CHAPTER - IV

OPEN AIR PRISON AND

CLOSED PRISON - AN ANALYSIS
 92

CHAPTER-IV

OPEN AIR PRISON AND CLOSED PRISON: AN ANALYSIS

4.1. OPEN PRISONS

An open prison, also called minimum-security prison, open camp, or

prison without bars. A prison which is open in four respects: (i) open to

prisoners, i.e., inmate can go to market at sweet will during the day but have

to come back in the evening; (ii) open in security, i.e., there is absence of

precautions against escape, such as walls, bars, locks and armed guards; (iii)

open in organisation, i.e., working is based on inmates’ sense of self­

responsibility, self-discipline, and self-confidence; and (iv) open to public,

i.e., people can visit the prison and meet prisoners. It is the kind of authority

and the nature of management transferred to the inmates and the degree of

freedom from physical restraints (to escape) that should be the real measure

of openness of an open prison.

The main objectives of establishing open prisons are: to reduce

overcrowding in jails, to reward good behaviour, to give training in self-

reliance, to provide dependable permanent labour for public works, to

prevent frustrations and create hope among long-termers, to provide training

in agriculture and industry, to examine the suitability of releasing offenders

 93

from prisons, and to enable prisoners to live with their family members (in

some states).

The first open prison was established in Switzerland in 1891, in the

United States in 1916, in Britain in 1930, and in the Netherlands in 1950.

By 1975, there were 13 open prisons in England; 25 in the United States,

four each in Sri Lanka and the Australia, there in Hong Kong, two each in

New Zealand, China, Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines and Thailand,

and 23 in India (Ghosh, 1992: 9-10).

In India, the first open prison was started in 1905 in Bombay

Presidency. The prisoners were selected from the special class prisoners of

Thane Central Jail, Bombay. However, this open prison was closed in 1910.

The state of Uttar Pradesh established the first open prison camp in 1953 for

the construction of a dam over Chandraprabha River near Banaras (now

Varanasi). After completing this dam, the prisoners of the open camp were

shifted to a nearby place of constructing the dam over Karamnasa River.

The third camp was organised at Shahbad for digging a canal. Encouraged

by the success of these temporary camps, a permanent camp was started on

March 15, 1956 at Mirzapur with a view to employing prisoners on the work

of quarrying stones for Uttar Pradesh government cement factory at Churk,

Mirzapur. The initial strength of prisoners in this camp was 150, which
 94

went up to 1,700 but has now come down to 800. Another permanent camp-

called Sampumanand Shivir was established in 1960 at Sitarganj in Nainital

district in Uttar Pradesh. At the time of its establishment, Sampumanand

camp had 5,965 acres of land but later on 2,000 acres of reclaimed land were

handed over to the Uttar Pradesh government for the rehabilitation of

displaced persons. At present, thus, the Sitarganj camp has 3,837 acres of

land and is one of the largest open prisons in the world. Prisoners selected

for the camp from different jails of the state are transferred to district jail,

Bareilly, from where they are shifted to the camp. The camp staff at present

consists of one superintendent, five jailors, 12 deputy jailors, 16 assistant

jailors, three assistant jailors, three assistant medical officers, six

pharmacists, 126 warders and accountants, etc. The camp has capacity to

accommodate 1,000 prisoners. However, on an average about 650prisoners

live in the camp during the year.

Uttar Prdesh was followed by many other states in establishing open

prisons. In 1996, there were 24 open prisons (excluding semi-open camps)

found in 12 states in India. Of these, three prisons are located in

Maharashtra (Yervada (1955), Paithan (1968) and Chandrapur (1972), three

in Rajasthan (Durgapur (1955), Sanganer (1963), and Suratgarh (1964), two

in Karnataka (Sanmdathi (1968) and Koramangala(1971), two in Uttar

 95

Pradesh (Mirzapur (1956) and Sitarganj (1960), two in Tamil Nadu

(Singanallar (1956) and Salem (1966), two in Gujarat (Amerli (1968) and

Ahmedabad (1972), two in Andhra Pradesh (Hyderabad (1954) and

Anantapur (1955), two in Bihar, two in Punjab, one in Kerala (Nettukeltheri

(1962), one in Assam (Jorhat (1964), and one in Himachal Pradesh (Bilaspur

(1960).

