observation and from conscientious study. The reader will soon perceive
that a judicial treatment is applied to the various questions involved
in dealing with penological problems. Various systems of government
are considered, the differences between the Honor System and the
Self-Government clearly indicated, and valuable suggestions made as to
the classes of prisoners to which the various systems of government may
be adapted. The subjects of Probation and The Indeterminate Sentence
are fairly presented and discussed, the author coming to the conclusion
that the Indeterminate Sentence is far preferable to the determinate
system of the older penology.
The tendency today is to treat the offender in much the same way as
the insane are now treated. Originally these unfortunates were dealt
with as though possessed of demons. Gradually a reform was introduced.
Special institutions were established, and these have been gradually
improved to the extent that such afflicted persons are given such
occupation and such freedom as compatible with safety. The result is
that from 20 to 30 per cent. of them are either released as cured or
may be released under the custodial care of their friends or relatives.
Mr. Lewis holds that the tendency to accord similar treatment after a
careful diagnosis of each case to the delinquent is likely to produce
a similar result. Each offender should be dealt with according to his
special peculiarity, the treatment aiming at the substitution of good
for bad habits, commitment to prison being used when it is not in the
interest of the individual or of society to release the convicted
criminal. Mr. Lewis advocates the retaining of old-established methods
as long as they are of service. These should not be discarded merely
because they are old. He claims that the leaders in the movement agree
that the new methods should be wisely tested before they are introduced
generally. It is clear that there must have been good reasons for
the adoption of any new method, but at the same time he is strongly
in favor of studying the human equation, and of differentiating the
treatment to suit each case.
In order to administer intelligently the large department under
his charge he has “found it necessary to proceed carefully and to
experiment widely before effecting a departure from the well-known
methods of treatment.” The processes as well as the result of Mr.
Lewis’s labors are given in the present volume. In Part I he rehearses
the fundamental social forces upon which one must depend in order to
check the development of the criminal. Among these are the home, the
church, the school, health and sanitation, and the police.
In Part II are outlined the manner of utilizing the forces likely
to improve the offender; in short, all the forces of law, order and
social development in harmonious co-operation. The book is of serious
concern to all interested in social science and in the best means of
encouraging normal growth and development through a study of existing
conditions.
PRISON ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK.
We acknowledge the receipt of the Seventy-second Annual Report of our
sister association in New York. It is a ponderous pamphlet of 648
pages full of information concerning Prison Progress in 1916. This
Association was incorporated in 1846.
Our members will be interested in knowing that their Executive
Committee, like our Acting Committee, has power to examine, and inspect
all prisons of the State. Not only do they have the power but it is
also enjoined upon them as a duty to make such visits and to report
annually to the State Legislature the condition of the prisons and
any circumstances “in regard to them as may enable the Legislature to
perfect their government and discipline.” The charter also provides
that the State shall print 500 copies of this annual report. Many
additional copies are purchased by the Association for general
distribution.
Their working staff contains twenty officers who are engaged in parole
and probation duties, in the work of inspection and research, in
securing employment and in affording relief.
The last 300 pages of this document are devoted to reports of the
inspection of the various prisons of the State. The officers do not
shrink from sharp criticism of undesirable features, and yet their
criticism is of a constructive type. Recommendations are made, and the
progress made since the last inspection is duly credited.
We have also received the Report of the New York State Commission
of Prisons, a bound volume of 592 pages. 328 pages are devoted to
description, recommendations and criticisms connected with the prisons
of the State from the large State Prisons to the small village
lock-ups. This appears to us a duplication of the work of the Prison
Association. Why should there be two organizations doing the same work?
The report of the Prison Association contains much valuable information
with regard to legislation both recent and proposed, and to the
success of the reformatory measures recently introduced into their
penal system. Those who desire copies of the report may write to this
Association at 135 E. 15th St., New York City.
NEW JERSEY PRISON INQUIRY COMMISSION.
This Commission was appointed according to the provisions of a bill
of the legislature of the State passed in January, 1917. By January
1, 1918, the Commission had prepared an elaborate report of 822 pages
giving a history and description of the prisons and penal methods of
the State, and also presenting their recommendations.
The historical record in general indicates a series of failures rather
than of successes in penal administration. The so-called “Pennsylvania
system,” the “Auburn Plan,” the method of contract labor, the State-Use
plan, the Parole work, the efforts at Reformation, the partisan Boards,
all have their share of more or less condemnation.
The student of penology, however, will discover in this record
encouraging tendencies which may ultimately bring about a higher type
of treatment of those who go astray.
The Commission believes in giving the largest opportunities for work
in the open air and regards with detestation the “_vicious rule of
silence_.”
