Prison, an institution for the confinement of persons who

have been remanded (held) in custody by a

judicial authority or who have been deprived of their liberty

following conviction for a crime. A person found guilty of

a felony or a misdemeanour may be required to serve a

prison sentence. The holding of accused persons awaiting trial

remains an important function of contemporary prisons, and

in some countries such persons constitute the majority of the

prison population. In the United Kingdom, for example,

generally about one-fifth of the prison population is un-

convicted or un-sentenced, while more than two-thirds of

those in custody in India are pre-trial detainees.

Until the late 18th century, prisons were used primarily for the

confinement of debtors; persons accused of crimes and

awaiting trial, and convicts awaiting the imposition of their

sentences—usually death or transportation (deportation)

overseas. A sentence of imprisonment was rarely imposed—

and then only for minor crimes.

As the use of capital punishment began to decline in the late

18th century, the prison was increasingly used by courts as a

place of punishment, eventually becoming the chief means of

punishing serious offenders. The use of imprisonment

subsequently spread worldwide, often by means of colonial

empires that brought the practice to countries with

no indigenous concept of prisons. By the early 21st century a

majority of countries had abolished the death penalty

(in law or in practice), and imprisonment was consequently

the most severe form of punishment their courts could impose.

Development of the prison system

During the 16th century a number of houses of correction

were established in Europe for the rehabilitation of minor

offenders and vagrants; they emphasized strict discipline and

hard labour. Over time, imprisonment came to be accepted as

an appropriate method of punishing convicted criminals. Poor

sanitation in these institutions caused widespread disease

among prisoners, who were generally held unsegregated,

without any consideration for gender or legal status.

Outbreaks of epidemic typhus, known as “jail fever,”

occasionally killed not only prisoners but also jailers and

(more rarely) judges and lawyers involved in trials. The

modern prison developed in the late 18th century in part as a

reaction to the conditions of the local jails of the time.

Emergence of the penitentiary

The concept of the prison as a penitentiary (that is, as a place

of punishment and personal reform) was advocated in this

period by the English jurist and philosopher Jeremy Bentham,

among others. The appalling conditions and official

corruption in many local prisons of late 18th-century England

and Wales were exposed by the English prison reformer John

Howard, whose works The State of the Prisons in England

and Wales (1777) and An Account of the Principal Lazarettos

in Europe (1789) were based on extensive travels. The public

outrage that Bentham and Howard helped generate led to a

national system of inspection and the construction of “convict

prisons” for those serving longer sentences. Consequently, in

the early 19th century, penitentiaries were established in the

U.S. states of Pennsylvania and New York.

As use of the new type of prison expanded, administrators

began to experiment with new methods of prisoner

rehabilitation. Solitary confinement of criminals came to be

viewed as an ideal, because it was thought that solitude would

help the offender to become penitent and that penitence would

result in rehabilitation. In the United States the idea was

first implemented at Eastern State Penitentiary

in Philadelphia in 1829. Each prisoner remained in his cell or

its adjoining yard, worked alone at trades such as weaving,

carpentry, or shoemaking, and saw no one except the officers

of the institution and an occasional visitor from outside. This

method of prison management, known as the “separate

system” or the “Pennsylvania system,” became a model for

penal institutions constructed in several other U.S. states and

throughout much of Europe.

A competing philosophy of prison management, known as the

“silent system” or the “Auburn system,” arose at roughly the

same time. Although constant silence was strictly enforced,

the distinguishing feature of this system was that prisoners

were permitted to work together in the daytime (at night they

were confined to individual cells). Both systems held to the

basic premise that contact between convicts should be

prohibited in order to minimize the bad influence inmates

might have on one another. Vigorous competition between

supporters of the two systems followed until about 1850, by

which time most U.S. states had adopted the silent system.

The concept of personal reform became increasingly

important in penology, resulting in experimentation with

various methods. One example was the mark system, which

was developed about 1840 by Capt. Alexander Maconochie

at Norfolk Island, an English penal colony east of Australia.

