==Organization==

It is headed by Director Gaudencio S. Pangilinan and the bureau has 2,362 employees, 61% of whom are [[Janitor|custodial]] officers, 33% are [[Administration (business)|administrative]] [[personnel]] and 6% are members of the [[Medicine|medical]] [[Employment|staff]].<ref name="Department of Justice"/>

===Mission===

To maximize the assets' value of the BuCor to effectively pursue its responsibility in safely securing transforming national prisoners through responsive rehabilitation programs managed by professional Correctional Officers.<ref name="Bureau of Corrections">{{Citation | title = Bureau of Corrections | url=http://www.bucor.gov.ph/ | accessdate = 2008-05-27 }}</ref>

===Mandate===

The Principal task of the Bureau of Corrections is the rehabilitation of National Prisoners.<ref name="Bureau of Corrections"/>

::The Bureau carries out the following task to carry out its mandate:<ref name="Bureau of Corrections"/>Country Listing

Philippines Table of Contents

Philippines

The Correctional System

In the late 1980s, institutions for the confinement of convicts and the detention of those awaiting trial included a variety of national prisons and penal farms as well as numerous small local jails and lockups. In general, the national prisons housed more serious offenders, and those serving short-term sentences were held in local facilities. The prison system at the national level was supervised by the Bureau of Prisons of the Department of Justice. The bureau was responsible for the safekeeping of prisoners and their rehabilitation through general and moral education and technical training in industry and agriculture. The bureau also oversaw the operation of prison agro-industries and the production of food commodities. In 1991 the newly formed Philippine National Police took over administration of local jails.

The government maintained six correctional institutions and penal farms. The nation's largest prison was the National Penitentiary at Muntinlupa, Rizal Province, near Manila, which also operated the Manila City Jail. The penitentiary served as the central facility for those sentenced

to life imprisonment or long-term incarceration. It was divided into two camps to separate those serving maximum and minimum penalties. The Correctional Institution for Women was located in Metropolitan Manila. Combination prison and penal farms also were located in Zamboanga City, and in Palawan, Mindoro Occidental, and in several Mindanao provinces. Prison conditions in the Philippines were generally poor, and prison life was harsh.

Some prison inmates were eligible for parole and probation. Before serving their sentence, felons, who were not charged with subversion or insurgency, or had not been on probation before, could apply for probation. Probationers were required to meet with their parole officers monthly, to avoid any further offense, and to comply with all other court-imposed conditions. After serving an established minimum sentence, certain prisoners could apply to their parole board for release. The board could also recommend pardon to the president for prisoners it believed to have reformed and who presented no menace to society.

In 1991 crime still was a serious, if somewhat reduced, threat to the general peace and security of society and was aggravated by corruption in the police and court systems. The politicization of the military was seen as a long-term problem and the threat of a military coup remained significant. The threat of a CPP-led takeover seemed to be receding as NPA guerrilla strength ebbed. The socioeconomic roots of the revolutionary movement remained and promised to make the insurgency a problem for some time to come, despite its slow decline. The government also recognized the continuing threat posed by well-armed Filipino Muslim rebels, although few feared a near-term resurgent Moro uprising. External security threats were not perceived.

* * *

A series of well-researched books published in the late 1980s added immensely to the available body of work on the Philippine communist insurgency. William Chapman's Inside the Philippine Revolution offers unique insights on the revolutionary movement. Richard Kessler's Rebellion and Repression in the Philippines provides a thorough review of the insurgency, especially its social and cultural roots. Gregg Jones's Red Revolution combines discussions of the CPP's historical development with revealing interviews with communist leaders and first-hand reports on guerrilla commanders and political cadres in the field. Although predictably dogmatic, books by CPP founder Jose Maria Sison--Philippine Society and Revolution and The Philippine Revolution--present the theoretical underpinnings of the insurgency (the former appears under his nom de guerre, Amado Guerrero). Annual updates on the progress of the communist movement can be found in the Yearbook on International Communist Affairs.

Comprehensive studies of the Philippine military are few. Richard Kessler's Rebellion and Repression in the Philippines provides the most thorough examination of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and their strengths and weaknesses. The history of Philippine civil-military relations is explored by two doctoral dissertations: Donald L. Berlin's "Prelude to Martial Law" and Carolina Hernandez's "The Extent of Civilian Control of the Military in the Philippines." More current information on the military's role in politics can be found in the Far Eastern Economic Review, Asian Defence Journal, and Pacific Defence Reporter.

Standard references on military capabilities include annual editions of The Military Balance, prepared by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, and the United States Arms Control

and Disarmament Agency's World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers. Jane's Infantry Weapons, Jane's Armour and Artillery, Jane's All the World's Aircraft, and Jane's Fighting Ships also are useful. The military's human rights performance is reviewed annually by the Amnesty International Report and by the United States Department of State's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. (For further information and complete citations, see Bibliography.)

Data as of June 1991

Country Listing

Philippines Table of Contents

Philippines-The Correctional SystemPhilippines Index

In the late 1980s, institutions for the confinement of convicts and the detention of those awaiting trial included a variety of national prisons and penal farms as well as numerous small local jails and lockups. In general, the national prisons housed more serious offenders, and those serving short-term sentences were held in local facilities. The prison system at the national level was supervised by the Bureau of Prisons of the Department of Justice. The bureau was responsible for the safekeeping of prisoners and their rehabilitation through general and moral education and technical training in industry and agriculture. The bureau also oversaw the operation of prison agro-industries and the production of food commodities. In 1991 the newly formed Philippine National Police took over administration of local jails.

The government maintained six correctional institutions and penal farms. The nation's largest prison was the National Penitentiary at Muntinlupa, Rizal Province, near Manila, which also operated the Manila City Jail. The penitentiary served as the central facility for those sentenced to life imprisonment or long-term incarceration. It was divided into two camps to separate those serving maximum and minimum penalties. The Correctional Institution for Women was located in Metropolitan Manila. Combination prison and penal farms also were located in Zamboanga City, and in Palawan, Mindoro Occidental, and in several Mindanao provinces. Prison conditions in the Philippines were generally poor, and prison life was harsh.

Some prison inmates were eligible for parole and probation. Before serving their sentence, felons, who were not charged with subversion or insurgency, or had not been on probation before, could apply for probation. Probationers were required to meet with their parole officers monthly, to avoid any further offense, and to comply with all other court-imposed conditions. After serving an established minimum sentence, certain prisoners could apply to their parole board for release. The board could also recommend pardon to the president for prisoners it believed to have reformed and who presented no menace to society.

In 1991 crime still was a serious, if somewhat reduced, threat to the general peace and security of society and was aggravated by corruption in the police and court systems. The politicization of the military was seen as a long-term problem and the threat of a military coup remained significant. The threat of a CPP-led takeover seemed to be receding as NPA guerrilla strength ebbed. The socioeconomic roots of the revolutionary movement remained and promised to make the insurgency a problem for some time to come, despite its slow decline. The government also recognized the continuing threat posed by well-armed Filipino Muslim rebels, although few feared a near-term resurgent Moro uprising. External security threats were not perceived.