Their discussion with regard to the merits and demerits of a Central
Board of Control of all correctional institutions is deeply interesting
and illuminating. They have come to the conclusion that a “system may
be devised which will give to the State of New Jersey the benefits of
a centralized control of its correctional system as a whole, but which
will still leave to the separate institutions the advantages of the
personal interest and devotion which have been such important factors
in their development.” To accomplish this purpose, they recommend
the appointment of a Central Board by the Governor, who without
compensation, shall have a general power of supervision and visitation
of all correctional institutions. The local boards are to be continued
with authority to manage the several institutions to which they are
attached.
The principal recommendation of this Commission is to advise the
appointment of this Central Board with whom should be vested the power
to readjust, harmonize and improve the entire penal system of the State.
BILIBID.
As we are going to press, there comes to hand a little pamphlet
describing the industries and production of Bilibid.
Why not send our wardens who desire to do things to Bilibid? Perhaps,
it would be better to send our legislators, who after observing the
practical achievements of Bilibid may be induced to authorize our
wardens to inaugurate a sound industrial policy.
Where is Bilibid? Take the train for San Francisco, engage passage on
some leviathan of the deep and get off probably at the second station
which is Manila. Thence it is a short excursion to Bilibid, a trip
taken by twenty thousand visitors in a single year, not to mention
those who take involuntary trips thither.
Forty buildings, seventeen acres of ground, plan of main building like
Eastern Penitentiary, one of the best ever constructed if we consider
continual inspection as an essential factor. 2800 prisoners there; as
many others in prisons elsewhere in the islands but all co-ordinated
under a central administration.
The great aim is to prepare the inmates for “honorable position in the
community upon their release.”
The men work and play. We enumerate some of the industries.
1. Manufacture and repair of carriages, wagons, carts, trucks,
trailers, etc.
2. Household and Office Furniture made of mahogany and other native
beautiful woods.
3. Concrete work, construction of buildings.
4. Rattan and bamboo furniture. The famous fan-back chair.
5. Hand-wrought articles in silver, gold and other metals; shell-work,
horn specialties.
6. Tailoring. Service uniforms.
7. Steam laundry. All the work for the inside and a “considerable
civilian trade.”
8. Embroidery, lace making, crochet organized for the female department.
Output per annum $350,000
Profit for the government 100,000
There are two penal colonies on large tracts of land, on one of which
the 1200 colonists practically have a government of their own.
The San Remon Farm is where the non-Christian convicts from Moroland
are confined. These war-like people have admirable qualities when
treated properly, and three-fourths of the inmates are at work on the
extensive farm without the presence of an armed guard. Here is found
the model prison of the Orient. “Built of reinforced concrete, with
grilled walls, dormitories, shower baths, and with every modern feature
for the comfort, health and reformation of prisoners confined there,
it has proved a wonderful educational institution for the Moro.” The
entire credit for this building and the admirable system is due to the
genius and sagacity of the former governor, General John J. Pershing.
EMPLOYMENT OF PRISONERS FOR THE GOVERNMENT.
Early in last July, a very earnest assemblage of wardens and
superintendents of prisons, and members of the American Prison
Association held a conference in Washington with a view of mobilizing
the prison industries so as to be helpful to the government in these
times of scarcity of labor.
There were forty delegates in attendance, mainly appointed by the
Governors of twenty-two States.
After discussions lasting for several sessions, the Conference was
unanimous in making certain recommendations.
1. Already the penal institutions possess enormous acreage. If the
government will accept the product, the crops may be greatly increased.
Over a half million acres are available and 75,000 workers.
2. In many States, where the law permits, selected inmates can be
paroled to labor for farmers at reasonable wages. Extensive development
of this method is possible.
3. Many of the prisons support industries the outcome of which may
be very serviceable. Among the chief industrial products are socks,
shirts, underwear, blankets, mattresses, boots and shoes, overalls,
harness, and army and navy equipment.
4. The executive order of 1905, providing that no prison-made goods
shall be purchased by the National Government, ought at once to be
rescinded.
5. “We are convinced that a very large majority of the inmates of our
prisons and reformatories are ready and earnestly desirous of ‘doing
their bit’ for the country.”
To accomplish these results, a bill has been introduced in the U. S.
Senate (S. 3076) and in the House of Representatives (H. R. 7353) whose
purpose is to utilize the labor of Federal and other prisoners in
manufacturing government supplies.
The prices paid are to be the market prices current in same locality
for same commodities.
The hours of labor are to be the same as the time prevalent in the same
vicinity for the same sort of labor.
The same rate of wages is to be paid to the prisoners, subject to the
necessary deduction for maintenance.
This means that the goods purchased by the United States from the
prisons shall be made by labor which is on a par with outside labor.
No goods are to be purchased by the Government from “any private person
or companies using the labor” of convicts. Thus the Government utters
its protest against any form of “contract labor.”
The Acting Committee of The Pennsylvania Prison Society has urged the
early passage of this bill.
