PENAL METHODS IN THE UNITED STATES
No common system--Each state takes care of prisoners in its own
way--Prisons under the control of the general government--Lack of
system not altogether without advantage--The "Pennsylvania System"
_versus_ the "Auburn System"--Other prisons--Convict _versus_ free
labour--Prison newspapers--The Elmira Reformatory--Similar
experiments in other states--Obstacles to prison
improvement--Institutions for juvenile offenders--Children's
courts--Advantages and disadvantages of juvenile
institutions--Interesting experiments.
There is no prison system common to the whole United States. Each of the
forty-six states and the territories as well deals with its prisoners in
its own way. The United States has two great prisons, one at Fort
Leavenworth, Kansas, and the other at Atlanta, Georgia, besides a small
one in the state of Washington, in which some of the offenders against
the general government are confined, but the greater number of Federal
prisoners are confined in state prisons by special arrangement with the
state authorities. The general government, however, prescribes rules and
regulations for the treatment of Federal prisoners, but has no authority
whatever over the state prisoners confined, perhaps, in the same
building.
Naturally conditions vary in different states and often in different
prisons in the same state. Few states have a Department of Correction,
and usually each prison is in the charge of a separate board, appointed
either by the governor or the state legislature. The county jails in
which short term prisoners or offenders awaiting trial are confined are
almost invariably under the management of the local authorities and the
condition of many is deplorable. Some state prisons are models in
construction, sanitation, and government, and challenge comparison with
the best in Europe. Others are poorly constructed, overcrowded, badly
kept and worse governed. Conditions depend entirely upon the state of
the public conscience and the sense of responsibility prevailing in the
jurisdiction. Manifestly it is difficult to make general statements of
American policy in penology.
Yet this very diversity has its advantages. While because of the lack of
a uniform system, the prisons in some states are worse than they would
be under general laws, still the various states are constantly
experimenting. A new idea in prison construction, or a new method of
government, will be tried in some state, by an officer who has been able
to convince his board of governors of its practicability. A general
board or commissioner would be less likely to interfere with the
existing order. This very fact of independent jurisdictions is
responsible for much of the American progress exhibited particularly in
reformatory institutions.
A rough classification as to methods shows four different systems of
dealing with felons. These are first, the cellular or separate; second,
the congregate; third, the reformatory; fourth, the convict lease
system. In addition there is a multitude of institutions organised to
deal with the youthful offender, variously known as juvenile asylums,
protectories, training schools, etc. Among them all there is much
variation.
The only prison of the cellular type now existing in the United States
is the Eastern Penitentiary of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia which was
opened in 1829, though Walnut Street jail had in 1790 cells designed for
solitary confinement. This prison is built in the form of a star with
galleries radiating from a central hall. Most of the galleries are only
one story, though a few are two. The architecture was probably borrowed
from the prison of Ghent designed by Vilian, and begun in 1771.
Each prisoner is assigned to a large cell averaging in size perhaps
sixteen by eight feet and twelve to fifteen feet in height. A yard about
the same size open to the sky adjoins the cell and prisoners are allowed
to take exercise for a specified time daily. Each cell contains the
necessary furniture for a bedroom, including an electric light, a water
tap and sanitary conveniences.
In theory the prisoner is confined in this cell without intercourse
with any other prisoners, from his entrance until the sentence has
expired. He sees and speaks only with prison officers or instructors,
including the chaplain. He lives, works, eats, and sleeps in his cell.
No machinery or at least none that can not be introduced into the cells
is allowed in the prison. The prisoners make shoes, clothes, shirts,
cigars, stockings, etc. A specified amount is expected from each
prisoner and any greater production is credited to him. One half of the
surplus goes to the county from which he was sentenced, and the other
half may be spent for tobacco or other permitted luxuries, or may be
sent to his family.
The results, according to Michael J. Cassidy, warden for many years, are
exceedingly satisfactory. The first offenders are not corrupted by older
prisoners and there is almost no question of discipline. There are few
punishments. If a prisoner is not dressed when his breakfast is brought
he may lose his meal, or if the utensils presented to be filled are not
clean, the officer may in his discretion refuse to place the food in
them. In rare cases the prisoner is deprived of work which has been
found to be the most serious punishment of all. There are no dark cells,
and corporal punishment is not employed.