* * *

A series of well-researched books published in the late 1980s added immensely to the available body of work on the Philippine communist insurgency. William Chapman's Inside the Philippine Revolution offers unique insights on the revolutionary movement. Richard Kessler's Rebellion and Repression in the Philippines provides a thorough review of the insurgency, especially its social and cultural roots. Gregg Jones's Red Revolution combines discussions of the CPP's historical development with revealing interviews with communist leaders and first-hand reports on guerrilla commanders and political cadres in the field. Although predictably dogmatic, books by CPP founder Jose Maria Sison--Philippine Society and Revolution andThe Philippine Revolution--present the theoretical underpinnings of the insurgency (the former appears under his nom de guerre, Amado Guerrero). Annual updates on the progress of the communist movement can be found in the Yearbook on International Communist Affairs.

Comprehensive studies of the Philippine military are few. Richard Kessler's Rebellion and Repression in the Philippines provides the most thorough examination of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and their strengths and weaknesses. The history of Philippine civil-military relations is explored by two doctoral dissertations: Donald L. Berlin's "Prelude to Martial Law" and Carolina Hernandez's "The Extent of Civilian Control of the Military in the Philippines." More current information on the military's role in politics can be found in the Far Eastern Economic Review, Asian Defence Journal, and Pacific Defence Reporter.

Standard references on military capabilities include annual editions of The Military Balance, prepared by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, and the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency's World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers. Jane's Infantry Weapons, Jane's Armour and Artillery, Jane's All the World's Aircraft, and Jane's Fighting Ships also are useful. The military's human rights performance is reviewed annually by the Amnesty International Report and by the United States Department of State's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. (For further information and complete citations, see Bibliography.)

Data as of June 1991

Spanish Rule

Old Bilibid Prison circa 1900

The Old Bilibid Prison which was located on Oroquieta Street in Manila was established in 1847 and by a Royal Decree formally opened on April 10, 1866. On August 21, 1870 the San Ramon Prison and Penal Farm was established in Zamboanga City for Muslim and political prisoners opposed to the rule of Spain.

[edit] American Colony

the Iuhit penal Settlement now known as Iwahig Prison and Penal Farm was established in 1904 by the Americans in 28,072 hectares of land. The land areas expanded to 40,000 hectares in the

late 1950s.[4] and expanded again to 41,007 hectares by virtue of Executive Order No. 67 issued by Governor Newton Gilbert on October 15, 1912.

The Bureau of Prisons was created under the Reorganization Act of 1905 as an agency under the Department of Commerce and Police. The Reorganization Act also re-established the San Ramon Prison in 1907 which was destroyed during the Spanish-American War in 1888. The prison was placed under the Bureau of Prisons and receive prisoners in Mindanao.[4]

The Correctional Institution for Women was founded on November 27, 1929 and it is the one and only prison for women in the Philippines.It was established to the Act No. 3579.[4]

On January 21, 1932, the bureau opened the Davao Penal Colony in Southern Mindanao.[4]

The New Bilibid Prison was established in 1935 in Mutinlupa due to the increased rate of prisoners.[4]

Proclamation No. 72 issued on September 26, 1954, established the Sablayan Prison and Penal Farm in Occidental Mindoro. and the Leyte Regional Prison was established on January 16, 1973, under Proclamation No. 1101.[4]

[edit] New Name

Administrative Code of 1987 and Proclamation No. 495 issued on November 22, 1989. Change the agencies' name to Bureau of Corrections from Bureau of Prisons.[4]

[edit] Logo

The logo presented here, is symbolic of the Bureau's mandate, the rehabilitation of inmate. The logo focuses on the man in prison as the main concern of rehabilitation. It presents man behind bars, but who looks outwards with the hope of rejoining the free community. The rays of the sun and the color green are symbolic of hope. The color orange is symbolic of happiness. The bar of justice represents the justice system. (jrcp)[4]

American Colony

the Iuhit penal Settlement now known as Iwahig Prison and Penal Farm was established in 1904 by the Americans in 28,072 hectares of land. The land areas expanded to 40,000 hectares in the late 1950s.[4] and expanded again to 41,007 hectares by virtue of Executive Order No. 67 issued by Governor Newton Gilbert on October 15, 1912.

The Bureau of Prisons was created under the Reorganization Act of 1905 as an agency under the Department of Commerce and Police. The Reorganization Act also re-established the San Ramon Prison in 1907 which was destroyed during the Spanish-American War in 1888. The prison was placed under the Bureau of Prisons and receive prisoners in Mindanao.[4]

The Correctional Institution for Women was founded on November 27, 1929 and it is the one and only prison for women in the Philippines.It was established to the Act No. 3579.[4]

On January 21, 1932, the bureau opened the Davao Penal Colony in Southern Mindanao.[4]

The New Bilibid Prison was established in 1935 in Mutinlupa due to the increased rate of prisoners.[4]

Proclamation No. 72 issued on September 26, 1954, established the Sablayan Prison and Penal Farm in Occidental Mindoro. and the Leyte Regional Prison was established on January 16, 1973, under Proclamation No. 1101.[4]

[edit] New Name

Administrative Code of 1987 and Proclamation No. 495 issued on November 22, 1989. Change the agencies' name to Bureau of Corrections from Bureau of Prisons.[4]

During the pre-colonial times, the informal prison system was community-based, as there were no national penitentiaries to speak of. Natives who defied or violated the local laws were meted appropriate penalties by the local chieftains. Incarceration in the community was only meant to prevent the culprit from further harming the local residents.

The formal prison system in the Philippines started only during the Spanish regime, where an organized corrective service was made operational. Established in 1847 pursuant to Section 1708 of the Revised Administrative Code and formally opened by Royal Decree in 1865, the Old Bilibid Prison was constructed as the main penitentiary on Oroquieta Street, Manila and designed to house the prison population of the country. This prison became known as the “Carcel y Presidio Correccional” and could accommodate 1,127 prisoners.

The Carcel was designed to house 600 prisoners who were segregated according to class, sex and crime while the Presidio could accommodate 527 prisoners. Plans for the construction of the prison were first published on September 12, 1859 but it was not until April 10, 1866 that the entire facility was completed.

The prison occupied a quadrangular piece of land 180 meters long on each side, which was formerly a part of the Mayhalique Estate in the heart of Manila. It housed a building for the offices and quarters of the prison warden, and 15 buildings or departments for prisoners that were arranged in a radial way to form spokes. The central tower formed the hub. Under this tower was the chapel. There were four cell-houses for the isolated prisoners and four isolated buildings located on the four corners of the walls, which served as kitchen, hospital and stores. The prison was divided in the middle by a thick wall. One-half of the enclosed space was assigned to Presidio prisoners and the other half to Carcel prisoners.