The area of open prisons in different states varies from 10 to 50 acres

except in Andhra Pradesh (which has 1,427 acres), and Sitargani camp,

Nainital, Uttar Pradesh (which has 3,837 acres). The open prisons, usually

located on the outskirts of a town fall within five kilometers of the nearest

town, except in Kerala and Uttar Pradesh where they are situated 15 to 35

kilometers from the nearest towns. The capacity of prisons varies from less

than 100 to 1,000 prisoners. The nature of accommodation also differs from

place to place. Assam, Kerala, and Himachal Pradesh prisons have

permanent barracks; Mysore prison has pre-fabricated structure, and Andhra

Pradesh and Maharashtra prisons provide dormitories with asbestos roofs.

Some of these prisons provide work only in agriculture, some in industries,

and some both in agriculture and industries.

Eligibility conditions for admission to open prisons vary from state to

state. The main conditions are: (1) prisoners should be willing to abide by
 96

the rales of open prisons; (2) they should be physically and mentally fit to

work; (3) they should have been sentenced for terms of one year or more and

must have spent at least one-fourth of the total term of imprisonment in jail;

(4) they should have record of good behaviour in prisons; (5) they should not

be below 21 years or above 50 years as prescribed by the state; (6) they

should not have been convicted for certain types of crimes (like dacoity,

forgery, counterfeiting, etc.); (7) they should not have any case pending in

the courts; (8) they should not be habitual offenders; and (9) they should not

be class I (one) prisoners or women prisoners.

The procedure for selection of prisoners for open prisons is simple.

The superintendents of prisons prepare lists of prisoners to be sent to open

prisons on the basis of the eligibility conditions (as described above). These

lists are sent to the selection committees, which examine each case history

and make the final selection. About 60 percent of prisoners in open prisons

are those who have been sentenced for more than 10 years, while about 85

percent are those who have been imprisoned for more then 5 years. The

average stay in the prison varies from two to three years. The wage system

also varies from prison to prison.

It may thus be maintained that open prisons differ from the ordinary

prisons in four respects: in structure (affecting organisation and

 97

administration), in role systems (affecting work and interaction in everyday

life), in normative systems (affecting social restrictions and expectations

guiding behaviour), and in value orientations (affecting conduct and

training). While inmate system in ordinary jails is dominated by a set of

values and norms, which are largely anti-social and anti-administration, the

inmate system in open prisons is pro-administration. Open prisons are

characterized more by consensus among inmates.

Ghosh (1993) studied 200 prisoners from two open prisons (Sitarganj

and Mirzapur) in Uttar Pradesh in 1991 for analyzing attitudes, personality

traits, and reformation of prisoners in open jails. For a comparative study

(control group), she selected 200 prisoners from two central jails of Banaras

(Varanasi) and Bareilly in the same state. She focused on two aspects:

personally variables and adjustment level. In personality variables, she

studies three aspects: (a) self-esteem, (b) guilt-feeling, anxiety and

insecurity, and (c) extroversion, neuroticism, and psychotieism. She found

that:

■ More prisoners in open prisons indicate a high level of adjustment to

personal problems as well as to co-inmates and the staff than those in

closed prisons. The high adjustment is the result of better facilities

and free environment.

 98

■ Inmates in open prisons exhibit more positive self-esteem and positive

attitude towards co-inmates than those in closed prisons.

■ Anxiety, insecurity and guilt feeling are found more among the

inmates of closed jails than open camps.

■ Attitude towards authorities is more cooperative among prisoners in

open camps than those in closed jails.

■ Psychoheism, neuroticism and extroversion among convicts are found

to be much less in open prisons than in closed prisons.

■ Inmates of open prisons show more positive attitude toward society

than those in closed prisons.

