Judge S. C. Baldwin, of Philadelphia, is in favor of the lash, or
whipping-post, for incorrigible boys, and especially for wife-beaters,
as they are often the only support of the wife and children. The
September Grand Jury made such a recommendation before Judge
Pennypacker, and he considered it worthy of consideration. But most
of our Judges considered it not in harmony with the twentieth century
ideas, and were unwilling to express any decided opinion offhand, as
the whipping-post was a radical change. Judge Michael Arnold thought
it would shock the public mind too much, and that the reason why our
present plans fail is because the prisoner has too easy a time in jail,
not required to work. Judge Robert N. Wilson held that in detaining a
husband it often caused more suffering to the wife and children to be
deprived of support, and it was a serious question whether it would not
be degrading and lower a man’s whole moral nature.
Judge Wm. W. Whitbank thought the matter too radical to be decided
without a careful consideration.
Judge Abraham M. Beitler had very decided views, but the public does
not realize the situation. If they would only sit one day in court and
see the cases of brutality brought before us, they would very soon
recommend more drastic punishment. What are you going to do with a man
who beats his wife in a most brutal manner (while drunk, generally),
but who is the sole support of that wife and children? If you put him
in jail you inflict ten times more suffering on his family.
In regard to the opinion of the Grand Jurymen, that the House of Refuge
is not operating for the good of society, because not all the boys are
reformed and converted, all the Judges unanimously expressed themselves
as not in sympathy with the view taken by the Grand Jury, for we all
know of very many cases where the House of Refuge has done splendid
work. One of the Judges said:
“You cannot hope to make a law-abiding citizen out of every criminally
disposed boy, and you cannot say that, because a few cases have not
been benefited apparently, that the House of Refuge is a failure. I
believe, on the contrary, that it is doing a most excellent work in
elevating the morals of the community.”