. The upper part of this is cut into five
pieces, which are rolled back. In the picture one of these pieces is
almost out of sight. In the real blossom these pieces look like little
green leaves. And set into this cup is the lower, united part of those
pins which have no dust boxes on top.
I fancy that you are better acquainted with the apple blossom than
ever before, never mind how many mornings you may have spent in
the sweet-smelling, pink and white orchard. You know just what goes
to make up each separate flower, for all the many hundreds of
blossoms are made on the one plan.
And only now are you ready to hear what happened to make the
apple take the place of the blossom.
THE STORY OF THE BEE
T HIS is what happened. And it is a true story.

One morning last May a bee set out among the flowers on a
honey hunt.
Perhaps it would be more true to say that the bee set out to hunt
for the sweet stuff of which honey is made; for while this sweet stuff
is still in the flower cup it is not honey, any more than the wheat
growing in the field is bread. The wheat becomes bread later, after it
has been cut and gathered and threshed and ground, and brought
into the kitchen and there changed into bread; and the sweet stuff
becomes honey only after the bees have carried it home and worked
it.
As the bee left home this particular morning, it made up its mind
that it would devote itself to the apple blossoms; for did you know
that when a bee goes flower visiting, usually it gives all its attention
to one kind of flower till it has finished that special round of visits?
So off the bee flew; and in a few moments it saw hundreds of little
pink and white handkerchiefs waving at it from the apple orchard.
What do you suppose these were, these gay little handkerchiefs?
They were the flower leaves of the apple blossoms. I call them
handkerchiefs, because, just as boys and girls sometimes wave their
handkerchiefs when they wish to signal other boys and girls, so the
apple tree uses its gay flower leaves to attract the attention of the
bee, and persuade it to visit the flowers. Of course, really, they are
not handkerchiefs at all. They would hardly be large enough for any
but fairy noses, would they?
When the bee saw so many bright handkerchiefs waving it
welcome, along it hurried; for it knew this was a signal that material
for honey making was at hand. Another minute, and it had settled
upon a freshly opened flower, and was eagerly stealing the precious
sweet.
You children know, that, when you are given permission to go to
the closet for a piece of candy or cake, you are not apt to set about it
very gently. You are in too much of a hurry for that. Often you come
very near knocking everything over, in your haste to get hold of what
you want.
And bees are quite as greedy as any boy or girl could be. So our
friend dived right into the pretty flower, brushing rudely against the
little dust boxes. These, being full to overflowing with golden dust,
spilled their contents, and powdered the bee quite yellow.
Having made sure that nothing more was to be found just there,
off flew the dusty bee to the next blossom. Into this it pushed its way,
and in so doing struck those pins which have no dust boxes; and
upon their broad, flat tips fell some of the yellow dust grains with
which its body was powdered.
Now there began to happen a strange thing.
But before I tell you more, I must stop one moment to remind you
that these pins without dust boxes are joined below into one piece,
and that this piece is set deep into the green cup which holds the
rest of the flower (see Fig. 4); and I must tell you, that, if you should
cut open this cup, you would find a number of little round objects
looking like tiny green eggs.
The strange thing that began to happen was this:—
Soon after the yellow dust from the bee fell upon the flat tips of the
pins without dust boxes, the little green objects deep within the green
cup became full of life, and began to get larger. And not only this: the
green cup also seemed to feel this new life; for it too grew bigger and
bigger, and juicier and juicier, until it became the fine juicy apple we
have before us this morning.
So now you understand a little of what happened to make the
great apple take the place of the delicate blossom.
THE APPLE’S TREASURES
I F we lift our apple by its stem, it hangs in the same position as

when growing on the tree (Fig. 5).
But the blossom whose place in the world is taken by this apple
held its little head proudly in the air. So let us put the apple in the
same position, and see what is left of the flower from which it has
come (Fig. 6).
Fig. 5
We see the apple stem, which last May was the flower stem. This
has grown thick and strong enough to hold the apple fast to the tree
till it ripens and is ready to drop.
The upper part of the stem you cannot see, because the apple has
swelled downwards all about it, or upwards we should say, if it were
still on the tree.
Fig. 6
On the top of the apple, in a little hollow, we see some crumpled

