Genesis of the concept of correctional punishment: from antiquity to modern times

The Petworth House of Correction regime was based on the concept of correctional confinement, which was defended by representatives of Protestant churches. It was first publicly voiced in 1740 by the influential theologian Joseph Butler: “Then, as the only purposes of punishments, less than capital, are to reform the offenders themselves, and warn the innocent by their example, everything which should contribute to make this kind of punishments answer these purposes better than it does, would be a great improvement. And whether it be not a thing practicable, and what would contribute somewhat towards it, to exclude utterly all sorts of revel mirth from places where offenders are confined, to separate the young from the old, and force them both, in solitude with labour and low diet, to make the experiment how far their natural strength of mind can support them under guilt, and shame and poverty. Then again, some religious instruction particularly adapted to their condition would as properly accompany those punishments which are intended to reform as it does capital ones. But since it must be acknowledged of greater consequence in a religious as well as civil respect how persons live than how they die” [47].

A proponent of this approach was George Onesiphorus Paul, who implemented a large-scale prison reform in Gloucestershire and opened England's first penitentiary house in 1791 in Gloucester. G.O. Paul noted: “I am far from thinking that prisons should be places of Comfort. They should be Places of Real Terror, to those whom the Laws would terrify; of Punishment to those whom they would punish [.] The regime should be such as will produce Reflection; the Food such as will support Life, and preserve Health, but by no means animate the spirits. Dejection and Solitude are the natural Parents of Reflection'. Even religion was to offer little comfort: The Terrors of a future World are Essential to the Reformation of Men, who have learnt to brave the Powers of this” [1, p. 100].

A different approach to correction was implemented in the Southwell House of Correction: solitary confinement was applied only to newly arrived convicts and violators of discipline; convicts were placed in separate blocks of 5 people. Chaplain of the institution Rev. John Thomas Becher argued that the correction and formation of positive habits is possible only in society. Joint detention extended to a small number of people, which, with the careful control of supervisors, made it impossible for criminals to negatively influence each other, but allowed achieving correctional influence [1, p. 122]. Thus, in Gloucester, correction had to be achieved through solitude and reflection and, as a result, repentance, and in Southwell - through work, the formation of positive skills and social adaptation. But in both cases, the prison chaplain should have been the key figure in the correction process.

These approaches to correcting J. Bentham contrasted the concept of a Panopticon, which combines correctional influence and control. A criminal in solitary confinement in a Panopticon is not so much to reflect on what he has done, pray and repent, as to learn to control himself and work. These are the main components of correction and a return to a law-abiding life. Solitary confinement, as noted by J. Bentham, in essence, corresponds to the purpose of correction and Panopticon is most suitable for this. For a jailer, there are many prisoners, but not a crowd, all of them alone. Thanks to the architectural solution of the Panopticon (the rounded shape of the building, cell windows and latticed doors), everything that happens in the cell is clearly visible from the central point where the inspector's inspection “cabin” is locat ed and he can observe all the cameras, but remains invisible [48, p. 5-20].

As you can see, J. Bentham adopted Giginta's idea of centralised surveillance, the purpose of which is to influence delinquents (even technical subtleties are borrowed, and this suggests that J. Bentham or his brother Samuel was familiar with the Spanish treatise - auth.) and supplemented it with architectural innovations, which were first tested in the House of Correction of St. Michael in Rome. J. Bentham tried to create the illusion of constant surveillance in the Panopticon. The convict could never be sure that he was not being controlled, and was forced to constantly behave as if he was being watched.

Later J. Bentham revised the thesis of solitary confinement as a necessary condition for correction. After analysing the organisational foundations of the new prisons, where the division only for the night prevailed, J. Bentham came to the conclusion that the disadvantages of solitary confinement are much more than the benefits. Security and correction can be achieved through clear rules and proper management, not just strict isolation. With a reasonable distribution of convicts for cohabitation, the Reformation impact should have been preserved [34, p. 33-34].

The Project of the Panopticon by J. Bentham was one of the last purely theoretical correctional concepts. At the level of doctrine at the beginning of the XIX century in Britain the concept of a system of penitentiary imprisonment, which is understood as “a system of imposition, not confined to the safe custody of the person but, extending to the reformation and improvement of the mind, and operating by seclusion, employment, and religious instruction” [49]. It is this approach that will be decisive in the next 100 years: prison reformers will implement disciplinary models in practice, organising large-scale penitentiary institutions for hundreds of prisoners and experimenting with correctional measures.

correctional punishment penitentiary

Conclusions

The conceptualisation of correctional punishment was the basis of the penitentiary discourse of the XIX century. The Anglo-Saxon experience became a model for building national penitentiary systems, which led to the creation of the myth of the exceptional primacy of English and American prison reformers in their foundation. However, it was not possible to create an ideal model of correctional punishment, and the world penology is constantly in search of effective forms of correction. Although it is difficult to imagine that previous generations have created concepts that may be of not only historical, but also practical interest, it is worth noting the modest progress of humanity in the field of ideas, and this, on the contrary, forces us to get rid of mythological perception and recreate the origins of the doctrine of correctional punishment.

