HOW DID WE GET IN THIS MESS?

HOW DID WE GET INTO THIS MESS?

ORIGINS OF PREVAILING PHILOSOPHY GOVERNING PRISONS

by Ike Griffin


WELCOME
“ABANDON ALL HOPE YE WHO ENTER HERE” is chiseled above the prisoner entrance to Dartmoor Prison in England. This admonition, aptly applied to the prison environment, is a phrase borrowed from an inscription over the Gates of Hell in Dante Alighieri’s classic, “Inferno”.
I AM THE WAY INTO THE CITY OF WOE.
I AM THE WAY TO A FORSAKEN PEOPLE.
I AM THE WAY INTO ETERNAL SORROW.

SACRED JUSTICE MOVED MY ARCHITECT.
I WAS RAISED HERE BY DIVINE OMNIPOTENCE,
PRIMORDIAL LOVE AND ULTIMATE INTELLECT.

ONLY THOSE ELEMENTS TIME CANNOT WEAR
WERE MADE BEFORE ME, AND BEYOND TIME I STAND.
ABANDON ALL HOPE YE WHO ENTER HERE.

The phrase is echoed throughout, and sets the theme for, the 19th century Australian classic, For the Term of His Natural Life by Marcus Clarke . Its message is quite clear; “having been found guilty of violating the laws of our society, life as you know it is finished!” That succinct assessment of life in prison is not applied exclusively to prisons of an earlier age. The same notation may be seen, less conspicuously, in other prison reception areas, occasionally in the United States. The phrase is repeated and recognized among correctional professionals and reflects a deeply entrenched attitude regarding prisoners and their plight. Harsh as it is, the phrase echoes public sentiment.

America was born during the industrial revolution, a period which brought the need for foreign sources of raw materials to supply factories of industrial Europe. England, along with the other maritime powers, hastened to colonize Africa, the Americas, Southeast Asia and the South Pacific. England achieved the greater voice in North American culture and our legal system was largely derived from the English model. Corrections in the United States inherited much of its methodology from the British Prison Service.

“Punishment in English criminal law was intended to be quick and public to serve as a deterrent to other crime. Thus, forms of punishment ranged from shaming display- the pillory, mutilation, branding, public stocks, and ducking stools–to severe and aggravated capital punishments-hanging, drowning, burning, burial alive, or decapitation…”

Two methodologies are worthy of examination because they readily demonstrate contrasts in financial and rehabilitative efficiency; 1) holding prisoners in public stocks in the town square, and 2) transporting prisoners out of sight and mind. The first was perhaps the most efficient correctional procedure ever devised by man. The second is the most costly and destructive to any society that chooses to adopt the concept, and it prevails today as philosophical guide for our correctional systems.

THE PUBLIC STOCKS

The public stocks approach represented the most efficient method for punishing the crime perpetrator because, while it cost the community little, it provided all the elements essential to positively influence behavior:
1. establishment of authority
2. punishment of the offender
3. victim/perpetrator confrontation or satisfaction
4. forgiveness
5. acceptance of the perpetrator back into society.

After a perpetrator had been found guilty, he could be sentenced to the public stocks, normally located in the town-square. Displaying the hapless perpetrator, pilloried on public exhibition, was humiliating, demeaning, and was considered punishment by all who witnessed the spectacle. The very act of being publicly punished in the town square, available to public scorn, clearly and demonstrably established the authority of the community to punish violators of their laws, reminding the offending party, the community and potential crime perpetrators, of that authority and also vividly demonstrated the consequences of crime. The local citizenry was free to tell the prisoner what they thought of his criminal behavior, to low-rate and scorn him, but they could not physically hurt the prisoner. They were absolutely free to verbally abuse him, but could not physically strike him. Victim/perpetrator confrontation occurred in a natural, anticipated manner, extremes held in check and tempered by public visibility. Confrontation between perpetrator and victim, the two most intimately involved parties to the crime, was integral to the process.

Sympathetic and compassionate souls among the community had the opportunity to occasionally provide a drink of water or even spoon-feed the hapless prisoner. If they did not come to the prisoner’s aid, the prisoner received nothing, for he was absolutely helpless in his condition and nothing was provided for his comfort by the authorities.

A helpless and powerless condition was then, just as it remains today, fertile ground for the possibility of transformation. Absent a broken condition, there is scant chance of transformation in any of us, and possibilities for transformation extended beyond hope for the prisoner to include the community. If a single individual from the community demonstrated compassion, it began a creative transformation. A seed of compassion often generates a life of its own, first working jointly on the prisoner and on the person offering compassion, but then spreading throughout the entire community, following the creative nature of the universe.

