Transcriber’s Note
Italic text displayed as: _italic_
Bold text displayed as: =bold=
VOLUME I, No. 11. NOVEMBER, 1911
THE REVIEW
A MONTHLY PERIODICAL, PUBLISHED BY THE
=NATIONAL PRISONERS’ AID ASSOCIATION=
AT 135 EAST 15th STREET, NEW YORK CITY.
TEN CENTS A COPY. ONE DOLLAR A YEAR
T. F. Carver, President.
Wm. F. French, Vice President.
O. F. Lewis, Secretary, Treasurer
and Editor Review.
Edward Fielding,
Chairman Ex. Committee.
F. Emory Lyon,
Member Ex. Committee.
W. G. McClaren,
Member Ex. Committee.
A. H. Votaw,
Member Ex. Committee.
E. A. Fredenhagen,
Member Ex. Committee.
Joseph P. Byers,
Member Ex. Committee.
R. B. McCord,
Member Ex. Committee.
THE STATISTICS OF CRIME
BY EUGENE SMITH
PRESIDENT PRISON ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK
=[Mr. Smith read a very carefully prepared paper on the above subject
at the Omaha meeting of the American Prison Association. The Review
would gladly print the address in full but space admits only of
certain abstracts, which follow.—EDITOR]=
In the deplorable and chaotic condition of the very sources from
which all statistical matter must be drawn, it is hopeless to look
for any improvement in our census statistics, unless a radical change
can be effected in state administration. The records of the police,
the courts, the prisons, can be made of statistical value only by the
action of the state itself; and there is apparent but one method by
which the state can act to this end.
There should be established in each state a permanent board or bureau
of criminal statistics, whether as an independent body or as a
department of the office of the attorney general or of the secretary
of state. This bureau should be charged with the duty of prescribing
the forms in which the records of all criminal courts, police boards
and prisons shall be kept and specifying the items regarding which
entries shall be made. The law creating the bureau should direct that
the forms prescribed by it should be uniform as to all institutions
of the same class to which they respectively apply and be binding
upon all institutions within the state.
The bureau should issue general instructions governing the collection
and verification of the facts to be stated in the record; it
should also be its duty, and it should be vested with power, to
inspect and supervise the records and to enforce compliance with its
requirements. Such a bureau might secure a collection of reliable
statistical matter, uniform in quality throughout the state. Indiana
is now, it is believed, the only state in the Union where such a
bureau exists.
But even this result is not enough. Supposing all the criminal
records within each separate state to be made uniform without the
state, still they would not be available for comparison or for
the purposes of a national census, unless all the states could be
brought to adopt the same form and method, so that all criminal
records throughout the Union could be kept upon one uniform plan.
Here we encounter a serious obstacle. The diversity and conflict
of state laws are crying evils of our time, universally recognized
and denounced, and yet the most strenuous efforts to bring about
harmonious action between the legislatures of separate states have
always failed. No single statute, however skilfully drawn, proposed
for universal acceptance has ever yet been adopted by all the states
of the Union. Still the states _must_ act in unison upon this matter
of uniform criminal records or else our statistics of crime must
continue to be a national failure and a national reproach.
Not the slightest reflection can be cast upon the federal census
bureau; on the contrary, when consideration is taken of the
fragmentary and chaotic state records with which the census bureau
had to deal, the systematic and orderly results and the general
deductions embraced in the census report of 1904 must be regarded as
a signal scientific triumph.
Uniformity in criminal records throughout the Union we have seen
to be an imperative need. Is it a visionary ideal, impossible of
attainment? If there is any means through which the ideal can be
realized, it is through the agency of state bureaus of criminal
statistics, such as have just been suggested. Each of these state
bureaus, in preparing uniform plans and forms for its own state,
would naturally place itself in touch with the national census
bureau; while the national bureau would not be legally vested with
the slightest power to dictate to the state bureau or to direct its
action, _practically_ its wide experience and grasp of the entire
situation would enable the federal bureau to wield commanding
influence in shaping the action of every state bureau. If the
creation of efficient state bureaus, of the kind indicated, in the
several states could only be secured, it is not chimerical to believe
that through the dominating influence of the federal census bureau,
tactfully exerted, a uniform system of statistical records relating
to crime could ultimately be established throughout the United
States. It is the first step that counts. If a few of the leading
states in the Union could be induced to establish such a bureau; if
to Indiana could be added New York, Illinois, Nebraska, and in the
South Virginia, the force of example would be potent in the sister
states. * * *
One exceedingly common and popular error needs special mention; a
marked increase in the number of convictions for crime indicates
to the public mind an increase necessarily in the volume of crime
committed. In fact, it may be owing to increased activity and
efficiency on the part of the police and detective officers, to
greater severity and thoroughness in the administration of the
courts, to a change in the economic conditions of the community,
to diminished care and skill on the part of offenders in escaping
detection; indeed, there are many possible factors that may have
combined to produce an unusual statistical result. A slight change
in the laws or methods of procedure, may cause startling statistical
fluctuations.
