met at the Penitentiary on the 20th of October last, and at various
times thereafter, and examined eighteen cases presented for their
investigation--eight of whom they regard as proper subjects of
hospital treatment; two, they think, will be as well or better off
where they are; the sentence of one expired during the pendency of the
proceedings, and he was discharged, four are not suitable inmates of
an Insane Hospital, and three, who were committed for safe keeping,
are regarded on all hands as unfit to be placed in any hospital, or
elsewhere where the means of close custody are less efficient than in
the Eastern State Penitentiary.
In the course of their report to the executive, the Commissioners very
properly speak of it as a grave question, how far it is justifiable to
mingle convicted criminals (however afflicted) amongst the meanest whom
the hand of God has visited with mental derangement, or how many insane
criminals can be sent there without seriously jeopardizing the best
interests of that institution, and risking the safety and well being of
its inmates. They add, "that no wards can be specially appropriated to
the class particularly under notice, and as a consequence the insane
criminal must be in contact directly with the insane innocent."
In the absence of a hospital constructed with exclusive reference to
the custody and treatment of convicts deprived of their reason, and
considering "the great security afforded by the penitentiary and the
character of its arrangements," the Commissioners are of the opinion,
that "it will be quite possible, inside its enclosure, to make the
limited number of this class now confined there, more comfortable than
they could be in any ordinary hospital, for the reason, where a just
regard to the safety of others would require a much closer degree of
confinement," in which opinion we cordially coincide.
As this is the first proceeding under the provision of the law, it has
received particular attention in the report of the Inspectors, and may
claim a brief notice in our pages.
And we must in the first place take exception to the phraseology in a
clause of the Act of Assembly, which is open to misconstruction. "A
certain class of prisoners" is mentioned, "whose mental and physical
condition may require, in the opinion of the Inspectors, a temporary
relaxation of the separate confinement system." The framers of this
paragraph were probably unaware that all the provision which any body
ever considered necessary for the class of prisoners alluded to, may
be enjoyed without any "relaxation (temporary or permanent) of the
separate confinement system."
It is the _unbroken solitude_ which, by an existing law, should be
relieved two or three times a day, but in some past periods has
not been relieved for days together; it is the confinement to an
unwholesome or stultifying trade; it is the brooding over a seven
or ten years' sentence, a ruined and helpless family, and a blasted
reputation,--these are the causes, and not _separation_ from other
convicts that threaten to undermine the health and derange the reason
of convicts of a peculiar temperament. Now, if the money appropriated
could be expended in a few extra lodges, with ample exercising yards,
and perhaps one-tenth of it for an additional attendant or two, to have
charge of enfeebled prisoners (whether they were so when admitted, or
became so as a natural effect of prison-life) this provision of the
section would be very reasonable. The _separation_, however, may safely
and should certainly remain intact.
But there is another class of convicts whose case is embraced by a
_proviso_. It is those who "develope such marked insanity as to render
their continuance in the penitentiary improper, and their removal
to the State hospital necessary to their restoration." In order to
determine whether a convict answers to this description, a competent
Board is appointed to examine and report.
Now we will suppose a case is presented of a prisoner who was committed
for _safe keeping_ merely. This is certainly not a case within the
proviso. No matter how marked the insanity is, it was developed before
commitment, and his continued confinement is, therefore, in no sense
"improper." Competent authorities disposed of him with due reference to
all the circumstances of the case, and the Act of the Legislature is
not designed to disturb the acts judiciary.
Another case is presented to the Board, and they are satisfied that it
is a "manifest" development of insanity, but that with proper medical
treatment, and such out-of-door exercise as is quite compatible with
the discipline of the institution, the party may be restored. This
is clearly not within the proviso, for it is only such cases as make
"_a removal to the State Hospital necessary to their restoration_,"
that are to be transferred. It is evident, therefore, that the medical
Board are not to be restricted to the inquiry, whether there is or is
not a development of insanity, but whether the case presented is one
which the proviso meant to include. The medical Board are presumed to
know the provisions of the act from which they derive their authority,
and they cannot read it without perceiving that they are to decide
not only whether a prisoner is insane, but also whether his insanity
is of such a type or character as to render his continuance in the
prison _improper_, and a removal to the State hospital indispensable
to his recovery. Now, suppose they are satisfied of the insanity,
and also that his removal to the State hospital or elsewhere would
not be likely to restore him. This is the very point for which their
professional knowledge and experience is required--quite as much as
(if not more than) to determine the naked question of insanity. Surely
a wise Legislature could not have meant to ask a _medical Board_ to
determine the question of insanity, and leave it to the _Inspectors_ to
say whether the insanity might be safely and properly treated in the
prison, or whether a removal to the State Hospital would be likely to
issue in restoration!
