Penal Station Objectives - Essay Example

Penal Station Objectives The system of transportation of convicts to Australia is renowned in history for it brutal treatment of the convicts1, although recent research making comparisons of records available have come to question this2. A cluster of penal colonies were created along the coast of New South Wales and Van Diemans's Land, and it is these colonies as a whole which will be the focus of this paper, with regard to the objectives of establishing a penal station, and whether these objectives were met. The different penal stations that were established were intended to be places of secondary punishment to service convicts who received sentences for offences committed whilst in the colonies, as well, the penal stations were meant to incarcerate criminals who had committed very serious offences, and who were deemed to require seclusion from the remaining population3. The first penal station was established at Newcastle in 1804 and the convicts were put to labor mining for coal and cutting cedar tree. However, with the settlements of the Hunter Valley with colonists, Newcastle was no longer as isolated as it was when it started. And so Port Macquarie was established, and Newcastle closed in 1824. However, Port Macquarie experienced frequent successful escapes, and following an inspection by Commissioner Bigge it was determined that other colony stations be created, and emphasized the need for these convicts to be separated and isolated from the remaining population. As a consequence the Governor of Brisbane developed a penal station at Moreton Bay in 1825. Norfolk Island was also reoccupied, having been abandoned in 1813. The worst criminals were sent to Norfolk Island, and those guilty of lesser offences were transported to Moreton Bay. 1 Reynolds, J (1982) The penal stations of New South Wales and Van Dieman's Land. p. 354 2.Denholm, D. (1971) The men and the myth. Historical Studies, 14. p. 406 3. Maxwell-Stewart, H. (1971) Convict workers, 'Penal labour' and Sarah Island. In, Life at Macquarie Island. p. 144. Meanwhile in Van Dieman's Land a penal station was first established in 1822 at Macquarie Harbour, as it was more difficult to escape from. Unfortunately there were issues with access to the Harbour, and so convicts with minor offenses were sent to another penal station established at nearby Maria Island in 1825. Due to escalating cost though, Lieutenant-=Governor Arthur decided to develop another colony, an din 1830 Port Arthur was established on the Tasman's Peninsula, and in the closing of Macquarie Harbor and Maria Island1. There was a distinct awareness among the governors of the settlements at this time that there was a clear need to portray transportation as an "object of terror," to enable effective and efficient deterrence to future criminal activity in Britain 4,5,6. Subsequently, governors incorporated into their policies, statements that would substantiate the concept of transportation as an act "worse than death". Thus, one of the primary objectives of the penal stations, was to deter others from committing crimes. Another primary objective was for the convicts to be given constant employment, preferably in hard labor4. This was to enable a rigid form of discipline among the convicts, and to provide supervisors and governors with a way to systematically and in a standardized way to oversee the incarceration of the convicts. By way of isolation from the luxuries that were available to the settlements it was anticipated that the third objective could be met, which was reforming of character. As such, it was expected that a number of the transported convicts would become rehabilitate through isolation1, hard labor and the habit making of discipline, as well as perhaps learning new skills such as agriculture, and so return to society as a contributing member. 1 Reynolds, J (1982) The penal stations of New South Wales and Van Dieman's Land. p. 356 4. Shannon. (1968) J.T.Bigge "Report to the Commissioner of Inquiry' British Parliamentary Papers: Colonies, Australia, 1. p. 7-8; 6. 5. Evans, R. & Thorpe, W. (n.d.) Power, punishment and penal labour 6. Duffield, I. (Ed) (n.d.) Jack Bushman. p. 3. The endless toil was in itself a way to also dissuade others from contemplating and undertaking criminal activity. The governors, in general, approached the reformation of the convicts with great seriousness and consideration4. Recent literature investigation has suggested that many of the historical "facts" about the brutal treatment of convicts in the stations, and the assumed negative and unfeeling approach by the governors, is in fact a myth, created by the press, who an annoyance to governors at the time. For example, Arthur has been described as "zealous" with regard to his commitment to the supervision of all levels of the operation of his penal system, a trait of management which is encouraged in the 21st century business world as a strategic edge1. His behavior has been commented upon as one that kept his goal clearly in view, and who took great pride and had a strong work ethic to