Case Study: Pentonville Prison

• Pentonville prison opened in 1842, it was designed by Joshua Jebb. It was designed to provide better living conditions than many existing prisons in Britain
• Pentonville prison was built as a result of the Prison Act of 1839, which declared that the 'separate system' should be used in prisons, which isolated prisoners from eachother
• the separate system of pentonville prison was supposed to allow criminals to rehabilite (turn back to normal) aswell as punishing and deterring them from future crimes
• Pentonville was built with a central hall and 5 wings radiating from it. Each inmate had their own cell, design to provide enough space for one person to live in
• Each cell had a hammock to sleep on, a toilet and a sink. Heating and ventilation was also used
• Inmates were usually kept in solitary confinement, having to sleep eat and work in their cells. This was done to keep inmates away from more hardened criminals who could influence them
• Pentonville was an attempt to improve prison conditions. Its conditions were still cruel but were better than conditions of prisons during the 1700s and 1800s.
• When outside their cells, inmates wore masks to prevent them from seeing each other. During chapel services they sat in separate booths so they could not speak or see eachother
• After Pentonville, 54 other prisons were built using a similar design
• In the second half of the 1800s, some people believed in a 'criminal class', who were lifelong criminals who are incapable of change. This attitude made people think it was pointless to try to reform criminals
• The prison act of 1865 made life harsher in prisons, inmates had to work several hours a day and were given dull food and slept on wooden board. Inmates were also banned from speaking to each other, this was called the 'silent system'
• Elizabeth Fry argued that the silent system did not give inmates a chance to change their ways and could lead to more psychological problems and suicide. Other people felt the punishments were not harsh enough