The first conceptual ideas regarding correctional punishment are found in Plato's reflections, which contain a paternalistic vision of the role of the ruler in the upbringing of subjects, the formation of law-abiding behavior, which was developed by Roman lawyers. Thus, even in ancient times, an anthropocentric concept of punishment was formed, the purpose of which is to correct and return to society. In the early Christian period, it is supplemented with a penitential component. The first penitentiary institution, in fact, in which the origins of correctional punishment in the form of imprisonment lie, was monastic imprisonment.

Calls for the humanisation of the system of punishments during the Renaissance are conditioned by a utilitarian approach: it is unwise to take a person's life, if it can bring benefits - to work. In the XVI century, labour, not only as a punitive element, but also as a correctional one, became the basis of social policy implemented in workhouses. Innovative ideas for the organisation of centralised supervision of delinquents to achieve their correction first formulated by Miguel de Giginta in 1579. This approach was later upgraded by Jeremy Bentham in the Panopticon concept.

The ideas of correctional punishment were formed in the European expanses at the level of doctrine and had practical implementation in correctional and penitentiary houses in the late XVII - early XVIII centuries. This was a revival of the ancient paternalistic concept, supplemented by a religious doctrine that provided for influencing the soul of the offender for the purpose of repentance and correction. The analysis of the regime principles of correctional institutions in Florence and Rome gives grounds to conclude that it was during this period that two penitentiary systems: solitary confinement and congregate system which in the XIX century will compete for the championship in penal practice in most countries of the world. Given this, the thesis that the forerunners of these systems were the regime principles of English correctional houses seems such that it does not correspond to reality. The main components of the correctional regime that originated in previous periods: solitary confinement, silence, spiritual care and work, at the end of the XVIII century were borrowed by English prison reformers, supplemented and implemented in the practice of correctional houses.

The quintessence of the above-mentioned concepts became the basis for the formation of penitentiary systems of the XIX century, which proves the progressiveness of the ideas of correctional punishment, especially given the fact that some of their elements are still used in the practical activities of prisons and correctional institutions.

References

1. McConville S. (2015). A history of English prison administration: 1750-1877. Routledge: GreatBritain.

2. Berman J. (1918). Punishment or correction? (Regarding the article by L.A. Savrasov “Crime and punishment in the current transition period”). Proletarian Revolution and Law, 8-10, 46-51.

3. Robinson G., Crow I. (2009). Offender rehabilitation: Theory, research and practice. United States: SAGE Publications Ltd.

4. Byrne J.M., Pattavina A., Faye S.T. (2015). International trends in prison upsizing and downsizing: In Search of evidence of a global rehabilitation revolution. Victims & Offenders, 10(4), 420-451.

5. Sturr C. (2003). Philosophical theories of punishment and the history of prison reform. In A. Sarat, P. Ewick (Eds.), Punishment, politics and culture. Studies in law, politics, and society (pp. 85-104). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

6. Casey S., Day A., Howells K. (2005). The application of the transtheoretical model to offender populations: Some critical issues. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10, 157-171.

7. Mueller O.W. (1966). Punishment, corrections, and the law. Nebraska Law Review, 45, 58-98.

8. Hunter V. (2008). Plato's prison. Greece & Rome, 55(2), 193-201.

9. Saunders J.T. (1991). Plato's penal code: Tradition, controversy, and reform in Greek penology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

10. Hubertus G. (2009). Society in Filarete's “Libro architettonico” between realism, ideal, science fiction and utopia. Nuova Serie, 155(1), 56-80.

11. Sierra F.S. (2012). Aproximacion a las fuentes de Miguel de Giginta. In A. Pages (Ed.), Giginta (pp. 135-176). Perpignan: Presses universitaires de Perpignan. doi: 10.4000/books.pupvd.3585.

12. Molina J.G. (2012). Miguel de Giginta. La pasion moderna por la Mirada. In A. Pages (Ed.), Giginta (pp. 219-235). Perpignan: Presses universitaires de Perpignan. doi: 10.4000/books.pupvd.3585.

13. Sellin T. (1926). Filippo Franci - a Precursor of modern penology - a historical note. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 17(1), 104-112.

14. Sellin T. (1927). Dom Jean Mabillon - a prison reformer of the seventeenth century. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 17(4), 581-602.

15. Semple J. (1992). Foucault and Bentham: A defence of panopticism. Utilitas, 4(1), 105-120.

16. Hillner J. (2015). Prison, punishment and penance in late antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

17. Geltner G. (2008). The medieval prison: A social history. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

18. Spierenburg P. (2007). The prison experience: Disciplinary institutions and their inmates in early modern Europe. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

19. Schneider C.E. (1979). The rise of prisons and the origins of the rehabilitative ideal. Michigan Law Review, 77, 707-746.