meet the demands of his role. He constantly encouraged his commandants to be aware of their power to do more with regard to "eradicating the Viscious Habits" of the incarcerated convicts. Arthur frequently visited the Port Arthur penal colony and sought to demonstrate his concern and belief in rehabilitation as part of the punishment process. Governor Bourke at Norfolk Island also demonstrated a keen interest in his duties to supervise convict labor, encouragement of self-discipline and motivations towards rehabilitation. He made it policy for his commandments to reward the good behaviour of convicts, such as granting small plots of private land for cultivation of vegetables or flowers1. He considered it important to mitigate hard labour with recreation and leisure activities in order 1 Reynolds, J (1982) The penal stations of New South Wales and Van Dieman's Land. 4. Shannon. (1968) J.T.Bigge "Report to the Commissioner of Inquiry' British Parliamentary Papers: Colonies, Australia, 1. for rehabilitation to actually take effect. The commandants across the penal stations had strict protocols as to the limits of their powers with regard to punishment of the convicts in their care4, and many recent literature investigations of the records at this time point to the demonstrated restraint of the governors. This is in contrast to many previous historical depictions of the governors and their superintendents as heartless, callous and without concern for the well being and dignity of the convicts in their care. Were the Objectives Met There is ongoing debate currently as to whether the objectives of the having the penal stations were actually met. Many novels have been produced over the years; most of them have tended to focus on the negative conditions of the penal stations. For example, Marcus Clarke's For the Term of His Natural Life, takes the reader through the main characters series of transportations among the penal stations, and his subject to torture, extreme punishments and "brutal injustices"1. The purpose of the novel being to indict the penal system of the time as being woefully inadequate in terms of meeting its objectives, particularly that of rehabilitation of convicts so that they could once again enter mainstream society, now as fully functional and contributing members. The image portrayed of governors and superintendents is one of tyrannous despots who took advantage of the power of their roles, and neglected their duties to ensure employment that fostered self-discipline, and neglected to exercise their posers to cultivate rehabilitation for the convicts. From this approach, convicts were considered slaves, 1 Reynolds, J (1982) The penal stations of New South Wales and Van Dieman's Land. 2.Denholm, D. (1971) The men and the myth. Historical Studies, 14. and this runs counter to the objective of discipline, punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation. In turn, according to Marcus's recounting, convicts went on to commit further offenses such as cannibalism and other crimes as a way to find release form their own pain of incarceration and ongoing suffering. It is clear that the purpose of invoking fear into the mind of criminals was achieved. The stations took on legendary perceptions as a place of living hell, or places of no return 1,2. The stations were feared by both the convicts, members of settlements, and reports say, in Britain as well. However, it is still contested whether the reputation of suffering and misery at the stations actually served the objective of reducing crime. Especially considering that many of the transportations to the stations were in fact convicts that were experiencing a secondary offence, such as larceny, rape, or theft. It seems that habitual criminals remained active within the settlements, and even when they were sent to penal stations at times continued with criminal activities. This lends substance to current arguments of prison systems that exist at this time, in that punishment does not appear to work. And further that rehabilitation does not always occur, as appears to be the case for the majority of convicts who did not receive their tickets to return to the settlements. As to providing a prison environment from which it was difficult to escape and that provided seclusion from the settlements and other colonizers, it appears that the objective was met in that most convicts did not escape incarceration, and found themselves separated form the luxuries and recreations available to people of the settlements. 