Having been the recipient of compassion, the prisoner could then recognize a reality of the creative order; that is our dependency and reliance upon one another. As the sun set on the third day of punishment, the local sheriff or constable, in the company of a clergy or local church authority, would typically approach the public stocks. The sheriff would, with some local fanfare and ceremony, unlock the constraint and the clergy would bless the individual and add an admonishment to “go and sin no more.”

Having vented their anger and frustration directly at the offender, the offended were more apt to be able to forgive. Clearly, they would view the offender with suspicion and be wary upon future chance meetings, but they were more inclined to accept the offender back into the community, having had the opportunity to display their own wounds and personally view administration of punishment.

From all reports, recidivism in conjunction with corrections administered via the public stocks was not much of a problem. Once experienced, the public stocks were not often re-visited. The cost, as mentioned, was minimal.

TRANSPORTATION

Transporting British prisoners out of sight and mind helped populate these colonies. For 150 years beginning in 1615, English prisoners were transported aboard “hulks” to indentured servitude in the American colonies, ending with the outbreak of the War for Independence in 1776. English were then forced to transport their prisoners on the longer voyage to Australia. Australia and America thus became beneficiaries of both the English genetic pool and British judicial philosophy.

British judicial philosophy was shaped by the Battle of Hastings, when the Norman, King Richard, prevailed in the field of battle and set up a new order, later outlined in the Magna Carta and signed at Runnymede on June 15, 1215. That celebrated document not only gave rights to serfs, previously governed by rules set forth by their individual landlords, who may or may not have possessed a benevolent bone, but the document also removed victims from the crime/punishment equation. The Magna Carta established the judicial philosophy that all crimes, regardless of the victim, were henceforth seen as offenses against the King’s peace.

From that day forward, all accused perpetrators came against the full weight of the King’s court. Regardless of whether the accusations against them were for stealing a loaf of bread from the baker or robbing a bank, whether for carelessly injuring someone or cold blooded murder, whether it be for domestic violence or public terrorism, all accused faced the might of the government’s court. Regardless of an individual’s ability to defend himself, the full weight of the King’s Court came against him. If the accused was found guilty, the king then had the right and the duty to punish the perpetrator, along with the right to confiscate assets belonging to the guilty in compensation for the costs of conviction and punishment. If the accused had personal resources to throw into a defense effort, the court contest was more evenly balanced. If limited or no personal assets were available for defense, whatever was perceived as best for the king’s interests usually prevailed.

The disproportionate nature of resources available to trial contestants may seem unfair, but it was a marked improvement and a definite step up from the church-sanctioned “trial by ordeal” that prevailed during the Dark Ages of European history. “Trial by ordeal” meant that specific ordeals were imposed, such as keelhauling, ducking, or carrying a red-hot ingot for a prescribed distance, as trials for specific crimes. If the accused lived through the ordeal, or healed rapidly, it was proof that they were not guilty, that God was on their side and had protected them, just as God had protected Shadrach, Meshack, and Abednego when they were accused of disobedience to Nebuchadnezzar and thrown into the furnace.

BIRTH OF NIMBY

The practice of punishment via the public stocks was soon abandoned after the revolution in a spirit of freedom and perhaps an unconscious need to re-invent things British into a more American mode. The Quakers of Pennsylvania came up with the idea of the penitentiary, or place for the penitents. Left in a cell with a table, a chair and a Bible, prisoners were expected to find redemption.

Transport of long-term prisoners was not an option for the American colonies, but the philosophy remained. Away from the day-to-day scrutiny of the public, prison colonies run by Britain had developed into institutions of highly autonomous nature. Closed to public visibility, prisons were regarded as mysterious places associated with fear and dread. This colonial philosophy regarding incarceration may be seen manifest today in the United States as “Not In My Back Yard,” (NIMBY). The concept engenders a “them and us” mentality that makes difficult, if not rendering impossible, the elements essential to positively influence behavior:
1. authority of the community is diminished (they cannot deal with us),
2. Punishment becomes invisible to the community and denied by the perpetrator,
3. Victim/perpetrator confrontation does not happen and there is no satisfaction,
4. hope of forgiveness is lost,
5. no compassion is seen and successful re-entry into society highly unlikely.

And yet, we continue to be driven by the philosophy even though it has not been effective as a restorative force in society and the costs are reaching a prohibitive level.