These findings thus point out the positive use of open prisons in the

reformation and rehabilitation of criminals. It may, however, be noted that

open prisons need to be restructured and reorganized. What really needed is:

1 Establishing open prisons in all those states where they do not exist at

present.

2 Framing common rules of eligibility for admission and providing

facilities for offenders in open prisons in all states.

3 Laying down common rules of remission for inmates. For instance, a

prisoner in Sitarganj camp, Nainital (Uttar Pradesh) and Sanganer

 99

prison, Jaipur (Rajasthan) earns remission at the rate of one day for one

day stay. In addition, he is entitled days’ remission for good conduct

every year. Besides, the superintendent and Inspector General of

Prisons are also empowered to grant special remission. The prisoners

are also permitted to keep their families with them, if they so desire.

4 Checking biases, pressures and corruption in preparing lists of

prisoners to be sent to open prisons by superintendents.

5 Assigning powers to the courts for sending certain types of offenders

directly to open prisons.

4.2. BRIEF NOTE ON OPEN AIR JAIL KORAMANGALA

Most of the prisoners in our state belong to rural area whose main

occupation is agriculture. The department felt that it is better to give them

adequate training in modem method agriculture and Horticulture so that on

their return to village they may not be better agriculturist but can also impart

whatever they learned while in prison to other village agriculturist which

would make it easy for the society to accept prisoners as their own.

In the year 1972 the department selected an area of 113 acres 25

Guntas of land in Koramangala village, Devarahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural

District.
 100

Various crops like paddy Ragi, Turdhal are grown and vegetables are

also grown. In addition commercial crops like Coconut, Sugarcane and

Grape are cultivated. Besides, Sericulture, Sheep Rearing, Poultry, Soil

conservation and Drip irrigation facilities are provided.

The authorized capacity is for 80 prisoners as on 31-10-2000 there

were 57 prisoners confined.

Prisoners working in Horticulture and Agriculture are paid daily

Rs.45.00 as wages out of which Rs.25.00 is being deducted towards food

and clothing.

Agriculture and production during 1999-2000 is Rs.l0,18,974.00

whereas in 98-99 total income was Rs.4,41.095.00.

Various programmes have been taken during 2000-01 and expecting

the annual income to increase to Rs.25.00 lakhs.

1 Established in 1972
2 Extent (Area) 113 acres, 25 guntas
3 Survey No. 100
4 Total cultivated area 110 acres
5 Staff quarters, prisoners barrack,
Guest house and office 3 acres, 25 guntas
6 Total rainfall 200 mm.
 101

7 No. of staff quarters 26

8 Guest House 1
9 Prisoners as on date 61 (2000-2001)
10 Staff sanctioned 33 posts
11 Staff working 18 posts
12 Vacant 15 posts

Training given in Dairy: 3 Sheep rearing 2 Nos., Sericulture 3

Nos., Fishing 1 No. prisoner being trained.

Wages earned from April 2000 to August 2000 Rs. 1,12,994.00.

Production figure (agricultural): Expenditure Production

1997-1998 1,08,000.00 4,98,000.00

1998-1999 1,01,226.00 4,41,095.00
1999-2000 4,23,503.00 10,18,974.00

Vesetable production:

1999-2000 69,535.00 1,49,330.00

Dairv production:

1997-1998 11,400.00 24,224.00

1998-1999 15,200.00 32,943.00
1999-2000 21,210.00 30,460.00

Inmates are provided with Volleyball, Carom, T.V. and tape record

player for recreation.

 102

Future Plans:

1. To increase the production from Rs. 10.00 lakhs to Rs.25.00 lakhs.

2. Increase in sericulture production

3. Improvement in dairy

4. Poultry.

Cost incurred for barrack construction Rs.38.00 lakhs.}

Cost incurred for Administrative Office Rs.20.50 lakhs} Rs.58.50

lakhs

4.3. RESTRUCTING PRISONS: A NEW APPROACH

Before giving my own viewpoint, it will be relevant to survey briefly

what the Supreme Court of India has recommended from time to time for

improving prison conditions, and what the recommendations given by the

Amnesty International in 1955 on standard minimum rules for the treatment

of prisoners.

