strong check to the spread not only of tuberculosis, but to other
diseases as well. Another recommendation that would prove of undoubted
profit to the State and a check to the spread of tuberculosis is that
all convicts be required by law to spend as much as one to two hours or
more a day in the open air exercising systematically. This--shall we
call it recreation-health-exercise?--time, of one or two hours, could be
arranged when contracts for convict labor were made.”
In his paper on “The Position a Physician Should Occupy in the Trial,
Sentencing and Care of Criminals,” Dr. Theodore Cook, Jr., of Baltimore,
made a strong plea for a larger recognition of the medical profession in
all questions relating to the condition and treatment of the degenerate,
sick and insane prisoner. His contention was that a great many
criminals are sick either mentally or physically, and that when these
appear for trial the State should see that their infirmities are
recognized and treated scientifically. A recommendation made by him
before the Medical and Chirurgical Faculty of Maryland was to the effect
that before a person is tried for a serious offense his mental and
physical condition should be examined into by a committee consisting of
the jail physician and prosecuting attorney of the county where the
defendant is to be tried and an alienist; the alienist to be appointed
by the Governor on recommendation of the State Medical Society at a
stipulated salary, and required to organize this committee in each
county at stated intervals. This committee would be required to pass on
the fitness of the prisoner to stand trial and receive sentence and to
see that any infirmities were properly attended to; the youthful
degenerate being given special attention, the sick healed and the insane
sent to a proper institution to remain there until discharged by this
committee. This committee should have full power to summon witnesses to
investigate the prisoner’s condition. Its findings should be filed with
the other court records before trial. Under these circumstances the
committee would determine the mental responsibility of the prisoner, and
to this extent relieve judge, district attorney and jury of a burden.
Dr. Cook also strongly urged that the physician should be given more
authority in the various institutions for the detention and correction
of the criminal classes, and that for the sanitary and hygienic
condition of such institutions he should be held strictly responsible.
EVENING SESSION
In his report of the Committee on Criminal Law Reform, Mr. Roger Phelps
Clark, district attorney, Binghamton, N. Y., said in part:
“As the law is to-day no power can force a witness to go from the State
of Pennsylvania into the adjoining State of New York to testify there
either before a magistrate or a grand or petit jury in a criminal case
other than federal. Consequently it is often the case that criminals
escape punishment and sometimes even prosecution. The punishment of
criminals should not be a local issue.
“Unfortunately the criminal laws are drafted by criminal lawyers, who,
as legislators, are seeking to protect a line of clientage, present and
prospective, rather than their constituents.
“Corporate interests that now possess as many avenues of escape from
regulation that can be made effective only by criminal prosecution, as
there are different State governments, are unwilling to have these
regulations made and enforced by the undivided power and responsibility
of one sovereign law. To them each State government is as a city of
refuge. One of the great questions to-day is whether government shall
control the corporations or the corporations the government.
“It is a deplorable fact that generally throughout this country the
judges presiding in the trials of criminal cases in courts of record are
not sufficiently versed in criminal law. This branch of law is as
thoroughly distinct from civil law as admiralty law is from
ecclesiastical law.
“Judge Taft, in his address on the administration of criminal law, in
June, 1905, before the Yale Law School, called attention to the small
proportion of murderers that were punished. Possibly this is due in a
degree to the lack of courage on the part of jurors. It seems as though
better results are secured in States that have abolished the death
penalty.
“Insanity to-day is usually the moneyed defense. The fact that a rich
man with a homicidal habit can produce experts, apparently respectable,
who will swear that at the time of the commission of the crime he was
insane by reason of a brain storm, but is sane at the time of trial, has
brought such expert testimony into merited contempt and the
administration of criminal law into deserved distrust. The only thing to
do with such a criminal is to keep him under lock and key away from the
stormy stress of free life.”
The Rev. Dr. A. J. McKelway, in speaking on “The Abolition of the Lease
System in Georgia,” gave a history of the system, described its
inhumanities and traced the steps by which its abolition came about.
