Prison systems in other Western industrialized societies, as well as in England, have paralleled one another in historical development. These prison systems have passed through the following consecutive stages: capricious, paramilitary, rehabilitative, and anarchic. Capriciousness characterized European prison policy from earliest times. British prisons were administered by a variety of authorities, served a variety of purposes, and were subject to only slight and erratic supervision by the central government. Prison wardens took the brunt of the criticism of the prison system, and this period was punctuated with investigations of prison scandals. After 1877, the year in which English prisons were centralized, the paramilitary staff structure was consolidated. Under the paramilitary prison structure, staff are graded into a pyramidal hierarchy and wear uniforms (although English governors never have) and badges of rank. Obedience to superiors is emphasized and is directed by a discipline code. Prison policy under the paramilitary structure was to make prison life a deterrent to future crime. Near the end of the 19th century, pressure for prison reform produced a shift from deterrence to rehabilitation. Accompanying this policy in England was the appointment of direct entrants to the governorships of prisons (brought in from outside the prison system). The rehabilitation thrust has been recently undermined by empirical evidence, coupled with a public sentiment against 'coddling' criminals, that shows little practical effect has been achieved from rehabilitative efforts in prisons. Further, correctional officers resented the attention given to inmate services and conditions, while little improvement was made in their status and working conditions. Modern prison systems are anarchic, as prison governors have lost control over staff and there is not as yet a consensus on policy toward inmates following the crumbling of the rehabilitation ideal. Prison governors find themselves having to deal with a succession of crises with little to aid them in policy and structure, relying instead almost entirely on personal skills. Sixteen footnotes are provided.