For example, in the year 1890, the number of convictions for
drunkenness in Massachusetts was 25,582; two years later, the
number had fallen to 8,634. An amazing diminution of drunkenness in
Massachusetts—nearly 70%? Not at all; it was owing to a new statute
passed in 1891, the effect of which was that only those arrested for
the third time within a year were subject to conviction.
The congestion of population in cities and the progress of invention
necessitates every year the enactment of numerous statutes and
municipal ordinances making certain acts, that are harmful to the
public, misdemeanors (that is, legally crimes); but these acts,
committed in large part through ignorance or negligence, are not
essentially of a criminal nature. Statistically, they swell the
number of crimes committed, but most of them are not crimes in the
meaning popularly attached to that word. These considerations suggest
that all attempts to draw conclusions from, and to explain the
significance of the rise or fall of the statistical barometer must be
conducted with extreme caution.
An error into which speakers and writers upon crime are prone to
fall is that of regarding the statistics of crime as a measure of
the total volume of crime committed in the country, affording an
answer to the vital question: Is crime increasing? There are two
fundamental facts relating to crime that must never be forgotten.
First, that criminal statistics are, and must necessarily always be,
confined to those crimes that are known and are officially acted
upon by the police or the courts. Secondly, that there is a large
number of crimes that are committed secretly and are never divulged,
the perpetrators of which are never detected, and crimes that never
result in the apprehension of the offender.
The crimes of this second class cannot possibly enter into any
criminal statistics and yet they form a very large part of the
total volume of crime committed. It does not seem to be commonly
appreciated that these unpublished, unpunished crimes, which can
never be included in any criminal statistics, probably far exceed in
number those that are followed by conviction and punishment. * * *
In addition to unpublished crimes, there are numerous cases where
crime is committed and reported to the police, but proceed no
further. In these instances, the offender may be known, but has
escaped or the offender is unknown and eludes detection; in either
case there is no conviction and the crime remains unpunished. * * *
Perhaps the highest value of criminal statistics consists in the
light they may throw upon the practical effects produced by penal
legislation, by judicial procedure and by the administration
of police and detective officers. For example, within the past
decade, radical changes in the administration of justice have been
established in this country by laws relating to juvenile offenders,
and by the extended use of the suspended sentence and probation. A
question has arisen in many minds whether the severity of the penal
law has not thus been unduly relaxed. It is a matter of supreme
importance to know whether and how far, the tenderness of the modern
law toward children serves to rescue them from a life of crime—to
know whether the clemency of the law toward adults by suspension of
sentence and probation promotes their rehabilitation, and to know to
what class of offenders this clemency may properly be extended—to
know whether these milder methods of treatment are affording adequate
protection to the public or whether sterner measures of restraint and
discipline may be made more effective in repressing crime.
These vital questions can receive final answer only by following the
subsequent career of the offenders to whom these methods are applied
and thus gaining data for statistical tabulation. In the same way,
the virtue of the indeterminate sentence ought to be substantiated by
the statistical test. Statistics can be made to show what class of
crimes comes most frequently before the courts in a given community,
and whether an increase in the severity of punishment tends to
increase or diminish the number of convictions.
A movement is now in progress which may greatly widen the scope of
criminal statistics. It has long been realized that many persons
sentenced for crime are feeble-minded and seriously defective;
mentally and physically but, within the past few years, the
conviction has been growing that our penal system is radically
imperfect in that it provides no adequate means for deciding whether
or not a person on trial for crime is really responsible criminally.
* * *
THE PAROLE SYSTEM IN CANADA
=[In the current annual report of the Minister of Justice as to the
penitentiaries of Canada, appears an interesting account, partly
historical, of the Canadian parole system. We print portions of the
report.]=
Adult criminals seem to have been under a “ticket of leave” system
in England, as far back as the year 1666, in the reign of Charles
II, when a statute was passed, giving judges power of sentencing
offenders to “transportation to any of His Majesty’s dominions in
North America.” This authority was re-affirmed by another statute
passed in the year 1718, during the reign of Charles I. In England
and France, at that time, adult criminals, also juvenile or minor
offenders, were placed on a sort of parole, and given over to
societies, or orders, for supervision, while the state still held
custody of them, which custody was relaxed as the good effects of
their being thus placed became more apparent. The ticket of leave
system grew out of the transportation of criminals by England to her
colonial possessions. Transportation ceased temporarily in 1775,
because of the war with her American colonies, but it was revived in
1786, and a consignment of convicts was also sent in this year to New
South Wales.