In 1908, concrete modern 200-bed capacity hospitals as well as new dormitories for the prisoners were

added. A carpentry shop was organized within the confines of the facility. For sometime the shop became a trademark for fine workmanship of furniture made by prisoners. At this time, sales of handicrafts were done through the institutions and inmates were compensated depending on the availability of funds. As a consequence, inmates often had to sell through the retail or barter their products.

On August 21, 1869, the San Ramon Prison and Penal Farm in Zamboanga City was established to confine Muslim rebels and recalcitrant political prisoners opposed to the Spanish rule. The facility, which faced the Jolo sea had Spanish-inspired dormitories and was originally set on a 1,414-hectare sprawling estate. The American and Commonwealth Governments:

When the Americans took over in the 1900s, the Bureau of Prisons was created under the Reorganization Act of 1905 (Act No. 1407 dated November 1, 1905) as an agency under the Department of Commerce and Police. It also paved the way for the re-establishment of San Ramon Prison in 1907 which was destroyed during the Spanish-American War. On January 1, 1915, the San Ramon Prison was placed under the auspices of the Bureau of Prisons and started receiving prisoners from Mindanao.

Before the reconstruction of San Ramon Prison, the Americans established in 1904 the Iuhit penal settlement (now Iwahig Prison and Penal Farm) on a vast reservation of 28,072 hectares. It would reach a total land area of 40,000 hectares in the late 1950s. Located on the westernmost part of the archipelago far from the main town to confine incorrigibles with little hope of rehabilitation, the area was expanded to 41,007 hectares by virtue of Executive Order No. 67 issued by Governor Newton Gilbert on October 15, 1912.

Other penal colonies were established during the American regime. On November 27, 1929, the Correctional Institution for Women (CIW) was created under Act No. 3579 to provide separate facilities for women offenders while the Davao Penal Colony in Southern Mindanao was opened in 1932 under Act No. 3732. Transfer of the Old Bilibid to Muntinlupa:

The increasing number of committals to the Old Bilibid Prison, the growing urbanization of Manila and the constant lobbying by conservative groups prompted the government to plan and develop a new site for the national penitentiary, which was to be on the outskirts of the urban center. Accordingly, Commonwealth Act No. 67 was enacted, appropriating one million (P1,000.000.00) pesos for the construction of a new national prison in the southern suburb of Muntinlupa, Rizal in 1935. The old prison was transformed into a receiving center and a storage facility for farm produce from the colonies. It was later abandoned and is now under the jurisdiction of the Public Estates Authority.

On November 15, 1940, all inmates of the Old Bilibid Prison in Manila were transferred to the new site. The new institution had a capacity of 3,000 prisoners and it was officially named the New Bilibid Prison on January 22, 1941. The prison reservation has an area of 587 hectares, part of which was arable. The prison compound proper had an area of 300 x 300 meters or a total of nine hectares. It was surrounded by three layers of barbed wire. Developments After WWII:

After World War II, there was a surplus of steel matting in the inventory and it was used to improve the security fences of the prison. A death chamber was constructed in 1941 at the rear area of the camp when the mode of execution was through electrocution. In the late ‘60s, fences were further reinforced with concrete slabs. The original institution became the maximum security compound in the 70s and continues to be so up to present, housing not only death convicts and inmates sentenced to life terms, but also those with numerous pending cases, multiple convictions and sentences of more than 20 years.. In the 1980s, the height of the concrete wall was increased and another facility was constructed, 2.5

kilometers from the main building. This became known as Camp Sampaguita or the Medium Security Camp, which was used as a military stockade during the martial law years and the Minimum Security Camp, whose first site was christened “Bukang Liwayway”. Later on, this was transferred to another site within the reservation where the former depot was situated.

Under Proclamation No. 72 issued on September 26, 1954, the Sablayan Prison and Penal Farm in Occidental Mindoro was established. In The Leyte Regional Prison followed suit under Proclamation No. 1101 issued on January 16, 1973. Birth of the Reception and Diagnostic Center:

Recognizing the need to properly orient newly committed prisoners to the Bureau of Corrections, the Reception and Diagnostic Center (RDC) was created through Administrative Order No. 8, series of 1953 of the Department of Justice. It was patterned after the reception facilities of the California State Prison. The RDC is an independent institution tasked to receive, study, and classify all national prisoners committed by final judgment to the National Penitentiary.

The first RDC facility was created in Building No. 9 of the Maximum Security Compound of the New Bilibid Prison (NBP), Muntinlupa City. To isolate the facility from the maximum security wing which was rocked by violence in 1973, the RDC was relocated to Building No. 7, formerly referred to as Metro Jail of the Medium Security Compound of Camp Sampaguita, NBP. To further insulate the newly received inmates from gangs, the Center was transferred to what was once the military command post adjacent to the Medium Security facility where the RDC remains to this day. The RDC is a separate division with a technical function. The Chief of the RDC sees to its independence in carrying out its tasks of receiving and classifying all male national inmates committed to the Bureau of Corrections by the competent courts. The RDC chief reports directly to the Director all the activities undertaken by RDC personnel.

The success of prison rehabilitation programs depends on how the RDC handles the orientation, diagnosis and treatment of newly arrived inmates. Every effort is made to determine an inmate’s strength as well as moral weaknesses, physical inadequacies, character disorders, and his educational, social and vocational needs. It is during the first sixty (60) days, during the initial contact between a prisoner and his new environment that primordial functions pertaining to his care and rehabilitation treatment are exhaustively carried out by the staff. At the end of the period, the inmate is ready for transfer to any of the penal institutions. He is expected to have overcome his fears and prejudices and is prepared to cooperate in the implementation of his rehabilitation program.

Being the initial stop of every national male prisoner, the RDC is constantly improving its rehabilitative programs. One such reform is the adoption of the behavioral modification modality. Originally a program for drug dependents, the RDC chief recognized the potential of applying its principles to all committed inmates. Thus the RDC was turned into a Therapeutic Community Camp on February 6, 2003.

On June 4, 2004, the RDC also started erasing gang marks of all newly committed prisoners in an effort to eradicate the gang system within the Bureau. Later, then Director Dionisio Santiago entrusted the administration of the Muntinlupa Juvenile Training Center (MJTC) to the RDC through a memorandum dated June 18, 2005. Under a memorandum of Director Vicente G. Vinarao dated March 31, 2005, the RDC was given administrative control over all other RDCs of the Bureau of Corrections. The RDC has evolved into an institution that uses a modern positive approach towards penology. Non-Operational National Prisons:

Before World War II, two national prisons were established by the government which are no long operational. One was on Corregidor Island and the other in the Mountain Province.

In 1908 during the American regime, some 100 prisoners were transferred from the Old Bilibid Prison to the Corregidor Island Prison Stockage to work under military authorities. This move was in accordance with an order from the Department of Instructions, which approved the transfer of inmates so they could assist in maintenance and other operations in the stockade.