Instead of serving fixed sentences, prisoners were required to

earn credits, or “marks,” in amounts proportional to the

seriousness of their offenses. Credits

were accumulated through good conduct, hard work, and

study, and they could be withheld or subtracted for indolence

or misbehaviour. Prisoners who obtained the required number

of credits became eligible for release. The mark system

presaged the use of indeterminate sentences, individualized

treatment, and parole. Above all it emphasized training and

performance, rather than solitude, as the chief mechanisms of

reform.

Further refinements in the mark system were developed in the

mid-19th century by Sir Walter Crofton, the director of Irish

prisons. In his program, known as the Irish system, prisoners

progressed through three stages of confinement before they

were returned to civilian life. The first portion of the sentence

was served in isolation. After that, prisoners were assigned to

group work projects. Finally, for six months or more before

release, the prisoners were transferred to “intermediate

prisons,” where they were supervised by unarmed guards and

given sufficient freedom and responsibility to demonstrate

their fitness for release. Release nonetheless depended upon

the continued good conduct of the offender, who could be

returned to prison if necessary.

Many features of the Irish system were adopted by

reformatories constructed in the United States in the late 19th

century for the treatment of youthful and first offenders. The

leaders of the reformatory movement advocated the

classification and segregation of various types of prisoners,

individualized treatment emphasizing vocational

education and industrial employment, indeterminate sentences

and rewards for good behaviour, and parole or conditional

release. The reformatory philosophy gradually permeated the

entire U.S. prison system, and the American innovations, in

combination with the Irish system, had great impact upon

European prison practices, leading to innovations such as

the Borstal system of rehabilitation for youthful offenders in

the 20th century.

The purpose of imprisonment

There are a number of accepted reasons for the use of

imprisonment. One approach aims to deter those who would

otherwise commit crimes (general deterrence) and to make it

less likely that those who serve a prison sentence will commit

crimes after their release (individual deterrence). A second

approach focuses on issuing punishment to, or

obtaining retribution from, those who have committed serious

crimes. A third approach encourages the personal reform of

those who are sent to prison. Finally, in some cases it is

necessary to protect the public from those who commit crimes

—particularly from those who do so persistently. In individual

cases, all or some of these justifications may apply. The

increasing importance of the notion of reform has led some

prison systems to be called correctional institutions.

This description of imprisonment applies mainly to the

countries of Europe and North America.

In China imprisonment was historically used as a means of

reforming the minds of criminals, and it obliged prisoners to

work in support of the state. Imprisonment in the Soviet

Union similarly became a method of forcing so-called

enemies of the state to labour on its behalf and, in so doing, to

recognize the error of their ways. Developing countries faced

a different challenge as they confronted prison systems that in

many cases symbolized a legacy of colonial domination.

Given the difficulty of replacing the structure and

organization of an existing prison system, many countries

consequently struggled to implement effective forms of

punishment that were also decent and humane.

Types of prisons

Prisoners are distributed among a variety of types of

institutions. Most countries operate national prison systems

that are supplemented by state or provincial counterparts. In

the United States, for example, criminals sentenced for federal

offenses are held in institutions of varying levels of security

operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The majority of

prisoners are held in state institutions, some of which house

several thousand inmates in high-security facilities. Prisoners

who have been charged with minor offenses, or who are

serving short sentences, are most commonly held in municipal

jails.

In countries with a federal system of government, such as

Brazil, Germany and India, prisons are administered not by

the national government but by individual states.