Mr. Cassidy emphatically denies that the system causes insanity or that
serious physical injury follows, and on the other hand declares that the
reformatory results obtained are greater than in other prisons. About
seventy-five per cent. of the first offenders do not appear again and
four per cent. of the habitual criminals reform. The results in his
judgment justify the greater cost of the system compared with the Auburn
or congregate system of which more will be said.
Though the idea put into execution at Philadelphia was not new the
prison has been often visited and the "Pennsylvania system" as it is
called, (though the Western Penitentiary at Allegheny is organised on
the congregate system) has been widely copied, chiefly in Europe. In the
United States it has been tried and abandoned in New Jersey, Rhode
Island, Virginia, Maryland, and to a limited extent in New York, partly
on account of the expense and partly because of doubts as to its
humanity. On the other hand the system was adopted in Belgium in 1838,
in Sweden in 1840, in Denmark in 1846, and to a limited extent by other
countries. Pentonville in England is modelled after this prison, as are
also Mountjoy in Dublin, and the Antrim jail in Belfast in Ireland.
The great majority of the prisons of the United States are organised
according to the "Auburn" or congregate system. Here the prisoners are
confined in separate cells at night, but work during the day in large
workshops, supposedly in silence. The New York state prison at Auburn
was organised in 1816. For a considerable time it was under the charge
of Elam Lynds, formerly a captain in the army, and a strict
disciplinarian. He was able to preserve almost absolute silence in the
workshops, using corporal punishment if necessary. His success while
preserving at the same time the general good will of his charges is
another striking illustration of the fact that a good man can make any
system work.
Though the system was not original with Auburn, the plan of organisation
has passed into prison history by that name, and violent controversies
have raged between the partisans of the opposing ideas. To it has been
added since the organisation, the system of classification of prisoners,
of good conduct marks, and of shortening sentences by good behaviour,
which is in force in many states. In some states the indeterminate
sentence which first was applied only in the reformatories has been
extended to certain classes of offenders confined in state prisons.
The general regulations applying to the prisons in New York state,
including Auburn, Sing Sing, at Ossining, Clinton, etc., are practically
the same. The prisoner is assigned on entering to certain work depending
upon his physique, intelligence and previous training. The efficient
prison book-keeper at Sing Sing a few years ago was a convict, and the
chief clerk for the superintendent of industries was also a convict.
The regulations provide for lights in the cells until ten o'clock, and
for the use of the prison library. A letter may be written once a month
and all proper letters received at the prison will be delivered after
examination. The prisoner may also receive a visit of a half hour's
duration in presence of a keeper once in two months and at the same
intervals a box of proper eatables may be received from friends, or
purchased from private funds. For breach of the prison regulations, a
prisoner may lose a part of the time which would otherwise be gained by
good behaviour, and may lose his privilege of receiving visitors.
Serious infractions are punished by confinement in a dark cell, and in
spite of the regulations, by physical punishment in many cases.
Formerly the labour of the convicts was contracted to outside parties at
a fixed price for each individual. While the contractors were not
supposed to inflict punishment, by bribing prison officials the
reluctant were forced to do the amount of work required. Undoubtedly
there were grave abuses. Some convicts were worked beyond their strength
to satisfy the greed of the contractor. During this period there was a
stone shed, a foundry, a hat shop, a file shop and a laundry, all of
which paid good profits to the contractors, and from a financial
standpoint were advantageous to the state.
The prejudice against this form of convict labour was sufficient in 1887
to cause the passage of a law absolutely forbidding contract labour. At
the same time an appropriation was made to purchase the plants then
existing and continue them on the state account. The results were not
satisfactory, especially as another law later required all goods
manufactured to be stamped "prison made." The labour unions continued to
object to the competition of convicts with free labour and by a
constitutional amendment adopted in 1896, it was finally forbidden. For
a time the prisoners were idle, but shortly they were ordered to
manufacture so far as possible goods required by other public
institutions, and these institutions on the other hand were ordered to
submit all lists of supplies desired to the prisons, in order that they
might have the opportunity of furnishing them.