1 Reynolds, J (1982) The penal stations of New South Wales and Van Dieman's Land. 2.Denholm, D. (1971) The men and the myth. Historical Studies, 14 Unfortunately, as many records of the time were not adequately maintained, it is difficult if not impossible to establish if the objects were met. Further, those records that were made have been suggested to be "unreliable" 2. Current reports of justice within the stations was that it was to have been "arbitrary"2, which does not meet the objective of providing a standard form of punishment, and reform that is likely to deter future crime of those incarcerated and those within the settlements or Britain who may be contemplating or undertaking criminal activities. For example, Samuel Alsop at Port Arthur demonstrated idiosyncratic characteristics for a convict. Convicted of highway robbery in Somerset in 1831, and then again sentenced in 1835 to hard labor in chains for gross misconduct towards a lady, he showed exemplary behaviour at Port Arthur2. To the extent that Aslop earned his ticket to return to the settlements in 1841. Whether it was his experiences of heard labor, or that the governor and superintendent fostered his ability to rehabilitate, influenced Alsop's change in behaviour is unknown. However, on the surface it appears that his incarceration deterred ongoing criminal offending and reformed his character in such a way that he was considered suitable for release form an institution that was promoted as the "end of the line" for crime. The collection of writings by Nicholas and Sehrgold, Convict Writings (1988), caused a stir in the academic community with the claims of the penal system generally having a positive effect on deterring crime, and rehabilitating convicts 5. The arguments presented suggest that convict labor was overall efficient and effective, that the convicts were able to maintain 2.Denholm, D. (1971) The men and the myth. Historical Studies, 14 5 Evans, R. & Thorpe, W. (n.d.) Power, punishment and penal labour physical fitness and to develop productive and disciplined habits, and that in general found themselves being better educated, better housed and better fed than the majority of the working class in Britain at the time. It was also suggested that the use of punishment was judicious in the main, and that assistance available and free, and were in general considered healthy; which was a far cry from the average free worker in Britain, and that convicts actually worked less hours than the average "free" Briton. Further, compared to their homelands, housing was spacious and free of disease to a large degree, there was better medical Alternatively, some convicts just kept on re-offending. Thomas Gardiner was transported from Hertford in 1842 for a period of 15 years for forgery2. However, within three months of his arrival in Hobart he was transported to Port Arthur for five years for stealing an ox as well as for insubordination. Another example is the behaviour of William Calderwood, court-martialed in Toronto, Canada for desertion in 1843 and transported for 14 years 2. He was on a chain gang on Maria Island, but during his incarceration attempted escape twice. In 1845 Calderwood was transported to Prot Arthur to serve a year's sentence for larceny. At the end of 1846 he was returned to Port Arthur three years for an unspecified crime; finally escaping in 1848. It is clear from such behaviours that the penal system was not acting as a deterrent, and that rehabilitation was not occurring across the board. Given the lack of standardized procedures at the time for developing polices and protocols for the governors and superintendents it is not surprising that arbitrary justice was the norm. From the convict's point of view, it may have appeared that getting a ticket to the settlements were better off trying their luck to escape, and to live off the land1. 1 Reynolds, J (1982) The penal stations of New South Wales and Van Dieman's Land. 2.Denholm, D. (1971) The men and the myth. Historical Studies, 14 Being overworked and underfed, and poor nutrition, was more a matter of luck than behaviour and reformation of character. Given also that the conditions appear to be extremely harsh (e.g., working from sunup to 8'oclock at night with only two hours break throughout the day1), it is little wonder that many convicts thought they miserable housing conditions, barely clothed and very rough punishments served little to foster an atmosphere of cultivating self discipline and rehabilitation. A study of the Moreton Bay penal station by Raymond Evans and William Thorp contends that the approach to convicts as "human capital" was false description of the attitudes at that time5. And that governors and superintendents were more directed by a "mentality of punishment". Additionally, the collection points out that the system of transportation was not unique to Australia, but was happening at many places of colonization as a form of forced migration. In conclusion, it is clear that this is an important area of discourse as it questions much of Anglo-Australian heritage, and it is this that citizens base their sense of identity on. Seeing the nation as not grounded on a "criminal underclass" can be very empowering for the citizens of the modern era. It also throws light on the biases inherent in the writing of history, and for the need to enter debate of multiple perspectives so that the "real" history can come to the forefront. As such, given the lack of reliable documentation of the time it is evident that the discussion will remain confused and contentious for some time to come. 5 Evans, R. & Thorpe, W. (n.d.) Power, punishment and penal labour Read More