The control of this colony was not regulated by statute, but was left
to the wisdom of the colonial governor. The necessity of raising
crops for their sustenance, the construction of buildings, and the
making of homes for the colonists, induced the governor greatly to
modify the sentences of the well-disposed prisoners, that he might
have a needed moral and possibly a physical support from them in his
administration. He set many of them free, and gave them grants of
land, and afterwards assigned to these men, thus free, other convict
laborers who were being received from the mother country. Following
this precedent it became the custom for the governors of different
penal settlements to manage each according to his own ideas, and the
custom developed into granting such liberties as have been included
in the ticket of leave system.
The holder of the ticket of leave, which was granted to the convict
who had satisfactorily fulfilled a certain period of his sentence in
the cellular prisons then adopted in the penal settlements, would
be granted the freedom of the colony during the remainder of his
sentence, but he was placed under certain restrictions, such as
being confined to certain districts unless he received a pass to go
elsewhere, and also being obliged to present himself for inspection
to the authorities monthly, quarterly or yearly, as provided for in
his license, and being prohibited from carrying fire-arms or weapons
of any kind, except under special permission. The ticket of leave was
first legalized during the reign of George IV, between 1820 and 1830,
and in 1834 it was regulated by a statute, which defined the minimum
periods of sentence by which a ticket of leave could be gained.
For example, it required a service of four years for a seven year
sentence, six years for a sentence of eight, and fourteen years for
a life sentence, in what was termed “assigned service or government
employed.” These periods could be increased by the slightest
misconduct on the part of the prisoner.
Under this law a convict who had held a ticket of leave without
having been guilty of misconduct, and who was recommended by
responsible persons in the district where he resided, could have his
application for a full pardon transferred by the governor of the
colony for the consideration of the Crown, but Sir Robert Burke,
in a report made by him in 1838, intimates that convicts were
granted ticket of leave to some extent at the discretion of the
home government upon application of influential persons in England.
Under this system the convict on ticket of leave was entitled to
his earnings. In case of misconduct, the employer could complain to
the nearest magistrate, who could order the convict to be flogged,
condemned to work on the roads, or in the chain gang. Any magistrate
could order 150 lashes, until the year 1858, when the number was
limited to 50. A convict, if ill-treated, might lay a complaint
against his master, but for that purpose he must go before a bench of
magistrates, the majority of whom were owners of convict labor and
masters of assigned convict servants. Such abuses grew up under this
system as to make life a living hell for the convicts.
In the year 1838 a committee of parliament condemned the system of
transportation, with its attached evils, as “being unequal, without
terrors to the criminal classes, corrupting both the criminal and
colonists, and very expensive.” They recommended the establishment of
penitentiaries instead. It was then ordered that no convicts should
be assigned for domestic service, and in the year 1840 transportation
to Australia was stopped entirely.
Another advance was made in the year 1842, which was called the
“probation system.” It was founded on the idea of passing convicts
through various stages of control and discipline, by which it was
hoped to instill a more progressive system for their improvement.
Probation gangs were established in Van Dieman’s Land, through which
all convicts for transportation were to pass. These gangs were
scattered through the colony, and were employed on public works under
the control of the government. A school master or a clergyman was
to be attached to each gang. From the probation gang, the convict
passed into a stage during which he might, with the consent of the
governor, engage in private service for wages, but he was required
to pay the government a part of the wages, which was retained as
security, and forfeited if the convict was guilty of any misconduct.
Next followed a ticket of leave with the same privileges, save that
the freedom of the convict was greatly enlarged. The last stage was
that of a conditional pardon. This probation system failed, as Sir
Edmond Ducaine stated, for several reasons: 1st—that suitable means
were not provided for insuring proper order or discipline in the
probation gang; 2nd—that the officers of the gangs were characterized
by insubordination and vices, unnatural crimes being proven to exist
to a terrible extent; 3rd—that the demand for labor was found to
be very insufficient to employ the ticket of leave portion of the
men, so that idleness soon destroyed all the good that had been
accomplished under the probation system. The difficulty may be summed
up in one or two words—they did not get to the root of the matter
as regards discipline and labor, and there was an entire absence of
mental and moral training.
