Produced by Wayne Hammond and The Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This book was
produced from images made available by the HathiTrust
Digital Library.)
VOL. VII. TERMS:--ONE DOLLAR A YEAR IN ADVANCE. NO. III.
THE
PENNSYLVANIA JOURNAL
OF
PRISON DISCIPLINE
AND
PHILANTHROPY.
PUBLISHED QUARTERLY
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF “THE PHILADELPHIA SOCIETY FOR ALLEVIATING
THE MISERIES OF PUBLIC PRISONS,” INSTITUTED 1787.
“The separation of one prisoner from another is the only sound
basis on which a reformatory (prison) discipline can be established
with any reasonable hope of success.”--_Fifth Report of Inspectors
of English Prisons._
JULY, 1852.
PHILADELPHIA:
E. C. AND J. BIDDLE,
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FIFTH AND MINOR STREETS.
LONDON: CHARLES GILPIN.
1852.
Isaac Ashmead, Printer.
CONTENTS OF NO. III.
ART. I.--John Haviland,--Obituary Notice, 97
II.--The Pennsylvania System,--Dr. Given’s Report, 107
III.--Juvenile Delinquency, Truancy, &c., 119
IV.--Insane Convicts, 126
V.--Final Report of the Committee on the Erection of the
New Gaol for Suffolk Co., (Mass.) 133
MISCELLANEOUS NOTICES.
FOREIGN.
Crime and Pauperism Counteracted, 135
Novel Residence of a Den of young Thieves, 137
Cases of Theft at a Single Term on Perth Circuit, Scotland, 138
Singular Association, ib.
Friendly Beneficial Societies, ib.
Diminished Pauperism, 139
Intemperance and Insanity, ib.
Metropolitan Mortality, ib.
The Great Washed! ib.
Scotch Prisons, 140
Charities in London, ib.
Prison at Athens, ib.
DOMESTIC.
New York State Lunatic Asylum, 141
Emigration, ib.
Boston City Marshal’s Report, 142
Health of the Boston Farm School, ib.
Boston Pauperism, ib.
Maine State Prison, ib.
The Maryland Penitentiary, 143
Poor and Insane of Rhode Island, ib.
Rhode Island Hospital, 144
Charitable Institutions in Indiana, ib.
“ “ Alabama, ib.
Kentucky Deaf and Dumb Asylum, ib.
IMPORTANT AND VALUABLE DOCUMENTS.
_The Seventeenth Report of the Eastern State Penitentiary._--A few
copies of this document, which includes the _elaborate tables_
of the medical officer--showing the _sanitary condition_ of the
institution from its commencement.
ALSO,
Numbers 1 and 2 of volume I. of this Journal--the _first_
containing a Review of the History of Penal Legislation in
Pennsylvania, and several plates, illustrative of prison
architecture; and the _second_ containing a beautiful steel
portrait of Mrs. Elizabeth Fry, and a view of the New Prison at
Pentonville, near London, and an account of its discipline and
results.
Either of the above may be had on application to any member of the
Acting Committee.
NOTICE.
☞ Communications and orders for this work, may be addressed
“_Editor of the Journal of Prison Discipline_,” care of the
publishers, No. 6, South Fifth Street, Philadelphia.
☞ Officers of State, Inspectors, or Wardens of Penitentiaries,
Keepers of Common Gaols, Houses of Correction, &c., Superintendents
or Physicians of Insane Asylums, (whether public or private, and
whether for paupers or pay-patients,) officers of Houses of Refuge,
Police Magistrates, and others who may be in possession of, or have
access to reports or other documents bearing on prison discipline,
insanity, juvenile delinquency, police regulations, pauperism,
&c., &c., will confer a particular favour by forwarding to the
above office copies of such publications for use or notice in this
Journal. All such attentions will be gratefully acknowledged, and
cheerfully reciprocated.
RECENT NOTICES.
_From the North American and United States’ Gazette._
We have received from Messrs. E. C. & J. Biddle the last number of
the Pennsylvania Journal of Prison Discipline, which is published
quarterly, under the direction of the Philadelphia Society for
alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons. A glance through its pages
shows what is well understood--that it is a highly valuable periodical,
communicating much and various important information upon the subject
of which it treats. It is the only publication of the kind in the
country, is certainly a very much needed one, and ought, therefore, to
be well sustained by the public.
(See 3d page of Cover.)
[Illustration:
_BORN AT
GUNDENHAM MANOR
15 DEC.^R 1792._
_DIED IN
PHILADELPHIA, AMERICA
28 MARCH 1852._
]
ERRATUM.
On page 102, fourth line from the top, for Russian read Prussian.
THE
PENNSYLVANIA JOURNAL
OF
PRISON DISCIPLINE.
VOL. VII.--JULY, 1852.--No. 3.
ART. I.--JOHN HAVILAND.
