with the discipline of prisons: as, the duration of sentences;
pardons and the pardoning power; diet of prisoners; water; clothing;
ventilation; heat; health; visitors' fees; dimensions of lodging-cells
in the State penitentiaries; moral, religious, and general instruction
in prisons; reformation of prisoners; penitentiary systems of the
United States; and houses of refuge for juvenile offenders. It would
be interesting and instructive to examine the conclusions on all these
important topics having the sanction of her disinterested experience;
but our limits restrict us, on the present occasion, to a single topic.
We are disposed to take advantage of the interest Miss Dix's
publication may excite, and also of her name, which is an authority, to
say a few words on a question much agitated, and already the subject of
many books,--the comparative merits of what are called the Pennsylvania
and Auburn Penitentiary Systems. This question is, perhaps, the most
important of all that grow out of Prisons; for it affects, in a
measure, all others. It involves both the construction of the prison,
and its administration.
The subject of Prison Discipline, and particularly the question between
the two systems, has of late years occupied the attention of jurists
and philanthropists in no ordinary degree. The discussion has been
conducted in all the languages of Europe, to such an extent that the
titles alone of the works would occupy considerable space in a volume
of Bibliography. We have before us, for instance, a list of no less
than eleven in Italian. But we must go back to the last century, if we
would trace the origin of the controversy.
To Howard, a man of true greatness, whose name will stand high on
the roll of the world's benefactors, belongs the signal honor of
first awakening the sympathies of the English people in this work
of benevolence. By his travels and labors he became familiar with
the actual character of prisons, and was enabled to spread before
the public an accumulation of details which fill the reader with
horror and disgust. The condition of prisons at that time in England
was appalling. Of course there was no system; nor was there any
civilization in the treatment of prisoners. Everything was bad. As
there was no care, so there was no cleanliness, on which so much
depends, and there was no classification or separation of any kind.
All commingled, so that the uncleanness of one befouled all, and the
wickedness of one contaminated all. While this continued, all hope of
reform was vain. Therefore, with especial warmth, Howard pleaded for
the _separation_ of prisoners, especially at night, "wishing to have so
many small rooms or cabins that each criminal may sleep alone,"[121]
and called attention to the fact he had observed in Holland, that "in
most of the prisons for criminals there are so many rooms that each
prisoner is kept separate."[122]
[121] Howard, State of the Prisons, p. 22.
[122] Ibid. p. 45.
The importance of the principle of separation was first recognized
at Rome, as long ago as 1703, by Clement XI., in the foundation
of the Hospital of St. Michael, or the House of Refuge, where a
separate dormitory was provided for each prisoner. Over the portal
of this asylum, in letters of gold, were inscribed the words of
wisdom which Howard adopted as the motto of his labors, and which
indicate the spirit that should preside over the administration of all
prisons: _Parum est improbos coercere poena, nisi probos efficias
disciplina_,--It is of small consequence to coerce the wicked by
punishment, unless you make them good by discipline. The first and
most important step in this discipline is to remove prisoners from all
evil influence,--which can be done only by separation from each other,
and by filling their time with labor.
In furtherance of this principle, and that he might reduce it to
practice, Howard, in conjunction with Sir William Blackstone, as early
as 1779, drew an Act of Parliament, the preamble to the fifth section
of which is an enunciation of the cardinal truth at the foundation of
all effective prison discipline.
"Whereas," says the Act, "if many offenders, convicted of crimes
for which transportation hath been usually inflicted, _were ordered
to solitary imprisonment, accompanied by well-regulated labor and
religious instruction_, it might be the means, under Providence, not
only of deterring others from the commission of the like crimes,
_but also of reforming the individuals_," etc. Noble words! Here,
for the first time in English legislation, the reformation of
the prisoner is proposed as a distinct object. This Act, though
passed, was unfortunately never carried into execution, through the
perverseness, it is said, of one of the persons associated with Howard
as commissioner for erecting a suitable prison.