Beginning when one hundred convicts were first let out for $2,500 a
year, the system grew to such proportions that in 1903 the price was
$225 a man. Many of the men were sublet at $630 a year, and those who
thus trafficked in human beings became known as “convict kings.” The
abolition goes into effect on the first of April of the present year,
and after that date the convicts are to be worked on the roads under
State supervision, and on farms which are to be established. The reform
was brought about by the overwhelming pressure of an aroused public
sentiment; and Dr. McKelway summarized the present public opinion on
this subject in the South as follows:
“First, it has been burned into the hearts of the people that it is not
good for the State to make a profit on crime.
“Second, that the State should not delegate to any person or corporation
not under its complete control the duty of punishing crime or of caring
for the criminal, old or young, white or black.
“Third, that the working of felony convicts on the public roads or
public works is an infinite improvement on the lease system; and that
the working of misdemeanor convicts in the same way is an immense
improvement over the old county jail system.
“Fourth, that the State farm is the best solution yet offered, with such
manual and industrial training as may be given.
“Fifth, that the retributive idea of punishment is giving place at last
to the reformatory idea.
“Sixth, that at least a fair proportion of the profits of the convict
labor should be set aside for the helpless family, or as a fund for a
start in the life of freedom.”
On motion of Joshua L. Baily, President of The Pennsylvania Prison
Society, a resolution was passed congratulating the State of Georgia on
its abolition of the convict lease system.
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19
MORNING SESSION
Mr. T. B. Patton, Superintendent of the Industrial Reformatory,
Huntingdon, Pa., presented the report of the Committee on Prevention and
Reformatory Work; and Mrs. Frances A. Morton, Superintendent of the
Reformatory Prison for Women, South Framingham, Mass., spoke on “Outdoor
Employment for Women Prisoners,” describing especially the various forms
of outdoor work in her own institution.
AFTERNOON SESSION
“Prison Discipline,” especially in reformatories, was the subject of a
most interesting address by Mr. J. A. Leonard, Superintendent of the
State Reformatory, Mansfield, Ohio.
“I wish to speak on discipline for certain exceptional types in our
reformatory prisons. I would first consider _the trusty_. There have
been trusties ever since there have been prisons. In our own work I had
in mind to employ a great many young men committed to the reformatory in
a trusted capacity--not to make them informers, not to make them a
bulwark of safety to the institution, not to pamper them, not to make
them envied by the other prisoners, but because the dictum to treat all
prisoners alike is fallacious. All prisoners under certain given
conditions should be treated alike. The even hand of justice is needed
in a prison above any place else. But there are men sent to
reformatories who would stay there if there was not a lock on the
prison. I think fifty per cent. of the men sent to the Ohio State
Reformatory would prove to be self-governing as to the matter of
custody. It is to their interest to be so.
“In setting aside those who are trusties we appeal to intelligence and
thoughtfulness. What has been the result? We had six hundred acres of
land to farm, first as an economic proposition, and second as an agency
for training. Originally our farm was a burden upon the institution,
because all the farming was done under an armed guard. It was quite a
spectacle for men to go along our public highways and see a boy, a
convict, so-called, plowing corn with an $840 man following him with a
gun. It made expensive corn and was a shock to public sense. What could
we do about this matter? To make the farm profitable, economically and
valuable industrially, it was necessary to employ in this outside work a
large number of men. I believed it possible to find young men who would
go out and work faithfully without a great degree of restraint. I wanted
to make the test and we put out fifteen men without an armed guard.
