Origin and Historical Development of Prison System: 2.1 Origin A prison (from old French prisoun), also known as gaol or jail, is a place in which people are physically co nfined and usually deprived of a range of personal freedoms. The first occasion on which we read of a pri son is in the history of Joseph in Egypt. Then Potiphar, “Joseph’s master, took him, and put him into the p rison, a place where the king’s prisoners were bound”. The Heb. word here used (sohar) means properly a round tower or fortress. It seems to have been a part of Potiphar’s house, a place in which state prisone rs were kept. The Mosaic law made no provision for imprisonment as a punishment. In the wilderness two persons were “put in ward”, but it was only till the mind of God concerning them should be ascertained. P risons and prisoners are mentioned in the book of Psalms. Samson was confined in a Philistine prison. In the subsequent history of Israel frequent references are made to prisons. Prisons seem to have been com mon in New Testament times. The apostles were put into the “common prison” at the instance of the Jewi sh council and at Philippi Paul and Silas were thrust into the “inner prison”. The organized and modern concept of prison in the Indian subcontinent has been contribution of the Britis h Government. Throughout the Muslim period, there was no regular prisons. Only old forts and castles w ere used as prisions.Until the late 18th century, prisons were used mainly for the confinement of debtors who could not meet their obligations. 2.2 Historical Development of Prison System 2.2.1 Prison system in sixteen and Seventeenth century: Prison tended to be a place where people were held before their trial or while awaiting punishment .Sancti ons for criminal behavior tended to be public events which were designed to shame the person and deter others; these included the ducking stool, the pillory ,whipping, branding and the stocks. At the time the se ntence for many other offences was death..it was very rarely used as a punishment in its own right . Men and women,boys and girls,debtors and murderers were all held together in local prisons.Evidence sugges ts that the prisons of this period were badly maintained and often controlled by negligent prison wardens. Many people died of diseases like gaol fever, which was a form of typus. “There was no separate arrange ment for men and women” The most important innovation of this period was then building of the petotype type house of correction,the London Bridewell.By the end of the 17th century they were absorbed into the prison system under the control of the local Justice of the peach. 2.2.2 Prison in Eighteenth Century Although the 18th century has been characterised as the era of the ‘Bloody Code’ there was growing opp osition to the death penalty for all but the most serious crimes. Such severe punishment was counter-prod uctive, as jurors were refusing to find thieves guilty of offences which would lead to their execution. Trans portation was curtailed at the end of the 18th century. Other sanctions therefore had to be found. The two prominent alternatives were hard labour, and for those unable to do this, the house of correction. This pra ctice lead to the use of prison hulks from 1776 until their phasing out in 1857 . Prison hulks were ships wh ich were anchored in the Thames, and at Portsmouth and Plymouth. Those sent to them were employed i n hard labour during the day and then loaded, in chains, onto the ship at night. The appalling conditions o n the hulks, especially the lack of control and poor physical conditions, eventually led to the end of this pr actice. But the use of prison hulks did much to persuade public opinion that incarceration, with hard labou r, was a viable penalty for crime . 2.2.3 Prison in Nineteenth Century Some remarkable changes were further made in the prison administration in the later half of the 19th cen tury. The first half of the 19th century represented a watershed in the history of state punishment. Capital punishment was now regarded as an inappropriate sanction for many crimes. The shaming sanctions, like the stocks, were regarded as outdated. By mid-century, imprisonment had replaced capital punishment f or most serious offences – except for that of murder. Pentonville was originally designed to hold 520 priso ners, each held in a cell measuring 13 feet long, 7 feet wide and 9 feet high. Pentonville operated the sep arate system, which was basically solitary confinement. In the next 6 years, 54 new prisons were built usi ng this template “In order to ease the pressure on British prisons, prisoners were released on ‘Ticket on L eave’ on condition that they would not resort to criminality” In 1877 prisons were brought under the contro l of the Prison Commission. For the first time even local prisons were controlled centrally.In 1894,Gladsto ne committee recommended the abolition of unproductive labour in prison” . The Prison Act 1898 reassert ed reformation as the main role of prison regimes. This Act can be seen to set the penal-welfare context which underlies today’s prison policy. It led to a dilution of the separate system, the abolition of hard labou r, and established the idea that prison labour should be productive, not least for the prisoners, who should be able to earn their livelihood on release. 