The vast majority of prisoners worldwide are adult males. Of

these, a minority have committed very serious crimes; it is the

responsibility of prison systems to protect the public from

such convicts at all costs. Other prisoners are career criminals

who regularly commit burglaries and thefts, and who accept

that from time to time they will be caught, convicted, and

sentenced to a period of imprisonment. Also common among

prisoners are people on the margins of society who commit

minor offences; they may be drug addicts or alcoholics, they

may be mentally disordered, or they may feel that they have

lost their place in society through unemployment or

homelessness (see alienation). Most prison systems have

different sorts of prisons to contain these different groups. For

the most serious criminals, there are high-security prisons,

where the movement of every prisoner is closely supervised

so that they have little chance of escaping. For the majority

there are medium-security prisons, where prisoners are

expected to work, attend educational programs, or participate

in other activities that prepare them for release. Finally, there

are prisons that have a very low level of security for those

who present no threat to public safety.

Supervision
In the 19th and early 20th centuries, prisons were viewed as

total institutions that exert control over every aspect of a

prisoner’s life. In addition to scheduled routines—such as for

meals, rising and retiring, exercising, and bathing—many

other aspects of the prisoner’s life were subject to strict

supervision. In the later 20th century, however, penologists

recognized that not all prisoners required such close

supervision and that excessive surveillance risked

institutionalizing the prisoner to such a degree that it could

undermine his preparation for release. Many countries have

since encouraged prisoners to take responsibility for their

actions, to use their time in prison to examine their previous

behaviour, and to learn skills that will help them to lead a law-

abiding life after their sentence has been served. Prison

programs may involve education, industrial work, vocational

training, and instruction in what are known as “life skills” or

“survival skills.”
Wherever possible, prisoners are permitted to maintain (or in

some cases develop) contact with their families. This is

important not only for the prisoner but also for the family

members, who have a right—as expressed in Article 12 of

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)—to

maintain contact with their parent, child, or sibling. In some

countries, visits with families take place under close

supervision, in rooms where staff is always present and where

visitors and prisoners are allowed little direct contact.

Prisoners in maximum-security facilities are sometimes

separated from their visitors by solid glass screens. Prisons in

some eastern European and Central Asian countries provide

special visiting units where families and prisoners can live

together for up to three days. Similar arrangements exist in

Canada and some U.S. states. Several Latin American

countries permit family members to enter the prisoners’

living accommodations on weekends.

Order and discipline

Although prisons are intended to be institutions where good

order prevails, it is possible for order to break down in certain

circumstances. It is the responsibility of prison administrators

to ensure that each arriving prisoner understands what type of

behaviour is expected and what acts are forbidden. In

addition, there must be a clear set of disciplinary sanctions for

acts of indiscipline. In all such cases the normal processes of

natural justice should apply. This means that a prisoner who is

accused of violating prison rules should be told what the

charge is and who is leveling it. The accused prisoner should

have the opportunity to attend a disciplinary hearing, to enter

a defense, and to question the evidence presented.

Any resulting punishment should be proportional to the

offense that was committed. Serious acts, which would

usually be classified as criminal, should be dealt with in a

more serious manner; in some countries, such as the United

Kingdom, this involves referring the case to the civil police.

In other countries, such as France and Spain, these cases are

handled by a visiting judge or magistrate.

Oversight

Many countries recognize the need for third-party oversight of

their prison systems. The United Kingdom and the state

of Western Australia appoint independent inspectors for this

purpose, while many countries in continental Europe appoint

a visiting judge who oversees prison systems. There are also

forms of independent regional inspection; the member

countries of the Council of Europe, for example, are subject to

inspection by the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and

Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. On the

African continent, the African Commission on Human and

People’s Rights appoints a Special Rapporteur on Prisons,

who is charged with examining conditions in all detention

facilities and upholding human rights norms as defined by

national and international bodies.

Privatization

As governments faced the problems created by burgeoning

prison populations in the late 20th century—including

overcrowding, poor sanitation, and riots—a few sought a

solution in turning over prison management to the private

sector. Privately run prisons were in operation in Australia,

the United Kingdom, and the United States by the late 1990s.

In the following decade a number of countries, including

Brazil, France, and South Africa, hired private contractors to

build prisons and to manage some of their day-to-day

operations.