things which look like tiny withered leaves.
You remember that when the bee left the yellow dust in the apple
blossom, the green cup began to grow big and juicy, and to turn into
the apple. And these little crumpled things are all that is left of the
five green leaves into which the upper part of the cup was divided.
These little leaves have been out in all kinds of weather for many
weeks, so no wonder they look rather mussy and forlorn.
It is hard to realize that from the center of this now crumpled
bunch grew the pretty apple blossom.
Now where are those tiny round things that were packed away
inside the green cup?
Well, as that cup is now this apple, the chances are that they are
still hidden safely away within it. So let us take a knife and cut the
apple open.
Fig. 7
What do you find in its very heart? If you cut it through crosswise,
you find five brown seeds packed as neatly as jewels in their case
(Fig. 7); and if you cut it through lengthwise, you discover only two or
three seeds (Fig. 8).
Probably I need not say to you that these seeds were once the
little round things hidden within the green cup.
Fig. 8
Some day I will tell you a great deal more about the wonderful
golden dust which turns flowers into apples as easily as Cinderella’s
fairy godmother turned rats into ponies, and pumpkins into coaches.
But all this will come later. Just now I want to talk about something
else.
WHAT A PLANT LIVES FOR
W HEN you go for a walk in the country, what do you see all
about you?
“Cows and horses, and chickens and birds, and trees and
flowers,” answers some child.
Yes, all of these things you see. But of the trees and plants you
see even more than of the horses and cows and birds. On every side
are plants of one kind or another. The fields are full of grass plants.
The woods are full of tree plants. Along the roadside are plants of
many varieties.
Now, what are all these plants trying to do? “To grow,” comes the
answer. To grow big and strong enough to hold their own in the
world. That is just what they are trying to do.
Then, too, they are trying to flower.
“But they don’t all have flowers,” objects one voice.
You are right. They do not all have flowers; but you would be
surprised to know how many of them do. In fact, all of them except
the ferns and mosses, and a few others, some of which you would
hardly recognize as plants,—all of them, with these exceptions,
flower at some time in their lives.
All the trees have flowers, and all the grasses (Figs. 9, 10); and all
those plants which get so dusty along the roadside, and which you
call “weeds,”—each one of these has its own flower. This may be so
small and dull-looking that you have never noticed it; and unless you
look sharply, perhaps you never will. But all the same, it is a flower.
But there is one especial thing which is really the object of the
plant’s life. Now, who can tell me this: what is this object of a plant’s
life?
Do you know just what I mean by this question? I doubt it; but I will
try to make it clear to you.
Fig. 9
If I see a boy stop his play, get his hat, and start down the street, I
know that he has what we call “an object in view.” There is some
reason for what he is doing. And if I say to him, “What is the object of
your walk?” I mean, “For what are you going down the street?” And if
he answers, “I am going to get a pound of tea for my mother,” I know
that a pound of tea is the object of his walk.
So when I ask what is the object of a plant’s life, I mean why does
a plant send out roots in search of food, and a stem to carry this food
upward, and leaves to drink in air and sunshine? What is the object
of all this?
A great many people seem to think that the object of all plants with
pretty flowers must be to give pleasure. But these people quite forget
that hundreds and thousands of flowers live and die far away in the
lonely forest, where no human eye ever sees them; that they so lived
and died hundreds and thousands of years before there were any
men and women, and boys and girls, upon the earth. And so, if they
stopped long enough quietly to think about it, they would see for
themselves that plants must have some other object in life than to
give people pleasure.
Fig. 10
But now let us go back to the tree from which we took this apple,
and see if we can find out its special object.
“Why, apples!” some of you exclaim. “Surely the object of an apple
tree is to bear apples.”
That is it exactly. An apple tree lives to bear apples.
And now why is an apple such an important thing? Why is it worth
so much time and trouble? What is its use?
“It is good to eat,” chime all the children in chorus.
Yes, so it is; but then, you must remember that once upon a time,
apple trees, like all other plants and trees, grew in lonely places
where there were no boys and girls to eat their fruit. So we must find
some other answer.
Think for a moment, and then tell me what you find inside every
apple.
“Apple seeds,” one of you replies.
And what is the use of these apple seeds?
“Why, they make new apple trees!”
If this be so, if every apple holds some little seeds from which new
apple trees may grow, does it not look as though an apple were
useful and important because it yields seeds?
And what is true of the apple tree is true of other plants and trees.
The plant lives to bear fruit. The fruit is that part of the plant which
holds its seeds; and it is of importance for just this reason, that it
holds the seeds from which come new plants.
THE WORLD WITHOUT PLANTS
W E have just learned that the fruit is important because it holds

the plant’s seeds; and we know that seeds are important
because from them come the new plants for another year. Let us
stop here one moment, and try to think what would happen if plants
should stop having seeds, if there should be no new plants.
We all, and especially those of us who are children, carry about
with us a little picture gallery of our very own. In this gallery are
pictures of things which our real eyes have never seen, yet which we
ourselves see quite as plainly as the objects which our eyes rest
upon in the outside world. Some of these pictures are very beautiful.
They show us things so wonderful and delightful and interesting, that
at times we forget all about the real, outside things. Indeed, these
pictures often seem to us more real than anything else in the world.
And once in a great while we admire them so earnestly that we are
able to make them come true; that is, we turn our backs upon them,
and work so hard to bring them about, that at last what was only a
picture becomes a reality.
Perhaps some of you children can step into this little gallery of
your own, and see a picture of the great world as it would be if there
should be no new plants.
This picture would show the world some hundreds of years from
now; for, although some plants live only a short time, others (and
usually these are trees) live hundreds of years.
But in the picture even the last tree has died away. Upon the earth
there is not one green, growing thing. The sun beats down upon the
bare, brown deserts. It seems to scorch and blister the rocky
mountain sides. There are no cool shadows where one can lie on a
summer afternoon; no dark, ferny nooks, such as children love,
down by the stream. But, after all, that does not matter much, for
there are no children to search out such hidden, secret spots.
“No children! Why, what has happened to them?”
Well, if plants should stop having children (for the little young
plants that come up each year are just the children of the big, grown-
up plants), all other life—the life of all grown people, and of all
children, and of all animals—would also come to an end.
Did you ever stop to think of this,—that your very life depended
upon these plants and trees? You know that they are pretty to look
at, and pleasant to play about; but I doubt if you ever realized before,
that to them you owe your life.
Now let us see how this can be. What did you have this morning
for breakfast?
Bread and milk? Well, of what is the bread made? Flour? Yes, and
the flour is made from the seeds of the wheat. If the wheat stopped
having seeds, you would stop having bread made from wheat seeds.
That is plain enough.
Then the milk,—where does that come from?
“That comes from the cows, and cows are not plants,” you say.
True, cows are not plants, but what would happen to the cows if
there were no plants? Do not cows live in the green meadows,
where all day long they munch the grass plants? And would there be
any green meadows and all-day banquets, in years to come, if the
grass did not first flower, and then seed? So then, no grass, no
cows, and you would be without milk as well as without bread for
breakfast.
And so it is with all the rest of our food. We live on either plants or
animals. If there were no plants, there would be no animals, for
animals cannot live without plants.
It is something like the house that Jack built, isn’t it?
“We are the children that drink the milk, that comes from the cows,
that eat the grass, that grows from the seeds in the meadow.”
“If there were no seeds, there would be no grass to feed the cows
that give us our milk for breakfast.”
And so it is everywhere. Plants give us a kind of food that we must
have, and that only they can give. They could get on well enough
without animals. Indeed, for a long time they did so, many hundreds
of years ago. But animals cannot live without plants.
I think you will now remember why seeds are of such great
importance.
HOW THE APPLE SHIELDS ITS YOUNG
S OME time ago you noticed that apple seeds were packed away
within the apple as neatly as though they were precious jewels
in their case.
When we see something done up very carefully, surrounded with
cotton wool, laid in a beautiful box, and wrapped about with soft
paper, we feel sure that the object of all this care is of value. Even
the outside of such a package tells us that something precious lies
within.
Fig. 11
But what precious jewels could be laid away more carefully than
these apple seeds? And what jewel case could boast a more
beautiful outside than this red-cheeked apple (Fig. 11)?
