The Auburn system

The primary purpose of B.C. Corrections
during this period was punishment.
Reformation of the offender was viewed as part
of the purpose of imprisonment, particularly of
juvenile offenders. An American model of
imprisonment—the Auburn system—heavily
influenced corrections in British Columbia. It
was quickly adopted in 1835 at Kingston
Penitentiary, which became the model for the
Canadian penitentiary system following
Confederation.

The Auburn system emphasized the value of
discipline and punishment for reforming the
offender. Prisoners were placed in a highly
structured work routine during the day and
isolated in their cells at night. It was assumed
“that rigid isolation from contaminating
influences, punishing conditions, strict
discipline and long hours of singular reflection,
would deter further misdeeds and remake the
convict in the image of a moral, industrious,

temperate member of society.””

This focus in B.C, Corrections spanned almost
80 years. To control behaviour, there were

highly structured routines, rules and regulations.

‘To ensure that rules were followed, there were
punishments for all infractions. To ensure that
management acted properly, a system of

reporting and accounting procedures were

developed.

Methods of enforcing accountability were
inconsistently applied. On the positive side,
however, there were improvements in
administration, such as:

» A formal system of reporting on the
operation of the gaols was initiated;

« Investigative committees were appointed on a
regular basis; and

» Prison architecture changed to reflect the new
program structure and attention to security.

In the latter part of this era, policies were
initiated that were less rigid and controlling
over every aspect of behaviour. Programs were
implemented that were less confining and
assumed offenders could be more responsible
for their actions. The “Gazoonie Gang”
experiment, Borstal program, probation and
parole are just a few examples.’

These programs marked the roots of
rehabilitative philosophy,’ which increasingly
made an impact on the gaol system. At this
time, however, programs did not reflect the
official policy of custody. A shift to
rehabilitation did not occur until the report of
the B.C. Gaol Commission in 1950.

2 R.M. Zubrycki, The Establishment of Canada’s Penitentiary System: Federal Correctional Policy, 1867-1900 (Toronto:
Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, 1980), p.17.

3 These programs are discussed later in this chapter.

4 This philosophical change included an individual treatment approach, which was reflected in corrections
through training, education and counselling programs. For discussion of this policy shift, refer to the next

chapter.

16

Corrections in British Columbia