The English Prison System

by Sir Evelyn Ruggles-Brise

Criticism, however, was not silent. There was an uneasy feeling in the public mind that too much importance had been attached to the principle of "uniformity," which was held to be responsible for the alleged evils of the system then in force, i.e., the want of "individualisation" of the prisoner, and the stifling of local control. This feeling found an echo in the Press; not only were the principles of prison treatment, as prescribed by the Prison Acts, criticised, but the prison authority itself, and the constitution of that authority, were held to be responsible for many grave evils. It was contended that centralization only fostered bureaucracy, and that the Prison System of the Country was at the mercy of a single bureaucrat, the Chairman of the Prison Board. It was impossible for the Government of the day to ignore this fierce indictment. A Committee of Inquiry was appointed, under the Chairmanship of Mr. H. Gladstone, M.P., then Parliamentary Under Secretary for Home Affairs. The Report was published in April, 1895, just at the time that Sir E. Du Cane was retiring from the Service, he having attained the age of sixty-five, the age for retirement under the Superannuation Acts. The Report, resulting from a keen and exhaustive inquiry into every branch of prison administration, marks a distinct epoch in the Prison history of this country. It paid a high tribute of praise to the Prison Commissioners and their late Chairman, by its formal declaration that the centralization of authority had been a complete success in the direction of uniformity, discipline, and economy. But while admitting this, and the attention that had been given to organization, finance, order, sanitation, and statistics, it gave some justification for the popular belief that centralization had been carried too far, and that local interest and authority had been unduly suppressed; and to use the words of the Report (which constitute the real gravamen of charge against the prison authority) "that prisoners have been treated too much as a hopeless or worthless element of the community, and that the moral as well as the legal responsibility of the prison authorities has been held to cease when they pass outside the prison gates." These words may be said to mark the passage from the old to the new methods of punishment, and from those which rested upon severity and repression to those which looked more hopefully towards the possible reformation of persons committed to prison.

The decrease of crime, i.e., as judged from the reduced daily average population of persons in prison, which had been habitually quoted and regarded as the correct test of a successful prison system, was shown on examination to be due almost entirely to a diminution in the average length of sentences. This fact, i.e., a greater leniency on the part of Magistrates and Judges, taken in conjunction with the remarkable outburst of public sentiment, to which I have referred, undoubtedly connote a gradual rise and growth throughout the community of a tendency towards a larger humanity in the treatment of crime, and a more rational execution of the sentences of the law. Hope of rehabilitation, which had perhaps been made too subordinate to the desire for a firm and exact repression, began to lift its head, and, from this time, the responsibility of the official authority, as a reclaiming agency, became greatly accentuated.

The new spirit which breathes in this Report, and which has largely influenced subsequent legislation and practice, is to be found, so far as Local Prisons are concerned, principally in reforms having for their purpose:—

(1) the concentration of effort on the young or incipient criminal, 16-21.

(2) improved classification, and the separation of first from other offenders in Local Prisons.

(3) the abolition of the old forms of "hard labour"—

cranks, treadwheels &c. The rules provide that the labour of all prisoners shall, if possible, be productive, and the only difference, so far as labour is concerned, between a sentence with, and without, hard labour, is that in the former case a prisoner works in cellular separation for the first twenty-eight days of his sentence, after which period he may work with the rest in association in workrooms, or other open spaces. So long as the Statute preserves the distinction between imprisonment with, or without, hard labour, it is necessary that the system should give effect to the distinction, but the meaning which has been so long associated with the phrase "hard labour" still lingers in the public mind, which even now is apt to imagine that a sentence of hard labour implies a long period of solitary confinement with employment throughout the sentence on hard monotonous forms of labour, such as cranks and treadwheels. Associated labour on productive work is now the rule of Local Prisons, subject to the exception above stated.

(4) the reorganization of "Patronage" or Aid-on-discharge.

(5) improved methods for the education and moral betterment of prisoners.

(6) the establishment of Training Schools for all ranks of the Prison Staff.

(7) improved Prison Dietary.

(8) improved medical treatment with special regard to weakminded and tuberculous cases.

(9) the reconstruction of prisons, with a view to better sanitation, and provision of workshops for associated labour.

It was at this time that the present writer succeeded Sir E. Du Cane as Chairman of the Prison Commission, and the Secretary of State (Mr. Asquith) in conferring this appointment upon him, expressed the strong desire of the Government that the views of the Committee should, as far as practicable, be carried into execution. Since that date, accordingly, the reform and reorganization of the Prison System has been proceeding in every Department. The steps taken will be found in detail in the Annual Reports of the Commissioners since that date. It is not necessary to recapitulate here all the Departmental changes that have taken place, although they are very extensive and far-reaching.

So far as legislation is concerned, three Acts of great importance have been passed—the Prison Act, 1898, the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, and the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914.

The principal changes effected by the Prison Act, 1898, were, firstly the power given to the Secretary of State to make Rules for the Government of Convict and Local Prisons. The Rules embodied in the Schedule to the Prison Act, 1865, and enforced by Statute, were repealed, and what was, in effect, a new Prison Code was established, regulating every detail of administration in Local and Convict Prisons, subject only to the sanction of Parliament, and liable to alteration, from time to time, by Parliamentary Rules. Until now, the Rules of Prisons had been in a confused and chaotic state; some were fixed rigidly by Statute, others were framed without Parliamentary authority by the Secretary of State, others were enacted only by Standing Order,—all these were consolidated and embraced in a single Code, and their execution regulated by a new set of Standing Orders. Rules, with the Standing Orders which interpret them, are now the authority and foundation for the Government of Local and Convict Prisons. Not only has a greater simplicity of administration been attained, but, at the same time, a greater elasticity has been given to the System, which was sadly in need of it. It is not likely that it will again be necessary to resort to legislation in order to effect any change in the details of the System, the Secretary of State now having power, by Parliamentary Rule, to introduce such alterations as time and experience may dictate.

Secondly,—The Prison Act, 1898, created a Triple Division of offenders, power being given to the Courts to direct the treatment in one or other of the Divisions, having regard to the nature of the offence, and the character and antecedents of the offender. It will be remembered that the Act of 1877 had not gone further in the way of Classification than the establishment of the Division known as First Class Misdemeanants. This provision was repealed, and under the new law Courts have, generally speaking, an absolute discretion as to the Division in which any convicted prisoner shall be placed. The Rules regulating the treatment of each Division are, of course, subject to Parliamentary sanction. It was hoped, at the time, that the Courts would gladly and readily avail themselves of these new and enlarged powers, although it is recognized that a great responsibility is thus imposed upon the Courts, whose duty, if strictly fulfilled, would be to discriminate in each case brought before it, and to order treatment according to character and antecedents. In this way, it was hoped to secure that "individualisation de la peine", which modern penitentiary science declares to be the ideal at which a good penal system should aim. Courts have not, however, shown a keen desire to exercise this fresh power to the extent contemplated by the Act, the number committed to the Second Division representing not much more than an average of about three per cent of the total eligible committals. The traditional methods of commitment to ordinary imprisonment, with, or without Hard Labour, have so deeply affected the criminal administration of Summary Courts that it has proved difficult to escape from their influence, in spite of the great power of discrimination which the Act affords.