Pass it around. Note its lovely color, its delicate markings, its satin-
like skin. For myself, I feel sure that I never have seen a jewel case
one half so beautiful.
Then cut it open and see how carefully the soft yet firm apple flesh
is packed about the little seeds, keeping them safe from harm (Fig.
12).
Fig. 12
But perhaps you think that anything so good to eat is not of much
use as a protection. It takes you boys and girls about half a minute to
swallow such a jewel case as this.
But here comes the interesting part of the story.
When you learn how well able this apple is to defend from harm its
precious seeds, I think you will look upon it with new respect, and will
own that it is not only a beautiful jewel case, but a safe one.
All seeds need care and wrapping-up till they are ripe; for if they
fall to the ground before they are well grown, they will not be able to
start new plants.
You know that you can tell whether an apple is ripe by looking at
its seeds, for the fruit and its seeds ripen together. When the apple
seeds are dark brown, then the apple is ready to be eaten.
But if, in order to find out whether an apple was ripe, you were
obliged always to examine its seeds, you might destroy many apples
and waste many young seeds before you found what you wished;
so, in order to protect its young, the apple must tell you when it is
ready to be eaten in some other way than by its seeds.
How does it do this? Why, it puts off its green coat, and instead
wears one of red or yellow; and from being hard to the touch, it
becomes soft and yielding when you press it with your fingers. If not
picked, then it falls upon the ground in order to show you that it is
waiting for you; and when you bite into it, you find it juicy, and
pleasant to the taste.
While eating such an apple as this, you can be sure that when you
come to the inner part, which holds its seeds, you will find these
brown, and ripe, and quite ready to be set free from the case which
has held them so carefully all summer.
But how does the apple still further protect its young till they are
ready to go out into the world?
Well, stop and think what happened one day last summer when
you stole into the orchard and ate a quantity of green apples, the
little seeds of which were far too white and young to be sent off by
themselves.
In the first place, as soon as you began to climb the tree, had you
chosen to stop and listen, you could almost have heard the green
skins of those apples calling out to you, “Don’t eat us, we’re not ripe
yet!”
And when you felt them with your fingers, they were hard to the
touch; and this hardness said to you, “Don’t eat us, we’re not ripe
yet!”
But all the same, you ate them; and the sour taste which puckered
up your mouth said to you, “Stop eating us, we’re not ripe yet!”
But you did not pay any attention to their warnings; and, though
they spared no pains, those apples were not able to save their baby
seeds from being wasted by your greediness.
But there was still one thing they could do to prevent your eating
many more green apples, and wasting more half-ripe seeds. They
could punish you so severely for having disobeyed their warnings,
that you would not be likely very soon to do the same thing again.
And this is just what they did.
When feeling so ill and unhappy that summer night from all the
unripe fruit you had been eating, perhaps you hardly realized that
those apples were crying out to you,—
“You would not listen to us, and so we are punishing you by
making you ill and uncomfortable. When you saw how green we
were, we were begging you not to eat us till our young seeds were
ripe. When you felt how hard we were, we were trying to make you
understand that we were not ready for you yet. And, now that you
have eaten us in spite of all that we did to save ourselves and our
seeds, we are going to make you just as unhappy as we know how.
Perhaps next time you will pay some heed to our warnings, and will
leave us alone till we are ready to let our young ones go out into the
world.”
So after this when I show you an apple, and ask you what you
know about it, I fancy you will have quite a story to tell,—a story that
begins with one May day in the orchard, when a bee went flower
visiting, and ends with the little brown seeds which you let fall upon
the ground, when you had finished eating the rosy cheeks and juicy
pulp of the apple seed case. And the apple’s story is also the story of
many other fruits.
SOME COUSINS OF THE APPLE
T HE pear (Fig. 13) is a near cousin of the apple.

But perhaps you did not know that plants and trees had
cousins.
As you learn more and more about them, you will begin to feel that
in many ways plants are very much like people.
Both the pear and the apple belong to the Rose family. They are
cousins to all the garden roses, as well as to the lovely wild rose that
you meet so often in summer along the roadside.
Fig. 13

Prisons and Imprisonment An Introduction Cormac Behan All Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Prisons and Imprisonment An Introduction Cormac Behan All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Prisons and Imprisonment: An

Introduction Cormac Behan

CORMAC BEHAN & ABIGAIL STARK

Prisons and Imprisonment

ISBN 978-3-031-09300-5 ISBN 978-3-031-09301-2 (eBook)

Cover credit: eStudio Calamar

Part I Punishment and Prison

Part II Understanding the Experiences of the Prison

8.4 Documentaries as a Window into Life Inside?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Part III The Penal Framework

12.6 New Prisons—Old Philosophies? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

Part IV Politics and Penality

Part V Researching Prisons and Imprisonment

ACA American Correctional Association

IWOC Incarcerated Workers’ Organising Committee

Fig. 13.1 Comparative imprisonment rate 2022 (per 100,000)

• Introduce the book, Prisons and Imprisonment.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

1.2 Why Prisons and Imprisonment?

The power to punish is one of the primary demonstrations of the authority of

• Critically consider the theoretical foundations of imprisonment;

1.3 Outline of the Book

twenty-first century society. While it has become an institution with a significant

1.4 Using Prisons and Imprisonment

1.5 A Note on Language

1.6 Geographic Scope

1.7 Prisons, Imprisonment and Society

• Punishment prior to the emergence of the modern prison.

To study the history of punishment, we must examine the society in which it

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 13

2.2 Punishment Before the Prison

2.3 The Search for the ‘Model’ Prison Begins

United States of America

Charles Dickens and the Prison

John Howard and Penal Reform

One of the philosophers of the Enlightenment Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) put

2.4 From Imprisonment to Confinement

American Correctional Association. (ACA) (2021). Declaration of principles. https://www.

• Why it is necessary to justify punishment and imprisonment.

The use of imprisonment as a tool of punishment has grown substantially since

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 31

examine the various justifications of imprisonment as punishment, and their phil-

3.2 Justifying Punishment

The desire or need to punish law-breakers is an oft taken-for-granted principle

Calls for justice to be done demonstrate widespread acceptance of the principle

in the length of time spent imprisoned—based on the severity of an offence—

While retributivist justification of punishment is largely focused on the offence

potential aims rely on the philosophy of utilitarianism, shaped by the ideas of

Justification of imprisonment based on deterrence is predicated on an assump-

T HIS is what happened. And it is a true story.

I F we lift our apple by its stem, it hangs in the same position as

On the top of the apple, in a little hollow, we see some crumpled

W E have just learned that the fruit is important because it holds

T HE pear (Fig. 13) is a near cousin of the apple.

You might also like

ACA  American Correctional Association

1.2 Why Prisons and Imprisonment?

1.3 Outline of the Book

1.4 Using Prisons and Imprisonment

1.5 A Note on Language

1.6 Geographic Scope

1.7 Prisons, Imprisonment and Society

2.2 Punishment Before the Prison

2.3 The Search for the ‘Model’ Prison Begins

2.4 From Imprisonment to Confinement

3.2 Justifying Punishment