The term prison privatization can be applied to a variety of

arrangements involving nongovernmental contractors. One

privatization model, which originated in France and later

spread to a number of countries, arranges responsibilities such

that state employees control any functions that relate to

deprivation of liberty while other services are contracted out

to nongovernmental companies. Services in the latter group

may include maintenance of buildings and

other infrastructure, transportation, accommodation, food

service, health services, work programs, and vocational

training.

In a further model of privatization, the entire operation of a

prison is contracted to a commercial business or a not-for-

profit organization. In this model the state builds and retains

ownership of the prison buildings, but it enters into a contract

with a company that operates and manages the prison.

A more extensive model of privatization occurs in cases

where a commercial company (often a consortium of

companies) takes a prison from drawing board to final

operation. In this model the state enters into a contract with

the business or consortium. The latter agrees to provide a set

number of prison places to a contractual standard; the state in

turn agrees to pay for the set number of places over a

contractually agreed-upon period of time.

A fundamental change accompanying the introduction of

privatization is the concept of the market model of prisons. As

a consequence of this model, many of the costs of increased

imprisonment are hidden in the short term. In fiscal terms,

high capital expenditure is converted into long-term revenue

expenditure, which reduces current (short-term) financial

costs while increasing future (long-term) costs to the public.

Prison populations

National trends
By the early 21st century there were more than 9 million men,

women, and children in prisons around the world, most of

whom were located in three countries: the United States (with

more than 2 million prisoners), China (with more than 1.5

million prisoners), and Russia (with roughly 1 million

prisoners). Prior to the mid-20th century the number of

incarcerated individuals worldwide had been far lower.

Sing Sing

Sing Sing prison on the Hudson River at Ossining, New York.

Acroterion

The general rise in prison populations has been attributed to a

variety of factors. Available evidence suggests that it is

a consequence of greater public awareness (and fear) of crime,

even in jurisdictions that have not experienced an increase in

crime rates; changes in legislation that leave judges little

sentencing flexibility in individual cases; and police targeting

of drug-related offenses since the 1980s. It is nonetheless very

difficult to identify a correspondence between crime rates and

rates of imprisonment.

In 1880 England’s prison population stood at 32,000. After

the prisons came under central government control, there was

a long period of decline in the number of prisoners, probably

the result of changes in sentencing laws and practices. By the

end of World War I the daily average prison population had

decreased to roughly 10,000, and it remained relatively stable

during the interwar years. After World War II there was a

period of steady increase that continued unabated for several

decades. From a daily average figure of about 12,000 in 1945,

the English prison population grew despite a variety of legal

changes designed to contain it. By the 1960s it had reached

30,000—the level of the 1880s—and by the mid-1970s

it surpassed 40,000, notwithstanding the introduction of a

parole system and suspended sentences. In the early 21st

century the total prison population in England and Wales

exceeded 80,000. A similar trend occurred in the United

States. Roughly 250,000 persons were incarcerated in

penitentiaries in 1975, but the number of prisoners increased

exponentially through the remainder of the 20th century.

Although most industrialized societies experienced a rapid

increase in prison populations after World War II, the

opposite trend was observed in the Netherlands, where the

prison population was halved from 1950 to 1975. By 1990,

owing to shorter sentences for common offenses, there were

fewer than 2,500 convicted offenders (in addition to another

3,000 awaiting trial) imprisoned in the entire country.

However, when sentences were lengthened in the 1990s, the

prison population increased to nearly 15,000 by the end of

that decade, and it exceeded 21,000 by the end of 2005.

Another country that experienced a decrease in prison

population in the last decades of the 20th century was Finland,

where shorter sentences and the increased use of parole and

suspended sentences caused the number of incarcerated

people to fall by two-fifths during the 1990s. The country had

fewer than 4,000 people in prison at the end of 2005.