On the whole therefore it must be obvious, we think, to any candid
mind, that the Legislature designed to give the Inspectors the benefit
of the _official judgment_ of a competent Board, as to the manner in
which they should treat or dispose of insane convicts.
Upon the general question of the removal of any insane convicts to the
State Asylum, we indicated an opinion in our number for July, 1852,
and farther inquiry and reflection confirms the doubt then expressed,
whether a general State Lunatic Hospital should receive convicts of any
class.
If an offender has been convicted and sentenced according to law, he
must be regarded and received into the cell as a suitable subject of
convict-discipline. A process of law so terminated, is tantamount to
incontrovertible evidence, that the party is in all respects amenable
to the penal sanctions of the law. Otherwise he is not a convict, but
an oppressed and abused sufferer. Having thus been committed, he must
abide the life of a convict. If his health fails, humane provision
should be made for him in a proper apartment, called an infirmary or
hospital, with proper attendance, medicine, nourishment, &c., but why
should he be pardoned, removed or discharged? Sickness in prison is
one of the risks he voluntarily takes in committing the offence. If
he breaks a limb or loses an eye, it is what happens to honest men as
well as convicts, and he can claim no exemption from such calamities,
and must be satisfied with prison fare when they overtake him as a
convict. Why should the failure or loss of mental soundness be a cause
of discharging a prisoner, any more than the weakness or maiming of the
body? Why should not provision be made within the prison-bounds for the
proper care and treatment of this class of ailments, as well as any
other? Certainly not because it is not practicable to do it, for the
medical records show that the recoveries among convict-lunatics here
and in England, bear quite as high a proportion to the cases, as in our
best Insane Asylums. If it should be maintained that the proper room
and attendance cannot be obtained, the same reason might be urged for
discharging the sick and lame, that there was no room for an infirmary,
nor for surgical operations, nor for nurses, &c. We do not see what
reasonable ground can be urged for the removal of the former, which
might not be quite as tenable in relation to the latter.
It seems to us that when the Commonwealth, whose peace and dignity
have been violated by a breach of the law, seizes on the offender,
and separates him from honest citizens, clearly proves his guilt, and
commits him for punishment to hard labor in the penitentiary for a term
of months or years, nothing should avail to discharge him from that
sentence, except the discovery of some evidence of its injustice. It
is assumed, of course, that he has been legally and fairly dealt with
in the whole process of the prosecution, and that the sentence is as
light as the law or the circumstances of the case will justify; and
this being conceded, we confidently maintain that the State takes him
into her custody as a convict, and that, as a convict she is bound to
provide for him whatever he needs, whether in health or sickness, in
strength or weakness, in life or death, until he has accomplished his
full term.
We venture to make these suggestions the more plainly, because we
perceive not a little confusion in the views which are gaining ground
on the subject.
In the recent report of the Inspectors of the Eastern State
Penitentiary, cases are mentioned of prisoners who were clearly insane
when first sentenced to the Penitentiary. How this fact was proved
in any case, does not appear. The question would be relieved of much
embarrassment if it did. But the report hazards another and much graver
remark, viz: that the "experience and observation" (of the Inspectors)
"have convinced them that the commission of crime is more frequently
connected with mental disease than courts or juries suspect." We had
supposed that the danger, if any, was in the opposite direction. It
must be very rare, we apprehend, that the plea of insanity is not
urged where there is the slightest pretence to sustain it. And courts
and juries, in our country at least, have been regarded as quite
sufficiently indulgent towards it whenever it is urged.
It is scarcely safe, as it seems to us, after conviction by due course
of law, to go behind the proceedings and attempt to avert their
legitimate consequences by alleging the existence of a fact which
should have stayed them entirely. That property is taken, mischief
committed, and violent deeds done by persons of insane mind and of
course irresponsible for their acts, we all know; but these acts are
not offences, nor are the perpetrators of them offenders, nor can they,
by any process of law, be turned into convicts. Yet the time to show
this (if it is not plainly apparent) is when they are arrested for such
acts, and their state of mind is relied on to exempt them from any
responsibility. If it is not shown then, it is our duty (in ordinary
circumstances) forever after to hold our peace.
It is not our province to vindicate the established tribunals of the
country from the charge of "presumption" or "inhumanity," when they
direct a maniac, who, in a paroxysm of his malady, has taken the
life of his wife or his friend, to be confined within the cells of a
penitentiary as one dangerous to society. But we suppose the community
has a claim to be protected against the violence of the lawless,
whether they are rendered so by the visitation of God or by the
indulgence of depraved and malevolent passions.
That this protection can be made sure by existing arrangements in our
State Hospital, or that adequate provision can be made therein without
injuriously affecting the interests of third parties, we are not
prepared to say. But we are well persuaded that proper provision for
all classes of convicts, whatever their physical or mental condition,
can be made in either of our State Penitentiaries; and we shall not
cease to consider those institutions very imperfectly constructed or
organized, so long as such provision is not made within their walls.