Suggestions of the Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court has given the following suggestions in the last 15

years or so in different cases from states like Andhra Pradesh (Giasuddin,

1977; Patnaik, 1974), Maharshtra (Sheela Barse, 1983), Delhi (Sunil Batra

and Prem Sankar, 1980), Kerala (1983) and Bihar (Rakesh Chand, 1986)

(see, National Expert Committee Report on Women Prisoners, 1989: 30-40).

 103

1. Assigning congenial work

A prisoner should be assigned congenial work, which gives job

satisfaction. We (Supreme Court judges) direct the State Governments to

see that within the framework of the jail rules, the prisoner is assigned work

not of a monotonous, mechanical, degrading type but of a mental,

intellectual or like type mixed with a little manual labour.

2. Remuneration

A prisoner must be paid a reasonable fraction of remuneration by way

of wages for the work done, since unpaid work is bonded labour and

humiliating.

3. Meditation and sports and games

Self-expression and self-realization have a curative effect. Therefore,

any sports and games, artistic activity and meditation course will stimulate

prisoner’s creativity and sensitivity.

4. Parole release

We have given thought to another humanizing strategy, namely, a

guarded parole release every three months for at least a week, punctuating

the total prison term. The jail authorities should periodically check whether

the prisoner is making progress.

 104

5. Therapeutic outlook

Severity in jails is self-defeating. The emphasis has to be on man as

well as on the system, on the inner balance as on the outer tensions. We

consider a therapeutic rather than a punitive outlook should prevail in our

prisons since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration

of criminal’s mind. The direction of prison reform is not towards

dehumanization but humanization, not maim and mayhem and vulgar

callousness but man-making experiments designed to restore the dignity of

the individual and the worth of the human person. This strategy involves

orientation courses for the prison personnel. It is now time to revolutionize

the conditions inside that grim little world (prison). We make these

observations only to drive home the imperative or freedom - that its

deprivation by the state is validated only by a plant to make the sentence

more worthy of that birthright.

6. Legal assistance

Legal assistance to a poor accused is a constitutional imperative. It is

a necessary sine qua non of justice and where it is not provided, injustice is

likely to result. Nothing rankles more in the human heart than a feeling of

injustice and those who suffer and cannot get justice because they are priced

out of the legal system, lose faith in the legal process and a feeling begins to
 105

overtake them that rule of law is merely a slogan or myth intended to

perpetuate the domination of the rich and the powerful and to protect the

establishment and the vested interests. Imagine the helpless condition of a

prisoner who is lodged in a jail who does not know to whom he can turn for

help in order to vindicate his innocence or defend his constitutional or legal

rights or to protect himself against torture and ill treatment or oppression and

harassment at the hands of his custodians. It is also possible that his family

may have problems and may not be able to arrange legal assistance. It is

therefore; absolutely essential that legal assistance must be made available to

prisoners in jails, whether they be under trial or convicted prisoners.

7. Human treatment and protection of fundamental rights

If a person is incarcerated, it does not mean that inhuman treatment

may be meted out to him and he be deprived of his fundamental rights. He

cannot be segregated in’quarantine’ as if he is an inmate of a ‘fascist

concentration camp’. Prison officials cannot resort to oppressive measures

to curb the political beliefs of their opponents. The government cannot

prevent a detenu from publishing a book. A prisoner also has a right to

acquire, hold and dispose of property. Incarceration cannot be an

impediment to it. The term ‘life’ means something more than mere animal
 106

existence and the inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limits

and faculties by which life is enjoyed.

8. Handcuffs

A prisoner in transit between prison and court should not be

handcuffed, except under special conditions which have to be justified

before or after. Handcuffs are prima facie inhuman and repugnant. It is

brutalizing to handcuff a person in public.

The Supreme Court in one of its judgments in a case (of Prem Sankar)

from Punjab in 1980 observed: “We share the concern and anxiety (of our

learned brother Krishna Iyer) for reorientation of the outlook towards

prisoners and the need to take early and effective steps for prison reforms.