In most prison systems, minority groups are significantly

overrepresented. This is especially true of racial minorities,

such as African Americans in the United States, Roma in

central Europe, Aborigines in Australia, and Maori in New

Zealand.
Females account for less than one-tenth of the prison

population in most countries. Some countries, however, have

experienced an increase in the number of women prisoners.

Of these, a certain proportion is associated with

drug convictions, either for drug abuse or, as is more often the

case for women from countries such as Nigeria and Jamaica,

for serving as “drug mules” (carriers of drugs). Women and

younger prisoners, unless they are being tried as adults, are

held in separate prisons. Many women who end up in prison

have been physically or sexually abused, and in most cases

their needs are quite different from those of male prisoners,

especially with respect to psychological support and

vocational-skills training. In addition, many will have been

the primary caregivers for their children. Juvenile offenders

also have special needs; they generally receive age-

appropriate education and vocational training with an

emphasis on preventing recidivism.

Prisoners’ rights

As an aspect of human rights, the concept of prisoners’ rights

has been upheld by a number of international declarations and

national constitutions. The underlying assumption—that

people who are detained or imprisoned do not cease to be

human beings, no matter how serious the associated crime—

was expressed in the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights, Article 10, which states, “All persons

deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and

with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.”

This rests on the principle that the deprivation of liberty (that

is, imprisonment) is the operative punishment and that it

should not be augmented by unnecessarily restrictive

conditions.

The implications of this principle have been recognized by

many countries. In the United States, for example, prisoners

may bring legal action under the provisions of the U.S.

Constitution—notably the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of

“cruel and unusual punishments” and the Fourteenth

Amendment’s guarantees of due process and equal

protection of the laws. In some cases, courts have ordered

state prison administrators to make major improvements in

prison conditions and disciplinary procedures or to close

down particular institutions. In Europe, prisoners have the

right to take cases to the European Court of Human Rights,

but they may also utilize national courts.

Intergovernmental organizations (such as the United Nations)

and nongovernmental organizations (such as Amnesty

International) have lobbied worldwide in defense of prisoners’

rights, such as the right to expect personal safety and security

while in prison. Prison authorities are particularly responsible

for ensuring the safety of those most likely to be attacked or

abused by fellow prisoners; these include

former law enforcement officers sentenced for corruption (or

similar crimes) and those guilty of sexual offenses against

children. In some systems, such offenders have been put in

solitary confinement for their own protection. Prison

administrators are also responsible for protecting the racial,

cultural, and religious rights of prisoners.

Alternatives to prison

In most criminal justice systems the majority of offenders are

dealt with by means other than custody—that is, by fines and

other financial penalties, probation, supervision, or orders to

make reparation in some practical form to the community.

Fines

The most common penalty is the fine. For example, in the

1980s in England, about four-fifths of all defendants found

guilty of crimes were fined. The imposition of a fine acts as a

simple penalty that avoids the disadvantages of many other

forms of sentence. It is inexpensive to administer and avoids

the associated consequences, such as social stigma and job

loss, that may follow imprisonment. However, fines are

essentially regressive, meaning that they may be less

burdensome for affluent offenders than for less affluent ones.

There is the additional possibility that the convicted offender

lacks the financial resources, or earns such a small income,

that he cannot pay anything more than a minimal fine. In

response to this problem, some countries (notably Sweden)

have allowed the court to calculate a fine based on a number

of days’ earnings.

Enforcement of fines can be problematic. Some offenders

who are fined have to be brought back to court for

nonpayment. If an offender fails to pay a fine as a result of

willful neglect or culpable default, he may be committed to

prison, or his property can be seized and sold, while

a garnishment order can be used to obtain any funds in a bank

account. The length of time for which an offender may be

committed to prison for deliberate nonpayment of a fine

depends on the amount outstanding, though in some cases this

involves very short periods (such as one to two weeks). If

offenders are able to pay the outstanding amount, they can

gain immediate release, and if they pay a portion of the fine,

the term of imprisonment can be reduced proportionately.

