The experiment was a unique event in Polish and European prison history. Firstly, it was a bold and innovative attempt to define the tasks of the prison system vis-a-vis young prisoners, who were particularly depraved. Secondly, it was held towards the end of the 1950s, thirteen years after the end of the World War II, from which Poland emerged ruined and, to all intents and purposes, defeated (the Soviet occupation). Thirdly, it began several years after the end of the Stalinist era. There would be nothing strange about this were it not for the fact that during this period criminal science did not exist in Poland because the communist authorities regarded it as a “bourgeois” science. Lastly, it was a joint initiative by the Ministry of Justice and a group of academics from two universities, in which the latter played the leading role.

In a nutshell, the purpose of the experiment was as follows:

• To gather in one prison a large group of strongly depraved young offenders who posed serious behavioural problems in other prisons;
• To select the appropriate staff;
• To create a new pedagogical situation in which intensive correctional action was possible;
• To investigate whether, and to what degree, a change in the behaviour of people subjected to the above influence is possible.

The experiment was supervised by academics from the Education Department of Warsaw University and the Criminal Law Deaprtment of the University of Wroclaw. They were the authors of the experiment, and it is they who determined the course of the educational process. They were also consulted about the choice of prisoners taking part in the experiment and the choice of staff, including that of prison governor.

The Decision

In July 1958, the Polish Ministry of Justice set up an experimental penitentiary for male juvenile delinquents at Szczypiorno near Kalisz, a small town in the centre of Poland. This facility was intended for 17-24-year-olds. This decision was synonymous with the start of the experiment.

The Prisoners

Over 200 prisoners were chosen to take part in the experiment. These were young men serving long sentences for serious offences such as robbery with violence and homicide. They had a very poor opinion in the prisons in which they had sat because they had organised escapes and mass protests against the prison authorities, practiced self-mutilation, and destroyed prison property.

The authors of the experiment spoke to each potential participant. Each prisoner chosen to take part in the experiment had to agree to be transferred to the experimental penitentiary, undertake study and employment, and subject himself to the new prison rules. The introductory talks were held in such a way as to arouse the prisoner’s interest on the one hand and discover his habits and abilities on the other. The main point of this was to establish whether a prisoner was capable of thinking independently and formulating judgments, and whether he was interested in the world.

The Staff

A condition for the success of the experiment was a proper selection of prison wardens. The authors of the experiment wanted these to be people open to new ideas and dedicated to work with young people. The highest professional and ethical standards were applied equally to security guards and to educators, teachers, and vocational instructors.

The prison governor was one of the most important people in the experiment. It was his responsibility to create the right social climate inside the prison and to conduct daily educational work. The person appointed to this post was a young 30-year-old prison employee who possessed exceptional educational skills, a feeling of responsibility, and an ability to establish contact with young people. In a short space of time he became trusted and liked by most of the participants in the experiment.
When choosing the remaining members of the experimental group, the experiment’s supervisors made an effort to choose people who understood the guiding thought behind the venture. During the experiment, any officials who failed to meet the requirements were removed.

The Location

Whatever one’s opinion of the prison population, the experiment was not held in a maximum security type of prison. A group of barracks and huts located at Szczypiorno, on the outskirts of Kalisz, was chosen as the location of the experiment. The land occupied by the prison was in the shape of a square, with each side measuring about 200 yards. Inside this area there were four accommodation huts, a cafeteria and two utility buildings. There was also a round, grassy sports field surrounded by an asphalt track and numerous trees.

The architecture of the huts bore no resemblance to a prison. There was no wire, nor any physical safeguards. The doors to the residential huts remained open around the clock. The large windows had no railings, either. External safeguards consisted solely of a low wall and an ordinary fence.
The concept of “cell” was considered unsuitable, and was replaced by the term residential room. The prisoners, described as residents, were allowed to have personal possessions, books or sports equipment. They could decorate their rooms whichever way they liked.

The Guiding Principles of the Experiment

1. The site of the experiment had to bear the least possible resemblance to a prison. As a result, it was possible to dispel in the minds of the participants the stereotype of a prison as an oppressive and hostile establishment, and thus deprive them of the arguments which kept their hatred for the prison system alive. Because superfluous restrictions were abolished, the prisoners’ energy was no longer concentrated on violating prohibitions, and could be used in a different way.

2. Each participant had a deeply-rooted hatred of the wardens, on whom he had always been totally dependent. In Szczypiorno, the principle was adopted whereby each prisoner could see the governor at any time or publicly present his remarks and reservations. Unlike in a normal prison, during the experiment the interests of the residents were respected, at the same time as which their capabilities, such as intellectual skills, were taken into consideration. The process of mobilising a prisoner occurred at a pace suited to his character.

4. Social life inside the prison was centered on the activity of groups consisting of prisoners of similar interests or age, even those who, under normal prison circumstances, might be labelled gangs or criminal groups. Such groups are very important in prison life because they satisfy the important needs of young people. Their meaning is also boosted unconsciously by the prison administration which, by implementing rules, attempts to ignore or minimise their importance and, in extreme cases, even abolish them altogether. In the experiment, the crux of the matter was to accept the existence of such groups and exploit their potential for positive purposes, such as sports. None of these groups was broken up by means of administrative action. However, some of them did disintegrate when they proved to be incapable of offering their members the kind of benefits that membership of an educational programme can give, which includes interesting classes, sports contests, entertainment, or participation in decision-making.

5. The breaking of hatred towards prisons as an institution. Obviously, each participant in the experiment was negatively disposed towards the institution of prison because it curbed his freedom. It was not the purpose of the experiment to make a prisoner enjoy his stay, which would have been naive. The purpose was to create the kind of prison atmosphere in which the participant can somehow identify himself with the prison, the hut in which he lives, or the tuition he attends, so that he does not only identify himself with criminal elements and his own group. The purpose was also to create, by means of such identification, a situation where inmates try to represent their prison or their hut positively in contacts with other prisons or huts. This proved successful, for example in sports, when teams in this prison competed against teams from outside the prison.

6. The energy of social life in prison. A lack of prospects and stagnation is one of the greatest problems in the functioning of a prison. This can sometimes lead to profound frustration, and hence to aggression or total withdrawal by the prisoner. The social situation inside the experimental prison was established in such a way that repetitive activities, routine, and boredom were avoided. The prisoners were always presented with a purpose; there was always a prospect of change, almost always for the better. Sometimes the changes involved small alterations to the structure of the hut or minor changes to the order of the day, but sometimes the changes were major ones, such as an interesting concert, sports contest, or the introduction of elements of self-government into the prison administration.

7. Individualised action. Because the prison staff were well aware of the abilities and needs of the prisoners, it was easier to adopt an individual approach to each of them. The purpose here was primarily to encourage a prisoner to study or gain an occupation which might be useful upon his release. In this regard, the teachers and vocational instructors had great freedom of action.

8. The manipulation of freedom, getting prisoners accustomed to freedom and contacts with families. One of the paradoxes of prison life is that we try to prepare prisoners to live in freedom while keeping them in detention. The shock of freedom is known not only from films and books, but also from prison practice. In the conditions of the experiment, freedom was one of the forms of influence. Contacts with the outside world were used to create self-discipline and responsibility. One way to express confidence in a prisoner was to allow him to take part in sports or artistic events outside the prison. At the same time, those prisoners who were allowed to take part in such events learned that leaving the prison means not only extra contacts with their relatives, but also involves the need to represent correctly their social group inside the prison.

Prisoners whose behavior caused no trouble could be accommodated in a unit without any prison guards. In such a unit, the prisoners themselves decided everything. The participants in the experiment realised that with the passage of time, a major part of the prison, or even the entire prison, might function in this way.

Taking the youth of the experiment’s participants into consideration, its authors assumed that educational actions will be more effective if a prisoner’s family becomes involved in them. Young offenders do not always want to or are not always able to maintain contact with their relatives. Sometimes they deliberately break these contacts themselves, or the relatives do so. The tasks of the experiment were to reestablish the authority of a family, reestablish bonds that had been severed, and, if possible, prepare a family to receive back a prisoner after he had served his sentence.

The Social Structure of the Prison Population

The Course of the Experiment

Phase I. The purpose of the first phase was to disclose the real personality of the participants and overcome their mistrust and hatred. The authors tried to make the prisoners behave in a manner similar to their natural conduct and reactions.

In order to achieve the established objectives, it was not possible to formulate expectations in advance. The prisoners hated the prison, so any attempt to formulate expectations encountered natural opposition from them. The authors of the experiment and the prison administration adopted a different strategy: they allowed the prisoners more and more, and expected nothing in return.

However, snitching was rigidly counteracted, with the explanation that relations between warders and prisoners must be based on partnership. In this way, the prisoners were deprived of the argument that everyone is against them and that there is nothing they can do except fight. In such a situation, the enemy was absent. According to letters and reports from prisoners, this situation caught them by surprised. Undeserved kindness by the prison personnel deprived the prisoners of their strong weapon, hatred, which had always been such a weapon. Shocked by the new situation, initially all the participants behaved well, watching suspiciously what was happening around them. The process of involving the prisoners in the life of the prison also began in this phase. The administration achieved this by assigning various roles to the prisoners. What is significant is that a particular role did not involve any particular privileges, but it did involve a range of duties. At first, the prisoners were not keen about such a form of collaboration, but in time they regarded it as a form of distinction and advancement.

Phase II. Once the initial shock has subsided, a lot of serious breaches of discipline occurred among prisoners. Paradoxically, in this phase, too, the first signs appeared that the prison staff had gained the trust of the participants in the experiment. More and more prisoners approved of the prison’s proposed modus operandi. The characteristic thing about the prison administration’s behaviour in this phase was a lack of negative reaction to the misdemeanours. Despite the fact that some of the misdemeanours had been quite serious or had been deliberately organised by the criminal elite, the perpetrators were not punished, merely admonished. When alcohol brought to the prison by a prison officer was consumed, the prisoners were not punished for this, but the prison officer was sacked.

The most serious misdemeanor during this period was an escape attempt by prisoners who were not strongly linked to the existing groups. The escape failed because the organisers were not careful enough. The prison’s modus operandi had deprived them of the caution and sensitivity that is required in such a situation. In any case, the administration had already become secretly aware of the escape preparations one week earlier. Because the organisers of the escape attempt did not admit their guilt, they were removed from the experimental prison and accommodated in a closed prison. Having served their punishment, some of them returned to Szczypiorno or never caused any more trouble.

Parallel to this escalation of breaches of discipline, prisoners began to identify themselves with the prison, for the prison’s modus operandi attracted the prisoners to other forms of action than just fighting the administration and other groups in order to win influence. Engagement in the life of the prison ensured access to deficit commodities in prison (1958) such as sport, music, and entertainment, which are so important for young people. Even the prison aristocracy let itself be drawn into rivalry for influence over the administration and positive rivalry with other groups.

The situation that emerged in the prison at this phase was a paradoxical one. The number of breaches of discipline became a burden even for the prisoners themselves, yet still there was no drastic reaction from the administration. The intention of the experimenters was to reach a moment where the prisoners themselves would approve a radical move by the administration. Such a moment occurred when group consumption of alcohol occurred in prison. All those who took part in this, as well as the leaders of the prison aristocracy, were removed from the experimental prison and placed in a closed facility. The crackdown was very effective. Firstly, it shook the social structure of the prisoner population; secondly, the prisoners got to know the administration’s strength and determination; and thirdly, it was approved at last by most of the participants in the experiment.

All the inmates were treated the same way. This genuine equality led to a feeling of positive solidarity. However, this solidarity was not centered on animosity towards the administration, but on the need to create for oneself the best possible living conditions in prison. For instance, the prisoners themselves suggested to the governor that there should be some form of control over the kitchen, because they suspected that not everyone was receiving the same food.

Phase III. This phase commenced more or less one year after the start of the experiment, and coincided with the start of the new school year. In this phase, it was necessary to commence the difficult process of consolidating that which had been achieved earlier. The successes of the previous phase were obvious and quite spectacular; the prisoners had accepted the new model of the institution, identified themselves with it, and accepted their role therein. Now was the time to exploit this positive attitude by the prisoners in order to transform their personalities. The main point was to create inside them attitudes and habits that would enable them to overcome steadfastly the difficulties of everyday life. The purpose in this phase was no longer just to show the young offenders their place in a given social context. This time, the educators focused on the individual responsibility of each participant. The choices now placed before the prisoners were no longer made collectively in a group, but were now made individually. It is easier to say: I shall do this because that is what the group expects of me, than to say: I shall do this because my own interests require it. The point was to teach the young offenders to reach decisions on their own and bear the consequences of their choice.

The toil put in to this phase was all the greater because the positive attitudes of prisoners had not yet solidified. Bad habits, the influence of groups, and a desire to oppose others guided the behaviour of many participants in the experiment. This exceedingly difficult phase of work was made even more difficult by unfavourable external phenomena, especially constant pressure from the prison authorities to include more and more new prisoners in the experiment. Those who came to the Szczypiorno facility brought with them a set of attitudes, which had been erased with great difficulty from the experiment’s participants at the start thereof. With such an unstable prisoner population, it became increasingly difficult to apply the experiment’s educational principles on a consistent basis.

Epilogue

Life has provided quite an interesting, though pessimistic, epilogue to this optimistic story. Many years later, the truth behind the dissolution of the experiment was revealed. A prison is a place where new ideas not only have supporters, but also many opponents. That was also the case with the experiment at Szczypiorno. Despite the official support of the Ministry of Justice, there was a group of high-ranking officials who could not come to terms with such a far-reaching relaxation of prison life, and wanted to terminate the experiment. There was no excuse to terminate the experiment because it was proceeding successfully. Therefore, they decided to create one. At their initiative, officials from other prisons compelled a group of young offenders to organise an escape in order to discredit the experiment. Their purpose was achieved; the experiment was broken off. Nonetheless, it has shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is a strict connection between the type of prison and the attitudes of its inmates. The Szczypiorno experiment has also shown that nothing releases us from the duty to ensure that prisons cease to be places of oblivion or, as some people call them, social trash heaps.

Zbigniew Lasocik is Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Policy at the University of Warsaw.