Three ran away. That was not a comfortable experience. I put out thirty
and five ran away. I put out sixty and four ran away. Last year we had
on an average one hundred and fifty men outside unrestrained by any
physical force, and we did not lose a man. What produced this change? A
change in human nature? Not at all. We simply gave free play to an idea
and the sentiment within the institution underwent a change. Three men
out of the one hundred and fifty tried to get away. Two of them
conspired together, one running this way and one that way. The officer
was fleet-footed and captured one of them. (By the way, I have come to
employ officers because they can run fast rather than because of their
ability to shoot straight.) This officer caught one and supposed that
the other had gotten away, but when he came up over the hills by the
roadside he found him. He was on the ground; a fellow-prisoner was
sitting on him and saying to him: ‘You lie still. We are not knocking
you; we are saving you trouble. You know you will be caught. We are
doing you good, but that is not why we are holding you. You are knocking
the system that the superintendent is trying to start here to give us a
fair show, and we will not stand for it.’ Public opinion in the
institution is what made that possible. How do we bring it about? Public
opinion within the institution is largely influenced by our practical
school of ethics. This school had discussed at great length this trusty
system and had given full support to the idea. Discipline will not do
it.
“The number trusted is growing larger and larger each year. We select
them very carefully. I take a boy out quietly in the evening and have a
talk with him. I ask him if he will voluntarily assume that
responsibility. If he agrees, I produce a bond, one that has been
prepared with some red ink, red ribbon and red seals and burdened with
all the meaningless expressions that our legal brethren have burdened us
with. At the bottom of it there are two clauses of plain English that
the boy is supposed to understand. There is nothing like being
impressive as he signs the bond. I say to him: ‘Now here is the place
for your surety. Where are you going to get it?’ He replies, ‘I believe
my folks will give it.’ ‘That cannot be done, my boy. This is an honor
bond.’ Then, ‘I will do it,’ I tell him. ‘I will be your first friend
and stand for you with the deputy.’
“I have signed ten hundred and eighteen of those bonds and only five
have been dishonored. That experiment has been worth a great deal more
than it costs. It costs some anxiety. Next year I expect to put out
about two hundred men if I live. I shall put out more and more each year
and I shall expect this good record to continue, simply because the
fellows inside are standing for it and even in their language they
distinguish. The fellow who scales the walls gets the applause that
always goes with the deed of daring, but the fellow who goes out after
signing a bond with the superintendent’s name to it, ‘takes a sneak,’
and when he is brought back he is made to feel it.
“Those trusties are never informers with us. We have never let them
inform us. The other boys have no prejudices against them. They want to
be with them, but I keep them as far separated as possible. If I were
building a new reformatory the ground plan would look like a spider’s
web and I would have a detached cottage for those who have proven their
trustworthiness.
“The second exceptional class calling for special discipline is _the
bankrupt_. You men who have to deal with the indeterminate sentence know
that no board of managers or set of men can make rules that will meet
the peculiar needs of individual cases. You and I know that in every
prison there are boys who cannot gain eligibility for parole under rules
made for the average, notwithstanding the fact that they are not guilty
of serious offenses, nor are they regarded as malicious or dangerous.
They become bankrupt because of the accumulation of demerits for this
thing and that. What are we going to do? If I excuse those reports it
becomes a personal favor, which is wrong and leads to bad feeling. I
asked myself the question: ‘What has society in all time done to meet
such cases? What is done in the economic world?’ I recently read an
article which said that sixty per cent. of the successful merchants were
bankrupt some time in their life. If a man who has carried on a business
comes into court with clean hands he is given the benefit of bankruptcy;
his obligations are canceled and a new opportunity is afforded him. I
asked myself the question, ‘Why can we not have something of like
character here?’ So I instituted a bankruptcy court. Our general
disciplinarian holds court on all offenses and fixes penalties under the
general rules. There is, however, a right of appeal, first to the
superintendent, and finally to the president of the Board of Managers.
Why then another court? I wanted a court which would be free from any
prejudice on account of the boys’ record, so I selected the assistant
superintendent, who, while charged with the discipline in a general way,
does not pass upon the original offenses, and then the chaplain, who has
no embarrassing relations at all as to discipline. With these two
officers we instituted a court in which were represented both the law
and the gospel. The Board of Managers heartily approved the innovation.