Restitution

Related to the fine is an order to pay restitution (also known

by the term compensation), which has been a

popular alternative to punitive sentencing in some countries.

Instead of emphasizing punishment of the offender, however,

most restitution programs are intended to assist or compensate

the victims of crime. Victims of violent crime in some

jurisdictions, including Great Britain, Australia, and Canada,

are entitled to restitution from public funds, even in cases

where the offender is identified and can afford to pay

restitution. Generally, this type of program is administered by

a criminal-injuries compensation board, to which the victim

must present evidence of the violence and the resulting extent

of loss. When restitution is required of the offender, it often

amounts to payment for loss of property, repayment of stolen

money, or payment for medical costs stemming from injury.

Other penalties

Several means of penalizing offenders involve neither prison

terms nor the payment of money. One alternative, community

supervision, may take many different forms but essentially

involves the suspension of a sentence subject to the condition

that the offender agree to a specified period of supervision by

a probation officer and comply with such other requirements

set forth by the court. In some countries this supervision is

carried out by a probation service. An offender who obeys the

supervision order and does not commit any further offense

will usually avoid any further penalty. An offender who fails

to meet the requirements, however, can be brought back

before the court and be punished for the original offense as

well as any later ones committed. In many U.S. states this

form of probation has been combined with a suspended

sentence, which is the sentence that would have been served if

the offender had broken the order. In the country of England

such sentences are not fixed in advance, and the court has

complete discretion in the event of a breach by the offender.

English law also allows suspended sentences of imprisonment

for a specified period (not more than two years), on condition

that the offender commit no further offense during the period

of suspension. In contrast to probation, suspended sentences

do not require supervision or any other condition.

Reparation, which mandates that an offender provide services

to the victim or to the community, has gained in popularity in

a number of jurisdictions. Many countries have instituted the

use of the community service order, also known as a

noncustodial penalty. Under such an arrangement the court is

empowered to order anyone convicted of an offense that could

be punished with imprisonment to perform a specified number

of hours of unpaid work for the community, usually over a

period of 12 months. So that community service orders do not

amount to forced labour, an offender must consent to the

order before it is issued. It is typically carried out during the

leisure time of the offender under the direction of the

probation service. The work varies depending on the area, the

time of year, and the offender’s abilities: in some cases it may

involve heavy physical labour, but in others it may require

duties such as the provision of help to individuals with

physical or mental disabilities. Offenders completing the

community service order receive no further penalty unless

they fail to carry out the work without a reasonable excuse, in

which case they can be resentenced for the original offense.

This form of judicial disposal has been introduced throughout

much of Europe and in a number of countries in sub-Saharan

Africa, including Kenya and Malawi.

When compared with imprisonment, community service is far

less expensive to administer, less damaging to the offender

and his family, and more useful to the community. Critics of

noncustodial and probational penalties say that the measures

are too lenient, while proponents say that imprisonment

for minor and nonviolent crimes is costly and less effective

than supervised terms of community service. The vast

majority of offenders complete their community service

orders satisfactorily.

Other alternatives to prison are based on the idea of

preventing offenders from committing future offenses. The

most familiar approach involves disqualifying an offender

from driving a motor vehicle or from holding a driver’s

license. This practice is commonly used when dealing with

offenders who have committed serious driving offenses (such

as driving while intoxicated) or repeated but less serious

offenses (such as speeding). Other forms of disqualification

are imposed on offenders convicted of particular types of

crimes. For example, a company director convicted of

accounting fraud may be barred from directing another

company or joining a corporate board; a corrupt politician

may be blocked from holding future public office; and parents

who abuse their children may be deprived of parental rights.

Finally, new technologies, such as electronic monitoring

through ankle bracelets and other surveillance devices, have

allowed probation and parole officers to restrict the movement

of offenders who live in their own homes or in supervised

accommodations.