Jail manuals are largely a hangover of the past, still retaining anachronistic

provisions like whipping. Barbaric treatment of a prisoner from the point of

view of his rehabilitation and acceptance and retention in the mainstream of

social life becomes counter productive in the long run.

9. Grievance boxes

Grievance deposit boxes shall be maintained in the prisons, which will

be opened as is deemed fit, and suitable action taken on complaints made.

Access to such boxes shall be accorded to all prisoners.

 107

10. Visits by magistrates

District magistrates and session judges shall personally or through

surrogates, visit prisons in the jurisdiction and afford effective opportunities

for ventilating legal grievances. They shall make necessary enquiries there

into and take suitable remedial action. In appropriate cases, reports shall be

made to the High Court for the latter to initiate, if found necessary habeas

action.

Amnesty International Rules

The Amnesty International adopted certain rules in 1955 for the

treatment of prisoners. Some of these rules are (see, national Expert

Committee Report on Women Prisoners, 1989: 100-102):

1. No discrimination

There shall be no discrimination among prisoners on grounds of sex,

religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, and birth or

other status. Prison authorities are supposed to respect the religious beliefs

and moral precepts of the community to which a prisoner belongs.

2. Separation - Different categories of prisoners shall be kept in separate

institutions or part of the institutions on the basis of their age, sex,

criminal record and other circumstances.

 108

3. Corporal punishment

Corporal punishment by placing in dark cell, and all cruel, inhuman,

degrading punishments shall be completely prohibited.

4. Hygienic conditions

Due consideration to hygienic conditions for living should be made.

The food served must be nutritional value. Services of qualified medical

officers having some knowledge of psychiatry should also be made

available.

5. Under trials

Under trials should be separated from the convicts. Young untried

prisoners should also be kept separate from untried adults.

6. Social relations and aftercare

Before the completion of the sentence it is desirable that necessary

steps should be taken to ensure for the prisoner a gradual return to normal

life in society. He should be permitted to correspond with and meet relatives

from time to time.

 109

Constitutional/Statutory Rights of Prisoners

The Constitution of India incorporates certain rights to prisoners.

Besides, statutes like Prisons Act 1894; Prisoners’ Act 1900 and Prisoners’

Attendance in Courts Act 1955 also confer some rights on prisoners. Some

of these constitutional/statutory rights are:

1. Double jeopardy

No person shall be punished/prosecuted for the same offence more

than once.

2. Testimony

Jail authorities cannot compel prisoners to give testimony, which is

likely to expose them to criminal consequences.

3. Physical protection

It is the duty of prison authorities (on behalf of the state) to protect the

person physically. The prisoners cannot be kept in prison in the open,

exposed to sun, rain or cold. The authorities will provide accommodation in

prisons. In case of over crowding or outbreak of an epidemic, the authorities

shall provide temporary accommodation. The medical officer shall be

responsible for sanitary conditions. The medical officer is also required to

 110

examine the new inmates and shall advise the jailor regarding the nature of

work to be carried out by the prisoner.

4. Separation

Male and female prisoners shall be kept in separate prisons or separate

parts of the same building.

5. Solitary confinement

Solitary confinement is used to ensure the safe custody of other

prisoners or is inflicted as a punishment. Prisoners in solitary cells must be

examined by medical officer at least once a day if confined for a period of

more than twenty four hours.

6. Under-trials

Under-trials may be permitted to have their own clothing, food and

other accessories from their own sources and are entitled to be permitted to

contact these sources at reasonable hours.

7. Civil prisoners

Civil prisoners are also to be treated like the under-trials. They are

allowed to work in jail according to their will.

 Ill

8. Work

A criminal who is sentenced to labour shall not be allowed to work for

more than nine hours a day. The medical officer shall examine such

prisoners every fortnight to record the effect of work on their health.