Before our readers pronounce judgment on these views, we trust they
will take sober thought and established facts into their counsels.
While these sheets were passing through the press, we were favored
with the report of the New York State Lunatic Asylum at Utica, for
the current year, in which the most emphatic remonstrance is made to
sending thither persons acquitted of crime, on the ground of insanity,
or convicts who become insane. The reasons are plainly stated:
These unfortunate persons are discharged from punishment and
committed to the asylum. The buildings not having been designed
for the custody of this class of the insane, they cause much extra
expense, watchfulness and care; and as experience shows, with but
little prospect of benefit. The number is constantly increasing
and encroaching upon space which might be more usefully devoted
to patients who are likely to be improved, and for whom the
institution was originally designed. Many of the class referred to
are of the most depraved character, and quite unfit associates for
the other inmates, who, for the most part, are persons of worth
and respectability, and entitled to be protected against dangerous
associations.
The mischiefs which are so clearly exposed by the Managers, are still
farther exhibited in the report of the principal physician, who regards
convict-lunatics as requiring more secure fixtures and stricter
surveillance than ordinary patients, and for these and the worst class
of drunkards, he recommends "the erection of a hospital for two hundred
and fifty patients of the male sex only, to be carefully constructed,
and fitted for the ultimate occupancy of lunatic criminals only; but
to be used, until needed exclusively for this purpose, by criminal and
homicidal lunatics and drunkards."
We think these views and suggestions must commend themselves to all
reflecting minds, and we hope to see them carried out.
We offer no apology for occupying so much of our limited space with
this subject, inasmuch as the interests of _philanthropy_ are involved
in protecting our State Lunatic Hospitals from being prejudiced by the
introduction of patients who do not properly fall under their care, and
the interests of _prison discipline_ require that the convict should
not be released from any measure of retribution for his offence, which
a lawful sentence imposes.
ART. VI.--REPORT OF THE CONDITION OF THE NEW JERSEY STATE
PRISON.--Embracing the reports of the Joint Committee, Inspectors,
Keeper, Moral Instructor and Physician. January 19, 1853. pp. 48.
We have been favored with the report of this institution for the year
1852-3. There were in confinement, at the beginning of the year, two
hundred and seven. Received during the year one hundred and twenty-one,
and in custody in the course of the year three hundred and twenty-nine
different individuals. Of these, sixty-eight were discharged by
expiration of sentence, and nearly the same number (viz. 63) by pardon!
One death occurred, leaving one hundred and ninety-seven prisoners
on hand at the close of the year. The average monthly population of
the prison was two hundred and ten, which is a large increase on the
previous year.
Of the one hundred and ninety-seven on hand, seventy-two are in on a
sentence of five years or upwards; thirty-four for three years and
upwards, forty-eight for between one and three years, and forty-three
for one year or less. Of the whole number thirty-eight were under
twenty; eighty-one between twenty and thirty, and forty-nine between
thirty and forty; showing that one hundred and sixty-eight out of the
one hundred and ninety-seven, or FOUR-FIFTHS, were under middle life.
The offences are divided about equally between those against property
and those against the person. Of the latter the extraordinary number
of fourteen are for rape, and five for an assault with intent to
commit that crime, and fourteen were counterfeiters. Eighty-nine, or
nearly half the convicts, are natives of New Jersey; sixty-three are
of foreign birth. Only eight females are in the prison, four white and
four colored; and of the one hundred and eighty-nine males, forty-nine
are colored. It is worthy of observation, that of one hundred and
twenty-two commitments last year, sixty, or about one half, had no
trade!
In respect to the physical health of the convicts, we are informed that
only one death occurred during the year, and this was by suicide. It
was a young German, who had been in prison only five days, and whose
sentence was only six months. We do not learn that any one at Trenton
ascribes this melancholy event to the effect of convict-separation, but
it would be in keeping with the spirit which has sometimes manifested
itself in discussions of this subject, to set it down as one of the
fruits of the separate system!
The State Prison of New Jersey is established on the principle of
individual separation. The law provides, that "every convict shall be
confined in one of the cells of the prison, separate and alone, except
in such cases of sickness as are by the act provided for." That is, if
the physician reports to the keeper that a prisoner requires a nurse,
the keeper, with the approbation of the acting Inspectors, may employ
one of the prisoners; and "whenever, in the opinion of the physician,
the enlargement of any prisoner shall be absolutely necessary to the
preservation of life," he may be removed from his cell, "but the
prisoner shall in every such case be kept from the society of other
prisoners, except such as may attend as nurses."