As early as 1790 a law was passed in Pennsylvania, which is of
importance in the history of this subject, showing appreciation of the
principle of seclusion with labor. In the preamble it is declared, that
previous laws for the punishment of criminals had failed of success,
"from the _communication_ with each other not being sufficiently
restrained within the places of confinement, and it is hoped _that the
addition of unremitted solitude to laborious employment_, as far as
it can be effected, will contribute as much to reform as to deter",
and the Act further provides, that certain persons shall be "_kept
separate and apart from each other_, as much as the convenience of the
building will admit." The principle of separation, when first announced
by Howard, and practically attempted in Pennsylvania, was imperfectly
understood. It was easy to see the importance of separation; but how
should it be applied? In Pennsylvania it was attempted at first with
such rigor as to justify its designation as the _Solitary System_. But
as the new penitentiary in Philadelphia was about to be occupied, a
law was passed providing that after July 1st, 1829, convicts should,
"instead of the penitentiary punishments heretofore prescribed, be
sentenced to suffer punishment by _separate_ or solitary confinement at
_labor_"; and there is further provision for "visits to the prisoners."
Here were the two elements,--first, of labor, and, secondly, of
visits. In pursuance of this Act, that penitentiary was organized at
Philadelphia which afforded the first example on an extended scale of
the absolute separation of convicts from each other, combined with
labor. And this penitentiary has given its name to the class of prisons
founded on this principle.
It should be borne in mind that this system is distinguishable from
one of _solitary_ confinement with labor,--much more from one of mere
solitary confinement without labor. An intemperate opponent, too rash
or prejudiced to recognize all the truth, has often characterized the
present Pennsylvania system as the _Solitary System_, and by this term
not unfrequently aroused a feeling against it which must disappear
before a candid inquiry. It is easy to condemn any system of absolute
solitude without solace of labor or society. The examples of history
rise in judgment against such. Who can forget the Bastile? We have the
testimony of Lafayette, whose own further experience at Olmütz should
not be neglected, as to its effect. "I repaired to the scene," he says,
"on the second day of the demolition, and found that all the prisoners
had been deranged by their solitary confinement, except one. He had
been a prisoner twenty-five years, and was led forth during the height
of the tumultuous riot of the people, whilst engaged in tearing down
the building. He looked around with amazement, for he had seen nobody
for that space of time, and before night he was so much affected that
he became a confirmed maniac." But the Bastile is not the only prison
whose stones, could they speak, would tell this fearful tale; nor is
Lafayette the only reporter.
Names often have the importance of things; and it cannot be doubted
that the ignorant or dishonest application of the term _solitary_ to
the Pennsylvania system is a strong reason for the opposition it has
encountered.
The _Separate System_ has but one essential condition,--the absolute
separation of prisoners from intercourse of any kind with each other.
On this may be engrafted labor, instruction, and even constant society
with officers of the prison, or with virtuous persons. In fact, these
have become, in greater or less degree, component parts of the system.
In constant employment the prisoner finds peace, and in the society
with which he is indulged innocent relaxation and healthy influence.
This is the Pennsylvania system.
There is another and rival system, first established in the _Maison de
Force_ at Ghent, but borrowing its name from the Auburn Penitentiary
of New York, where it was first introduced in 1816, by a remarkable
disciplinarian, Elam Lynds. Here the prisoners are separated only at
night, each sleeping in a small cell or dormitory by himself. During
the day they labor together in shops, or in the open air, according to
the nature of the work,--being prohibited from speaking to each other,
under pain of punishment. From the latter feature this is often called
the _Silent System_. As its chief peculiarity, in contradistinction
to the _Separate System_, is the working of prisoners in assemblies,
where all see and are seen, it may be more properly designated the
_Congregate System_.
Such, in brief, are these two systems, which, it will be observed,
both aim at the same object, _the separation of prisoners so that
they can have no intercourse with each other_. In the one this end is
attained by their physical separation from each other both night and
day; in the other, by such separation at night, with untiring watch by
day to prevent intercourse. Of course, separation by the Congregate
system is less complete than by the other. Conversation by words
may be restrained; though it is now admitted that no guardian can
be sufficiently watchful to intercept on all occasions those winged
messengers. The extensive unspoken, unwritten language of signs, the
expression of the countenance, the movements of the body, may telegraph
from convict to convict thoughts of stubbornness, hatred, or revenge.
If separation be desirable, should it not be complete? Should not the
conducting wires be broken, so that no electrical spark may propagate
its disturbing force? But the very pains taken in the Congregate system
to insure silence by day and separation by night answer this question.
Thus, by strange inconsistency, the advocates of the _Congregate_
system seek to enforce _separation_. Wedded to an imperfect practice,
they recognize the correct principle.
Before proceeding farther with this comparison it is proper to glance
at the real objects of prison discipline, that we may be better enabled
to determine which system is best calculated to answer these objects.