In the year 1846, Mr. Gladstone decided that all transportation of
convicts to the outside colonies must be suspended, and in 1847 the
present system of imprisonment was adopted, under which convicts
must pass through the prisons before a conditional release will be
granted. Under the present system of penal servitude in England,
there are three distinct stages of operation. During the first, which
generally lasts nine months, recently greatly reduced in number, the
prisoner passes his whole time, except meetings and exercise, in his
cell apart from all other prisoners, working at some employment, but
always kept separate and alone. During the second stage he eats and
sleeps in his cell, but works in association with other prisoners.
During the third period he is conditionally released, but is kept
under the surveillance of the police, reports at stated periods,
and is returned to prison for any infraction of his licence. The
system is altogether automatic in its operation, and as far as I can
ascertain about one-half of the entire number released on ticket of
leave, lapse into crime again.
The “Prevention of Crimes Act” passed in 1871 provides that any
person convicted a second time of an indictable offence may be
sentenced to be subject to the supervision of the police for seven
years after the expiration of his sentence.
The system of conditional liberation was adopted by the king of
Saxony, in 1862. In the same year it was adopted by the grand duchy
of Oldenburg, by the Canton of Sargovie in Switzerland, in 1868; the
kingdom of Servia, in 1869, the German Empire, in 1871, Denmark,
in 1879; the Swiss Canton of Vaud, in 1875, also in the same year,
the Kingdom of Croatia in Hungary, the Canton of Unter Walden, in
1878, the Netherlands, in 1881, the Empire of Japan, in 1882, the
French Republic in 1885, and since these dates it has been adopted
in Austria, Italy and Portugal. The system of parole, or conditional
liberation, is also now in vogue in many of the United States.
The Canadian parole system, first adopted for the penitentiaries in
the year 1899, and since extended to the jails and reformatories,
differs from any system now in operation in the entire world, and
will compare favorably with any of them. There is nothing automatic
in the operation of this system, and it does not conflict with
the remission earned in the penitentiaries, which applies to all
prisoners whose conduct and industry merit consideration.
What, then, is the parole system? I do not like the general term
“ticket of leave,” which has been the outcome of many failures, and
resulted in the abuse of many systems, for the term ticket of leave
is one which handicaps the prisoner who carries this synonym of “jail
bird” printed in large letters on his license, but the word parole,
“my word of honor,” is a much better term, and more within the true
meaning of a conditional release.
It can be said, in view of the various methods adopted in many
countries, that these systems all acknowledge the principle of
conditional liberty to the citizen who has forfeited it by crime, and
that a gradual restoration and rehabilitation is not only feasible,
but is expedient to the higher and best interests of the state. It
is a system which strengthens the weak, and fits them again for
contact with society, and when they are sufficiently strong, restores
them to full liberty and good citizenship. The parole system of
Canada not only gives the released prisoner police supervision,
which is an absolute necessity in keeping in touch with them, but
it makes provision for a parole officer, as Sir Charles Fitzpatrick
demonstrated to the house of parliament, as a “go-between” the police
and the prisoner, giving the prisoner protection, sympathy and care
in a time when he most needs a helping hand.
The parole system came in vogue in Canada under the late Honorable
David Mills, then Minister of Justice, in the year 1899. He was
followed by Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, who not only took a deep
interest in the system, but he placed it on a well-organized plan
of operation, and the present minister of justice, the Honorable A.
B. Aylesworth, has been working out this organization with splendid
success. The minister of justice occupies a unique position, having
at his command the reports from the trial judges, the parole officer,
the wardens and jailors of the institutions and the dominion police,
for the investigation of complex cases. His position is a much
stronger one than that of a “board of pardons,” or any local system
operated in other countries, and it would be a step backward to even
consider an alteration of our Canadian system. The minister of
justice considers every application for a parole on its merits, and
free from local prejudice or influence.
It has also been demonstrated that the Canadian parole system is
working harmoniously with the principles of law and order in every
community in which it is in operation, and that it has never been
governed by that mawkish sentimentality which would convert a
penitentiary into a summer resort, with perfumed baths, carpets,
paintings, or orchestras for the prisoners. The administration
realizes that the inmates are criminals, sentenced to confinement
on account of crime, and to convert a penitentiary into a place of
recreation and amusement would be to pervert the purposes for which
it was instituted. In our Canadian institutions, men are punished
for criminal offences, and on this fact or basis only the mercy of a
parole can be safely administered. One fact I desire to lay stress
upon is that our convicts receive a wholesome, humane treatment which
leads to the beneficial results of our parole system.
