|   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
           |