Jeremey  Bentham
Jim Thomas / Northern Illinois University
(Forthcoming, Sage Prison Encyclopedia, 2005, Mary Bosworth, Editor)

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), credited for conceptualizing the
"roundhouse" panopticon prison, was a philsopher and essayist whose 
contributions to criminal justice theory over 60 years extended far beyond 
his prison designs.  A prodigious, even obsessive, writer, Bentham's work 
spans criminology, moral philsophy, law, and politics. 
Born of wealthy parents in London, he studied to be a lawyer, as was his
father and grandfather. However, he discarded his plans and instead began
to write social and political critiques. His wealthy background and a later
substantial inheritence allowed him to pursue his writing in relative
comfort.

Bentham wrote during a time of social upheaval, both in Britain and on the
contintent. The French and U.S. revolutions, expanding British imperialism,
and the problems of crime in England and what he saw as a breakdown in the 
moral fabric of society and law, stimulated much of his work. Considered 
both a philosophical and political radical, many of his reformist ideas 
weren't accepted until the early 19th century.

BENTHAM'S PHILOSOPHY

A contemporary of John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, and others writing in the
tradition that saw humans as having free will and making conscious choices 
before acting, Bentham is often considered the founder of Utilitarianism.
But, he did not originate the core ideas. Utilitarians argue 
that ethical behavior is determined by the consequences of an act.  
Some readers erroneously construe this to mean that "the end justifies the
means," or "greatest happiness for the greatest number," but this incorrect. 
Utilitarianism holds that the goal or end of an act should be weighed 
with a calculus that, on balance, will result in the greatest social good 
or the least social harm, even if it causes individual discomfort.  
Ethical rules are derived from the principle of the greatest universal
utility, summarized by John Stuart Mill after studying Bentham:

     ...pleasure and freedom from pain are the only
     things desirable as ends; and that all desirable
     things (which are as numerous in the utilitarian as in
     any other scheme) are desirable either for pleasure
     inherent in themselves or as means to the promotion of
     pleasure and the prevention of pain (Mill, 1957: 10-11).

This was not a hedonist principle of maximizing individual narcissistic 
pleasure, but something
quite opposite. As developed by Bentham (1970), this meant that both human 
actions and government policies should be guided by a "utility principle"
in which actions should be intended either to produce good or to reduce harm.
While Bentham recognized that some might misinterpret this principle, he 
cautioned it was not based simply on numbers or "majority rules." 
Although recognizing and emphasizing the role of individual choice,
he did not argue that people should make choices simply on the basis
of their ownpersonal self-interest or
pleasure. Rather, a society's "greatest felicity" occured in conditions
that required a shared moral climate, and individuals were obligated to
make those choices guided by a common social good. To use a contemporary
example, some observers have argued that, for Utilitarians, if racism makes
the majority of a society "happy," then it can be morally justified. However,
this violates the fundamental premise of Utilitarianism, which is that
principles of justice are a primary utility, and choices that violate this
utility are unjust or immoral.

BENTHAM'S CONTRIBUTIONS TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE 

Introductory criminology texts usually divide criminology of the
later 18th and early 19th centuries into classical and neo-classical views,
placing Bentham in the latter. Although somewhat arbitrary, the distinction
is useful for two reasons.  First, it helps us understand how
early 19th century writers shifted from earlier 18th century views of
criminal law as primarily for punishment. Second, it illustrates how criminal 
law and correctional policies respond to social changes as they evolved.

The distinction between the two schools reflects an emphasis in application
rather than fundamental differences in philosophy.
Both Classical and neo-classical theorists
attempted to examine crime in a way that would allow for a
"rational"formulation of policy. The Classical school is often associated
with Ceasare Beccaria, who believed that:
   
     The degree of punishment, and the consequences of crime, ought to be so
     contrived as to have the greatest possible effect on others, with
     the least possible pain to the delinquent (Beccaria, 1819:75).

The intent of this "just measure of pain" was to deter the offender from
future offenses as well as to deter others from similar acts if they knew
that punishment was swift, certain, and "cost" more than gains from the
crime itself. Both schools focused on crime as a violation of law, moving
away from the view of crime as "sins against nature," which dominated 
criminal law well into the 18th century (and still guides some 21st century
thinking). Both held that the best way to reduce crime is to punish offenders,
both for retribution and deterrence.  Both opposed excessive punishment
and, for the most part, capital punishment, corporal punishment, 
transportation and prison ships and
torture. Both argued that the punishment must fit the crime, and that    
punishments should be calibrated according to the nature of social harm
of the offense.

The primary difference lies in Bentham's and his followers'
reform-oriented views of how
punishments should be applied. For Bentham and those influenced by his
work, existing criminal law and corresponding punishments were unjust, 
because they didn't account for individual differences.  Unlike the classical 
school, which reacted to crime after it occured by punishing offenders and 
thus reducing crime through deterrence, Bentham believed that
we could pro actively address crime before it occured by emphasizing
moral choices and creating a just system of laws. 
He advocated indirect means of preventing crimes, such as education,
religious sanctions, discouraging "engourgement to crime," and promoting
an enlightened, benevolent society (Bentham, 1843).

