What these and many more official reports suggest is that the experience
of imprisonment, as a response to crime, is itself criminogenic: it actually
produces and reproduces the very behaviour it seeks to control. There
is another theme that runs the historical course of 150 years between
the early days of the penitentiary and the cusp of the twenty-first century.
It is that the experience of imprisonment, intended to inculcate respect
for the law by punishing those who breach its commands, actually creates
disrespect for the very legal order in whose name it is invoked.
The continuity of this theme is nowhere better illustrated than in events
that have taken place on the shores of Lake Ontario, in the city of Kingston,
where in 1835 Canada's first penitentiary received its first six prisoners.
A sepia-toned photograph of the North Gate of Kingston Penitentiary shows
a row of white Doric columns created from local limestone, announcing,
to those who entered within, a new era in the treatment of prisoners,
with reformation and moral recalibration fashioned along the Enlightenment
ideals embraced by prison reformers on both sides of the Atlantic and
reflected in the reform blueprints of John Howard. As legislative accompaniment
to the new institution, Canada enacted its first Penitentiary
Act. Borrowing from the preamble of the English Penitentiary
Act of 1779, it set out the intentions behind Kingston: "If many
offenders convicted of crimes were ordered to solitary imprisonment, accompanied
by well-regulated labour and religious instruction, it might be the means
under providence, not only of deterring others from the commission of
like crimes, but also of reforming the individuals, and inuring them to
habits of industry" ( An Act to Provide for the
Maintenance by the Government of the Provincial Penitentiary, [1834],
4 Will. IV, c. 37).
Yet in contrast to the promise of this preamble, the first decade at
Kingston Penitentiary saw the establishment of a regime of cruel and escalating
punishments which, while less public than the spectacle of the gallows,
were unimagined by those who drafted the Penitentiary
Act. The litany of abuses practised by Kingston's first warden
are documented in the report of the Brown Commission, which was set up
to investigate the penitentiary in 1848. In Prisoners
of Isolation, my study of solitary confinement in Canada, I summarized
the findings of that commission.
For the first seven years of the penitentiary's operation the warden
had relied exclusively upon flogging as the sole punishment for offences
of all types. The Commissioners reported that many of these floggings
were inflicted on children: during his first committal in Kingston, an
eleven-year-old whose offences were talking, laughing, and idling was
flogged, over a three-year period, thirty-eight times with the rawhide
and six times with the cats; another boy whose "offences were of the most
trifling description -- such as were to be expected from a child of 10
or 11 . . . was stripped of the shirt and publicly lashed thirty-seven
times in eight and a half months." The Commission referred to these and
similar cases as examples of "barbarity, disgraceful to humanity." The
Commission further documented cases of men and women who had been flogged
into a state of insanity. One prisoner was subject to "seven floggings
with the cats in a fortnight, and fourteen floggings in four weeks with
the cats or rawhide. It is very clear that if the man was deranged when
he arrived, or had any tendency towards it, that the treatment he received
was calculated to drive him into hopeless insanity." (Michael Jackson,
Prisoners of Isolation: Solitary Confinement in
Canada [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1983] at 28-29)
The Brown Commission's report condemned Warden Smith's regime not only
as a living hell but as a catalogue of such arbitrariness and injustice
that "must have obliterated from the minds of the unhappy men all perception
of moral guilt and thoroughly brutalized their feelings" ( Second
Report of the Commissioners Appointed to Investigate into the Conduct,
Discipline, and Management of the Provincial Penitentiary [1849],
cited in Jackson, Prisoners of Isolation,
at 29). The commission, while condemning Warden Smith's individual sadism,
reaffirmed that the purpose of the penitentiary was to restore the moral
compass of the prisoner through contemplation, hard labour, and the teaching
of honest trades. Its report also underscored the importance of fairness
in the treatment of prisoners, both to re-establish the moral legitimacy
of punishment and to allow the penitentiary experience to have a reformative
effect.
A century and a half after Warden Smith's reign of terror, across the
road from Kingston Penitentiary at the Prison for Women (opened in 1934),
there was another series of events that drew the condemnation of a royal
commission. Some of these events were captured on a dramatic Correctional
Service of Canada videotape which, for the first time, in 1995 allowed the Canadian
public to see deep inside the prison cells. The videotape and the 1996
report of the Arbour Commission documented how a small group of women,
who were locked in their cells, had been descended upon by a male emergency
response team from Kingston Penitentiary. The women, facing a phalanx
of men outfitted in Darth Vader suits with full face visors, security
shields and batons, were forced to disrobe, and in some cases had their
clothes literally cut off with razor tools. Madam Justice Arbour commented that "upon viewing
images taken from the videotape . . . members of the public have expressed
reactions ranging from shock and disbelief, to horror and sorrow" ( Commission
of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston,
Louise Arbour (Canada) [Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services Canada,
1996] [Commissioner: Louise Arbour] at 86). She concluded that "the process was intended to terrorize, and
therefore subdue" (at 88). Terror in the name of the law, but in violation
of the law, had also been the charge of the Brown Commission. Madam Justice
Arbour saw the events at the Prison for Women not simply as examples of
individual deviations from law and policy but as systemic failures demonstrating
the absence of a culture that respected the rule of law or individual
rights: "The Rule of Law is absent although rules are everywhere" (Arbour,
at 181). Page 3 of 9
|