No language could more clearly express the will of the Legislature that
convict-separation should be the basis of the discipline. In addition
to these positive requirements, the Inspectors are to embrace, in
their annual report to the Legislature, "such remarks and statements
respecting the system of _separate confinement_ and the efficiency of
the same, as shall be the result of their own observation." The same
act authorizes them to make rules and regulations for the prison as
they may deem necessary and proper, "_consistent with the principle of
separate confinement_ and the laws of the State."
Now we might naturally suppose that a body of law-makers, receiving
such a report of the condition of a body of convicted law-breakers,
from those who are appointed to take care of them, would be slow to
countenance any direct and palpable breach of the law by themselves;
and yet it must have been known to the Legislature of New Jersey that
the provisions of the law establishing the State prison, are rendered
entirely nugatory by their neglect to provide means for executing them.
They are supposed to know that the prison contains but one hundred and
ninety-two cells, and that ten of these are occupied for workshops and
store-rooms. A brisk walk of five minutes would supply the honorable
the Legislature with demonstrative evidence that one hundred and
eighty-two cells would not suffice for the separate confinement of two
hundred and thirty-two prisoners, and hence they would see fifty cells
(7-1/2 by 16 feet) occupied by two tenants each, against the peace and
dignity of the Commonwealth (which has forbidden such association)
and of course "against the form of the statute in such case made and
provided."
In such an emergency, we might further suppose that measures would
be adopted at once to enlarge the accommodations and to obviate the
alleged necessity for thus openly violating the law, as early as
possible. With this impression, we are surprised that the Executive
of the State, whose particular function it is to see that the laws
are duly executed, does not urge prompt action in the premises. So
far from any intimation of this sort, he speaks of the administration
and management of the prison throughout, as eminently successful and
commendable; of the keeper and officers as having sustained their
reputation for ability and efficiency--of _five thousand dollars_ of
surplus earnings as having been paid into the State treasury during the
year--and of about _two thousand dollars_ paid to discharged convicts
for overwork, all which he thinks exhibits unexampled prosperity in the
affairs of the prison.
He even goes so far as to say, "_that the discipline has been well
maintained_," adding (rather paradoxically we think,) that the "large
number of prisoners renders it impracticable to observe the law in
relation to solitary" (separate) "confinement, and the necessity of
association impairs to some extent the corrective regulations of the
institution."
We humbly submit that it is not the "necessity of association," but the
association itself that does the mischief, and farther that Jerseymen
would better understand the case if it were said in plain English, that
until cells enough are built to give each convict a cell by himself,
the occupants will be more likely to become worse than better, at the
expense of the State, and in deliberate violation of its positive laws.
This view of the case becomes quite imposing, when it is considered
that of the one hundred and ninety-seven convicts, one hundred and
sixty-eight are, or about four-fifths, are in on a first conviction.
Of course, every precaution is essential to give the discipline of the
prison its most benign and efficient influence. It is passing strange
that an enlightened State should pocket five thousand dollars of the
surplus earnings of her convict-population, while the accommodations
for accomplishing the only legitimate objects of the prison are so
narrow as to require a constant violation of the law, and a constant
defeat of its wholesome ends. It may be, however, that to violate
laws has become the rule, and to obey them the exception. As an
illustration, it may suffice to say, in respect to this same New Jersey
State Prison, that the use of tobacco in any form is peremptorily
forbidden by law; yet we are informed, on indisputable authority, that
the prisoners both chew and smoke, and that some of them have taken
their first lessons in these arts after their admission to the prison!
We have made these suggestions with much freedom, and we hope without
offence. We have hearty, intelligent co-adjutors in Jersey, who are
aiming with us to establish the convict-discipline of the country on
a truly humane, efficient, philosophical and Christian basis. To this
end, we maintain that every prison or place of confinement for persons
charged with or convicted of crime, should furnish a suitable apartment
for each individual, separate from every other individual suspected
or convicted of crime. We have often cited the State prison at Trenton
as one of this class, and have uniformly espoused the views of the
Inspectors and principal officers, at times when they were opposed by
crotchety speculators within or without the prison; and we shall be
greatly disappointed, if means are not promptly used to conform the
discipline to the provisions of law.
ART. VII.--AN EXTRAORDINARY DOCUMENT.
We have before us a stitched pamphlet, entitled "Report on the Subject
of Prisons, by Rev. Alexander L. Hamilton, State Commissioner, to Hon.
Austin King, Governor of Missouri--Referred to the Committee on the
Penitentiary, and three thousand copies ordered to be printed, January
5, 1853," pp. 24.
The author of this report is, we doubt not, a very worthy and
intelligent gentleman, or he would not have been appointed by the
Executive of Missouri on so important an agency. That he has fulfilled
his mission to the best of his ability, we may also admit; but that
his report contains "such information as is necessary to present the
subject of Prison Discipline fully to the consideration of the next
general assembly of Missouri," we cannot believe. Indeed we do not
hesitate to say that it is entirely deficient in every point that a
report on such a subject, for such a purpose, should embrace.