Like, Becarria (1819), Bentham believed 
in the deterrent power of punishment. He felt that the severity 
of punishment should
be increased as the deterrent value decreased. But, Bentham also advocated
alternatives to conventional punishment, arguing that not all offenses 
require incarceration or harsh responses. He suggested that "private
punishment," or "forfeitures" and other restrictions could be a strong 
deterrent.  Also, unlike classical theorists,
who argued that all offenders should be treated alike, regardless of
circumstance, Bentham suggested taking the context of a crime and the nature
of the offender into account when inflicting punishment.

THE PANOPTICON

A contemporary of John Howard, the 19th century prison reformer, Bentham
advocated transforming prison policies. Although he did not detail specific 
policy recommendations to the extent that Howard did, over the decades he
specified a number of principles to guide sentencing and prison administration.
Among these included holding wardens responsible for prisoner injuries
by fining them for prisoner deaths, increasing sentencing latitude of 
judges, a presaging of bail and home confinement, and the recognition that
some punishments, such as transportation, fell heaviest on the poor and 
lower classes.

Bentham is best known to criminology students for his design of the panopticon 
prison, a round, multi-tiered open structure with a guard tower in the center.
He developed his ideas for this model 
following a trip to Russia with his brother in 1785 in a venture to help
Empress Catherine the Great modernize the Russian government, including the
penal system. 
In a series of letters and articles over the years (Bentham, 2004, 1970), he
conceptualized a single round building with a floor-to-ceiling guard tower
in the center surrounded by tiers of cells. Each cell would have a window
for fresh air and light and be easily and safely accessible to staff.
Most significantly, this new technology would allow
a single guard to have visual access of every cell and prisoner.
Survielling prisoners in this way, he believed, would make prison control
safer, more effective, more humane, and efficient by increasing discipline 
while reducing staff resources required to maintain it (for a full description,
see Bentham, 2001).

Catherine rejected the idea, and while there are no verifiable numbers of
how many panopticons  were constructed, none were build in England.
Some scholars
have noted that only a handful of true panopticons were built in the world,
although some prison architecture as influenced by the radial design.
In the United States, the Western Penitentiary in Pennsyvania was contructed
in 1826 guided by Bentham's model.  In 1925, Stateville Penitentiary
opened with four panopticon units. A fifth was planned, but was replaced
with a "long house," reportedly because of the cost of building the
roundhouses. Three of Stateville's four panopticon units were torn down
in the 1980s. The fourth was upgraded and remains functional, largely
for historical reasons. It is reputedly the only remaining operational
panopticon in the world.

Although the panopticon was expensive to build and costly to maintain,
it represented the manner in which surveillance became part of the caraceral
technology. Focault used it as an example of how the power to control
becomes embodies in symbols:

     The panoptic mechanism arranges spatial unities that make it
     possible to see constantly and to recognize immediately. In short,
     it reverses the principle of the dungeon; or rather of its three 
     functions -- to enclose, to deprive of light and to hide - it
     preserves only the first and eliminates the other
     two (Foucault, 1979: 200).

The panopticon induced the inmate to "a state of consciousness and
permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power"
and made the effects of surveillance permanent even when it wasn't
actually occuring in action (Foucault, 200: 201).

THE LEGACY

Bentham's other insights into prison construction and management
provided that basis for reform well into the 19th century. 
His ideas of alternative punishments and reform laid out the philosophical
framework for later development of probation and parole, advocating
community responsibility for offenders.
Although he is rarely read today by criminologists, his legacy remains.
His view that social justice and just law are entertwined, and that both
are necessary for humane and effective prisons, is a lesson that makes
him worth studying.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beccaria, Marquis Caesar Bonesana. 1819. An Essay on Crimes and
Punishments. Philadelphia: Philip H. Nicklin.

Bentham, Jeremy. 2001. "The Panopticon Letters." Cartome Archives,
http://cartome.org/panopticon2.htm

_____. 1970. The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham. (J.H. Burns and
H.L.A. Hart, eds.). London: University of London - Athlone Press.

_____. 1843. The Works of Jeremy Bentham (Vol. 1). Edinburgh
(Scotland): William Tait.

_____. 1823. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and
Legislation. London: W. Pickering.

Foucault, Michel. 1979. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison.
New York: Doubleday

Mill, John S.  1957.  Utilitarianism. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.

SEE ALSO:

The Bentham Project (2004). "Jeremy Bentham." Download July 18, 2004.
Available at: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Bentham-Project/info/jb.htm

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2001. "Jeremy Bentham."
Available at: http://www.iep.utm.edu/b/bentham.htm