2.2.4 Prison in Twenty Century In the first half of the twenty century, some significant steps were taken in the prison system. The concept of cruel and degrading treatment and punishment were decreased as a remarkable number. The humanit arian conduct to prisoners was upheld. The development of the prison system continues. According to th e recommendation of the Gladstone committee the borstal system was introduced in the Prevention of Cri me Act 1908 . Borstal training involved a regime based on hard physical work, technical and educational i nstruction and a strong moral atmosphere. A young person in borstal would work through a series of grad es, based on privileges, until release. In 1933, the first open prison was built at New Hall Camp near Wak efield. The theory behind the open prison is summed up in the words of one penal reformer, Sir Alex Pate rson: “You cannot train a man for freedom under conditions of captivity”. “Sir Lionel Fox advocated setting up of open prisons and as a result of his pertinent efforts, the number of such open institutions was raise d from one in 1942 to thirteen” The Criminal Justice Act 1948 abolished penal servitude, hard labour and flogging. It also presented a comprehensive system for the punishment and treatment of offenders. Priso n was still at the centre of the system, but the institutions took many different forms including remand cent ers, detention centers and borstal institutions. 2.2.5 Prison in Twenty-First Century The prison system of this time in the world is in a slandered form. The International rules are adopted by t he countries for the humanitarian punishment for prisoners and every country has enacted their national s tatues in this regards. Although it is not possible to change their previous rules at a time. But the taken ste ps by the individual states for reformation of prison system are remarkable. There are currently 139 prison s holding men, women and children in England and Wales. The supremacy of imprisonment as a way of d ealing with offending behavior shows no signs of abating. Further new prisons are being planned. These li ke all new prisons will be part of the PFI programmes and managed by the private sector. There are curre ntly 11 privately managed prisons; however two prisons which began life managed by the private sector h ave been brought back into public management. The Declaration of Independence cited a list of abuses r elated to the prisoner trade, including complaints that the Crown had obstructed justice, sent swarms of of ficers to harass the people, deprived many of the benefits of trial by jury, transported persons beyond the seas for pretended offenses, and committed other offenses. However, Thomas Jefferson’s clause protesti ng slavery was deleted. The new United States struggled to determine what to do with its penal and slave ry apparatus. Many British prisons were converted to American ones and new penal codes were impleme nted. Some states such as Pennsylvania and New York provided for the gradual emancipation of their sla ves at the same time they adopted new criminal codes providing for the use of sentences of imprisonment as a punishment. The Civil War had profoundly altered America’s system and rationale for imprisonment. Millions of slaves had been let loose, chattel slavery was ended, and penal servitude expanded. Thousands of inmates had perished in deadly prison camps kept by their own countrymen. Many more were badly scarred by what th ey had experienced. Many Americans increasingly recognized that the previous reformed. The prison ca mps of the Civil War proved to be incredibly lethal. According to official statistics compiled at the end of th e war, the North held a total of 220,000 Confederates and the South held 126,000 Unionists Estimates pla ced the number of prison dead at 30,212 for the Confederate prisons and 26,774 in the Union prisons . To put matters in perspective, roughly two and a half times. Until 1963, the incidence of reported crime as m easured by official crime statistics actually remained relatively constant. But then serious crime began to e xperience an upsurge. The nation’s rate of incarceration also remained relatively stable until 1974, when it also began to shoot up. The total number of adults in prison custody on a census day in 1972 showed a r ate of incarceration. Jails, in the modern sense, are products of the last century. It is a legacy of British rule. E C wines observ e that, the prison system in India Empire, like the British rule itself in that country , has grown up by degre es, until, as there empire was consolidated and order introduced into all department of the Government , t he treatment of criminal took its place among the recognized branches of the judicial administration . H S stretchy made a survey of jail accommodation throughout the territories of the East India Company in 180 5. Before 1835 there were 43 civil, 75 criminal and 68 mixed jails in the territories under the company Lord McCauley commission report, 1836, public attention was not strongly drown to prisons. The number of Thomas Richardson, the Magistrate of 24 pagans and the superintendent of the jail, at the presidency of Calcutta, was the moving case of public attention to the jail problem. About this incident, E C wines wr ote, “the murder of the Governor of the most important person of India was the immediate moving cause o f the broad and exhaustive enquire which was at once set on foot . The evidence collected shows that pris on discipline had at that time only reached the stage of development in which considerable attention was given to the physical condition of the inmates of the prisons. This report was prepared by Lord McCauley, than law member of supreme council of India. In this report Lord McCauley expressed the idea that the be st criminal code can be of very little use to a community unless there be good machinery for the infliction of punishment. 