4.4. THE LONG TERM CLOSED PRISON

Although there has been a prison on the site very much longer,

although its date means that it is a cellular prison, it suffers less from this

fact than prisons on more restricted sites. The main problem of the

nineteenth-century cellular prison is of course that it was built with the

intention that the prisoner should spend almost all his time in separate

confinement in his cell. As a result there were no ancillary buildings for

work, education or even recreation. When prison ideas changed and

emphasis was placed on these latter activities, the earlier disregard of them

meant that there were not only no facilities for carrying them out, but that no

room had been left within the walls where such facilities could be provided.

The great problem for twentieth century penal reformers has been how,

nevertheless, to make room for them. Because of its large site no such

problem has arisen here. Engineering workshops, weaving and tailoring

workshops, a gymnasium, a hospital, and even a hard football pitch and a

grassed recreation area have been provided. This impression of

 112

spaciousness extends even to the population density of the eellblocks

themselves. Almost all prisoners are in single-occupation cells, whereas in

most other prisons many men share with one or often two others.

In view of the large proportion of category-A prisoners in this

institution, would, however, be unrealistic to expect the free movement of

prisoners around these various facilities. A rigorous procedure controls the

movements of every category of prisoners. His photograph is lodged near

the officers’ roster board so that all officers may become familiar with his

appearance and his name is also entered into a ‘category-A movements

book’. Whenever his surveillance is transferred from one officer to another,

this is recorded in the movements book so that the responsibility for his

personal supervision is established and formalized. Category A men are also

dispersed as widely round the prison as possible, and every attempt is made

to ensure that cliques of them do not build up.

However, it is the measures adopted along the outside wall of the

prison that bring home most vividly its maximum-security character. All

walls, and buildings adjacent to them, are painted with a reflective white

paint, which is illuminated at night by high-intensity sodium lights. Thus at

all times, and in all weather conditions excepting fog, the perimeter of the

prison is in perpetual ‘daylight’. Along the whole length of a private lane

 113

running beside the prison wall are tall poles, upon which are mounted

television cameras which gyrate in order to survey all movements, both on

foot or car anywhere near the gates or wall of the prison. Cameras of this

kind were also to be found within the prison, although not in the cellblock

itself, and are capable of scanning through a wide angle or ‘zooming in’ on

any incident, which the monitoring officer considers worthy of closer

examination. The walls themselves, which were divided into numbered

sections for quick identification, were topped by ‘weight-sensitive wires’

which were so delicately poised that even a large bird perching on one of

them could activate the warning bell in the control room. Fifteen specially

trained officers worked in the security monitoring room on a shift system

extending over the 24 hours of the day. Finally, dogs with their handlers

patrolled the prison grounds day and night.

It has never been suggested that such a system would actually prevent

any escape from taking place. Nevertheless it must have been a very

formidable deterrent. And although it sounds very intimidating, its

concentration at the perimeter of the prison made it possible for the

movement of men within the prison (category A apart) to be much freer than

would otherwise have been the case. As already stated, this is a long-term

institution and two consequences seem to flow from this. One is that it has
 114

been possible to plan for a settled life within the prison, including a properly

phased training programme. The other is the feeling on the part of the staff,

as well as the prisoners, that a man who is serving a long sentence is entitled

to rather more consideration from the institution than the man who does not

have to live with it for so long. It might be noted in passing that this view

has some curious implications for the retributive theory of justice, for the

long-termer has presumably committed the more serious crime and therefore

‘deserves’ the severer punishment. This prison has always had a good

training programme, but it is the long sentence being served by the men in it,

which makes such a programme possible.

Four vocational training courses are available: tailoring, electricians,

welding and bricklaying. Of these the tailoring course was the best

integrated with subsequent experience in the prison, as men who had

completed the course could go on to work in the bespoke tailoring shop.