Three things are proposed by every enlightened system: first, to deter
others from crime; secondly, to prevent the offender from preying
again upon society; thirdly, discipline and care, so far as possible
to promote reformation. There are grounds for belief that the first
two purposes are best attained by the Separate system; but without
considering these particularly, let us pass to the question, Which is
best calculated to perform that truly heavenly function of reforming
the offender?
Is not the answer prompt and decisive in favor of that system which
most completely protects the prisoner from the pernicious influence of
brethren in guilt? It is a venerable proverb, that a man is known by
the company he keeps; and this is a homely expression of the truth,
that the character of a man is naturally in harmony with those about
him. If the society about him is virtuous, his own virtues will be
confirmed and expanded; on the other hand, if it be wicked, then will
the demon of his nature be aroused. Bad qualities, as well as good,
are quickened and strengthened under the influence of society. Every
association of prisoners must pervert, in greater or less degree, but
can never reform, those of whom it is composed. The obdurate offender,
perpetually brooding on evil, even though he utter no audible word,
will impart to the congregation something of his own hardness of
heart. Are we not told by the poet, that sheep and swine take contagion
from one of their number, and even a grape is spoiled by another grape?
"Dedit hanc contagio labem,
Et dabit in plures; sicut grex totus in agris
Unius scabie cadit, et porrigine porci,
_Uvaque conspecta livorem ducit ab uva_."[123]
[123] Juv., Sat. II. 78-81.
From the inherent nature of things, this contagion must be propagated
by the Congregate system, while the Separate system does all that man
can do to restrain it. By the latter, as successfully administered,
the prisoner is, in the first place, withdrawn, so far as possible by
human means, from all bad influences, while, in the second place, he is
brought under the operation of good influences. The mind is naturally
diverted from thick-coming schemes of crime, and turned to thoughts
of virtue. What in it is bad, if not entirely subdued, is weakened by
inactivity, while the good is prompted to constant exercise.
It cannot be questioned, then, on grounds of reason, independent of
experience, that the Separate system is better calculated to promote
that great object of Prison Discipline, the reformation of the
offender. With this recommendation alone it would be entitled to the
regard of all who feel that the return of a single sinner is blessed.
But a further object is secured. As the prisoners never see one
another, they leave the penitentiary, at the expiration of their
punishment, literally unknowing and unknown. In illustration of
this fact, the delightful incident is mentioned, that the keeper of
the Philadelphia Penitentiary once recognized three persons at the
same place, engaged in honest labor, who had been in his custody as
convicts, though neither knew the career of the other two. Discharged
prisoners are thus enabled to slide back into the community, without
the chilling fear of untimely recognition by those with whom they
congregated in the penitentiary. They cannot escape the memory of the
punishment they have endured; but the brand is not upon the forehead.
They are encouraged to honest exertion by the hope of retrieving, on a
distant spot and under a new name, the fair character they have lost;
while, on the other hand, if evil-minded, they have no associations of
the prison to renew, or to stimulate to conspiracy against society.
A system of Prison Discipline with these benign features must long ago
have commended itself to general acceptance, if it had not been opposed
with exceptional ardor on grounds which, though in reality little
tenable, are calculated to exercise influence over the ignorance and
prejudice of men.
The first objection is, that it is productive of insanity, from an
unnatural deprivation of society. However just this may be when
directed against the Solitary system, it is inapplicable to what is
called the Separate system, which does not exclude the idea of society,
and, as practically administered at Philadelphia and elsewhere,
supplies both society and labor in ample measure. If the prisoner is
not indulged with society enough, it is a fault in the administration
of the system, and not in the system itself. In the publications of the
Boston Prison Discipline Society, elaborate tables have been arranged
showing a tendency to insanity in the Penitentiary at Philadelphia;
but careful and candid inquiry will demonstrate that these are founded
in misapprehension, and will exonerate that institution from such
imputation. The highest authorities in medicine have distinctly
declared, that the Separate system, if properly administered, with
labor and conversation, does not affect the reason. The names of
Esquirol and Louis give to this opinion the strongest sanction of
science throughout the civilized world. The same conclusion was
affirmed with precision and fervor by Lélut, in an elaborate memoir
before the Institute of France, and also by the Scientific Congress
assembled at Padua in 1843, and at Lucca in 1844.
The second objection charges the Separate system with being unfavorable
to health, as compared with the Congregate system. In reply we merely
say, that the great names in medicine to which we have already referred
expressly deny that it has any influence in shortening life; while
a statistical comparison of several penitentiaries conducted on the
Congregate system with the Philadelphia Penitentiary attests the
superiority of the latter in this respect.