2.3 Prison in Sub-continent 2.3.1 The prison discipline committee, 1836 Lord William Bentick appointed the second committee on January 2, 1836.The Prison enquiry committee appointed by the Government of Indiain 1836 recommended for the abolition of the practice of prisoners working on roads. Under the chairmanship of H Shakespeare, a member of Governor General’s council. This committee is known as the prison discipline committee. They submitted a report in 1838 to Lord Auck land. The major observation were : The rampant corruption in the establishment Laxity of discipline The system of employing prisoners on extra moral labor. The committee recommended increased rigorou s treatments and rejected all notions of reforming criminals through moral and religions teaching , educati on or any system of rewards for good conduct. First inspector general of prisons was appointed in India in 1844, for the north west province 2.3.2 The 2nd Jail Enquiry Committee &Commission of jail management and discipline (1862-1864): A second committee was appointed in 1864 re reconsider the whole question addressed by the first com mittee. Sir Jhon Lawrence’s examination of the condition of the jails in India lades Lord Dalhousie to appoi nt this commission of jail management discipline. This commission made specific recommendation regar ding the accommodation, improvement diet , clothing , bedding, medical care of the prisoner s and the ap pointment of medical officers in jails . 2.3.3 The 3rd Jail Enquiry Committee and Calcutta Conference: A conference of experts was convened in 1877 al Calcutta in inquire into prison administration. The reme dy proposed by the conference of 1877 was the enactment of a new prison law , which could secure unifo rmity of system at least on such basic issues as the reckoning of the terms of sentence .Thereafter, cert ain recommendations were also made by the 3rd bjail enquiry committee in 1877 followed by further sugg estions in 1889 and 1892. 2.3.4 The 4th jail commission 1888: In 1888, the 4th jail commission was appointed by Lord Duferin to inquire into the facts of prison. This co mmission reviewed the earlier reports (Reports of 1836, 1864 and 1877) and made an exhaustive inquiry i nto all matters connected with jail administration 2.3.5 The Acts 1894 based on the 1888: Jail commission’s report, a consolidated prison bill was prepared. This bill was later passed. Thus came in to the prison s Act, 1894 which is the existing law governing the management and administration of prison s in Indian subcontinent.The Penal policy as reflected through the act continued to be far from reformative and contemporary.The English thinking of deterrence was the basis of the Act 2.3.6 The India jail committee 1919-20: The Indian Jails reform Committee which was appointed to suggest measures for prison reforms was hea ded by Sir Alexender Cardew.The problems of prison management and administration continued. The Ind ian jail committee 1919-20 made the 1st comprehensible study of this problems in the 20th century. This c ommittee report was treated as a turning point of the prison reforms the the country . for the 1st time in th e history of prisons , “ reformation” and “rehabilitation” of offenders were identified as the objectives of pris on administration . It recommended utilization of prison inmates in productive work so as to bring about th eir reformation. It also emphasized the need for after-care programme for the released prisoners for their r ehabilitation 2.4 Pakistan period : In the year of 1956 than Government of Pakistan formed a reformed committee headed by Deputy Commi ssioner S.Rahmatullah. The committee made a large number of recommendations. Classifying prisoners i nto different categories, reconstructing the service system of jail authority, improving the living standard o f inmates etc.were the administrative reform proposed . moreover commission suggested for the introducti on of parole and probation services and establishment of training institute for the prison personnel. 2.5 Bangladesh Period: Prisons are managed under the Prison Act of 1894, its accompanying Rules, and a range of internally iss ued circulars, notices and orders which together form the Jail Code of 1920. Prisons were earlier treated as punitive centers of confinement and they have remained as such in Bangladesh. Little effort has been made by governments to change these into rehabilitative and correctional institutions. Human rights of the prisoners, unfortunately, have never been a serious concern for the public either. Human rights and legal aid organizations have drawn attention to conditions in prisons which amount to inhuman and degrading tr eatment and can be a source of violation of a person’s right to life and personal integrity. They have also pointed out that prisons as they currently operate offer little scope for correction and reintegration into soci ety. The laws governing prisons, in Bangladesh namely, the Prison Act of 1894, its accompanying Rules, and a range of internally issued circulars, notices and orders which together form the Jail Code of 1920, the P enal Code 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Lunacy Act 1974 and the Children’s Act 1974 directly contravene the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) or the Standard Min imum Rules.