As to the results of the parole system since 1899 in Canada, the
following facts are quoted:
Paroles granted from penitentiaries 1,903
Paroles granted from prisons,
jails and reformatories 1,276
————— 3,079
Licenses cancelled 103
Licenses forfeited 62
————— 165
Sentences completed 1,915
Still reporting 999
————— 2,914
THE MASSACHUSETTS PRISON ASSOCIATION
=[From a leaflet just issued by the Massachusetts Prison Association
we take the following facts:]=
The Association was formed in 1899 to enlighten public opinion
concerning the prevention and treatment of crime, to secure the
improvement of penal legislation, and to aid released prisoners in
living honorably. Until the Association was formed, there was no
organization in the state to do the work of “enlightening public
opinion concerning the prevention and treatment of crime.” The
literature of the Association has been distributed widely for
educational purposes. Its annual appeal for Prison Sunday has met
with a response from many churches, and a greatly improved public
sentiment has been developed. During 1910 the Association printed and
distributed 75,000 pages of printed matter. The public press and the
lecture platform has been used also.
Three important changes have been made through the efforts of the
Association, in the probation laws. Arrested persons who, after
investigation by the probation officer, are found to be occasional
offenders, are released from the station, by his direction, with a
warning that a record has been made, and that another offense may be
followed by punishment, 38,813 being so released in 1910. Since the
time available before the opening of the court does not permit a full
investigation of all cases, doubtful ones are sent to the court which
has authority to release the occasional offender without arraignment.
The offender suffers from public exposure in court, but is saved from
the stigma of a trial and conviction; 25,295 were so released in 1910.
Commitment to prison formerly followed immediately after the
imposition of a fine, if it was not paid on the spot. A new law,
secured by the Association, authorizes the court to give a prisoner
time to get his fine. He is placed under the supervision of a
probation officer, to whom he pays the fine. The receipts from fines
collected last year under the suspended sentence amounted to $25,379.
In connection with the abolition or the establishment of correctional
institutions, the Association has succeeded in bringing about
the abolition of the South Boston house of correction, and the
establishment of the Shirley state industrial school for boys, a
reformatory on the farm school plan for boys between the ages of 15
and 18. Through the efforts of the Association probation officers
have been appointed in the superior court. In 1906 the society
played a prominent part in bringing about the treatment of juvenile
offenders as delinquents rather than as criminals. Back in 1900
the Association advocated a bill, which was passed providing for
a central probation bureau. Not until 1908, through another law,
was the principle of this bill put into execution. The Association
secured a law expediting criminal trials by giving the lower courts
jurisdiction over a greater number of offenses.
Recently the society has secured the passage of a law requiring the
state inspectors of health to make an annual inspection of police
stations, lockups and houses of detention, and to make rules for
such places, relative to the care and use of drinking cups, dishes,
bedding and ventilation. The law requires that no such places shall
be built, hereafter, until the plans have been approved by the state
board. A supplementary law extended this provision to jails and
houses of correction.
In the assisting of discharged prisoners the Association has often
filled the place of next friend. In 1910 the Association gave relief
to 335 different men. The receipts of the Association were in 1910
$3,682, and the expenditures, $3,678.
A NEW KIND OF PRISON
At the annual meeting of the American prison association at Omaha,
Mr. W. C. Zimmerman, state architect of Illinois, presented to the
careful scrutiny of most of the principal wardens in the United
States a half-section model of the new cell house which is to be the
unit of construction in the proposed Illinois state prison of which
Mr. Zimmerman is the architect. In view of the novelty of the prison
plan proposed by Mr. Zimmerman and in view furthermore of the general
approval, often enthusiastic, which the wardens gave to the plan and
the model, a brief description is submitted herewith to the readers
of the Review.
At present the prevailing construction of cell blocks in the United
States embodies the following features: (a) the walls of the
building; (b) the corridor next the wall; (c) the cell blocks, which
are back to back, except for the so-called utility corridor which
separate the rows of cells. In short, it is a cell block built within
a building known as the cell house. It is obvious that the natural
light for the cells must come through windows in the wall of the
building.
[Illustration: Half-section Model of Proposed Illinois State Prison
Cell Houses. (See “A New Kind of Prison,” page 7)]
European prison construction is the exact opposite, in that the cells
are built on the “outside” principle, that is, up against the walls
of the cell house. The corridor, therefore, is in the middle of the
cell house and each cell has a room to itself with a barred window to
the outside air.