The third and last objection is founded on the increased expense of the
Separate system. The Congregate system is recommended by suggestions of
economy and clamors of cupidity. It is said to be put into operation at
less cost, and afterwards to support itself, and even to bring profit
to the State. We are sorry to believe that this consideration has had
an extensive influence. It is humiliating to suppose that Government
would hesitate to adopt a system founded on enlightened humanity
because another might be had for less money,--counting the unworthy
gain or the petty economy as of higher consequence than the reformation
of an offender. Such a course were unworthy of our civilization.
The State has sacred duties to the unfortunate men it takes into its
custody. It must see not only that they receive no harm, but that they
enjoy all means of improvement consistent with their condition,--that,
while their bodies are clothed and fed, their souls are not left naked
and hungry. It assumes the place of parent, and owes a parent's care
and kindness; or rather, when we consider that the State itself is
child of the people, may we not say that it should emulate that famous
Roman charity, so often illustrated by Art, which descended into the
darkness of a dungeon, to afford an exuberant, health-giving bosom to
the exhausted being from whom it drew its own life.
Notwithstanding the uncompromising hostility the Separate system has
encountered, it wins constant favor. Many prisons are built on this
plan, and experience comes to confirm the suggestions of humanity and
science. The Penitentiary at Philadelphia, which first proved its
superiority, was followed in 1833 by one at Pittsburg and by a County
Prison at Alleghany, and in 1841 by another County Prison, on the same
system, at Harrisburg. In 1834 New Jersey followed the example of
her neighbor State, and established a penitentiary on this system at
Trenton.
Commissions from foreign governments, after visiting the different
prisons of the United States, have all reported _emphatically_ in favor
of the Separate system: as, that of Beaumont and De Tocqueville to the
French Government, in 1831; of Mr. Crawford to the English, in 1834; of
Dr. Julius to the Prussian, in 1836, after a most careful perambulation
of all the prisons of the country; of Demetz and Blouet to the French,
in 1837,--being the second Commission from the same Government; and of
Neilson and Mondelet to the Canadian Government, in 1836.
In accordance with these recommendations, numerous prisons have been
built or are now building in Europe. In England a model prison has
been constructed at Pentonville, which is perhaps the best prison in
the world. In the late Report of the Surveyor-General of Prisons, laid
on the table of Parliament during its last session, it was expressly
declared, from the experience gained in the Pentonville prison, "that
the separation of one prisoner from another is indispensable as the
basis of any sound system." As long ago as 1843, no less than seventeen
prisons on this principle were built or building in different counties
of England, and several in Scotland. In France the whole subject has
undergone most thorough discussion by the press, and also in debate
by the Chamber of Deputies. Among the works now before us is a volume
of more than six hundred pages, filled by a report of this debate,
with notes, which ended in the passage of a law during the last summer
appropriating ninety millions of francs for the building of thirty
prisons on the Separate system. Such is the testimony of France and
England.
Similar testimony comes from other quarters: from Prussia, where five
prisons on this system have been built; from Denmark, where ten are
now building; from Sweden, where eight are building under the auspices
of the monarch, who, when Prince Oscar, wrote ably in advocacy of
the Separate system; from Norway, where one is now building in the
neighborhood of Christiania; from Poland, where one has long been in
existence, and three others are nearly completed; from Hungary, where
a project has been submitted to the Diet for the erection of ten on the
Separate system; from Holland, where one is about to be erected on the
plan of Pentonville; from Belgium, which has yielded to the Separate
system, and has even engrafted it upon the famous _Maison de Force_ at
Ghent, the model of our Auburn Prison; from the Duchy of Nassau; from
the Grand Duchy of Baden; from Frankfort-on-the-Main; from Hamburg;
from Geneva, in Switzerland: in all of which prisons on this system are
built or are building. From poor, distracted Spain proceeds the same
testimony.
To this array of authorities and examples may be added two names
of commanding weight in all matters of Prison Discipline,--Edward
Livingston and Miss Dix. The first, whose high fortune it was to refine
jurisprudence by his philanthropy, as he had illumined it by his genius
and strengthened it by his learning, in his Introductory Report to the
Code of Prison Discipline, as long ago as 1827, urged with classical
eloquence a system of "seclusion, accompanied by moral, religious,
and scientific instruction, and useful manual labor." Miss Dix, after
attentive survey of different systems throughout our country, fervently
enforces, as well in the publication now before us as in her Memorials,
the merits of the Separate system, and of its administration in
Pennsylvania.