Justice from the middle ages to the 19th Century 
The 19th Century:
the development of the prison system
Notorious criminals of the 20th Century |
|
|
Home >History >the second premises: the prisons in Palazzo del Gonfalone |
|
|
|
| |
The second premises: the prisons in Palazzo del Gonfalone
In 1975 the museum, which would later be known as the Criminology
Museum, was set up in Palazzo del Gonfalone, an edifice dating
to 1827 that was built by Pope Leo XII as a reformatory for
minors who were transferred from the Clementine Prison located
in the Apostolic Hospice of San Michele. (Morichini, 1870)
The reformatory, run by the Archiconfraternity of Charity,
had housed two types of individuals: minors aged twenty who
had been accused of crimes and the so-called “ne’er-do-wells”,
particularly unruly boys who were sent there by their parents
or guardians for “educational” purposes after they had obtained
permission from the pope on the understanding that they would
pay for their board. The building had three storeys and forty
cells. On the ground floor there was the refectory, the chapel,
a storeroom for wool, the baths, a covered walkway and a
courtyard where the inmates, in groups of eight, were allowed
to spend in the open air the few minutes that they were permitted
to talk during the day. On the first floor there was a large
room lit by two big windows on two sides, which was used
for spinning wool, the only activity that the young people
carried out for the Hospice of San Michele; and two rooms
for the Charity represenatives. The chaplain, who was responsible
for saying Mass and teaching the youths “also to lead proper
lives”, was head of the reformatory and lived in the building,
together with the nurse and guards. Morichini describes the
sparsely furnished cells in which the youths were confined: “The
prisoners were locked in their cells at night and slept on
a straw pallet with wool covers, which was placed on a brick
platform that served as a bed, There was no furniture as
such in the cells except for a shelf attached to the walls.
There was a small window halfway up the door, which opened
from the corridor, so that the chaplain and guards could
see the prisoner. The windows of the cell were small, barred
and so high up that it was impossible to reach them. At midnight
all the guards paid a general visit to the cells. At daybreak
the youths came out and went to Mass in the chapel. Then
they were given a piece of bread for breakfast and, after
cleaning everything, they were led off to work. There was
permanent silence; two guards were always present and very
often also the chaplain.” (Morichini, op. cit.: 716)
No distinctions were made between the prisoners and the “ne’er-do-wells” when
it came to board and the obligation to work, the only difference
being that the former had to stay at the reformatory for
the entire duration of their sentence, while the latter only
had to remain for the amount of time requested by their parents
or guardians. Prisoners who reached the age of twenty-one
before they had finished serving their sentence, completed
it in penitentiaries or detention
centres and “this way they lost all the benefits acquired
through correctional treatment; on the other hand, when a
young prisoner had almost finished serving his sentence and
a real improvement was seen in him, steps were taken to obtain
his release.” (Morichini, op. cit.: 719)
The limited capacity of the forty cells, which obliged the
prison authorities to send the youths to the adjacent Carceri
Nuovi, led Pope Pius IX to look for a new building to house
the reformatory. Thus the one built by Pope Leo was abandoned
and in 1854 the inmates were transferred to S. Balbina that
had a hundred and fifty places.
After remaining empty for a few years, the building in Via
del Gonfalone housed the State Archive for a period, and
was finally bought by the Prison
Administration in 1967. Work began on converting the
edifice to a museum in 1972, which opened in 1975.
The layout maintained the sections devoted to material evidence,
instruments of torture and execution, and criminological
investigations. The display techniques used in the museum
were updated, but the number of exhibits was considerably
reduced, either because they had been lost or had been damaged
during long periods of storage.
The unrest during those years led the Prison Administration
to permit only authorized visitors to enter the museum, a
condition which, combined with an ever dwindling interest
in conserving the history of the Prison Administration, resulted
in the Criminology Museum gradually being abandoned. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