The “inside” cell construction in the United States has been held
to have several distinct advantages, for the utility corridor,
containing the various pipes, wires, etc., is an economical form of
construction. The cells on the “inside” are furthermore safer in that
the cell door acts as a window and the prisoner in order to escape
must first go through the cell door, then through the wall of the
cell house and then over the wall of the prison grounds.
[Illustration: Plan of Proposed Illinois State Prison. (See “A New
Kind of Prison,” page 7)]
Prisons built on the “inside” plan are strongly criticised because
of the limited amount of direct sunlight and direct fresh air that
may be admitted to the cells. The importance of these two essentials
of life is obvious. A further objection to the “inside” cell plan
is that as the cells have no doors, the acts and the words of one
prisoner can be readily heard or learned throughout a good part of
the cell house. Supervision with either the “inside” or the “outside”
plan is at present carried on through the patrolling of the corridors
by a guard.
The plan evolved by Mr. Zimmerman for the cell house of the new
Joliet prison seemingly overcomes the above objections in a most
careful manner. It is proposed by Mr. Zimmerman to build circular
shaped cell houses about 120 feet in diameter, placing the cells
against the cell house wall and thus assuring direct light and air.
Now comes the novelty. Instead of having an open front of steel
bars, heavy glass will be fitted into the open space between these
bars so as to make a completely closed room out of the cell. A full
view, however, of this room is possible from a central point. This
central point is a steel shaft in the center of the cell house,
enclosing a circular stairway. The stairway will be as high as the
highest tier of cells, and from a position half way up the circular
stairway, which is completely sheathed with steel, the guard within
the “conning tower” has a full view of each and every cell, at the
mere turn of his head. The shaft will be arranged with narrow slots
opposite the level of the eye so that it will be impossible for
inmates to see the guard and impossible to know at what time they are
under observation. The shaft will be bullet proof, which in case of
possible mutiny assures absolute safety for the guard. An armed guard
could undoubtedly from his secure position readily control a mob even
though the mob be fully armed. Entrance to the shaft will be possible
only through a tunnel which opens into the administration building
outside the prison enclosure.
A number of these circular cell houses will be erected as indicated
in the group plan here published. That this arrangement lends itself
most readily to extension is evident.
Another novel feature is the possibility of classification of
prisoners in different groups. Easily moving partitions will be
erected as high as the upper tier of rooms and placed with sufficient
frequency so that no prisoner can see from his cell into that of any
other cell, an arrangement which does not interfere with the view of
the guard in the “conning tower” into any room of the cell house.
Escape seems practically impossible, for the guard in the “conning
tower” will have at his hand a complete system of levers, push
buttons, etc., electrically controlled in such a way that at any time
the locks of any or all of the tiers may be locked or unlocked and
the lights in any or all of the cells may be dimmed or increased.
In order that all rooms may obtain direct sunlight the roof will
be made largely of glass and the diameter of the cell house is
sufficiently large to admit of the shining of the sun into the lowest
tier of rooms facing the north. Most of the rooms will enjoy direct
sunlight at some period of the day through the outside window.
The building of this prison in Illinois will be watched with great
interest by all those in the United States interested in the
construction of prisons and in the proper housing of the delinquent.
The circular form of prison is not entirely new. In 1901 a circular
prison was built in Haarlem, Holland, to accommodate about 400
inmates. The Haarlem prison, however, has wooden doors for each cell
which renders the supervision of the prisoners much more difficult.
The specially new features of Mr. Zimmerman’s plan are the glass
inside front, the circular form of construction, the central stairway
with its “conning tower,” the partition providing for the obstruction
of vision, for the classification of prisoners and the elimination
of a number of the attendants otherwise needed for supervision. Mr.
Zimmerman believes that this cell house can be built for ten per
cent. less than the familiar rectangular cell block.
OUR FIRST ANNUAL MEETING
The first annual meeting of the National Prisoners’ Aid Association
was held at Omaha, Nebraska, on Monday, October 16, while the members
of the Association were in attendance upon the American Prison
Association annual meeting in that city. That the National Prisoners’
Aid Association meeting was encouraging to its members there can be
no doubt. In fact two meetings were held, one an adjourned meeting.
At each meeting from 30 to 40 members were present.
In a report sent out by the secretary to the various prisoners’ aid
societies in the United States, the following paragraphs occur:
Vice President F. Emory Lyon was in the chair. After Mr. Lyon had
stated the purpose of the annual meeting and had outlined briefly the
history of the Association, the Secretary, O. F. Lewis of New York,
was asked to report. The main business presented by Mr. Lewis was the
question of the publication of the Review, a monthly periodical of
sixteen or more pages, which has been published since January, 1911,
in the interest of the National Prisoners’ Aid Association by Mr.