Since that time, the prisoners have been partially employed in
manufacturing stone, knit goods, clothing, furniture, window sash,
shoes, etc., but the demand is not sufficient to require full work, and
the system is wasteful and uneconomic. The management is not stimulated
to do its best and little or no attempt is made to keep the men from
loafing. The system furnishes sufficient physical exercise but no
training in systematic work which will be of value when the prisoner is
released.
At Sing Sing prison the prisoners publish a paper, the _Star of Hope_
written and printed entirely by themselves, and a few other prisons also
issue papers. The founder of the paper has since his release published
an interesting book giving his experiences and his views upon matters of
prison discipline and government.[2] Speaking of the contributors to
the paper he says: "Nor was the literary tone of the paper at all
despicable. It would have been quite possible to make it more elaborate
and dignified, for there was no end of talent available, but the aim
held in view was to make it representative.... Poetry was the favourite
medium employed by the contributors, and I suppose the _Star of Hope_
printed and still prints more and worse verse than any other publication
in the world."
The question of prison labour has been a serious one in many states. All
agree that the convict must work for his own sake, and yet the
objections to placing his products in competition with free labour have
been loud and strong. In some states the labour unions have also
objected to the policy of teaching trades at the expense of the state,
claiming that in this way the offender is given a decided advantage over
the youth who has kept within the law.
Prison managers have been at their wits' end to find work to which
objections would not be made. In San Quentin prison, California, the
convicts work in a jute mill and at crushing stone for roads. The
alleged monopoly price for sacks demanded by the few jute mills in the
country has been lowered by prison competition, and the farmers approve.
On the other hand, the labour performed while in prison has little
relation to outside employment. In the Minnesota state prison, the
manufacture of binding twine for cereal crops was begun to break down
an alleged monopoly. North Carolina, and perhaps other states, use the
labour of a large number of their convicts in agriculture. Here the
product of convict labour is so small a proportion of the total product
that the price received by free labour is hardly affected at all, and no
objection has been made.
The larger number of the prisons which still engage in manufacturing are
organised on the "piece-price" system, _i. e._ materials are furnished
and a price as nearly as possible what must be paid to free labour is
charged for each unit of product. By this method the abuses of contract
labour, and the wastefulness of the state account system are avoided.
There are in the United States few great prisons which are known to all.
The best known are of course those of states which contain large cities;
first, because a larger number of the more notorious criminals come from
the cities, and second, because the city newspapers give a larger
proportion of their space to criminal news than do the journals of the
smaller municipalities. Besides those already mentioned, other well
known prisons are at Joliet, Illinois; Trenton, New Jersey; Columbus,
Ohio; Baltimore, Maryland, and on Blackwell's Island in New York City.
The reformatory system of the United States strictly speaking began with
the organisation of the Elmira Reformatory at Elmira, New York, in
1876, which was largely due to the efforts of Rev. E. C. Wines, who
gave his life to the improvement of prison conditions, and to Dr.
Theodore W. Dwight. They were much interested in the success of Colonel
Montesinos, Captain Maconochie and Sir Walter Crofton abroad, and drew
up a plan which was adopted by the legislature in 1869. The institution
was to be distinctly reformatory, and sentences were to be
indeterminate.
It was opened for reception of offenders between sixteen and thirty
years of age in 1876 under the superintendency of Z. R. Brockway who has
given to the institution its peculiar character. The statistics kept for
a number of years show that sixty-seven per cent. of those entering are
illiterate, that eighty-nine per cent. have no trade, and that more than
sixty-eight per cent. do not have what could be classed as good
physiques, and a considerable number may be classed as degenerates.
Further ninety-eight per cent. are committed from the cities.
Effort is made to develop the inmates on all sides. Athletic training,
gymnastic work and military drill are required. Attention is given to
baths, massage, and diet. Instruction in the common branches is given,
and there are frequent lectures, and entertainments. Debating societies
are organised and every effort is made to turn the misdirected energy
into saner channels. At the same time a part of every day is spent in
the shops and the rudiments of trades are taught.
The inmates are divided into four grades with different privileges.
