The English Prison System

by Sir Evelyn Ruggles-Brise

Thirdly,—Another very important provision of the Act was the power given to enable a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment in default of fine to obtain his release on part-payment of the fine. Thus, in the case of a prisoner sentenced to pay a fine—say of ten shillings or two weeks' imprisonment in default—imprisonment could be reduced by a number of days bearing the same proportion to the length of his sentence as the sum paid by him bears to the total fine imposed. The object of this provision was, of course, to modify, though it could not abolish, the admitted evil of the system under which about half the population of Local Prisons is composed of persons not directly committed without the option of a fine for the graver offences, but sentenced to pay perhaps small fines for trivial offences. These, on their inability to pay, became subject to the ordinary pains and penalties of imprisonment as in the case of ordinary criminal prisoners. Although the principle established under the Act was largely made use of, and thus a considerable reduction has taken place in the number of days for which persons sentenced in default of fine remained in Prison, the system of imprisonment in default continued in vogue, and was responsible for some fifty per cent. of the Prison population until action was taken by Parliament in the Session of 1914, since when a great change has taken place in this respect. The Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, to which I refer later, in addition to many other valuable provisions regulating the treatment of crime, is specially directed to meet this evil.

The Prison Act, 1898, has also been of historical interest as being the last deliberate decision of the legislature on the vexed question of Corporal Punishment in Prisons. Previously to the Act, a sentence of Corporal Punishment could be awarded in Convict Prisons by one of the Directors, and in Local Prisons by the Visiting Magistrates for any serious offence against prison discipline, and subject to no confirming authority. It is now strictly limited as a penalty for gross personal violence to prison officers, and for mutiny, or incitement to mutiny, and then only in the case of prisoners convicted of felony or sentenced to hard labour. A sentence can only be imposed by a tribunal consisting of not less than three persons, two of whom must be Justices of the Peace, and the order for corporal punishment from such tribunal cannot be carried into effect until confirmed by the Secretary of State, to whom a copy of the notes of evidence and a report of the sentence, and of the grounds on which it was passed, must be furnished. Experience has justified the wisdom of this enactment, which affords a sufficient guarantee against excessive, or unnecessary, exercise of the powers of corporal punishment. It has not been found that the discipline of prisons has suffered, while a due security exists for the protection of prison officers from violence. Public sentiment, which had previously been uneasy on the question of flogging in Prisons, has accepted the present limitation of power as a just and reasonable solution for what has always been a very vexed and difficult question of prison administration.

Again, a change of far-reaching importance in its effect on the discipline and management of Local Prisons was introduced, viz:—the power given to short-term prisoners to earn remission of their sentence by special industry and good conduct. Prisoners whose sentence is for over one month are now able to earn remission of a portion of their imprisonment not exceeding one-sixth of the whole sentence. The power to earn remission has always existed in the case of persons sentenced to penal servitude, where the minimum sentence is three years, and its great value, both as an incentive to industry and good conduct, and as furnishing an element of hope and encouragement under long sentences, has always been recognized. The expectation that the translation of this privilege to the Local Prison System would operate in the same way has been justified by experience.

Hitherto, the stimulus to industry and good conduct in Local Prisons had consisted only of the privileges that could be earned under the Progressive Stage System, in the shape of more letters and visits, and more library books, and larger gratuity. Gratuity, however, did not exceed the sum of ten shillings, whatever the length of sentence. It was, therefore, only prisoners under the longer sentences, presumably those guilty of grave offences, that could benefit to any extent under the Gratuity System—some twenty per cent. of the whole. Moreover, the risk or fear of losing remission marks operates as a powerful deterrent against idleness or misconduct, and it has been found, generally, that under the influence of this salutary provision there has been a marked improvement in the tone and demeanour of the prisoners, while, at the same time, an aid has been furnished to those responsible for maintaining order and discipline.

Such, broadly, were the changes introduced by the Prison Act, 1898. Though a short Act of a few Sections, it has profoundly affected the whole of the Prison administration. It seems to have been accepted by public opinion as a reasonable solution of many difficult questions which had been the subject of criticism, and which led to the outcry against the policy of the administration which had followed the Prison Act, 1877.

Ten years passed before further legislation respecting Prisons was passed. The Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, is of paramount interest as giving effect to the two principal proposals of the Committee of 1894, viz:—special treatment of the young, and the habitual criminal, respectively, but it does not affect the Prison régime, as applied to other categories of criminals, and, so far as it relates to these two special categories, is dealt with in separate chapters.

Since this chapter was written, the Criminal Justice Administration Bill, 1914, has become law. The great effect of this valuable measure is shown in my later chapter No. XVII. dealing with statistics of crime. It will there be seen how largely prison statistics have been affected by the obligation now imposed on Courts to allow time for the payment of fines. The offences for which a fine is imposed are presumably of a trivial character, but by long custom and usage, the practice of almost automatic commitment in default had grown to such a large extent that the intervention of Parliament proved necessary. That the principle of Imprisonment, and all that it connotes, both of shame and stigma, should depend upon the accident whether or not a small sum of money could be provided for payment of a fine at the moment of conviction, is obviously contrary both to reason and to justice. It is now laid down that where any prisoner desires to be allowed time for payment, not less than seven clear days shall be allowed, unless, in the opinion of the Court, there is good reason to the contrary. It is also laid down that in all cases where the offender is not less than sixteen nor more than twenty-one years of age, the Court may allow him to be placed under "Supervision" until the sum is paid. This provision is intended to meet the admitted evil of committing young persons under twenty-one to Prison where the offence is only of a trivial nature, due, in many cases, to the rowdy and irrepressible instincts arising rather from animal spirits, and the absence of proper control, than to any deliberate criminal purpose. It is proposed to create a new Society, whose business it will be to provide the necessary supervision, and to act, as it were, as an auxiliary to the Courts in furnishing a guarantee that the offender shall either pay the fine or, if after reasonable means of suasion and influence shall have failed, shall be returned to the jurisdiction of the Court to be dealt with in a severer manner. By this special provision for young persons, 16-21, who have hitherto come to Prison in such large numbers, the Act recognizes and extends the principle of the Borstal System—the principle of which, as I shall explain later, is to concentrate attention on the young offender at this plastic age, when the tendency to criminal habit can be arrested and diverted before it is too late, and before familiarity with Police Courts and Prisons obliterates the fear and terror of the law, thus rendering easy an almost certain descent and further degradation to a life of habitual evil-doing. The Act, moreover, as explained in a subsequent chapter, extends the application of the Borstal System, as prescribed by the Act of 1908.

As a further provision against the admitted evil of short sentences of Imprisonment, it is enacted that no imprisonment shall be for a period of less than five days. Power is given to the Secretary of State, on the application of any Police Authority, to certify any police cells, bridewells, or other similar places provided by the authority, to be suitable places for the detention of persons sentenced to terms not exceeding four days, and may make regulations for the inspection of places so provided.

With the object of further modifying what, under the influence of long custom, has become an almost mechanical use of awarding imprisonment with hard labour, it is provided that any imprisonment in default of payment of a sum of money shall be, in the future, without hard labour, and in other cases, where a commitment is without the option of a fine, the Court has a discretion whether or not hard labour shall be imposed. In order to give a fuller application to the Act of 1898, as before described, viz:—that the classification of prisoners should be into three Divisions, according to character and antecedents, power is given to the Visiting Committee of Prisons, on the application of the Governor, to direct that, in any suitable case, the prisoner may be placed in the Second Division, where, in the absence of any instruction of the Court to deal otherwise, he would be located in the Third Division.