According to the editors, the establishment of prisons was to fulfill four purposes: deter crime, provide the community with retribution, reform the criminal (or deviant), and incapacitate dangerous criminals.

Punishment in the Time of Aristotle and Plato

The law on homicide dates back to around 620 B.C. In Athens, the Greek city-state that has been the most documented, the types of punishment they inflicted was mostly in the form of retribution. A criminal could be stoned to death, thrown off a cliff or bound to a stake and left to suffer a slow death. The Athenians also punished criminals in material ways by confiscating their assets and destroying their home.

Plato argued that correction should be the primary focus, not retribution. He wrote that criminal acts are done out of ignorance and that perpetrators should be taught to act according to law and what is acceptable in civilization. Plato's ideas didn't take hold until the European Middle Ages.

Disagreement with Religious Doctrine in the 12th and 13th Centuries

Christians experienced widespread dissent during this time and many people who spoke against the accepted religious doctrine were imprisoned for "heretical depravity." These criminals were only executed in extreme cases, but most commonly they would be convicted and imprisoned for life. Joan of Arc is a famous and well-known example of this time and was burned at the stake.

Corporal Punishment

Whipping was the most common early form of corporal (bodily) punishment, and was considered the least severe. The floggings were usually carried out publicly when added an element of shame to the punishment. Moving up in severity was burning the prisoner's skin with a hot-iron brand. The mark left behind was sometime an image incorporated into the city's coat of arms, or the mark of a king or judge. It also served as an identifier for repeat offenders. The most severe form of corporal punishment was mutilation, such as a cut in the cheek, removing of hands, blinding or, most commonly, cutting off an ear.

Punishment Theater

Much of the retribution and punishment for prisoners was doled out in publicly staged events. The death penalty was a well-staged performance that was created to deter crime and justify the punishment. Public officials, court officers and religious leaders all attending a death imposed by the court. Some towns increased the event's drama by marching the condemned prisoner through the town in a long procession to the staging area. The appeal of the public executions waned around the 18th century.

Convicts Imported to America as Slaves

About 50,000 British convicts were shipped to America between 1718 and 1776. Most were condemned for vagrancy but most were convicted of grand larceny. These convicts were mostly males in their 20s and were sold for a third the price of an African slave. The most frequent destinations for these convicts was Maryland and Virginia.

This history of prisons and how we view the purpose of incarceration is a fascinating study is social science that spans all of civilization. The Oxford book gives a comprehensive look that anyone interested in the history of prisons and punishment will appreciate.

The bet has been argued to be many different aspects. It was stated in the story, “I'll bet you two millions you wouldn't stay in solitary confinement for five years” (1). Taking this idea as the bet, it was shown at the end of the story that the lawyer lost the bet. The rule was clearly stated, “The slightest attempt on his part to break the conditions, if only two minuets before the end, released the banker from the obligation to pay him two millions” (2). It was apparent that the rules were established, but violated. The lawyer stated, “I shall go out from here fire minutes before the time fixed, and so break the compact…Next morning…they had seen the man who lived in the lodge climb out of the window into the garden, go to the gate, and disappear” (5). It is clear that the lawyer's action was to forfeit the bet by leaving and therefore the banker winning the bet.

There has also been another argument of the idea of the bet. It has been argued that bet was not if the lawyer could stay in confinement for fifteen years; rather it was the original argument in which the bet had arose from. This argument was stated as, “Capital punishment kills a man at once, but lifelong imprisonment kills him slowly. Which executioner is the more humane, he who kills you in a few minutes or he who drags the life out of you in the course of many years?” (1). The lawyer had chose life imprisonment to be better by saying, “To live anyhow is better than not at all” (1). The lawyer however stated in his letter to the banker, “…I despise wisdom and the blessings of this world. It is all worthless, fleeting, illusory, and deceptive, like a mirage” (5) showing he has changed his opinion about the matter. By the end of the story, he admitted that he despised everything in life including life itself due to his suffering of fifteen years. He would have rather died than to have slowly suffered for those fifteen years and therefore, giving up his argument that life imprisonment is better than death.

In addition to the argument of what the bet was, there has been argument that the lawyer had actually won because he had learned more during his time in confinement. However, there is no indication from the story that winning the bet involves gaining any knowledge. It was obviously stated in the story as an argument between the ideas of life imprisonment and death and the bet place on the wager of fifteen years of the lawyer's life and the banker's two million dollars. The argument present by me both times is reasonable in the sense that there is a potential winner for both sides and that it follows the story verbatim.

Through facts and opinions presented, it is clear why the banker is the winner of the bet. The lawyer had violated one of the rules of the bet; breaking the confinement prior to the fifteen year term is complete, resulting in the banker winning the bet. The lawyer had also admitted in his letter that death is a better off than life imprisonment. He had regretted accepting the bet with the banker. These are only samples of potentially more examples to prove those who oppose the idea that the banker won wrong. Though many will still oppose this ruling, these reasons presented remain valid.