Conduct marks based upon performance of duty, cleanliness, progress,
etc., are given, and promotion to a higher or removal to a lower grade
depend upon the prisoner's record. When a boy or young man has been in
the upper first grade for six months he becomes a candidate for release
on parole. If his record is good for six months after leaving the
Reformatory he is usually discharged.
The officers claim that the institution has been an unqualified success,
that out of five thousand discharged only three hundred and sixty-five
were returned, and that about eighty-two per cent. of those committed
are permanently reformed. On the other hand the officers of the regular
prisons declare that their prisons are full of "Elmira graduates," and
the state has built another institution at Napanoch which is to receive
the more incorrigible material from Elmira, and with sterner measures
again attempt reformation.
A number of states have adopted the system wholly or in part, including
Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, Kansas
and South Dakota. The degree of success has varied with the
superintendent. The most interesting experiment is perhaps the
Massachusetts Reformatory for women at Sherborn.
This institution for several years seemed on the point of failure, owing
partly to the management and partly to the fact that sentences were too
short. Finally a woman of strong character, and broad sympathies, Mrs.
Ellen C. Johnson, was induced to take charge and success appears to have
followed her efforts. The general plan is the same as at Elmira, except
that restraint is not so prominent. The large majority of the
commitments are the result of intemperance and unchastity, and
undoubtedly mother love plays a part in drawing back the inmates from
improper or immoral lives. Inmates released on parole are in demand as
domestics, and in many cases give entire satisfaction.
The fourth plan mentioned in the classification, the convict lease
system, now exists in only a few states, chiefly in the South. Under
this system convicts are leased to work in gangs outside the prison
walls at mining, railroad and turnpike building, canal cutting and
similar employments. The contractor pays the state a fixed sum per head
for the convicts, feeds, clothes and guards them. Their management is in
his hands, restrained in some degree by the continuous or intermittent
presence of a state inspector. The work is generally laborious, the
intelligence of the labourers is low and they are disposed to shirk. The
contractor desires to make a profit and generally works the unfortunates
to the limit of their endurance, clothing and feeding them as poorly as
he dares. Almost unbelievable brutality has occurred in these convict
camps, ending in many cases in the death of stubborn or rebellious
individuals. A partially awakened public conscience no longer permits
former abuses but disgraceful conditions are still periodically brought
to light.
The authorities responsible for the leases excuse or defend them on the
following grounds. They say that a large majority of the leased convicts
are negroes of an order of intelligence so low that they can be utilised
only to a limited extent in any work performed in the prison; that
confinement without labour is regarded as rather pleasant than
otherwise, as imprisonment in itself means to them little or no
disgrace; that the labour is of the same kind at which they would be
employed, if free. Therefore the state must support in idleness without
punitive effect a large number of offenders, or else lease their labour
outside the prison walls. While all these statements are in a measure
true, it may well be doubted whether any state is ever justifiable in
surrendering the guardianship of its own delinquents.
The two great obstacles in the way of prison improvement in the United
States are parsimony and politics. Though the cost of some prisons is
excessive the money is not always wisely spent. The salaries paid are
seldom high enough to secure men of a high type of intelligence and
character, for the subordinate positions at least. There are few men who
are fitted for the work who are willing to take the places with the low
salaries and uncertain tenure of office. In many cases attendants and
keepers are ignorant and brutal and by their defects neutralise any
reformatory effect.
This brings us to the second great evil; politics. Usually the higher
positions at least in the prisons are regarded as a part of the
patronage of the party in power. Appointments of superintendents,
wardens and other officers are too often made with more regard to
political expediency than to fitness. The rule is not universal. As
mentioned above Mr. Cassidy of Philadelphia and Mr. Brockway of Elmira
held their places regardless of political changes, but many men have
been removed, just when they were beginning to become really efficient.
Where civil service rules are applied to the lower positions it has been
charged that the result has been rather to protect the inefficient, than
to secure satisfactory service.
Institutions for the control and discipline of delinquents under sixteen
years of age exist by the score. Some are under the control of the
different religious denominations, as for example the Catholic
Protectory in New York, while others are supported by private
contributions or by the city or state. Street waifs without parents or
with drunken or immoral parents may be committed by the courts, rather
than to regular orphan asylums if they have shown vicious traits or are
considered incorrigible. A parent who is unable to control a son or
daughter, by making an affidavit to that effect before the proper
officer, may secure admission for the child to some institutions.