OBITUARY NOTICE.
It is not long since the Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the
Miseries of Public Prisons recorded the decease of the last of its
founders; the survivor of that little group of enlightened and
benevolent men, who, in the year 1787, commenced the work of prison
reform in Pennsylvania. The society has now to add to the roll of the
departed, the name of one who is to be henceforth associated with the
history of that reform, as the chief pioneer of its architectural
progress. They who, in wisdom and the love of their kind, conceived the
morality of our discipline, and their fellow-laborer who faithfully and
earnestly and successfully sought to give to it an outward embodiment
adapted to its complex designs, now sleep together. Our readers will
participate in the interest with which we recall some of the leading
incidents of a life so closely connected as was that of John Haviland,
with the great subject to which our pages are devoted.
Mr. Haviland was born on the 15th of December, 1792, in the county
of Somerset, England. He was the son of James Haviland, of Gundenham
Manor, in that county, and of Ann, daughter of the Rev. Benjamin
Cobley, of Ide in the county of Devon, Rector of Dodbrook. His academic
studies were completed in his native county; and as his tastes, even
in boyhood, inclined him towards the profession of an architect, he
removed to London, and became a pupil of James Elmes. His preparatory
training under that gentleman had been scarcely finished, when his
enterprise was solicited by inducements from abroad. A sister of his
mother had married an officer of distinction in the Russian naval
service, who was then Minister of Marine, under the Emperor Alexander,
Count Morduinoff. As this gentleman was disposed to promote the
advancement of his young relative, the latter hoped, through his
influence, to obtain an appointment in the imperial corps of engineers,
and promptly accepted an invitation from him to visit St. Petersburg.
Upon arriving in Russia, and considering the various motives presented
for the guidance of his future career, particularly the reports which
had been received of the state of architecture in this country, and
of the opening existing here for professional skill and activity, Mr.
Haviland, in accordance with the advice of his friends, resolved to
embark for America. He was furnished with letters of introduction,
amongst which was one from General Von Sonntag, who had been a resident
at Philadelphia, and whose sister Mr. Haviland subsequently married. He
landed in this city in September, 1816.
With this portion of our sketch, there are associations which deserve
to be mentioned, not only because of their intrinsic value, but
because they are in beautiful harmony with later events, and must
have influenced, in some degree, the thoughts and feelings of our
architect. When the philanthropist Howard was at Cherson, in 1789-90,
he formed an acquaintance with Admiral Morduinoff, then chief of
the Black Sea fleet. Their relations soon ripened into those of an
intimate friendship, which was cemented both by the amiable qualities
of the Russian officer, and by his warm sympathy with the feelings and
plans of the reformer. When the latter fell a victim to the infection
to which he had exposed himself, his last moments were attended by
Morduinoff. The memory of this honorable friendship was reverently
cherished by the survivor, who loved to dwell upon the discoveries and
designs of the great Englishman; and we cannot doubt, that the young
Haviland became an auditor of precious reminiscences. It is certain
that the friend who shared the last sympathetic throb of the heart of
Howard, was he whose hand was extended to guide towards our country the
architect, under whose directing skill, was to arise the most complete
embodiment which the world had seen, of Howard’s reform.
It was not long after his arrival here, that Mr. Haviland found an
opportunity for the exercise of his professional skill. Amongst his
first public works was the Presbyterian church on Washington Square;
an edifice which, compared with the latest of our churches, ranks well
with respect to the chief conveniences of such a structure; and which,
if judged by the buildings existing here at the date of its erection,
gives a very favorable idea of the young artist’s capability, and of
the liberal scope of his mind. It is not, however, our purpose to
review his works, except in connection with our penal institutions;
towards which he soon found himself directed by the wants of his
adopted state. After a series of appeals to the legislature, and
finally to the public, the Prison Society, acting in conjunction with
the officers of our prisons, had succeeded in obtaining (in 1818)
the enactment of a law, authorizing the construction of a prison for
convicts, at Pittsburg, in the western part of the State. Amongst
the plans which were offered to the judgment of the commissioners,
appointed to superintend the construction, was one presented by Mr. H.
We regret not to be able through an inspection of this plan to exhibit
the earliest conception of his mind upon such a subject; the preference
was given to another design, and his drawings are not within our reach.
The choice of the commissioners was unfortunate, as there will be
occasion hereafter to notice.
The insufficiency of the prisons in the eastern part of the State,
became the motive to further applications to the government; and in
the year 1821, an act of the legislature provided for the erection
of a State Penitentiary, at Philadelphia. Mr. Haviland again entered
into the competition of architects, and was successful in obtaining
and maintaining the direction of the work, not only during its early
progress, but until the completion of the last block of cells. As
it is by this institution, that his reputation has been most widely
extended, it may not be inappropriate to recall some of the peculiar
circumstances in which his skill was exerted.
We are here reminded of the just observation of an English author, that
“innumerable are the services to truth, to justice, or society, which
never can be adequately valued by those who reap their benefits, simply
because the transition from the early and bad state, to the final or
improved state, cannot be retraced or kept alive before the eyes.
The record perishes. The last point gained is seen; but the starting
point, the point _from_ which it was gained, is forgotten.” This remark
is the more impressive when applied to human works upon any subject
which, from its nature, tends always to an improvement keeping pace
with the special experience, and with the general enlightenment of a
community. That which costs an effort to the most enterprising inventor
of to-day, will shortly become familiar; then the basis of new reforms;
and finally, will rank only as one of the earliest of a long series of
developments. The tendency to generalize, and to mistake resemblances
which are easily seen after a contrivance has become familiar, for the
real succession of ideas by which a reformer was led to his discoveries
and plans, has always had the effect to conceal from posterity the true
difficulties of any achievement in their behalf. Hence the influence
properly attributable to the intervention of an individual in the
affairs of society, cannot be accurately judged, unless there be first
considered the state of the case as it appeared to his immediate
predecessors, and his contemporaries. It will of course be impossible,
within the limits allotted to this sketch, to do more than indicate
the topics to which the reader’s attention is invited; yet enough may
be said to lead him easily to the principal grounds of the conclusion
which the writer has in view.
The visits of Howard to the prisons of Europe, had brought to public
notice not only the miserable condition of the discipline in most of
them, but also many of their principal defects of construction. The
modifications of interior management first suggested for convicts
in England, and subsequently enlarged and carried into successful
operation in Pennsylvania, required great alterations of material
structure. The design was to pass from a state of things, in which
there was an indiscriminate association of prisoners without labor,
without instruction, without government, almost without restraint,
except that of walls, chains, and the brutal tyranny of the strongest
or boldest among the prisoners, to a state in which separation, good
order, cleanliness, labor, instruction, and ready and continual
supervision should be maintained, within the limits of such fiscal
economy as public opinion and resources rendered expedient. The
earliest and most noted experiments were made at Horsham, Petworth,
and Gloucester, in England; and in the old Walnut street gaol, at
Philadelphia. The record of these attempts fortunately still remains;
and it would be superfluous to discuss their want of adaptedness to any
large scheme of separate discipline. The next remarkable effort was
at Pittsburg, where a circular prison was erected, so illy suited to
its objects, that in less than ten years after its completion, it was
demolished. The next step of progress was the erection of the Eastern
Penitentiary; and it must be obvious, that much was involved in the
success or failure of its architect. There was not in all Europe a
building suited to the objects of the contemplated work. Since the
alteration of the Walnut street gaol, there had been more than a
quarter of a century of observation and reflection, and discussion;
and the principal monument of these, visible amongst ourselves, was
the Western Penitentiary, which had not yet been tried, and which was
at that time recommended not only by the professional judgment which
devised it, but by what is often more influential, the prestige of
government favor, and public expectation. It was in such circumstances,
that Mr. Haviland undertook to solve the problem entrusted to him.
It is probable, that he scanned, as he was bound to do, all the
resources of his profession, as far as these had been manifested in
structures within reach of his means of information. It is probable
that he felt the importance of his position, and that he inquired
anxiously; and that he labored intently upon the materials of design,
availing himself of light from every quarter; but let us judge of his
procedure by its result. The chief objects of prison architecture,
sought by the friends of separate discipline, were for the first time
attained. The impression upon the public mind was so remarkable, that
it must fix the attention of the most careless reviewer; and we have,
moreover, been furnished with a test of unusual value, by which to
determine how far our architect comprehended his position. The British
government meditating a change of penal discipline, and the French
and Prussian governments with a like design, sent commissioners to
the United States, to examine the penitentiaries. Those gentlemen
had previous knowledge of prison architecture in Europe; and they
visited the prisons of greatest reputation in America; and they found
our discipline administered with a success unparalleled. When they
returned to their respective governments, the plans which they reported
for adoption, were essentially the same with that of the Eastern
Penitentiary. During their visits to Philadelphia, they received from
Mr. Haviland, communications of his experience, which were made to
them with the generous frankness which eminently characterized him
as a professional man. Some idea of the impression produced by his
work, and by his liberal zeal for the promotion of good construction
abroad, may be formed from the following translated extract, from a
letter addressed to him by the French commissioner, M. Blouet, himself
a distinguished architect. It accompanied a copy of his official
report, presented in the joint names of himself, and his associate
commissioner, M. Demetz.
“M. Demetz and myself request your acceptance of a copy of the
report which we have made to our government at the termination of
the mission, upon which we visited the United States to examine your
penitentiary system. As you may see by our report, the establishments
constructed by yourself have been the chief source from which we have
drawn; and they are also the models which we propose as the best,
and the most perfectly conceived for satisfying the physical and the
moral conditions of penitentiary reform. We hope that you will accept
the particular expression of our sincere compliments, upon the very
honorable part which you have had in the erection of establishments so
remarkable in every point of view.
“For myself, sir, as an architect, I cannot too often repeat to you
that both the design, and the execution of your works have interested
me in the highest degree; and it gives me real pleasure to offer you my
sincere thanks for the obliging manner in which you have furnished me
with the information needed for my studies in your interesting country.”
Such testimony is the more impressive, when we remember that it
comes from a gentleman who had not only exhibited convincing proofs
of his fitness for the responsible duty to which he was called by
his government, but who had at the same time shown his freedom
from the constraints of mere imitation. As justly remarked by M.
Moreau-Christophe, the plan of Mr. Haviland was not servilely
copied; but while endeavoring to accommodate some of its details to
peculiarities of religion, national character and climate, M. Blouet
rendered his hearty tribute of acknowledgment, alike honorable to
himself and to its object, for the reform which he had witnessed in the
main elements of the design.
The most striking mode of illustrating the facts, is to assemble plans
of the chief prisons erected before the Eastern Penitentiary, and to
compare them with the plans of separate prisons for convicts, since
constructed. It will be apparent at the first glance, that there has
been a sudden and radical change, and that the Eastern Penitentiary is
the head of the new series. Even in many particulars, in which the old
and the new forms may exhibit a resemblance, there will be found an
essential difference in the principle of the design; the same feature
being found to have a different object, or a different relative value.
The influence of the reputation acquired by such success, was
immediately felt in the enlargement of Mr. Haviland’s sphere of
professional exertion. At the same time that he was occupied with the
completion of the series of cell-blocks at Cherry Hill, he was also
engaged upon several other similar works. The Western Penitentiary
having been proved to be unsuited to its objects, he was invited, about
the year 1834, to superintend its reconstruction in conformity with
the plan of the Eastern. The authorities of the county of Alleghany
requested his direction of the prison of that county, then about to
be built; and he also drew the plan of its Court House. The State
Penitentiary of New Jersey, was built by him after the model of
Pennsylvania; and he also designed and superintended the erection of
the prison of Essex county, in New Jersey, and the Halls of Justice,
(the city prison,) of New York. The nearly simultaneous direction of
these buildings at places very remote one from another, required an
extraordinary energy and power of endurance. In 1841, the prison of
Dauphin county was constructed by him at Harrisburg, the capital of the
State; and it was at that time generally regarded as the best example
in this country of a small county jail. It would be unfair to judge
of the details of the preceding works, by a comparison of them with
the latest and most costly specimens of this class of buildings. The
English government at a great expense, and with a generous liberality
of encouragement, of which there was no parallel in the United States,
procured a series of experiments upon the ventilation of large
buildings, and upon the fitness of various kinds of walls for the
necessities of our discipline; and authorized the construction of a
model prison, upon which were lavished the best science and art within
reach of the commissioners; and the result was naturally an improvement
in the details of contrivance, as well as in the material execution of
these. The heating, ventilation, means of prompt communication, and
other particulars of security and comfort were established by methods
superior to any which had been previously in use in this country. The
yards for exercise, which as first tried at Cherry Hill, were found
to shade too much the cells on the ground floor, were detached and
placed in the spaces between the blocks. The warden’s dwelling, which
in the Eastern Penitentiary had been erected on the circumference of
the radii, at a distance from the centre of supervision, (because of an
original intention to have eight blocks of cells, instead of seven,)
was fixed in its more suitable relative position. These changes,
however, some of which were recommended by Mr. H. himself to the
foreign commissioners who visited us,[1] do not diminish the weight due
to the fact, that upon the construction of the Eastern Penitentiary,
there was a sudden change of model; and that that establishment was the
type of the new form, as respects essential features.
Notwithstanding the pride reasonably inspired by the flattering
evidence of his success, it is one of the most creditable reminiscences
connected with the professional career of Mr. H., that instead of
resting upon what he had accomplished, instead of reluctantly yielding
to the evidence of progress in Europe, he was prompt to seek and to
employ in his own later designs, whatever new details he found to be
sufficiently recommended by theoretical or experimental evidence.
The funds at his disposal for the erection of county jails, were
not adequate to the most perfect elaboration of his own, or other
conceptions; but it may be seen that when called upon, as he was not
long after the completion of the Dauphin county prison, to build one
with forty cells for the county of Berks, in Pennsylvania; he availed
himself of the opportunity to introduce some of the most recent
conveniences of arrangement. In Lancaster county, where his services
were next required, he exhibited the same professional interest. The
prison of this county had not been long occupied, when he was summoned
from his career of public usefulness. He died suddenly at his residence
in Philadelphia, on the 28th day of March last.
We have, though necessarily in a brief and imperfect manner, adverted
to the peculiar claims of Mr. Haviland, to the grateful recollection
of every friend of the separate discipline; because in the progress of
events, it may have happened that some of our readers have lost sight
of that record of the “early and bad state,” which is requisite to
judge rightly of his merits as the leader towards the present “improved
state” of prison construction. Those who shall hereafter witness signal
triumphs of benevolence and skill, to which his labors have opened the
way, may--and if the fortune which has awaited even the most eminent
of reformers shall not be reversed, probably will--fail to conceive
the full measure of his contributions towards the crowning result; but
while a tradition survives amongst his associates in prison reform,
and their successors in Pennsylvania, his name will not cease to be
mentioned with honorable distinction.
Amongst the memorials which he has left in other departments of his
art, we might refer to the United States Naval Hospital at Norfolk,
Virginia; and the Pennsylvania State Lunatic Asylum, recently finished
at the capital of this State; both of which institutions manifest in
a high degree the industrious preparation, the sound judgment, the
economy, and the practical skill, which he employed upon his designs.
Regarding his function as that of an exponent of the knowledge which
enlightened observation had gathered from experience, his first step
was to acquaint himself with the best conceptions of those for whom he
was to interpret by physical structure; and he wrought with fidelity to
express those conceptions by the most fitting external fabric; but our
limits compel us to abstain from a notice of these and similar works.
In conclusion, it must be added, that while witnessing the
establishment of his reputation, in a manner rarely exampled in the
history of his profession in modern times, especially where the object
has not been to minister to the wonder and delight of the multitude,
Mr. Haviland maintained a singular modesty of deportment and of speech,
even amongst those who knew most intimately the interest which his
success had excited in his own bosom. He was frank and amiable in his
intercourse, and liberal in the instruction of those who sought his
advice upon the important subject of his principal thoughts. He has
left to his survivors and to posterity the example of an unpretending,
but eminently useful career.
At a meeting of the Philadelphia Prison Society, held soon after his
decease, the President, in appropriate terms, announced the decease of
Mr. Haviland; and the following resolutions were unanimously adopted,
and ordered to be printed in the Society’s Journal.
* * * * *
_Resolved_, That the members of the society have learned, with
sincere regret, the loss of their late fellow-laborer, John Haviland,
whose efforts to develop the architecture of the separate system of
imprisonment, have contributed greatly to its convenient administration
in Pennsylvania, and to the establishment of the principal features of
its methods of construction in other parts of the world in which it has
been introduced.
_Resolved_, That the society desire to record their appreciation of
the zeal and fidelity with which their deceased friend sought to
promote by suitable architectural means, those enlightened and humane
opinions upon which the separate system is founded; as well as to
introduce where the opportunity was afforded to him, for its better
administration, whatever improvements were suggested by experience,
whether at home or abroad.
_Resolved_, That the President be requested to communicate to the
family of the deceased, the sincere and respectful sympathy felt by the
members of the society, in relation to the recent bereavement.
ART. II.--THE PENNSYLVANIA SYSTEM.--DR. GIVEN’S REPORT.
Notwithstanding the simplicity and unity of the principle on which the
Pennsylvania system of prison discipline is based, there is often a
vagueness of opinion and a looseness of expression concerning it that
surprises us. What is the principle? It is CONVICT-SEPARATION--neither
more nor less. We hold, with the inspectors of the English prisons,
that “the separation of one prisoner from another is the only sound
basis on which a reformatory prison discipline can be established
with any reasonable hope of success.” We believe the reformation of
prisoners can be, and in very many instances has been, accomplished _in
consequence of such a separation_, which would not have been, and could
not be accomplished without it.
Some persons have no faith in the reformation of convicts, under any
process. With such the only inquiry is for the cheapest method of
imprisonment, without reference to moral or physical consequences. Some
are very credulous, and look upon the worst rogues as quite reclaimable
under the influence of personal kindness and Christian counsel. We
apprehend that if the probability of prison-reformation may not be
determined precisely by the degree to which the offender is separated
from criminal associations and suggestions, it depends mainly upon
it. And it is our deliberate and long-settled conviction, that (other
things being equal) the best appointed system of discipline will be of
very little avail in its reformatory power, where convict-association,
in any form or degree, is tolerated. This is not a partisan opinion.
It has been entertained and expressed by many who are by no means
committed to the separate system, as such. There is an obvious fitness
in the idea, which can neither be gainsayed nor resisted.
We have said that the fundamental doctrine of the Pennsylvania
system of prison discipline is embodied in one compound
word--CONVICT-SEPARATION.--How can we conceive of a “_modification_” of
this elementary principle? It must be adopted as a whole or rejected
as a whole. The structure of the building, in which the separate
principle is carried out, may be modified. The method of proceeding
in the institution, as it respects instruction, whether in letters or
trades, or as it respects privations, indulgencies and punishments
may be modified. The cells, the occupations, the diet, the mode of
heating and ventilating, &c., may all be modified, but the principle of
separating the convicts one from the other, is, or it is not, the basis
of the system. It is not susceptible of modification. If separation is
the principle, it is one thing,--if association is the principle, it is
another thing.--The _degree_ of association or of separation, is not
involved.
When, therefore, we are told of “a necessity for modifying, to a
certain extent, the Pennsylvania system, by allowing a certain class
of convicts to be associated” for any purpose, or for any period of
time, the phraseology is open to misapprehension at least, if not to
animadversion.
The phrase “_modifying_ to a certain extent” is doubtless inadvertently
used in such cases for the phrase “_abandoning_ to a certain extent.”
Words are significant of ideas, and ambiguity in the former,
necessarily leads to ambiguity in the latter. If we speak of the
associate system, as “modified” by the occasional separation of a
stubborn class of convicts, or of the separate system, as modified
by the occasional association of an imbecile class, we soon confound
association and separation, and actually have neither the one nor
the other. We apprehend that this is the very position to which some
of the opposers of convict-separation would not be unwilling to see
it brought. Indeed, some who profess to be staunch advocates of
separation, have conceded (inconsiderately, as we think) that each plan
has its own advantages, and that the best system would be the product
of a combination.
As at present advised we cannot consent to this view. Few evils arise,
under any system of government, for which there is not a choice of
remedies; and if it is made evident that under the application of
a sound principle of prison-discipline, cases occur in which the
legitimate ends of punishment are defeated, or at least not answered,
the first question would be whether these cases are numerous and
important enough to impair our confidence in the principle; or whether
the exceptions are not necessarily incident to any general system,
and such as cannot be provided against; or whether the remedy, if
practicable at all, may not be applied without any infringement of
the general principle. A compromise between two methods of convict
management, so radically and essentially diverse as separation and
association, seems to us entirely fanciful.
These general observations must serve to introduce a very brief notice
of the Report of the Physician of the Eastern State Penitentiary
for the six months ending July 1, 1851. That day closed seven years
of laborious and faithful service by Dr. Given in this important
institution. His reports, during that period, have been frequently
noticed in the pages of our Journal, and have contributed essentially,
not only to the improvement of the particular institution under his
care, but to the general interests of humanity. Few if any documents
of this class, embody a larger amount of valuable information, or are
entitled to more consideration.
The author not being prepared to serve the interests of a party or a
clique, nor to defend a favorite theory, his reports have uniformly
taken independent ground, and must be regarded as the honest record of
the results of professional experience and observation.
We understand the present and final report of Dr. G., as unequivocally
and emphatically favorable to _convict-separation_. That there are
some prisoners on whom it bears with peculiar severity is a matter of
course. No species of punishment is exempt from such inequalities. They
are less prevalent, however, under the separate discipline than under
any other, from the very fact that the isolation of the prisoner from
his fellows, allows us to vary the minuter conditions of the discipline
in peculiar cases, without exciting murmuring and discontent among
less favored parties. That a relaxation of rigid discipline in an
individual case, no matter how peculiar, if it becomes notorious works
wide-spread mischief, is fully shown in the experience of the English
prisons.[2]
We do not understand Dr. Given to maintain that the class of convicts,
whose mental weakness unfits them for the discipline of separation,
would be any better off in a congregate prison, unless they were
allowed “to converse with hardly any restriction.” So that we are
left to conclude, that some peculiar method of treatment, embraced
in neither of the prevailing systems must be devised to suit the
specific case of weak-minded culprits, in a separate prison, or we
must expect them to become deranged. Now we humbly conceive, that the
remedy for the supposed grievance in such cases is in the hands of
the court, and should be applied in the terms of the sentence, and
not in the process of its execution. The mental vigor of a culprit is
as legitimately a subject of investigation, as his moral habits and
physical constitution. If he borders on that state of imbecility which
would exempt him from moral responsibility, the shade of guilt in which
he is involved will be scarcely perceptible, and the punishment would
of course be proportionably light. If on the other hand, the character
and method of his crime indicate ingenuity in contriving and vigor in
executing his criminal purposes, though he may be below par in his
intellectual capacity, he must take his chance with other offenders,
who may be better able to endure the retribution than himself. It is so
all the world over. The punishment which many sins carry in themselves,
does not adapt itself very nicely to individual constitutions and
temperaments. One slave of the intoxicating cup may have far greater
powers of resisting the temptation to indulgence than his comrade, yet
they are found wallowing in the same gutter. Men of limited capacity
have a much harder struggle for their daily bread than their more
capable neighbors, but in the event of their feloniously taking what
does not belong to them, we do not find special laws are enacted to
meet their case. So in families, schools, and larger communities,
general laws are established which operate unequally, but are on the
whole salutary and wise; and so must it be in the discipline of every
prison. The same degree of restraint, privation or punishment bears
much more severely on some than on others, and while humanity requires
us to alleviate, as far as possible, the miseries of public prisons,
it can hardly expect us to forego the eminent advantages of a system
of discipline, because it does not adapt itself to every grade of
intellect and education. No part of the machinery of civil government
is capable of such a nice adjustment.
But assuming that provision should be made for the necessities of
convicts, who lack ordinary mental vigor, and whose condition is
easily detected by an experienced observer, we have the unqualified
testimony of Dr. G., that with such provision, the Pennsylvanian
system intelligently administered for moderate periods is entirely
safe for mind and body. This opinion, after seven successive years of
close, daily observation, by a resident physician, is certainly very
conclusive. As to the phrase, “moderate periods,” it is well known
that our Journal has uniformly advocated a reduction in the terms
of imprisonment for by far the larger portion of crimes,--connected
however with efficient checks upon the pardoning power.
But Dr. G. finds among the convicts of the Eastern State Penitentiary,
as he would find in any other similar prison, “a certain proportion who
have not sufficient mental vigor to resist the enervating tendencies
of the discipline.” Upon examining the report for a more particular
description of the class, he had in view, we find, that “in many
of them the mental deficiency is so slight, as hardly to challenge
casual observation, or to prevent them from following successfully the
ordinary pursuits of life.” Dr. G. would not, therefore, exempt these
persons from responsibility for their crimes. But how shall they be
treated in a separate prison? What is needful to “enable them to resist
the enervating tendencies of the discipline,” or in other words, how,
in administering the discipline, shall we provide for that lack of
mental vigor which exposes them to suffer under it? Dr. G. replies,
“By sufficient social intercourse with qualified officers to preserve
the natural strength of their minds.” Is this better than “associating
them in workshops during the day under vigilant supervision, as in
congregate prisons?” Dr. G. replies, “Yes, infinitely preferable.”
Why then is not this simple counteracting agency employed, wherever
the evil is supposed to exist? Dr. G. replies, “The expense of such
an arrangement will, I fear, render it impossible.” And what is the
expense? The report does not furnish any estimate, nor have we the
means of forming one. But of one thing we feel confident, viz., that
if the addition to the corps of officers of one or two men of suitable
qualifications for the purpose, would be the means of perfecting the
system of punishment, or of securing, in a higher degree, the humane
purposes of the government in inflicting it, it will not be withheld.
We should be slow to believe such a measure would fail, for so paltry a
consideration as one or two thousand dollars a year, which would be the
outside of the expense.
Suppose it were clearly the duty and interest of the government (and
its duty is always its interest, as it is that of individuals) to
provide for the unfortunate class of convicts to which Dr. G. refers,
it would become a question how far it would be needful to abridge the
average term of imprisonment at present suffered, in order to avoid
the mischief which his report discloses. For it will be observed, that
there is quite a difference of opinion as to the time within which
the supposed injurious effects of seclusion are developed. Even the
opponents of separation have generally regarded a sentence of from
twelve to eighteen months as entirely safe. Dr. G. very properly
considers the age of the convict as entitled to much consideration
in determining the period of his confinement; and we should be quite
disposed, at first, to fall in with his opinion, that “unless for the
gravest offences, the sentence of minors should seldom exceed a single
year;” and yet when we look around us and observe the boldness, the
ingenuity and the malignity which often characterize the criminal
acts of minors in our times, we can scarcely persuade ourselves
that extraordinary lenity could be safely shown to them. A severer
discipline in an institution that should receive them at an earlier
stage of their career, might often check their criminal propensities,
and put them upon a praiseworthy course; but when they become reckless
of life, and property, and public peace, and boast themselves in feats
of iniquity which matured convicts would scarcely attempt to excel, we
should be slow to relax the rigour of punishment, except in cases of
manifest infirmity of body or mind.
“In the second year of imprisonment, the bodily and mental vigor
of convicts generally begins to decline, though they may struggle
on for an indefinite period, without having any actual disease
developed. In all cases, but more especially when the sentences
range between two and ten years, the prisoner should be closely
watched; and when the slightest symptom of failing strength
appears, he should be immediately put to some outdoor employment,
and there kept until his health would be re-established, when
he could be again returned to his cell. If this principle would
be strictly acted upon, it would render the longest sentence
comparatively harmless.”
We are gratified with such clear and unequivocal testimony to
the safety of convict-separation; for we look upon the resort to
out-of-door exercise, in special cases, as so perfectly practicable
and so entirely in keeping with the principle of the system, that we
could scarcely reckon it as a condition or exception. It is of the
same character with a precaution respecting air, apparel, bathing, &c.