Lewis as editor.
Mr. Lewis showed that the receipts of the Review had been up to the
6th of October $503.67, that the disbursements for the same period
had been $445.97, leaving a balance of $57.70 in the treasury; that
the principal items had been
Printing the Review $388.82
Postage 46.50
Other expenses 10.65
———————
$445.97
Mr. Lewis then raised the question of the continuance of the
publication of the Review. The expression was unanimous that the
Review was a useful paper and should be continued and developed;
that the affiliating societies should so far as possible obtain
contributions and raise their own contributions to the Review; that
the Review should be continued to be published by Mr. Lewis; that the
affiliating societies should furnish more information for the Review
than during the last year. Mr. Lewis on his part stated that he would
gladly continue to be editor of the Review and would do what he could
to obtain further contributions in New York and vicinity.
The meeting then proceeded to consider the nomination and election of
officers for the ensuing year. After a frank and sincere discussion
as to the proportional representation on the board of officers and
executive committee of the various associations represented in the
national association, it was voted on motion of Mr. Lewis that a
nominating committee of five be appointed from the floor and the
following persons were named:
Mr. Parsons of Minnesota, Mr. Lewis of New York, Mr. Cornwall of
Massachusetts, Mr. McClaren of Oregon and Mr. Messlein of Illinois.
The meeting was then adjourned until 5.30 of the same date.
The adjourned meeting of the National Prisoners’ Aid Association was
held at 5.30 P. M., October 16, 1911, at the Hotel Rome, Omaha. Vice
President Lyon in the chair.
The nominating committee brought in the following list of officers
and executive committee for election: President: Judge Carver of
Topeka, Kansas; Vice President: William R. French of Chicago;
Secretary and Treasurer: O. F. Lewis of New York; Executive
Committee: General Edward Fielding, Chicago; F. Emory Lyon, Chicago;
E. A. Fredenhagen, Kansas City; Joseph P. Byers, Newark, N. J.; W. G.
McClaren, Portland, Oregon; R. B. McCord, Atlanta. Georgia; and A. H.
Votaw, Philadelphia, Pa.
On motion of Mr. Fredenhagen, the above persons were elected officers
and members of the executive committee respectively.
A brief discussion followed on methods of supporting the Review.
It was voted that the executive committee of the National Prisoners’
Aid Association should in their discretion ask of the American
Prison Association that the National Prisoners’ Aid Association be
recognized as a section of the American Prison Association, and that
it should have on the program of the 1912 American Prison Association
one of the sessions.
Adjourned at 6:30 P. M.
NEW YORK CITY’S BOARD OF INEBRIETY
The city of New York has taken initial steps to make more adequate
provision for dealing with inebriates and persons arrested for
public intoxication. Following the enactment of a law authorizing
the city to establish such a board, the board of estimate and
apportionment of the city appointed a special committee to inquire
into the feasibility and advisability of undertaking such a work.
As a result of the report of the committee the board of estimate
and apportionment decided to initiate the work. In accordance with
provisions of the law, the mayor appointed a board of five members.
The commissioner of public charities and the commissioner of
correction are ex-officio members of the board.
This board has started its preliminary work. Possible sites for
institutions have been studied and a request for funds for carrying
on the work of the board has been made to the city authorities. In
the budget for the coming year, provision is made for a sufficient
amount of money for the board to secure a secretary and necessary
office assistance. The appointment of a secretary, who can give his
whole time to the work, will enable the board to study the problem
further and formulate more in detail their plans and present them to
the city for its ratification by providing the necessary funds for
carrying them out.
This board has been established to do a most important piece of
work. It will provide not only a hospital and industrial colony for
the care of inebriates, but will establish under its jurisdiction a
system of special probation work for cases of intoxication. The work
of the board will doubtless be watched by persons interested in this
work all over the country. A measure similar to the New York city
law, giving authority to any city of the first or second class in
the state of New York to make provision for the care and treatment
of inebriates, was enacted at the last session of the legislature,
and a committee has been formed in the city of Buffalo to secure the
adoption of the plan in that city.