This has special value in a long-term prison, as no course is likely to last for

very long most are completed in six months. A longstanding complaint

about vocational training in prisons is that men are rarely able to get jobs in

the trade afterwards. This still seems to be true, in this prison as elsewhere

even in tailoring. This seems to be partly because the men do not wish to

work in the trade for which they have trained after leaving the prison, or
 115

because it would require a more deliberate effort to that end on the part of

prisons, but another factor is undoubtedly the technological gap which often

exists between the way in which a trade is taught in the prison and the way

in which it is practiced outside. A case in point at this prison was the

welding course, which used gas-welding equipment, whereas industry

outside is largely going over to electrical welding. Apparently even if there

were enough money available to buy new electrical welding equipment for

the prison, there would not be an electrical supply suitable for operating it.

Many men in any case were more interested in a ‘cushy’ or well-paid job (as

alas is also sometimes true outside prison) than in the possible vocational

implications. For example the loom shop was very popular because this was

the highest paid shop in the prison, and as a result there was a long waiting

list for admission.

4.5. THE MEDIUM TERM CLOSED PRISON

Some description has already been given of the castle in which the

staff of this institution had to attempt the task of containing its prisoners,

while also providing for them the kind of constructive regime appropriate to

a training prison. It’s many corridors, thick walls and moat strictly

constraining the area, narrow and sometimes spiral staircases presented

almost unique problems for the administrator. The observer commented on

 116

a ‘claustrophobic atmosphere’ resulting from the sheer lack of space, and

frequently with which areas of the prison had to be artificially lit, all day

long. If there is anything in the idea that prisons ought not to turn the minds

of prisoners further inwards, on the grounds that incarceration causes this

kind of introversion even under the best circumstances, doubts would have

to be expressed about the use of this building as a prison.

The sheer lack of space, of course, marked it out very sharply from

the prison just discussed; many of its activities seemed to be restricted by the

dearth of places in which to conduct them. For example, the educational

programme was adversely affected by the fact that the rooms used for it

were scattered in so many different parts of the prison. None of these places

was used, at the time of the research, exclusively for educational purposes;

each had to be vacated for some other use for part of the time. Also, because

of the overall lack of space, most of the work opportunities for prisoners

were outside the prison. Because taking men to these work places

represented something of a security hazard, category B prisoners could not

go and were therefore limited to the very narrow range of jobs, which could

be provided within the prison itself. These sometimes almost petered out

altogether, so that payment by results, adopted as a technique for stimulating

involvement and diligence, had to be abandoned in favour of flat-rate

 117

payment-presumably in order to avoid the danger that prisoners might be so

stimulated as to use up the work available to them too quickly.

Outside work opportunities consisted of three prison farms and an

outside workshop. Prisoners were taken to these various centers by bus,

accompanied by supervising officers. The workshop was fenced, and the

number who could take advantage of what went on in it was controlled

entirely by its inflexible size. The kind of task available was mainly

unskilled sewing work. The three prison farms were originally intended to

be labour-intensive in order that they might absorb a large number of

prisoners. However, this objective seemed to have been given up in favour

of more mechanized and modem forms of farming. This would appear to be

a desirable thing to do: there seems little point in training men to do any kind

of work in ways which nobody ever uses nowadays, quite apart from the

unnecessary drudgery involved. The farm also had a market garden, and one

way of legitimately increasing the labour intensiveness of the work might

have been to turn a larger acreage over to gardening.

Inside the prison there were a number of workshops: the boot and

shoe shop, at that time being mn down because of the vogue for moulded

shoes; the mailbag shop, often seen by inmates of this as of other prisons as

a ‘punishment’ assignment; and the toy manufacturing shop. Although the

 118

observer felt that the mailbag shop was not really used as a punishment, it

did seem to be used as a preventive billet for those who might cause trouble

if placed elsewhere; however all prisoners worked there when they first

arrived at the prison. The toy manufacturing shop underlined the

difficulties, which arise in a prison like this, where the structure of the

building is so inappropriate to its purpose. This shop was located in a room

at the top of a spiral staircase. The security problems here are obvious, but it

has also meant that machinery could not be used, the kind of work carried on

being thus limited to handwork. The general shortage of workspace in the

prison also meant that plans had to be made for taking over part of the

chapel as a workshop. Having regard to the longstanding religious tradition

in English prisons, this must be seen as a drastic step. The canteen was used

also to serve the purpose of a concert hall or cinema. In addition two

vocational training courses were available: one in welding, and one in radio

and television engineering.