The rules governing that court are as follows:
“Any inmate, who because of misconduct has lost so much time as to
render the prospects of his parole extremely remote, and who, in
good faith, has resolved to establish a good record in the
institution, may make written application to the superintendent
for an exercise of clemency that may come within the
superintendent’s discretion under the rules of the institution.
“If the party making the appeal for clemency has a clear record
for thirty days next preceding the date of the application, the
appeal will be referred to the Bankruptcy Court, consisting of the
assistant superintendent and the chaplain, who will give the
applicant a hearing, carefully review his case, and make a report
of their findings to the superintendent. In case the appeal is
granted, the applicant will be placed in the second grade under
the same conditions as apply to inmates on first entering the
institution, and his consideration for parole will not be
prejudiced by his previous record.
“Any inmate who shall have served one year in the second grade,
and who has failed of promotion to the first grade because of
minor acts of omission or commission, may make written appeal to
the superintendent for promotion to the first grade, and his case
will be dealt with in like manner and on like conditions as stated
above. The superintendent will not remit time lost or make special
promotions except in the manner above indicated.
“People who come to our institution sometimes ask, What is the best
thing you have done? In making reply I do not point to any material
thing. I call attention to the bankruptcy court. It has relieved us of
embarrassment, strengthened our discipline, opened the door of hope,
extracted the teeth of criticism. It has done wonders in this direction.
I had a talk with one of those sinister, embittered boys one day. He was
sullen, not personally insolent to me, except in a degree unconsciously,
and I said to him, ‘I am thinking, my boy, of that good day coming when
you will do just the opposite.’ He said, ‘Why do you think that day will
ever come?’ ‘Simply because you have sense enough in your head; it is
sure to come. You are not so bad. You fancy you are a bad fellow. You
are bad enough for all practical purposes, but you are not so bad as you
think. All you have to do is to turn around. You are a six-cylinder
fellow. You have force and will, and you have obstinacy and lots of
other things you ought not to have, and when you turn around, then we
are going to have one of the best boys instead of the worst.’ He said,
‘You cannot make the officers of this institution believe I would turn
around.’ I said, ‘No, but you and I can make them believe it, not I, but
you and I, and I shall expect it some day.’ After six weeks there came
this letter from him: ‘I have turned around, but in doing so I’m face to
face with a hopeless lot of demerits, and I therefore appeal for the
benefit of the bankruptcy court.’ He was working in the right direction.
I would not take the time to tell you his career afterwards. It was all
I hoped for.
“The third type that requires special methods of discipline is the
sinister ‘smart Aleck.’ A boy of this type came to me in a very insolent
way and said, ‘I am a worse man than when I came.’ I replied: ‘I have
talked to you often, and for the first time your opinion coincides with
mine. I believe you are, as you declare, a worse boy than when you
came.’ He said, ‘What is the good of a reformatory?’ I was sorely
puzzled how to deal with that boy. I said to him, ‘Do you think a place
makes a man good or bad?’ ‘This place has made me bad. No reformatory
reforms anybody.’ ‘My boy, do you believe heaven is a good place. Do you
think the rules and regulations reasonable up there?’ He replied, ‘I
expect so.’ ‘Do you not know that one of the excellent but opinionated
inhabitants of that place got out of tune with it, found fault with the
management, created dissatisfaction among the weaker angels and created
no end of trouble, and the Creator had to provide another place? Do you
know the identity of this trouble maker?’ ‘Yes, the devil.’ ‘Do you know
where he is?’ ‘Yes, in hell.’ ‘He is not in hell all the time, as long
as you feel as you do now.’
“After a little further discussion he was asked if he saw the point of
the illustration. He said he guessed he saw where he was headed for,
according to the example I had held up for him. I then showed him what a
privilege it is to be able to profit from the example of those who have
made a failure rather than to share their experiences. He thereupon
threw aside his cynicism and admitted in the most candid way that he had
been irritable and ugly and expected to be punished, but that my
patience, taken with the illustration, had made him feel differently,
and that he would demonstrate to me that he was not the devil or his
accomplice, nor would he be a trouble maker. He on more than one
occasion later referred to the fact that the devil had been a saving
agency in his reformation.