20. Losev A.F., Asmus V.F. (Eds.). (2007). Translated from the ancient Greek (Vol. 3. Part 2). St. Petersburg: Publishing House of Oleg Abyshko.

21. Seneca. De Clementia.

22. Donaldson J., Clark T. (1872). On repentance. In Ante-Nicene Christian library: The writings of Tertullian (Vol. 1). (pp. 257-278). Edinburgh: MDCCCLXIX.

23. Skotnicki, A. (2006). God's prisoners: Penal confinement and the creation of purgatory. Modern Theology, January, 22(1), 85-110.

24. Skotnicki A. (2014). Religion, conversion, and rehabilitation. Criminal Justice Ethics, 33(2), 104-128.

25. Geltner G. (2008). Detrusio: Penal cloistering in the Middle ages. Revue Benedictine, 118, 89-108.

26. Morrison T. (2015). Unbuilt utopian cities 1460 to 1900: Reconstructing their architecture and political philosophy. London: Routledge.

27. Hub B. (2012). Founding an ideal city in Filarete's Libro architettonico (C. 1460). Intersections, 22, 17-57.

28. Glazychev V.L. (1999). Filarete (Antonio di Pietro Averulino). A treatise on architecture. Moscow: Russian University Publishing House.

29. Pullan B. (2005). Catholics, protestants, and the poor in early Modern Europe. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 35(3), 441-456.

30. Vives J.L. (1999). On assistance to the poor. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

31. Spicker P. (Ed.). (2020). The origins of modern welfare: Juan Luis Vives: On the relief of the poor, or of human need.

32. Giginta M. (2000). Tratado de remedio de pobres. (Coimbra, por Antonio de MARIZ, Impressor y Librero de la Universidad, Aho 1579). Barcelona: Edicion moderna en Barcelona.

33. Stanziani A. (2009). The traveling panopticon: Labor institutions and labor practices in Russia and Britain in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 51(4), 715-741.

34. Bentham J. (1791). Panopticon: Postscript (Part I). London.

35. Uria F.A. (1979). De la policia de la pobreza a las carceles del alma. El Basilisco: Revista de Materialismo Filosofico, 8, 64-71.

36. Scanaroli G.B. (1655). De Visitatione Carceratorum. Roma: Typis Reverendae Camerae Apostolicae.

37. Parente A. (2007). La Chiesa in carcere. Roma: Ufficio Studi Dipartimento Amministrazione Penitenziaria Ministero della Giustizia.

38. Bechi N. (1741). Vita del venerabil servo di Dio Filippo Franci. Firenze: Nella stamperia di Pietro Gaetano Viviani.

39. Steadman P. (2014). Building types and built forms. GreatBritain: Troubador Publishing Ltd.

40. Sellin T. (1970). The origin of the “Pennsylvania system of prison discipline”. The Prison Journal, 50(1), 13-21.

41. Paolis C. (1979). La Pia casa di penitenza di Corneto o “Ergastolo”. Societd Tarquiniense d'Arte e Storia, Bollettino, 8, 107-114.

42. Mabillon J. (1724). Riflexions sur les prisons des ordres religieux. In Ouvrages Posthuines de D. Jean Mabillon et de D. Thierri Ruinart, Binidictins de la Congrdgation de Saint Maur (Vol. 2). (pp. 321-335). Paris: Francois Babuty, Jean Francois Josse, Ant. Cl. Briasson.

43. Pratt J. (2008). Scandinavian exceptionalism in an era of penal excess: Part I: The nature and roots of Scandinavian exceptionalism. The British Journal of Criminology, 48(2), 119-137.

44. Beccaria C. (2004). On crimes and punishments. Moscow: Infra-M.

45. Hanway J. (1776). Solitude in imprisonment. London: Printed for J. Bew.

46. Pickering D., Britain G. (1778). The statutes at large from the Magna Charta, to the end of the eleventh Parliament of Great Britain, anno 1761 [continued to 1806] (Vol. 32). Cambridge: Printed by J. Bentham.

47. Sermon II. (1838). Preached before the right Hon. The Lord Mayor, the court of Aldermen, the Sheriffs and the Governors of the several hospitals of the city of London at the parish Church of St. Bridget on monday in Easter week 1740. In The whole works of Joseph Butler (pp. 184-185). London: Lord Bishop of Durham.

48. Bentham J. (1791). Panopticon or the inspection house. Dublin: Re-printed and sold by T. Payne.

49. First Report from the Committee on the Laws Relating to Penitentiary Houses. (1812). Parliamentary Debates: Official Report. (Vol. 20. pp. XC-XCI).

Размещено на Allbest.ru