The larger number of children committed however have broken the law. If
sent to prison to associate with hardened criminals they are almost
certain to become habitual criminals themselves, while discharge with a
reprimand may be regarded by the boys themselves as weak leniency, and
may cause contempt for the law. In some American cities, special
children's courts are organised to take charge of complaints against
children. Where the judges have that indescribable combination of
qualities which gives influence over boys, they have been successful
without resorting to confinement. A striking example is Judge Ben. B.
Lindsay of Denver, Colorado, whose court has been widely described.
Attempts by others to copy his methods have failed. When ordinary judges
without particular sympathy or qualifications are assigned in turn to
the courts, there seems to be little advantage in the organisation.
Conditions however are so chaotic, that it is impossible to pass a
judgment worth while.
The purposes of such institutions may be stated as the following: to
inculcate respect for authority and create the habit of obedience; to
impart the rudiments of education, to form habits of industry, to impart
moral instruction. Some in addition teach or begin to teach trades. In
the execution of these aims, we have very diverse organisations. Some of
the institutions are in effect prisons, with walls, bars and guards.
Others apparently exercise no more restraint than is seen in an ordinary
boarding school. It is true that it is not entirely easy to leave the
dormitory without detection, and that generally while at work or at play
the inmates are under some sort of supervision, but the idea of
restraint is not made prominent.
Another interesting experience is the George Junior Republic at
Freeville, New York. Here a miniature state is organised with
legislative, executive and judicial departments. So far as practicable,
all offices are filled by inmates, with the idea that responsibility
will bring out the better qualities. The plan has not been widely
adopted, however, and the institutions are generally organised as
schools.
Some of the more successful of this sort are the school at Glen Mills,
Pennsylvania, at Golden, Colorado, at Lancaster, Ohio, and at Dobbs
Ferry, New York. The Jackson Training School at Concord, North Carolina,
organised on the plan of the Glen Mills school, has seemed to show that
the same methods successful in an urban commonwealth are equally
successful in a semi-rural state.
A large proportion of the children are orphans or half-orphans, and a
larger proportion have been habitual truants. The average of energy and
intellect is higher than will be found in an ordinary school. Sometimes
it is their excess of energy that has caused their transgression. When
subjected to discipline and compelled to attend school, many make rapid
progress and also acquire a sense of order and self-respect. On the
other hand in very large institutions an unexpected danger has arisen.
The manifold disciplinary influences have taught them obedience and
industry but have at the same time deprived them of initiative. They
have become "institutionalised" and find difficulty in adjusting
themselves to life outside. They require constant direction.
For the purpose of avoiding this danger, the newer institutions are
organised upon the "cottage plan." Instead of large dormitories, small
houses, each under the charge of an officer and his wife, are built to
accommodate twenty to forty boys. These are grouped around the
administration building and the workshops. The results seem to show a
great gain over the old methods but no one is yet ready to say that the
ideal has been attained. Nevertheless, it can be said without fear of
contradiction that the institutions for the training of juvenile
offenders are more successful than any other part of the disciplinary
and penal systems of the United States.
The combat of crime may be adjudged to have entered upon its latest
stage by the acceptance of the more enlightened principles daily gaining
attention in the most civilised countries. The treatment most in favour
is preventative rather than punitive, which is considered at once the
humane and efficacious method of dealing with crime. It is now being
attacked in the youth when still impressionable and susceptible of
cure. All criminality may be roughly separated into two principal
divisions; first, those who should never be committed to prison; and
secondly, those who should never be released from it. The widespread
adoption of this axiom must go far to diminish the volume of crime.
There is less and less recourse to imprisonment; sentences are inflicted
for shorter terms, and it is avoided whenever possible by sparing first
offenders from incarceration and postponing sentence on all who give
promise of future amendment. The effect of this very commendable
leniency is to be seen in the diminishing numbers of the actually
imprisoned and the increased economy of gaol administration.
FOOTNOTE:
[2] Life in Sing Sing by Number 1500.