A FEAST OF REASON AND A FLOW OF SOUL.
Within the last two years, in the Empire State, some prison officials
and students of penology have occasionally met for an informal
conference on methods of penal management. No reporters attend, they
have no Secretary, there are no restrictive features, the discussions
are frank, free and open. They have been held at some one of the
institutions, and so the visitors have opportunity to observe from the
inside the methods and employments of the prison where the meetings may
be held.
Those who attend these conferences are the guests of the institution
which is visited. They have been held at the Elmira Reformatory, at
Great Meadow, at Blackwell’s Island and possibly at one or two other
prisons.
Last summer it was the good fortune of the Secretary to have the
privilege of attending the meeting held at Great Meadow at Comstock,
N. Y. Perhaps there were fifty ladies and gentlemen in attendance,
among whom were Jas. M. Carter, Superintendent of Prisons for the State
of New York; Warden Trombly, of Danemora; William George, founder of
the school which bears his name; ex-Warden Geo. W. Kirchwey, O. F.
Lewis, Secretary of the New York Prison Association; Miss Katherine B.
Davis, Commissioner of Parole and Probation, New York City, and various
officials connected with the New York City prisons and other penal
institutions of the State.
Arriving at Comstock the guests were met by our genial host, Warden
Homer, whose conveyances soon brought us to the Administration
Building. There were excursions about the big farm and the various
buildings. Bounteous meals were served under a tent on the grounds
of the shady lawn. The ladies were lodged in the administration
building. It was at one time supposed that the gentlemen would occupy
cells in the regular prison department, but for some reason this very
interesting proposition was relinquished, and a garage was converted
into an airy dormitory for the accommodation of the gentlemen.
Prisoners brought iron bedsteads and bedding and nothing was omitted
for the comfort of the guests. A shower bath was improvised, and in the
morning the barber and the shoe polisher appeared with all the proper
accoutrements.
The guests arrived on Friday morning and departed the next afternoon.
There were three informal meetings, at which a variety of penological
subjects were both lightly and profoundly discussed. Proceedings are
not to be published, hence there is no feeling of restraint.
The writer trusts he will not violate the confidence of his friends if
he may refer to one or two points in the discussion.
One of the prisoners on the farm--by the way an ex-member of the
New York State Legislature--addressed the company in emphatic
recommendation of The Honor System as employed by Warden Homer. He
stated that the prisoners there did not care for any extension of the
self-government plan. He was sure that Warden Homer could govern them
better than they could govern themselves. They were as comfortable as
any persons restrained within limits could be supposed to be. They knew
they could get a “square deal” from Warden Homer, and they did not care
to shift the responsibility of government to any other shoulders.
An enthusiastic supporter of the self-government system was rather
inclined to look with disfavor on a benevolent despotism, such as
the system now in vogue at Great Meadow. The persons so governed
lost initiative and the power of thinking for themselves. They had
no opportunity of profiting by their own mistakes. They became mere
puppets, and were not learning the practical lessons which would fit
them for the life outside.
The company listened with interest to an expert dietitian who spoke
of the crude and ragged methods of preparing food in the penal
institutions. Sufficient food was provided as a rule, but it was ruined
in the preparation.
Mentally, morally, socially and gastronomically, we may state, the
meeting was a success.
Last October we enjoyed a similar conference at Sleighton Farm, Pa.,
and we know of no reason why the experiment may not be repeated in this
commonwealth.
The Secretary is willing to suggest that there are in Pennsylvania
several country clubs where such a conference would be welcomed. He
is willing to mention The Reformatory at Huntingdon with its splendid
farm, the beautiful campus of the School at Morganza, the Workhouse
at Holmesburg and Hoboken, and the magnificent State Prison Farm at
Bellefonte. Perhaps Warden John Francies would prefer to receive us
when his institution is nearer completion.
When the invitation comes from any of the institutions mentioned, there
will be a response.
A. H. V.
UTILIZATION OF PRISON LABOR.
BY H. H. HART
(Suggestions to West Virginia)
With the tremendous demand for war supplies in addition to the ordinary
demand for domestic uses; with the cessation of immigration which for
150 years has poured a steady stream of fresh laborers into the United
States; and with the immediate diversion of a million men, and perhaps
four or five millions, to the trade of war, we are confronted with a
scarcity of labor which compels us to utilize every available worker to
the limit of his reasonable capacity.
Able-bodied men, working under skilled direction and thorough system,
without loss of time from drink, strikes or voluntary holidays, ought
to earn more than their board and clothes. In the present state of the
labor market it is possible for prisoners, under proper circumstances,
to earn two dollars per day. In Vermont prisoners from the common jail
are earning two dollars per day on the adjacent farms. In Windham
county, Connecticut, prisoners are actually earning $2.50 per day at
common labor, and at Wilmington, Delaware, short-term prisoners are
earning $1.20 per day....