EVENTS IN BRIEF
=[Under this heading will appear each month numerous paragraphs of
general interest, relating to the prison field and the treatment of
the delinquent.]=
_The American Prison Association._—Under the title, “The Problem of
Prisons.” the Outlook describes thus the recent annual meeting:
“A noteworthy interest in the proper employment of the prisoners
in American prisons, reformatories, and jails was the keynote
of the annual congress of the American prison association held
recently at Omaha. This interest resulted in the appointment of
a special committee, in which the name of the president of the
American federation of labor is found among others, to investigate
thoroughly prison labor conditions in this country and to report
recommendations at the next year’s congress in Baltimore as to the
best labor methods to be pursued in the correctional institutions
of the various states. No more far-reaching action has been taken
by the American prison association in the last decade. The sessions
of the Omaha congress teemed with aspects of the labor problem.
From New Zealand the success of reforestation by prisoners was
reported: from Toronto, the remarkable working of convicts on a wide
prison farm without armed guards. From the District of Columbia
came reports of several successful years of collection of important
sums from convicted offenders on probation, for the benefit and
support of their families. Colorado has built almost half a hundred
miles of state road by prisoners in the open, and other states have
emulated the record. The congress was permeated with the feeling
that prisoners should be steadily and profitably employed, not
exploited by state or corporation or individual, and that so far as
possible the families of prisoners should receive some portion of
their earnings. Two other currents were strongly felt: one for the
rational development of recreation in correctional institutions, the
other for the more careful study of the mental and physical condition
of each inmate. Baseball, lectures, concerts, prison schools, and
other educational features were warmly advocated. Outdoor sports on
a week-end half-day were held to be not only a valuable ‘exhaust
pipe’ for pent-up spirits and emotions developed in a necessarily
abnormal condition of living, but also a distinct part of the plan
of re-creation that is a prominent purpose of imprisonment. As to
mental and physical defectives, the testimony of specialists was
strong, not only that a considerable percentage of prison inmates are
mentally backward and deficient, thus requiring special treatment
rather than ordinary prison discipline, but that many industrial and
living conditions, in which offenders, young and old, have found
themselves, tend predominantly to crime. In several sessions emphasis
was laid also on the deplorable absence of statistics regarding crime
in the United States, it being shown to be impossible to-day to tell
whether crime is increasing or decreasing or what the general results
of imprisonment in prisons or reformatories are. Encouraging indeed
was the frank introspection that the prison wardens and boards of
managers gave to this and their own work. Of special interest was
the report of Attorney-General Wickersham on the success up to the
present time of the parole system for United States prisoners, who
now may be paroled, if first offenders, at the end of a third of
the maximum term of their imprisonment, by the action of a board of
parole consisting of the warden of the penitentiary in which the
prisoner is confined and representatives of the Federal department
of justice. The Attorney-General advocated the extension of the
parole system to cover the cases of life prisoners, details of
administration of which would naturally be worked out in legislation.”
The following officers were chosen:
President—Frederick G. Pettigrove, Boston.
General Secretary—Joseph P. Byers, Newark, N. J.
Financial Secretary—H. H. Shirer, Columbus, Ohio.
Treasurer—Frederick H. Mills, New York city.
* * * * *
_Convicts on Roads._—Warden Wolfer of the Minnesota state prison is
quoted in the Des Moines, Iowa, Capital as follows:
“The use of convicts in building roads is wrong in principle. In
the first place the sight of convicts upon the public highways has
a detrimental effect upon the young people, it is apt to inspire in
them any but the purest of thoughts. But the worst effect is upon the
convict himself. He is subject to public shame and humiliation, and
if he is making an effort to reform, he becomes easily discouraged.
I have no objection to preparing the stone and other materials for
road building by the prisoners, provided it is done within the prison
walls. The talk that the use of convicts upon the highway will
eliminate the conflict between convict labor and free labor does
not prove out. The exhibition of the convict upon the highway only
tends to aggravate the conflict, as it gives the lazy free laborer a
chance to claim that he would work on the roads if it wasn’t for the
convict. It is too expensive a method of road building.”
* * * * *
_The Occoquan Workhouse._—The entire supervision of the District of
Columbia workhouse at Occoquan probably will soon be given to the
Board of Charities. Under the law charitable, correctional, and penal
institutions in the District come under the board’s supervision. The
workhouse will, it is believed, shortly emerge from the engineering
stage and be ready to pass under the control of the board, as is the
jail at present.
* * * * *
_Grim Humor._—The Germans describe that grim humor that emanates from
cynics in distress as “gallows humor.” Here is a bit of it from the
monthly prison paper of the inmates of the Charlestown (Mass.) state
prison. It is a drama synopsis.
Act I. Incarceration
Commutation
On probation
“Fine!”