Indeed we do not suppose Dr. G. himself has a particle of doubt, that
all needful out-of-door exercise can be given to every convict whose
health requires it, as easily and as consistently with the most rigid
separation as an extra blanket, or a new article of diet.
It will be observed that in the extract just made from Dr. G.’s report,
the _second_ year of imprisonment is designated as that in which the
bodily and mental vigor of convicts generally begins to decline, and
he also mentions those whose sentences range from two to ten years,
as “requiring to be closely watched.” From which we infer, that in
his opinion there is little danger to be apprehended from the _first_
year’s seclusion; that in the _second_ year there is no danger to be
apprehended to the great mass of prisoners, but only to those who have
“not sufficient mental vigor to resist the enervating tendencies of the
discipline,” and who generally begin at that period to decline in body
and mind; and as to convicts whose “sentences range from two to ten
years, they should be closely watched,” &c.
Our general impression of the weight of authority on this subject, at
home and abroad, would coincide with the opinion here expressed; but
upon turning to the fable which is annexed to Dr. G.’s report we find,
to our surprise, that in seven of the eight insane cases of 1851, the
average period of prison-life at which the disorder appeared, was less
than eight months; viz., one at four months, one at five, one at seven,
one at eight, two at ten, and one at eleven months. In the eighth case
the development of disease was postponed for three years and more! Only
two of the eight were minors; five were whites, two mulattoes, and one
black.
We need not question at all the soundness of Dr. G.’s opinion, nor
the correctness of his facts. The conclusion to which they unite
in constraining us however, is that the cause of insanity is not
well-assigned. It is quite possible that the present condition of
the prisoner, with all its antecedent anxiety and excitement and
its prospective severity, combine to disclose, or give form and
definiteness to a morbid condition of mind or body or both, which might
not have occurred at all had he escaped detection or conviction; or
which might not have taken that specific form under a different system
of discipline; or which might be corrected by seasonable and judicious
attention. That symptoms of a deranged state were discoverable so soon
after commitment, and without any peculiarly exciting cause, seems to
forbid the idea of attributing it wholly or chiefly to a denial of
convict-association. And we apprehend, that if those very cases were at
once transferred to Auburn or Sing-Sing, without the slightest change
in their mental or bodily state, the parties would take their places
at once in the shop-gang, and render their master-contractor as good
an account of a day’s work as any of their comrades! They would be
just as insane there, as in the Eastern State Penitentiary, but their
eccentricities would not be likely to receive special investigation or
care, and hence would never be reported as insane cases. The reports
from congregate prisons fully warrant this position.
The careful reader of Dr. Given’s report cannot fail to see that his
humane and honorable sympathies have led him, as we have already
intimated, to overlook the inevitable necessity of inequalities in
the operation of general laws. If he says, “we can rest satisfied
to restrict the application of our system to those to whom it is
applicable, I believe there will be quite as little insanity among
them as if they were associated.” But to whom is it applicable? To
all, except those whose mental character renders it unsafe to subject
them to it. How many of this class are there? Why it is so small as
to “admit of the most accurate supervision,” so that “the corrupting
influences of association,” (if adopted,) “will be materially
diminished.” But what is the number in units, tens or hundreds? Why
last year it was eight in an aggregate of four hundred and forty-six!
And may we regard this as the “certain proportion of convicts, who have
not sufficient mental vigor to resist the enervating tendencies of our
system?” Eight in four hundred and forty-six!
Of this class of convicts, more or less, it is said, that “an
experienced observer will readily detect many of them on the day of
their reception, and a few weeks’ observation will generally suffice
for the discovery of the remainder.” If we bring this remark to bear
on the eight cases of last year, we shall be compelled to circumscribe
its application considerably. Two of them “were decidedly insane when
received.” Of the remaining six, “one a mulatto, had been once or
oftener insane before imprisonment;” his mother had also been insane,
and he was syphilitic. Two others were not of the class which we are
considering, for it is expressly stated that they “had not imbecile
minds,” though “both had received a fracture of the skull, and were
thus doubly predisposed to insanity.” Of the three that are left, one
“was not considered actually defective in mind,” and of course he would
not have been put among the class “who are deficient in mental vigor
to resist the enervating tendencies of the system.” Nevertheless,
his mind “was of such a character, that shortly after his reception,
it was predicted that he would go deranged before the expiration of
his sentence.” What that “character” was we are not told, nor is it
needful for our present purpose to know. Then of the other two it is
expressly said, that they were “considered as presenting no striking
mental peculiarity on admission, either of strength or weakness.” One
of them was three years and one month in prison, before exhibiting any
marks of mental derangement, and the other ten months. If we do not
misunderstand the report then, not one of the last year’s insane cases
answers to the description of that “certain class of convicts, who
cannot be placed under the usual isolation, without the greatest risk
of insanity supervening.”