In those counties where the jail prisoners are not employed, we would
suggest the adoption of the Vermont plan under which the jailer finds
employment for individual prisoners with a nearby farmer who pays for
their labor at the ordinary rate for free labor. The prisoner sleeps at
the jail and has his breakfast and supper there--two good hearty meals.
He goes out in the morning, carrying a dinner bucket, and returns at
night. If the distance is too great the farmer sends for him by team
or automobile. If the prisoner fails to make good or tries to run
away, the farmer notifies the sheriff promptly, who sends a deputy
sheriff after him. The reports from Vermont, Connecticut, Delaware and
Wisconsin, where this plan prevails, show very few escapes. No guard
is necessary, as the farmer looks after the prisoners, and thus the
overhead charges are done away with.
Thomas J. Tynan, of the Colorado State Penitentiary, wrote recently
as follows: “We are now doing work to the value of $2.50 per day by
prisoners on the highway at a cost to the taxpayers of the State not to
exceed 40 cents per day. The State could well afford to pay a little
wage besides the good time allowance.”
The difference between the old system and the new system lies chiefly
in the manner of dealing with the prisoners. Under the new plan an
appeal is made to the prisoner’s honor and good will. After being
tested within the walls, he is permitted to join a company of workers
outside the wall on his promise of good work and good behavior, and on
his promise not to run away. The prisoners work without chains, and
the guards in many cases carry no firearms. Testimony comes from Ohio,
from Oregon, from Colorado, from Wisconsin, from Connecticut and from
Canada that prisoners--even low-grade prisoners and negroes--respond
surprisingly to this treatment; that escapes are few, and that there is
a great improvement in the industry and efficiency of the prisoners.
The incentive to the prisoners to make good is partly an increased
allowance for good time; partly, in some States, a small cash wage;
partly the desire of the prisoners for the freer life outside the
walls, and partly a response to the confidence shown in them by their
officers.
Success in employing prisoners on the roads by modern methods depends
first upon finding a road manager who is interested in his men and
believes in the possibility of exciting their interest and loyalty for
the work. It depends, second, upon creating such living and working
conditions as will keep the men fit for a good day’s work. That means
good food, good cooking, comfortable sleeping quarters, opportunity for
proper recreation, good laundry work and bathing facilities, and, above
all, the treatment of the prisoners by their officers as reasonable
human beings.
The plan of roadside camps, portable cages, chain gangs, ignorant and
cruel guards armed with shotguns and discretionary power will not
secure cheerful and efficient work.
THE INDIANA PENAL FARM.
[This article, by Henry A. Montgomery, Staff Correspondent of the
_Detroit News_, was incited by the plan of Detroit to build a large
and expensive House of Correction. What other communities or States
are doing will be told by Mr. Montgomery.]
GREENCASTLE, IND., March 13.--“Reform them? No, you don’t reform
them. You can’t change a man’s real nature. But lots of them are not
naturally bad. We get the alcohol out of their systems, give them all
they can eat, make them keep regular hours and do a man’s work, and the
good in them has a chance to show itself.”
That is the way Charles E. Talkington, superintendent of the Indiana
State Farm, defined reformation.
The farm is situated in some of the most beautiful farming country in
western Indiana, about midway between Indianapolis and Terre Haute. The
site selected for the colony is particularly well adapted to the needs
of a penal institution, being rich in its deposits of limestone, having
plenty of tillable soil and considerable timber. The beautiful hills
and deep ravines lend the tract beauty and make it possible for the
landscape gardener with little effort to make it look like the estate
of a wealthy landowner. Although general farming is engaged in, the
products of the garden form so great a share of the subsistence of the
men that this has developed into one of the most important features of
the work. When present plans have been realized there will be at least
160 acres devoted exclusively to gardening.
It’s an unusual sight that one encounters on arriving at the top of the
long hill where is built the little village, the home of the 700 social
misfits. Two rows of long, squat frame buildings form the “street”
of this strange town. Nobody would guess from the appearance of the
buildings what they were intended for. They resemble the Billy Sunday
tabernacle type of structure. There is nothing attractive about them,
but they are temporary quarters and they are serving their purpose well.
The first of these buildings is the office and sleeping apartments of
the officers. It is here that the prisoner is first taken. His history
is recorded, he is subjected to a medical examination, his clothes are
fumigated and stored away for his use when he is released, and he is
given a bath, shave and haircut, and a suit of clothes. The clothes
consist of the heavy working jacket and trousers, underclothing and
corduroy cap.
The first interview with the prisoner is considered important. The
assistant superintendent gives him detailed instructions as to his own
conduct and tells him with great care about the theories that are being
worked out. The number of men who, immediately following this talk, are
placed on their honor and given as much freedom as it is possible to
give is remarkable. Few of them violate the trust.