The inmates were transported not to serve time but for prison labor. Until the outbreak of the Second World War, inmates from Bilibid Prison were regularly sent to Corregidor for labor purposes. When the War broke out, prisoners on Corregidor were returned to Bilibid Prison. The island prison was never re-opened.

The Philippine Legislature during the American regime also passed Act No. 1876 providing for the establishment of a prison in Bontoc, Mountain Province. The prison was built for the prisoners of the province and insular prisoners who were members of the non-Christian tribes of Mountain Province and Nueva Viscaya.

The Bontoc prison could be reach only through narrow, poorly developed mountain roads. Due to the enormous expenses incurred in transporting personnel, equipment and supplies to the prison, the facility was abandoned and officially closed on April 26, 1932.

:: The BuCor Organization

Office of the Director ::: Asst Director for Admin. and Rehab. ::: Asst Director for Prison and Security ::: Medical and Dental Division ::: Reception and Diagnostic Center ::: Administrative

Division ::: General Services Division ::: Logistics Division ::: Operations and Plans Division ::: Budget and Finance Division ::: Accounting Division ::: Training and Education Division ::: Information

Technology Center ::: Intel and Investigation Division ::: Documents Division ::: Industry Development Division ::: Moral and Spiritual Division ::: External Relations Division ::: New Bilibid Prison ::: Correctional Institution for Women ::: Davao Prison and Penal Farm ::: Iwahig Prison and Penal Farm ::: Sablayan Prison and Penal Farm ::: San Ramon Prison and Penal Farm ::: Leyte

Regional Prison

The BuCor Organization

As envisioned, the BuCor will be a modern, secured and professional correction institution which is characterized by a more responsive prison system that is geared towards the humane and spiritually guided rehabilitation of inmates, for their re-integration into the mainstream of society.

To administer and operate the national prison system, the BuCor has an authorized plantilla positions of mixed personnel consisting of civilian employees, medical staff and custodial forces.

Office of the Director ::: Asst Director for Admin. and Rehab. ::: Asst Director for Prison and Security ::: Medical and Dental Division ::: Reception and Diagnostic Center ::: Administrative

Division ::: General Services Division ::: Logistics Division ::: Operations and Plans Division ::: Budget and Finance Division ::: Accounting Division ::: Training and Education Division ::: Information

Technology Center ::: Intel and Investigation Division ::: Documents Division ::: Industry Development Division ::: Moral and Spiritual Division ::: External Relations Division ::: New Bilibid Prison ::: Correctional Institution for Women ::: Davao Prison and Penal Farm ::: Iwahig Prison and Penal Farm ::: Sablayan Prison and Penal Farm ::: San Ramon Prison and Penal Farm ::: Leyte

Regional Prison

Prior to the building of facilities specifically designed for detention and correctional confinement, trials and punishments were swift on the American frontier. Such methods as public flogging, the pillory, and short-term custody as well as the death penalty served as modes of censuring and punishing criminals in early Chicago. In 1831, revisions in the Illinois Criminal Code prohibited public whipping and the pillory, although flogging and pillorying continued inside Illinois prisons into the early twentieth century. In 1832, the newly chartered town of Chicago constructed an “estray pen” at the town square (Randolph and Clark) and a year later developed it into a log jail structure. Cook County and the town erected a courthouse in 1853, which included a basement jail, the jailer's dwelling rooms, the sheriff's office, and the city watch-house. This structure served the city until it was swept away by the Great Fire of 1871.

The House of Correction opened in 1871 on the city's far Southwest Side. This prison workhouse confined mainly individuals unable to pay fines: vagrants, drunks, petty thieves, pickpockets, counterfeiters, smugglers, and especially criminals preying on the growing commerce of Chicago's docks. Nearly all were poor; most had been imprisoned before. Moreover, it was common practice to imprison witnesses to crimes—often women and children—along with the accused against whom they were scheduled to testify.

During this period the police station-house lockup—the “calaboose”—emerged as Chicago's standard form of custody for street criminals. Overused and filthy dens of despair, these “police prisons” finally gave way, by the late 1890s, to the improved construction and architectural design of the city's correctional facilities. A new addition to the County Jail in 1896 at Dearborn Avenue and Illinois Street included separate facilities for women and a section for juvenile offenders.

In the first quarter of the twentieth century, detention periods were becoming longer as a result of delays in the courts. The new County Jail, a Bastille-like structure at 26th Street and California, was termed obsolete on the day it opened in 1929 because it lacked adequate heating and had no separate facilities for female prisoners. Moreover, in 1928 all state executions were moved from the county jails to the state penitentiaries except in counties with populations over a million. The method of inflicting capital punishment was likewise changed from hanging to the electric chair, leaving Cook County with the only county jail in the state eligible to maintain its own electric chair and carry out its own executions. The electrocution of James Dukes in 1962 was the last execution carried out at the Cook County Jail.

Subject to the politics of a one-term sheriff and an entrenched patronage system, the County Jail had to rely on a grossly untrained and underpaid jail guard corps. As a result, the wardens and supervisors yielded to the convenience of a “barn boss” system using particularly intimidating inmates for guard functions. This system inadvertently fostered the growth of gang influence in the inmate population and jail operations. In 1967, a county civil service system was introduced to counter the political influence of patronage jobs and to better prepare officers to manage the jail. In 1974, the Illinois Department of Corrections opened the nation's first centralized training academy for correctional officers at Saint Xavier University in Mount Greenwood.

EXTERIOR OF BRIDEWELL PRISON, C.1903

The 1960s and 1970s were the years of the prisoner rights movement within the jails and prisons of America. Every aspect of correctional operations came under judicial scrutiny. The Cook County Jail was also racked by waves of disturbances, escapes, suicides, and murders of inmates. Three class-action lawsuits were filed alleging racial bias in inmate classification and housing and a lack of mental health services. These lawsuits brought enormous changes in jail programs and staffing. A massive building program beginning in the 1970s yielded a new women's jail and the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center, which replaced the archaic Arthur J. Audy Home. A 1989 court mandate responding to overcrowding released 35,000 low-category

inmates from the County Jail on individual-recognizance bonds. A new sentencing system of day-reporting and other community correctional alternatives to incarceration also reduced the prison population.

Now officially defined and readily recognized by the public and media as the Cook County Department of Corrections, it boasts “the largest (96 acres) single-site county pre-detention facility in the United States.” It has 11 jail divisions, as well as a boot camp, an electric monitoring program for community correctional custody, a halfway house, and a substance-abuse program. It also contains the largest forensic residential psychiatric facility in Illinois and is developing gender-specific programs for female and male inmates.

Two centuries ago, Philadelphia and Pennsylvania became the center of prison reform worldwide. To understand how this happened, one must look briefly at the early development of penal practices in William Penn?s colony. Penn, who himself had been confined in England for his Quaker beliefs, abolished the Duke of York?s severe criminal code which was in effect in other parts of British North America, where, among other offenses, the penalty of death was applied for murder, denying "the true God," homosexual acts and kidnapping. Severe physical punishments were used for what were considered lesser crimes. Pennsylvania?s Quaker-inspired code abolished the death penalty for all crimes except murder, using instead imprisonment with labor and fines. The law did call for severe penalties for sexual offenses: "defiling the marriage bed" was to be punished by whipping plus a one year sentence for the first offense, life imprisonment for the second.

Upon Penn?s death, conservative factions in the American colony and in England reintroduced many of the more sanguinary punishments. As late as 1780, punishments such as the pillory and hanging were carried out in public. An account of an execution that year related how two prisoners "were taken out amidst a crowd of spectators ? they walked after a cart in which were two coffins and a ladder, etc., each had a rope about his neck and their arms tied behin [sic] them? they were both hanged in the commons of this city [Philadelphia] abt. [sic.] 1 o?clock."

Jails up until the time of the American Revolution were used largely for persons awaiting trial and other

punishments and for debtors and sometimes witnesses. In the Old Stone Jail at Third and Market Streets in Philadelphia, old and young, black and white, men and women were all crowded together. Here, as in other county jails in Pennsylvania at the time, it was a common custom for the jailer or sheriff to provide a bar, charging inflated prices to the prisoners for spirits. In Chester County, the English custom of charging for various other services was also in force, e.g. fees for locking and unlocking cells, food, heat, clothing, and for attaching and removing irons incident to a court appearance.

METROPOLITAN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, 1976

In 1776, Richard Wistar, Sr., a Quaker, had soup prepared in his home to be distributed to the inmates in Philadelphia prisons, many of whom were suffering from starvation at the time and even several deaths. Wistar formed the Philadelphia Society for Assisting Distressed Prisoners, but with the British occupation of the city the next year, the organization was disbanded.

Because of the rapidly growing population, a new jail was begun in 1773 on Walnut Street, behind the State House (later, Independence Hall). The new prison had the traditional layout of large rooms for the inmates. Initially, conditions were little better than they had been at the old jail. Prisoners awaiting trial might barter their clothes for liquor or be forcibly stripped upon entering by other inmates seeking funds for the bar. The result was great suffering when the weather turned cold. One estimate stated that 20 gallons of spirits were brought into the prison daily by the jailer for sale to the inmates. It was also considered a common practice for certain women to arrange to get arrested to gain access to the male prisoners.

After the peace of 1783, a group of prominent citizens led by Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin Rush and others organized a movement to reform the harsh penal code of 1718. The new law substituted public labor for the previous severe punishments. But reaction against the public display of convicts on the streets of the city and the disgraceful conditions in the Walnut Street jail led to the formation in 1787 of the Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons, (a name it retained for 100 years, at which time it became The Pennsylvania Prison Society), the first of such societies in the world. Members of the Society were appalled by what they learned about the new Walnut Street prison and the next year presented to the state legislature an account of their investigations of conditions and recommended solitary confinement at hard labor as a remedy and reformative strategy.

An act of 1790 brought about sweeping reforms in the prison and authorized a penitentiary house with 16 cells to be built in the yard of the jail to carry out solitary confinement with labor for "hardened

atrocious offenders." Walnut Street Jail, by the same legislation, became the first state prison in Pennsylvania. Following 1790, the Walnut Street jail became a showplace, with separation of different sorts of prisoners and workshops providing useful trade instruction. The old abuses and idleness seemed eliminated, but with Walnut Street now a state prison and the population of Philadelphia increasing rapidly, it, like its predecessor, became intolerably crowded. The large rooms, 18 feet square, which still housed most of the prisoners, by 1795 had between 30 and 40 occupants each.

The Prison Society continued to urge the creation of large penitentiaries for the more efficient handling of prisoners. Partially as the result of the Prison Society?s efforts, money was appropriated for a state penitentiary to be built at Allegheny, now part of Pittsburgh. The reformers also remained convinced that in spite of the small-scale isolation cellblock at Walnut Street, that site would never prove the value of the system of separate confinement which came to be called the Pennsylvania System. Only an entire larger structure, built specifically to separate inmates from one another, would be needed. Authorizing legislation was finally passed on March 20, 1821, and eleven commissioners were appointed by the governor. Among them was Samuel Wood, later to be the first warden of the prison. All but three of the building commissioners were either members of the Pennsylvania Prison Society or had served on the board of inspectors of the Walnut Street jail.

Members of the Prison Society felt that the solution to the disorder and corruption in most prisons and even at the Walnut Street Jail lay in complete separation of each inmate for his or her entire sentence, a system which had been tried occasionally in England but was always abandoned because of costs and inadequate prison structures. The small "penitentiary house" of 16 cells at Walnut Street jail had ended up being used mostly for hard core prisoners and as punishment of infractions of prison rules. What was needed was a wholly new kind of prison on a large scale.

In 1822, work began on what was to become Eastern State Penitentiary, although at the time it was called Cherry Hill because it displaced a cherry orchard. Despite not being finished, the prison opened in 1829. Completed in 1836, it turned out to be one of the largest structures in the country at the time and far exceeding preliminary cost estimates. Each prisoner was to be provided with a cell from which they would rarely leave and each cell had to be large enough to be a workplace and have attached a small individual exercise yard. Cutting edge technology of the 1820s and 1830s was used to install conveniences unmatched in other public buildings: central heating (before the U.S. Capitol); a flush toilet in each cell (long before the White House was provided with such conveniences); shower baths (apparently the first in the country).

The system of 24-hour separation of each prisoner coupled with in-cell feeding, work, and sometimes vocational instruction, came to be known as the Pennsylvania System or Separate System, and remained the official position of the Pennsylvania Prison Society throughout the 19th century, although the system and its unusual architecture ? a central hub and radiating cellblocks ? were seldom imitated in other states. An alternative system known as the Auburn or Silent system developed elsewhere in the United States, with individual sleeping cells, sometimes as small as 2? by 6 ? feet, and work in congregate shops in silence during the day. By the early decades of the 20th Century, neither system was used in the United States. However, the Separate System and its distinctive hub-and-spoke or radial architecture, which had developed in the Philadelphia prison, became the template for reform all over Europe, South America, and Asia.

The role of the Prison Society could be subsumed under three rubrics: oversight and advocacy, prison

visiting, and assistance to men and women released from prison. From the time of the organization?s inception, Prison Society members made regular visits to prisons to speak with prisoners about their lives as well as conditions in the prison. Some scholars believe that those early visitors were easily hoodwinked by both officials and inmates but certainly their periodic visits did discourage some of the abuses which might otherwise have occurred over the years. Such matters as food, clothing, heating of the cells and sanitation could be noticed by the visitors. At Eastern State Penitentiary in one month alone, in 1861, nearly 800 visits in the cells and 300 at the cell door were carried out by Prison Society members.

The Prison Society?s Official Visitors are provided access to all state and county correctional facilities through act of legislature. This legislative mandate, unmatched anywhere in the nation, ensures citizen involvement in the administration of justice which provides a base of information for the oversight of the prison system and for inmate advocacy. Today, the Prison Society?s network of more than 450 Official Visitors makes roughly 5,000 prison visits each year and continues to be one of the most vital and important aspects of the organization.

Advocacy issues the Prison Society has tackled in recent years include: influencing the Board of Pardons to hear more cases, especially those of life sentenced prisoners; encouraging legislative changes in the areas of early parole for "good time" behavior, repealing mandatory sentencing codes, establishing specialty courts (drug and mental health), and promoting legislation that does not prohibit ex-offenders from employment, housing, and public welfare benefits; advocating for the abolition of the death penalty; meeting regularly with top corrections officials to promote reform.

As part of its mission to inform the public on issues dealing with the treatment of prisoners and corrections in general, the Prison Society established in 1845 the Journal of Prison Discipline and Philanthropy, which is published today as The Prison Journal. Additionally, the Prison Society published a quarterly newsletter, Correctional Forum, as well as a monthly newsletter, Graterfriends, published primarily for prisoners. Additionally, the Prison Society provides testimony on criminal justice issues, community speakers, and panelists for seminars and conferences.

The Prison Society is involved in a wide range of program areas which provide services for prisoners, ex-offenders, and their families. For example, Re-Entry Services Programs empower ex-offenders to become respected and productive members of the community by helping them with life skills, obtaining necessary identification, job search preparation, and job readiness. Restorative Justice services help offenders find meaningful ways to be accountable for their crimes and build relationships with communities and victims. Because "life means life" in Pennsylvania, the graying prison population is rising dramatically and the Prison Society provides case management to incarcerated men and women age 50 and older. The Prison Society helps families affected by incarceration build and maintain their relationships through programs such as virtual video conferencing, parenting education, and support groups for children of incarcerated parents.

For more than two centuries, the Prison Society has worked diligently to combine justice and compassion for a more humane and restorative correctional system. Today, the Prison Society continues that mission with patience and passion and with steadfast energy through a dedicated and competant statewide staff, a committed board of directors with exceptional expertise in the criminal justice and corrections world, and more than 1,000 members who support the organization.

Two centuries ago, Philadelphia and Pennsylvania became the center of prison reform worldwide. To understand how this happened, one must look briefly at the early development of penal practices in William Penn?s colony. Penn, who himself had been confined in England for his Quaker beliefs, abolished the Duke of York?s severe criminal code which was in effect in other parts of British North America, where, among other offenses, the penalty of death was applied for murder, denying "the true God," homosexual acts and kidnapping. Severe physical punishments were used for what were considered lesser crimes. Pennsylvania?s Quaker-inspired code abolished the death penalty for all crimes except murder, using instead imprisonment with labor and fines. The law did call for severe penalties for sexual offenses: "defiling the marriage bed" was to be punished by whipping plus a one year sentence for the first offense, life imprisonment for the second.

Upon Penn?s death, conservative factions in the American colony and in England reintroduced many of the more sanguinary punishments. As late as 1780, punishments such as the pillory and hanging were carried out in public. An account of an execution that year related how two prisoners "were taken out amidst a crowd of spectators ? they walked after a cart in which were two coffins and a ladder, etc., each had a rope about his neck and their arms tied behin [sic] them? they were both hanged in the commons of this city [Philadelphia] abt. [sic.] 1 o?clock."

Jails up until the time of the American Revolution were used largely for persons awaiting trial and other

punishments and for debtors and sometimes witnesses. In the Old Stone Jail at Third and Market Streets in Philadelphia, old and young, black and white, men and women were all crowded together. Here, as in other county jails in Pennsylvania at the time, it was a common custom for the jailer or sheriff to provide a bar, charging inflated prices to the prisoners for spirits. In Chester County, the English custom of charging for various other services was also in force, e.g. fees for locking and unlocking cells, food, heat, clothing, and for attaching and removing irons incident to a court appearance.

In 1776, Richard Wistar, Sr., a Quaker, had soup prepared in his home to be distributed to the inmates in Philadelphia prisons, many of whom were suffering from starvation at the time and even several deaths. Wistar formed the Philadelphia Society for Assisting Distressed Prisoners, but with the British occupation of the city the next year, the organization was disbanded.

Because of the rapidly growing population, a new jail was begun in 1773 on Walnut Street, behind the State House (later, Independence Hall). The new prison had the traditional layout of large rooms for the inmates. Initially, conditions were little better than they had been at the old jail. Prisoners awaiting trial might barter their clothes for liquor or be forcibly stripped upon entering by other inmates seeking funds for the bar. The result was great suffering when the weather turned cold. One estimate stated that 20 gallons of spirits were brought into the prison daily by the jailer for sale to the inmates. It was also considered a common practice for certain women to arrange to get arrested to gain access to the male prisoners.

After the peace of 1783, a group of prominent citizens led by Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin Rush and others organized a movement to reform the harsh penal code of 1718. The new law substituted public labor for the previous severe punishments. But reaction against the public display of convicts on the streets of the city and the disgraceful conditions in the Walnut Street jail led to the formation in 1787 of the Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons, (a name it retained for 100 years, at which time it became The Pennsylvania Prison Society), the first of such societies in the world. Members of the Society were appalled by what they learned about the new Walnut Street prison and the next year presented to the state legislature an account of their investigations of conditions and recommended solitary confinement at hard labor as a remedy and reformative strategy.

An act of 1790 brought about sweeping reforms in the prison and authorized a penitentiary house with 16 cells to be built in the yard of the jail to carry out solitary confinement with labor for "hardened

atrocious offenders." Walnut Street Jail, by the same legislation, became the first state prison in Pennsylvania. Following 1790, the Walnut Street jail became a showplace, with separation of different sorts of prisoners and workshops providing useful trade instruction. The old abuses and idleness seemed eliminated, but with Walnut Street now a state prison and the population of Philadelphia increasing rapidly, it, like its predecessor, became intolerably crowded. The large rooms, 18 feet square, which still housed most of the prisoners, by 1795 had between 30 and 40 occupants each.

The Prison Society continued to urge the creation of large penitentiaries for the more efficient handling of prisoners. Partially as the result of the Prison Society?s efforts, money was appropriated for a state penitentiary to be built at Allegheny, now part of Pittsburgh. The reformers also remained convinced

that in spite of the small-scale isolation cellblock at Walnut Street, that site would never prove the value of the system of separate confinement which came to be called the Pennsylvania System. Only an entire larger structure, built specifically to separate inmates from one another, would be needed. Authorizing legislation was finally passed on March 20, 1821, and eleven commissioners were appointed by the governor. Among them was Samuel Wood, later to be the first warden of the prison. All but three of the building commissioners were either members of the Pennsylvania Prison Society or had served on the board of inspectors of the Walnut Street jail.

Members of the Prison Society felt that the solution to the disorder and corruption in most prisons and even at the Walnut Street Jail lay in complete separation of each inmate for his or her entire sentence, a system which had been tried occasionally in England but was always abandoned because of costs and inadequate prison structures. The small "penitentiary house" of 16 cells at Walnut Street jail had ended up being used mostly for hard core prisoners and as punishment of infractions of prison rules. What was needed was a wholly new kind of prison on a large scale.

In 1822, work began on what was to become Eastern State Penitentiary, although at the time it was called Cherry Hill because it displaced a cherry orchard. Despite not being finished, the prison opened in 1829. Completed in 1836, it turned out to be one of the largest structures in the country at the time and far exceeding preliminary cost estimates. Each prisoner was to be provided with a cell from which they would rarely leave and each cell had to be large enough to be a workplace and have attached a small individual exercise yard. Cutting edge technology of the 1820s and 1830s was used to install conveniences unmatched in other public buildings: central heating (before the U.S. Capitol); a flush toilet in each cell (long before the White House was provided with such conveniences); shower baths (apparently the first in the country).

The system of 24-hour separation of each prisoner coupled with in-cell feeding, work, and sometimes vocational instruction, came to be known as the Pennsylvania System or Separate System, and remained the official position of the Pennsylvania Prison Society throughout the 19th century, although the system and its unusual architecture ? a central hub and radiating cellblocks ? were seldom imitated in other states. An alternative system known as the Auburn or Silent system developed elsewhere in the United States, with individual sleeping cells, sometimes as small as 2? by 6 ? feet, and work in congregate shops in silence during the day. By the early decades of the 20th Century, neither system was used in the United States. However, the Separate System and its distinctive hub-and-spoke or radial architecture, which had developed in the Philadelphia prison, became the template for reform all over Europe, South America, and Asia.

The role of the Prison Society could be subsumed under three rubrics: oversight and advocacy, prison

visiting, and assistance to men and women released from prison. From the time of the organization?s inception, Prison Society members made regular visits to prisons to speak with prisoners about their lives as well as conditions in the prison. Some scholars believe that those early visitors were easily hoodwinked by both officials and inmates but certainly their periodic visits did discourage some of the abuses which might otherwise have occurred over the years. Such matters as food, clothing, heating of the cells and sanitation could be noticed by the visitors. At Eastern State Penitentiary in one month alone, in 1861, nearly 800 visits in the cells and 300 at the cell door were carried out by Prison Society members.

The Prison Society?s Official Visitors are provided access to all state and county correctional facilities through act of legislature. This legislative mandate, unmatched anywhere in the nation, ensures citizen involvement in the administration of justice which provides a base of information for the oversight of the prison system and for inmate advocacy. Today, the Prison Society?s network of more than 450 Official Visitors makes roughly 5,000 prison visits each year and continues to be one of the most vital and important aspects of the organization.

Advocacy issues the Prison Society has tackled in recent years include: influencing the Board of Pardons to hear more cases, especially those of life sentenced prisoners; encouraging legislative changes in the areas of early parole for "good time" behavior, repealing mandatory sentencing codes, establishing specialty courts (drug and mental health), and promoting legislation that does not prohibit ex-offenders from employment, housing, and public welfare benefits; advocating for the abolition of the death penalty; meeting regularly with top corrections officials to promote reform.

As part of its mission to inform the public on issues dealing with the treatment of prisoners and corrections in general, the Prison Society established in 1845 the Journal of Prison Discipline and Philanthropy, which is published today as The Prison Journal. Additionally, the Prison Society published a quarterly newsletter, Correctional Forum, as well as a monthly newsletter, Graterfriends, published primarily for prisoners. Additionally, the Prison Society provides testimony on criminal justice issues, community speakers, and panelists for seminars and conferences.

The Prison Society is involved in a wide range of program areas which provide services for prisoners, ex-offenders, and their families. For example, Re-Entry Services Programs empower ex-offenders to become respected and productive members of the community by helping them with life skills, obtaining necessary identification, job search preparation, and job readiness. Restorative Justice services help offenders find meaningful ways to be accountable for their crimes and build relationships with communities and victims. Because "life means life" in Pennsylvania, the graying prison population is rising dramatically and the Prison Society provides case management to incarcerated men and women age 50 and older. The Prison Society helps families affected by incarceration build and maintain their relationships through programs such as virtual video conferencing, parenting education, and support groups for children of incarcerated parents.

For more than two centuries, the Prison Society has worked diligently to combine justice and compassion for a more humane and restorative correctional system. Today, the Prison Society continues that mission with patience and passion and with steadfast energy through a dedicated and competant statewide staff, a committed board of directors with exceptional expertise in the criminal justice and corrections world, and more than 1,000 members who support the organization.

INCARCERATED: THE HISTORY OF THE PENITENTIARY FROM 1776-PRESENT

BY N. JACKSON

LEICESTER PRISON (1825)

THE PENITENTIARY IN ENGLAND AND WALES

Although prison is a term that one often likes to use when describing the facilities used to incarcerate convicted individuals, the word penitentiary more aptly describes this type of building. The push for penitientiaries instead of prisons began in England and Wales in the eighteenth century. Beginning in the eighteenth century, British society started to move away from corporal punishment and toward imprisonment with the hope of reforming the mind and body. These changes ultimately helped to pave the way for penitentiaries throughout the world and the rest of Europe.

With the United States winning its independence from England in 1776, the British did not have a foreign colony where they could imprison individuals without it costing a great deal of money. Thus, the convict system began in 1776 as a backlash to the loss of the American colonies. Henry Fielding, as quoted by Ignatieff (1978), thought, "It was necessary to find an intermediate penalty, combining 'correction of the body' and 'correction of the mind'." (pp. 45-46)

In 1777, John Howard published his breakthrough book, "The State of Prisons in England and Wales." This book provided critical information on the status of prisons and the prisoners contained there. After reading his book, the public's attention was turned toward the penal situation in England. John Howard, known as the father of the modern penitentiary, had stumbled upon something that was important in the public's eye.

According to McGowen (1995) there were two types of prisons in the eighteenth century: the jail and the house of correction. The jail of the eighteenth century was not too different from a jail in the late twentieth century. In addition, it was also the facility that housed individuals waiting for trial who could not afford bail and those sentenced for a short period of time. Barnes (1972) described the jail as follows:

The jails or prisons were chiefly used for the detention of those accused of crime pending their trial and for the confinement of debtors and religious political offenders. They were rarely used for the incarceration of the criminal classes. (p. 114)

GLOUCASTER PENITENTIARY (1795)

ABINGDON JAIL (1804-1812)

Using John Howard's work as a basis, Jeremy Bentham, a health reformer, stepped into the prison forum. Bentham had concluded that there were in fact three types of prisons. His ideas had expanded upon what was previously thought of as the status quo. According to Bentham, the

three types of prisons where the House of Safe Custody, the Penitentiary House, and the Black Prison.

The House of Safe Custody was similar to an eighteenth century jail. Bentham thought its sole purpose was to house debtors and those waiting for trial. The difference between a jail and the House of Safe Custody was that the House of Safe Custody did not imprison those individuals who had short sentence terms to serve.

The second type of prison Bentham established was the Penitentiary House. The Penitentiary House was a step above the House of Safe Custody. This is where the temporary imprisonment occurred. Bentham had separated the tasks of the jail by dividing those tasks between the House of Safe Custody and the Penitentiary House.

The Black Prison was the last type of prison Bentham established. This prison offered longer stays than the Penitentiary House. Semple (1993) describes the Black Prison as follows:

In the Black Prison, to strike terror into the hearts of its inmates, two skeletons were to lie slumped together one either side of an iron door, thus reminding them that they were indeed an abode of death from which there was no escape. (p. 29)

Not only did Bentham elaborate on the types of prisons, but he developed a specific type of architecture that was conducive to the prison environment. This type of architecture was the idea of the panopticon. Panopticon means a view that can see everything. Bentham proposed the idea of the panopticon to make it easier to patrol the prisoners.

Shortly after Bentham released his ideas of what a prison ought to be, there were several changes made within the convict system in England. The first major change was the trial period of the silent system in 1834. The silent system gave slightly more freedom to prisoners but any type of communication was completely forbidden. Prisoners were not confined to cells but they worked together on various outdoor projects. If the silence was broken, a severe punishment would be issued. This system eventually paved the way for the more popular separate system.

The second major change was the introduction of the separate system. The separate system was established between 1835 and 1850 and was promoted by the prison reformer Jonas Hanway. The separate system was a truly unique system in which each prisoner had his own cell and was confined there for extensive hours during the day. McGowen (1995) thought, "the separate system provided an opportunity for the prisoner to 'commune with his conscience'." (pp. 99-100) The separation system was popular and is still the main method of imprisonment throughout the world and England.

PENTONVILLE PRISON INMATE

In 1842, the Pentonville prison was opened. This prison used the design of the separate system. McGowen (1995) thought, "Pentonville represented the apotheosis of the idea that a totally controlled environment could produce a reformed and autonomous individual." (p. 101) Not only did Pentonville fulfill the goals of the separate system but it also used the panopticon idea created by Jeremy Bentham. The panopticon design, in conjunction with the separate system, allows prison overseers to effectively separate prisoners while maintaining a careful watch upon each of them.

Toward the middle part of the nineteenth century and the birth of the industrial revolution, Joshua Jebb transformed the penitentiary into its modern day counterpart. Jebb was chairman of the Directors of Convict Prisons from the late 1840s until his death in 1863. During his reign as king of the prisons, Jebb made some lasting imprints that are still present in today. Jebb created a three-stage tier of imprisonment in the convict prison system that combined the separate system with the silent system.

First, Jebb created terms of separate confinement. As part of the separate system, prisoners were confined to their cells for the duration of their sentence. Jebb continued with this type of punishment but he made the length of the separate confinement nine months long. Originally, he had wanted to make the length of confinement eighteen months long but the solitude took too much of a mental toll on the prisoners and occasionally even caused death.

The second stage of imprisonment Jebb instituted was the use of a public works prison. Prisoners were sent there upon completion of the nine months in separate confinement. Prisoners worked on difficult tasks that would benefit the public. These tasks varied in nature but, their ultimate goal was to make the prisoners work excruciatingly hard. McGowen (1995) described these stages as "imprisonment with hard labor had become a near universal substitute for flogging and other corporal punishments by the middle of the nineteenth century." (p. 146)

The third stage of Joshua Jebb's imprisonment was a conditional release. This release was contingent upon good behavior in the prior two stages of imprisonment. Once the prisoner was released, he was given a certificate demonstrating his good behavior and a few shillings and pounds.

After Jebb had established his three stages of imprisonment in the convict system, his counterpart in the local system, Edmund du Cane, had tried to introduce those stages as well. Edmund du Cane became chairman of the Directors of Convict Prisons once Joshua Jebb had passed away. Yet before Jebb died, he tried to consolidate the local prison system with the convict prison system. These two systems had ironically gone their separate ways in the late eighteenth century.

During Victoria's reign as queen of England, there were several key accomplishments that were made. This period became the golden epoque of prison history that has yet to be surpassed in any decade of the twentieth century. By the start of the this century, prisons began to erode into overcrowded buildings.

One major way that prisons began to erode was because of World War I. With Europe in constant battle, national budgets were devoted to the war effort. Thus, less money was spent on prisons. The Great Depression dealt another heavy blow to the slashing of prison budgets. National budgets were completely decimated while the world's economy was on its hands and knees. With barely any money to spend, prison budgets were the first to get slashed. However, during the Great Depression there were some key ideas that truly changed the organizational structure of the prison system.

When Alexander Paterson became head of the Prison Commission, he began to borrow ideas from other prison facilities, specifically the juvenile detention centers. The ideas that Paterson borrowed were called the Borstal elements. The first element was that he created, or rather borrowed, the idea of having multiple levels of security within the convict system. Thus, in 1936, the first minimum security prison opened. This prison was called New Hall. The other Borstal element Paterson borrowed that he established a housemaster (also called assistant governor). The housemaster's duty was to watch a specific section of the prison.

The final blow toward the decimation of prison development was World War II. With Europe literally destroying its self, all of the money was spent on the war effort. Britain took one of the hardest hands dealt during the war. With the country in shambles, money in the budget was spent on rebuilding England after the war. McConville (1995) described these factors as follows: The first was the vast and pressing program of repairing war damages; the second was the social and penal reformers' assurance that successive governments could not be blamed for wanting to believe . . . - that crime would yield to social amelioration, that it was part of the passing turmoil of wartime upheaval, and that the need for prisons would decline. (pp. 154-155)

During these thirty years of destruction and chaos, there were only a handful of prisons built. In fact, there were only four prisons built between 1900 and 1939. Before that, 42 prisons had been built in England before 1900. This meant that a majority of England's prisoners were being incarcerated in facilities that were over one hundred years old.

During the 1960s, things began to turn around in the English penal system in a positive manner. There were two distinct types of prisons within England. The first was local prison. The local prison was the jail or house of corrections. The local prison no longer housed those individuals waiting for their trials. The accused individuals were housed in separate dwellings. The second distinct type of prison was the convict prison. The convict prison was the facility at which Joshua Jebb, Edmund du Cane, and Alexander Paterson's goals were brought to life.

The modern English prison is overcrowded. According to the Penal Lexicon web site (4/14/97), "pre-trial and convicted prisoners were held in the police station because of a shortage of space in Liverpool prison." Due to overcrowding, the jail has now assumed two functions: 1) house those waiting for trial and; 2) house those serving out their sentence. Also, the Penal Lexicon web site reported that in 1994, England had a 100.6% occupation rate and had a total of 49,392 prisons that were being incarcerated as of January 1, 1994.

In present day England, the prison has evolved into two types of facilities that have goals of reforming the individual into a prosperous member of society, if their sentence or behavior

allows it. These two facilities are local prison and the convict prison. With the help of people who are looking out for the best interest of those less fortunate than themselves, the prison has become a humane yet overcrowded facility apart from the real world.