The general educational programme compared very unfavourably

with that of the long-term prison and indeed the tutor organizer himself felt

that all he was able to do (in view of the rather unsuitable, scattered and

restricted accommodation available to him) was to provide inmates with a

couple of evening hours a week ‘out of their cells’. That was apart from a
 119

daytime class for non-readers. Although, as a member of the management

board of the prison, the tutor organizer was in a position to put forward the

case for education in competition with other priorities, the research team felt

that as a part-time member of staff he was apt to give too little regard to the

observance of prison routine. The consequent inconvenience to other staff

members hampered him in securing the support, particularly of officers in

the prison, in developing his programme. The physical difficulties of

operating an educational programme within the prison were nevertheless real

enough.

Very significant in the context of this prison was the consensus

between most of the staff and inmates about the special privileges due to

long-term prisoners. This was partly a ‘charity begins at home’ attitude;

long termers made up most of the population, such short-termers as were in

the prison being on temporary transfer from other institutions in order to

take part in vocational training courses, or to receive psychiatric treatment or

treatment in the prison’s special alcoholism unit. Nevertheless a minority of

the staff did disagree with this ‘family first’ viewpoint. Also some influence

must be credited to the traditional preference of both the experienced prison

officer and prisoners for the long-term prisoner who ‘knows how to do bird’

and is going to be a nuisance to nobody. There was also some recognition

 120

here of the point already made: that the wind ought to be tempered a little for

the man who has to spend so much of his life in the already sufficiently

depriving environment of the prison. Whatever its origin, this preferential

attitude appeared to be a real impediment to the Governor in his efforts to

ensure that all prisoners were treated alike. But like the Governor’s own

egalitarian policy, it is antagonistic to the individualization of treatment

which has been seen for three quarters of a century as the approach which is

likely to be most conducive to the reform of offenders. Both it and

egalitarianism see these issues as concerned with ‘privileges’ rather than

being determined by the requirements of a treatment regime tailored in each

case to the personality and situation of the particular prisoner.

The ‘custodial compromise’ is thus well in evidence here. Living and

working together in a closed institution, the staff and the inmates have to

achieve some common ground. Perpetual would be intolerable for both

sides under these circumstances. What emerges is something very much in

the nature of a shared culture or pattern of values and ideas, but varying in

character from wing to wing. This is a far cry from the popular picture of a

prison as a place in which the staff are constantly trying to communicate to

the prisoners a different and better set of values than their own. At the same

time one can see, in the long-term closed, a number of rifts in mutual
 121

understanding between the staff themselves. The insularity of the wings

gives rise to some such. The mutual mistrust between discipline and other

basic grade staff is another factor. Then there are the minority groups who

challenge the established wisdom that one ought not to be friendly with

prisoners, or who reject the view that one should favour the long termers

above all others.

Finally there is the daily routine of the prison. The early-shift staff

came on duty at 6.40 a.m., so that inmates could be unlocked, and then ‘slop

out’ their toilet buckets in the wing recess, wash and shave and be fed in

time for their work, which began at 8 a.m. Prisoners then worked through

until 9.50 a.m. when there was a twenty-minute morning break for exercise.

The workshops closed for the midday meal on a rotation basis between

11.10 and 11.30in order to stagger the flow of inmates into the central

feeding system, which would otherwise have been unable to cope with them.

Afternoon work recommenced at 1.30 p.m. and continued until 2.50, when a

further twenty-minute break was allowed for exercise. Only a small number

of inmates were actually confined to the exercise yard for this purpose.

Most drifted around outside the workshops smoking, continued until 4.30

p.m., when inmates returned to the prison for tea. Once tea had been served,

the various evening activities commences at 6 p.m., those who did not wish
 122

to take part in educational activities could spend the evening in a more

informal way in the association area on each wing, but those who did neither

were locked in their cells. By 8.30 p.m. all inmates were locked up, and

lights were extinguished by 10 p.m.