“The cynical fellow is apt to have sufficient intellect to which to make
successful appeal. I think of a prison as simply a fulcrum for the lever
of reformatory effort. By the sentence of the court confining these two
young men heretofore referred to, I was afforded the fulcrum to bring to
bear the right kind of discipline.
“The next type calling for special discipline is the _outrageous
fellow_. I have asked myself what reason there is in psychology, in
humanity or in common sense for making a prison a silent tomb. How can
we hope to socialize young men by denying them communication by speech?
If a man refuses to talk or laugh, incipient insanity is at once
suspected. With these thoughts in mind, I thought I would do away with
the rule requiring silence in the dining room. Hoary-headed tradition
forbade it; prison administrators in whose wisdom I have the greatest
confidence questioned it; but I was impelled to try it. All went well
until one day the ‘outrageous fellow’ referred to was brought to court
charged with quarreling with his neighbor at table, hurling a large
porcelain bowl of tea into his opponent’s face, slightly burning him and
cutting an ugly gash in his head. The most serious offense, however, was
creating a condition in a crowded dining room favorable to riot. It was
the opinion of our officers that he should be severely punished, their
idea of punishment including the infliction of bodily pain. I agreed
that he deserved whipping, but reminded the officers that this world was
not entirely established on the basis of desert; that the best of us had
little claim to heaven on that basis. We did not whip him, not because
he did not deserve it, but because we owed it to him and to the
institution to do that thing that would most positively quicken the
moral sense and create a wholesome public sentiment. Calling him up, I
told him that he had put me to shame; that he had justified all my
critics who said that I would get into trouble by allowing the boys to
talk at the table; that he was the only one out of a thousand that
failed to appreciate what had been done for him. ‘Now,’ I said to him,
‘$1’ This method, I believe, had the approval of practically every
inmate of the institution. The boy himself said that he would rather be
whipped, as he felt that he had been whipped every time he came into the
dining room and turned his back to the other inmates; they would all
feel that he was unfit to be with them. After three weeks he made full
amends and was allowed to join his fellows, and never gave trouble
afterwards.
“Another closely allied to this chap is _the rebellious man_. All prison
men will agree that of the troublesome prisoners the rebellious man
must be most promptly and effectually dealt with. I have friends who are
my superiors in knowledge and wisdom who favor corporal punishment or
handcuffs or the dark cell. I would not have a dark cell in the
institution. Instead, I make the punishment cell lighter than any other.
Why? That is not based on sentiment. If a bear wants to hibernate he
hunts the dark cave. If you and I want rest we want the hours of
darkness. If the creeping things of the earth want to get rest and dull
their sensibilities they hunt a board or a log. The light is the most
stimulating thing in all the world, and what I want to do with the
rebellious inmate is to put him in a light cell. I want to stimulate
him. Our reflection chambers are large, light and airy and so arranged
that the occupants can smell every dinner that is cooked and hear the
band and the boys playing ball. It gets to be uncomfortable and they
want out and they want out badly. What is the result? They go to the
deputy and say they are wrong and want to start new. If you whip a boy
in prison he will suffer martyrdom if he can but have one admiring
onlooker. But when you take a fool’s audience away, in prison or out, he
loses the stimulation of his vanity. When he leaves our discipline
department he cannot swagger that he endured this thing or that, because
every person knows that there is only one way to regain his place among
his fellows, and that is by the promise to conform. No handcuffs have
been used in the Ohio State Reformatory for seven years. Our correction
cells, known in the institution as ‘reflection chambers,’ have been
all-sufficient.”
In the discussion which followed Mr. Leonard made the following
additional remarks on the method of parole followed in his institution: