VOL. VIII. 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, 1853.
PHILADELPHIA:
E. C. AND J. BIDDLE,
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FIFTH AND MINOR STREETS.
LONDON: CHARLES GILPIN.
1853.
Isaac Ashmead, Printer.
CONTENTS OF NO. III.
ART. I.--The Former Times and These, 109
II.--Inspectors of Prisons, 117
III.--The Old Ulcer Opened Again, 124
IV.--Prison Matters at the West, and Political Management in
General, Affecting Prisons and Prisoners, 128
V.--Uncertainty of Conviction and Punishment, 135
VI.--Recent Occurrences in Philadelphia, 142
MISCELLANEOUS.
Indiscriminate Almsgiving, 150
Shooting with Red Paint, 154
New Work on Separate Confinement, 155
The Elizabeth Fry Refuge, 155
Ohio Lunatic Asylum, 156
Connecticut State Prison, 156
Not my Mother! 156
NOTICE OF THIS JOURNAL.
“It embodies more information on the subject of prisons, arranged and
expressed in the spirit of literature and science, than any other
publication of our country and will compare with any Journal devoted
to this department of knowledge in Europe.”--_Hon. Charles Sumner’s
Speech, in debate on prison question in Boston, May, 1847._
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.
_From the Episcopal Recorder._
This periodical gives a large amount of information on Prison
Discipline, and cannot fail to interest such as grieve over the
sufferings occasioned by crime, and regard the imprisoned criminal as
still belonging to our common humanity, and needing the commiseration
of the wise and good.
_From the Public Ledger._
We have received the October number of the Pennsylvania Journal of
Prison Discipline and Philanthropy, published under the direction
of the Philadelphia Society for alleviating the Miseries of Public
Prisons. It is stored with interesting matter.
_From the Presbyterian._
We have been reading with great interest the Pennsylvania Journal of
Prison Discipline and Philanthropy.
AN INQUIRY
INTO THE ALLEGED TENDENCY OF THE SEPARATION OF CONVICTS, ONE FROM THE
OTHER, TO PRODUCE DISEASE AND DERANGEMENT.
BY A CITIZEN OF PENNSYLVANIA. _Philadelphia_: E. C. & J. Biddle. 1849.
It is, as might possibly be anticipated from the residence of the
author, an elaborate and ardent defence of the separate system of
confinement. The charge of its peculiar tendency to induce disease and
insanity, is altogether denied, and the testimony of the successive
physicians to the Eastern State Penitentiary, during a term of nearly
twenty years, goes very satisfactorily to warrant the denial.
The author is not, however, inclined to rest at this, but carries the
war into the enemies’ camp. The chapter entitled Medical Practice,
in a Congregate Prison, is calculated to attract attention, from the
positions laid down in it, and their startling illustrations, deduced
from the well known case of Abner Rogers. It is not the time or the
place for us to enter on this warmly controverted subject, and we
have noticed the work only on account of its bearing on the subject
of insanity, and as forming a part of its literature.--_Am. Journal
of Insanity, published by the Superintendent of the New York Lunatic
Asylum, July, 1850._
* * * * *
So far as the leading controversy, in regard to the rival systems of
prison discipline, is concerned, it seems to us to cover the entire
ground with singular ability.--_Princeton Review._
* * * * *
⇒ A few copies of this pamphlet are still on hand, and may be had on
application to the publishers, corner of Fifth and Minor streets, or to
any member of the Acting Committee.
[Illustration: See p. 112.]
THE
PENNSYLVANIA JOURNAL
OF
PRISON DISCIPLINE.
VOL. VIII.--JULY, 1853--No. 3.
ART. I.--THE FORMER TIMES AND THESE.
It is said that every man has his niche. Of course there is a niche
for every man, and among others one for _croakers_, and it is very
desirable that they should never be seen out of it. We presume we have
none of this sort among us, inasmuch as they would instinctively shun
the council-chamber of those who look with a hopeful eye upon any and
every legitimate project for human improvement. It is excusable in
doting age to dwell with a sort of childish satisfaction on the scenes
and associations of youth, but no man who is living in good earnest,
can fail to be impressed and excited by the vast advance which has been
made within an age or two in the condition of the human race.
If there were nothing else to look at but the single institution known
as the _Pennsylvania Hospital for the Insane_, with all its wonderful
agencies and appointments for ministering to the relief of the direst
of all the ills that flesh is heir to, we should exclaim with gratitude
to the Author of all good--How marvellous the change! It seems but
yesterday that PINEL, with an intrepidity seldom equalled, ordered the
restraints to be removed from _fifty-three_ confirmed lunatics who
had been bound in chains and fetters--some for half a lifetime--and
proved, to the amazement of their incredulous keepers, that kindness
and confidence would assuage a calamity which restraint and violence
only serve to aggravate. It was a signal triumph of humanity over
ignorance and selfishness, and opened the way for a series of efforts,
the benign results of which have scarcely a parallel in the annals of
benevolence.
If we imagine, for a moment, thousands of men and women, some confined
like wild beasts in dens or cages, enduring the most cruel tortures
at the hands of their nearest earthly friends, and doomed, for the
remnant of their lives, to hopeless and unmitigated suffering; others
wandering about half clothed and loathsome in their persons, exposed
by night and by day to burning heat or the pitiless storm, teazed and
pelted by the thoughtless and cruel, and shunned, from fear, by the
considerate and humane; and others, still, the subjects of constant
anxiety and commiseration to loving friends, who sought in vain for
some alleviation of their grievous burden,--we have a picture of what
was.
Then, if we turn our eyes to any of the noble institutions which, in
these latter times, have been founded and furnished for the reception
and treatment of these unhappy beings, and consider how large a
proportion of them are entirely relieved of their malady and restored
to sound health, and to the ordinary duties and enjoyments of life; and
to how large an extent the sufferings of others are alleviated, and
their comforts and enjoyments multiplied, we have a picture of what
now is, and surely no one can suppress an exclamation of gratitude
and wonder at the contrast. This item of human ills once looked upon
as so terrific, has been divested of its most appalling features, and
reduced, like other diseases, to the control of medical skill, and let
the Giver of all good be praised for it.
A sketch, not unlike this in its general features, may be given of the
change in the treatment of public offenders. The man is now living in
Philadelphia who could describe to us a spectacle which his own eyes
might have beheld, in what was then nearly the centre of the population
of our beautiful city. It was a prison-house at the corner of Market
and Third streets, where all grades of offenders, without distinction
of sex, color or age, might be seen mingling together, day and night,
as one common herd of vagabonds and outcasts! The most flagrant and
thrice convicted offender is here associated with one who is presumed
to be innocent, because not proved to be guilty; the old and practised
thief with the novice in dishonesty--the forger and counterfeiter with
the poor but honest debtor--while, at short intervals, there creep
into this motley crowd, “the disgusting objects of popular contempt
besmeared with filth from the pillory--the victim of the whipping post,
with blood streaming from his lacerated body, the half naked vagrant
and the loathsome drunkard.”
If we survey the exterior, the scene is not less offensive. The
miserable tenants are thrusting poles through the windows with bags
or baskets suspended at the end, to catch the eye and the gifts of
passers, while shouts of mirth or passion, mingled with profane and
brutal execrations assail their ears.
It was to such a sink of corruption and iniquity that the attention of
benevolent men was turned, and it was to alleviate miseries such as
these, that they associated together, some seventy years ago, under the
title which they still hold, and which is seen on each number of this
Journal. And what has been accomplished by that and kindred agencies?
The eye of a stranger who passes along Coates’ street towards the
Schuylkill, is arrested by an imposing structure, giving the impression
of strength, permanence and security. But no sound meets his ear, nor
is any sign of its use at all visible. Let him enter and survey the
interior. In a spacious area he sees long corridors radiating from a
common centre, divided into apartments of suitable size, clean and
wholesome, and provided with light and air and furniture needful for
the tenant. In these corridors are confined at constant and useful
labor, three or four hundred men, but it is as quiet as a well
regulated workshop, each is unknown to the other, but all known to the
officers and authorized visitors. Their food, lodging and attendance in
sickness and in health, are good and sufficient. Their understandings
are cultivated, and the voice of kindness and sympathy is heard by many
there, who have seldom heard it elsewhere all their lives long.
Who does not exclaim, at the sight of such a contrast. How wonderful
the transformation, and all too, within the memory of living men!
But let us brace up our nerves and protect our senses while we return
for a moment to the prison-scenes of a former day. It is the Lord’s
day. The streets of the city are thronged with people wending their way
to the various places of public worship, but who thinks or cares for
the “gaol-birds?” Shut out from the light and air of heaven, polluted
in body and mind, and given over to work all manner of wickedness
greedily, the day which brings repose to the care-worn, and peace to
the troubled in heart, is fraught with no good to them.
Yet stay a moment. The sympathy of a disciple and minister of
CHRIST--“that friend of publicans and sinners”--is awakened for them.
He calls upon the keeper, and proposes to address the prisoners
occasionally, in a religious discourse, and to begin on the following
Lord’s day. The keeper is amazed at so preposterous a proposition,
and expresses his conviction that the attempt would be extremely
hazardous, involving not only peril to the preacher himself and to
the officers in attendance, but the possible escape of the prisoners,
and the consequent pillage and murder of the citizens! Whether this
was the result of timidity, or of a design to obstruct all efforts at
reformation, is not known; but these and all other scruples were so far
overcome, that permission was given to make the trial.
“At the appointed time the clergyman[1] repaired to the prison, and was
received with a reserve bordering on incivility. The keeper reluctantly
admitted him through the iron gate to a platform at the top of the
steps leading to the yard, where a loaded cannon was placed, and a man
beside it with a lighted match! The motley concourse of prisoners were
arranged in a solid column extending to the greatest distance which the
hall could allow, and in front of the instrument prepared for their
destruction in the event of the least commotion.”
[1] Rev. William Rogers, D. D.
This was literally preaching at the cannon’s mouth. The service
was attended, however, with entire decorum throughout, many of the
prisoners giving respectful attention, and all of them behaving
with unexpected propriety. This was as late as 1786-7. Who of our
readers has ever attended the religious service on the Lord’s day at
the Eastern State Penitentiary, without being impressed with the
propriety--we might almost say, the solemnity of the occasion. Each
prisoner, separated from his fellows, is able to give undiverted
attention to the word spoken, and in the seclusion of his own
apartment, with the written Scriptures in his hand, may “read, mark,
learn, and inwardly digest” the truth that is able to make him wise
unto salvation. He joins in the supplication that ascends to the throne
of the heavenly grace, and in the hymns of praise and thanksgiving for
the many mercies that are mingled in his cup of suffering; and who
will say that this is not a marvellous spectacle to the eye of one who
witnessed the delivery of Dr. Rogers’ first sermon in the prison yard!
But another scene opens. Groups of men are laboring in the streets of
the city, cleaning and repairing them. Their heads are shaven, and
they wear parti-colored clothing, and of course attract the gaze of
passers-by. These are prisoners! Goaded to desperation by the taunts
and jibes of idle and vicious boys, they have sometimes attempted to
revenge their injuries, and to prevent this, they are loaded with iron
collars on their necks, and cannon balls or bomb shells “are fastened
to their feet by chains to be dragged after them, while they pursue
their degrading labor under the eye of keepers armed with swords,
blunderbusses, and other weapons of destruction.”
It was such a revolting sight as this that prompted our Prison Society
to call for a radical reformation--not only for the withdrawal of these
wretched men from the public gaze, injurious alike to the public and to
themselves, but _for their withdrawal from each other’s presence too_,
intimating very clearly their conviction that “MORE PRIVATE OR EVEN
SOLITARY OR SECLUDED LABOR WOULD MORE SUCCESSFULLY TEND TO RECLAIM THE
UNHAPPY OBJECTS, AS IT MIGHT BE CONDUCTED MORE STEADILY AND UNIFORMLY,
AND THE KIND AND PORTION OF LABOR BETTER ADAPTED TO THE DIFFERENT
ABILITIES OF THE CRIMINALS.”
We have put this memorable language in conspicuous letters, as we find
in it the germ of all philosophical and truly philanthropic schemes for
improvement of prison discipline, which have been devised in the sixty
years’ interval.
It was an intimation more broadly given in about a twelve-month after,
when fifteen of our most distinguished and benevolent citizens, then in
active life, with the venerable Bishop White at their head, “thought
it their duty to declare, as a matter of the utmost moment to the
well being, safety and peace of society, as well as of the greatest
importance to the criminals, that from a long and steady attention to
the real practical state, as well as the theory of prisons, it was
their unanimous opinion that solitary confinement to hard labor, and a
total abstinence from spirituous liquors will prove the most effectual
means of reforming these unhappy creatures.”
From that time, though by slow degrees, the penal discipline of the
State has advanced in efficiency as well as humanity, and to see
prisoners toiling in irons in our streets now, would be as incongruous
to all our feelings and habits, as to see the most imposing mansions
in our city converted into Indian wigwams, and savage council fires
kindled in Independence Square.
But there is work of vast magnitude still to be done, even within the
borders of our own Commonwealth. County prisons come into the line of
improvement at long intervals, and too often with a reluctant step. The
guiltless are not seldom corrupted by the associations which are here
allowed, (and which are, perhaps, inevitable,) and the novice in crime
is made reckless and incorrigible before he becomes the subject of
penitentiary discipline.
And it is to be borne in mind, too, that our society is not
restricted in its interests or sympathies, to the penal institutions
of _Pennsylvania_. We would contribute all in our power to the
“alleviation of the miseries of public prisons,” the country and world
over. And it would probably surprise most of our readers to know how
many and how aggravated these “miseries” are, even in prisons which
boast of eminent superiority. Since we commenced this article, a case
has been brought to our knowledge, on indisputable authority, which
will serve as an example. A convict was brought from a State-prison to
the Lunatic Asylum. He was heavily chained, and the examining physician
noticed a circular bruise on his temple, as if made by the nails in the
heel of a boot or shoe! The officer in charge of the man represented
him as being very violent and unmanageable. Two and a half barrels of
water had been showered upon him, he said, but it did not subdue him.
It made him pale and cold, but he was obstinate still. He was malicious
too, and had secreted a pair of shears, with the intent (as it was
believed) to take the life of his keeper, but fortunately the keeper
was aware of it, and knocked him down, and by putting his foot on his
head, held him till help came, and hence the bruise which had arrested
the doctor’s attention. He had been kept in a dungeon but without any
good effect, and they had authority at last to take him to the Asylum.
The unhappy creature heard this story, but made no reply. The physician
of the Asylum ordered his chains to be removed. He was admitted to the
ward, like other patients, and had not given them the least trouble!
It seems that prisoners, paupers and pay-patients are intermingled in
some Asylums. And we are credibly informed, that since the present
year came in, not less than _thirty-six_ insane convicts were at one
time in the State Asylum at Utica. They are removed from the prison
and received at the Asylum as insane, and this is often the end of
the sentence. An elopement from the Asylum may perhaps answer all
the purposes of a pardon, without the responsibility of it. In one
instance, where a convict escaped from the Utica Asylum, notice was
given to the authorities of the prison from whence he was received,
but no effort was made to re-arrest him, and the fellow was found soon
after, following a respectable business in New York city, at $22 a
month and board, and was doing well! The Empire State itself could not
probably have done better for him.
Our readers have not probably forgotten the fate of four out of five
prisoners in a cell, not a cannon’s shot distance from the City Hall
in New York. That such an event could occur in any prison which is
located, constructed and superintended with ordinary regard to the laws
of humanity, is scarcely credible.
In view of such statements, we must admit that the work of prison
reform is indeed not yet accomplished. Great ignorance still prevails
on the subject. Strong prejudices exist (nurtured, if not engendered by
local, personal or professional pride,) against some of the essential
features of any true and effective system. Much effort is required
to diffuse right opinions, and correct popular errors. Among these
last, none is more prevalent or mischievous than that the difference
of a few thousand dollars, in the first cost of the structure, should
turn the scale in favor of a system which is not, on other accounts,
most approved. The true principle which should rule in all questions
of this nature, is very obvious. No reasonable expense or pains should
be spared in the employment of means to convert a single idler into a
worker, or a single rogue into an honest citizen. The mischief which a
contemner of laws may do, single-handed, to society, is so indefinite,
and, we may almost say, boundless, that we can scarcely conceive of
a greater public benefit than his reformation, unless, indeed, it be
such a training of his children or his neighbor’s children, or both,
as shall prevent their following his example. To confine a convict
three or five or seven years with a chafed and irritated temper during
all that interval, and then dismiss him, a settled and irreconcileable
enemy to himself and all about him, is the worst policy a State can
pursue. We do not advocate any course that shall mitigate, in the
slightest degree, the legitimate severity of punishment. But we urge
it as a matter of public economy, as the dictate of a sound policy,
that where two methods of dealing with offenders are at the State’s
election, one of which gives better promise than the other for the
correction of the vicious dispositions and for the restoration to
honest society of a single culprit, it should be chosen, whatever claim
the other may show on the score of present expense.
We are aware, that in these times, when so many private and party
considerations are allowed to mingle with questions of public interest,
it will be no easy matter to secure a safe and liberal policy on such
a subject as we are considering. But if so great achievements have
been made by the good and wise who have lived and acted before us, it
ill-becomes us in the light of their example, and with facilities for
the work which were unknown to them,--it ill-becomes us to relax our
efforts or to refuse any reasonable service or sacrifice, which will
complete what they so nobly begun.
ART. II.--INSPECTORS OF PRISONS.
Much of the efficiency and success of any system of prison discipline,
depends on the characters and dispositions of those who occupy the post
of Inspectors. As it is out of the question for the most judicious
and vigilant inspectors to make a prison what it should be, while
incompetent persons are employed to execute the discipline, so it is
equally out of the question for the most energetic and thoroughly
qualified officers to administer successfully the affairs of such an
institution, so long as they are subject to the control of incompetent
Inspectors. To secure the desired results, there must be marked
confidence between these parties, and such a coincidence of opinion and
counsel as shall give unity and strength to the administration.
In cases where the appointment of the principal officers of a prison is
in the hands of the Inspectors, there is danger that the independence
which is so essential to faithful and efficient action, will be put
in jeopardy. It requires no ordinary degree of courage to pursue a
measure which is likely to involve a sacrifice of one’s livelihood,
and especially where no moral principle is concerned. It may happen,
for instance, that some indulgences are allowed or winked at by the
Inspectors, which are in violation of the discipline established by
law. If the warden remonstrates against the practice, it may be at the
risk of losing his place, and it is easy for him to persuade himself
that the responsibility is on the Inspectors, whose servant he is,
and that the most discreet course for him is to hold his peace and
his place. But we think a wise Board of Inspectors would see to it,
that the warden is put at his ease on that point, and that the utmost
freedom is enjoyed by him, not as a matter of grace, but of right, in
the utterance of all his suggestions and objections.
There is no uniformity in the several States, either as to the
appointment of Inspectors or the relations they shall sustain to the
public on one side, and to the prison and its inmates and resident
officers on the other. In some States they are appointed by the
Executive, in others by the Legislature. In some they are popularly
elected, and in others (as in Pennsylvania) they are appointed by the
judiciary. Our own impression is, that the appointing power of this
class of officers is most properly lodged in the executive department
of the government. It is, in its nature, analogous to other duties of
this department. It is in the exercise of purely executive authority
that the convict is committed, and it would seem fitting that this
same power should exercise a suitable control over him, directly or by
agents of its own appointment. If the Legislature has exercised its
functions in the enactment of the law, with adequate penalties, and
the Judiciary has past upon the guilt of a transgressor and fixed the
measure of his punishment, one would think the remaining part of the
work is peculiarly appropriate to the Executive.
There may be some advantages in giving the Inspectors the appointment
of warden and other principal officers, but it is clear that we thereby
lose an important check on both parties. There have been many instances
of gross official misconduct by Inspectors of prisons, which would
probably never have been revealed, had the appointing and removing
power been lodged in their hands. It is obviously undesirable to place
official parties in such a relation that each should be interested in
concealing or palliating the neglects or misdeeds of the other. If each
is made responsible to a third and superior power, the opportunity to
practice collusion, as well as the temptation to it, is essentially
diminished.
But leaving this question for future discussion if need be, we propose
to set forth briefly a few considerations which should weigh in the
selection of prison Inspectors, let who will appoint them: And
I. They should be men of unquestioned _probity_. There is scarcely any
public office which an ill-disposed incumbent may not prostitute to
base or selfish purposes, if he is so disposed; and in the distribution
of patronage, the execution of contracts and the furnishing of
supplies, it would not be difficult for a prison Inspector to overstep
at least the bounds of propriety. There have been not a few cases in
which the official demeanor of such bodies or of individual members
of them, has been made the subject of public investigation to the
great discredit of those concerned, and to the manifest depravation
of public morals. To put a man into such an office, whose character
and standing are open to reproach, or even reasonable suspicion, is a
gross dereliction of duty, and ought to subject the appointing power
to severe animadversion. It should moreover be a provision in every
law touching the appointment and duties of Inspectors, that they shall
not be directly or indirectly concerned or interested in any contract
or negotiation connected with the prison, from which any emolument can
be derived; and the use of their official position for the purposes
of self-aggrandizement or other sinister end, should be punished with
exemplary severity.
II. Prison Inspectors should be _intelligent_ men. Not only should
they be well-informed upon matters more immediately connected with
their official duty, but they should have some general knowledge of
the various methods of managing penal institutions. There are radical
differences in the theories which prevail on this subject and in the
systems founded on them. It would be very difficult for the Inspectors
of a separate prison, for example, to administer its affairs discreetly
and efficiently, if they were not familiar with the points in which
it differs from all other prisons, with the dangers and deficiencies
which have been ascribed to it, and with the methods of obviating these
dangers and supplying these deficiencies, if they really appear. In
the selection and distribution of occupations, and in adapting them
to the habits, constitution and capacity of convicts, as well as in
making the pursuit of these conducive at once to the welfare of the
prisoner and to the legitimate ends of punishment, good judgment is
required. The warden and other officers of the institution should
see enough in their intercourse with the Inspectors to command their
respect and confidence. True it is that in the minor details of prison
economy, the warden and heads of departments may have most knowledge
and tact, but in a comprehensive view of the principles of the
institution, and of the most eligible methods of bringing them into
efficient and harmonious development from day to day, the Inspectors
should take the lead. The proper discipline of a prison population
of three or four hundred men, combining employment, instruction,
encouragement, subordination, economy, moral influence, and physical
and mental improvement, with the privation and pain which constitute
the penal element of the institution, is not a work for uninformed or
narrow-minded men.
How often has a shrewd business man taken in charge the financial and
economical interests of some of our prisons that have, year after
year, made a fair report, and shown well to superficial observers, and
exposed to public rebuke gross negligencies, if not outrageous frauds
which the Inspectors--“good easy men,” had neither eyes to see nor
ears to hear, nor capacity to understand? If we desire our prisons to
answer the true ends of their organization, we must put them under
the supervision of active, intelligent men, who have an opinion and
responsibility of their own.
III. Prison Inspectors should be _humane_ men. Though the direct care
and management of the convicts must of necessity be entrusted to the
resident officers, the Inspectors, and not the resident officers, are
the true representatives of the government in the administration of
the discipline. In the character of those who are appointed to the
immediate charge of the convicts, there should be a general guaranty
that every office of humanity, that does not relax or neutralize the
rigor of punishment, will be observed. It is not difficult for an
officer of severe or violent temper to abuse a convict shamefully,
and conceal the act from the ordinary observation of Inspectors. And
hence no man of such temperament should be entrusted with the custody
of prisoners. On the other hand, a weak and effeminate officer may
become the tool or plaything of a convict, and lose all influence and
authority over him. It is, moreover, possible that an officer--even
the chief officer--of a prison may, by indolence and carelessness,
inflict a negative wrong on prisoners, which is quite as intolerable
and inexcusable as positive inhumanity.
A neglected prescription of the medical officer--a delay to
attend to a reasonable request--a harsh repartee or an undeserved
denial of confidence may be more cruel than the _douche_ or the
cat-o’-nine-tail--and yet how easily every thing of this character
would escape the superficial observation of Inspectors, in their weekly
circuit. Their humanity must not only be evinced in the discharge of
their own duties, but it must prompt them to interpose every needful
barrier to the positive and negative inhumanity of others. The power
being all on one side, the utmost care will not always prevent its
abuse.
IV. Prison Inspectors should be _hopeful_ men. We need not disclaim
all sympathy with those (if such there are) who take a demure look,
a whining confession or a flippant utterance of religious phrases,
as indications of reformed habits or reliable principles. No one who
has been familiar with the course of this Journal, will suspect us of
any undue leaning in that direction. But we are equally indisposed to
fall in with the views of an opposite class, whose maxim is, “once
a convict, always a convict,” and who instinctively distrust every
profession of repentance, and of a desire to lead a different life.
We have known inspectors who, from long official intercourse with
convicts, and familiar knowledge of their cunning and hypocrisy, seem
to feel as if it is not safe to give heed for a moment to any thing
they may say, or that may be said for them. Let them be approached in
the most respectful manner, and by persons who can have no interest in
misleading or deceiving them, and the moment the errand is found to
be in behalf of a convict, they seem to regard the bearer of it as a
little better than an accomplice, or, at least, a dupe.
It cannot be denied that well-meaning but credulous persons are
oftentimes quite officious on such subjects, and through ignorance or
indiscretion, are induced to urge upon Inspectors very injudicious
measures. This annoyance must be borne by public functionaries as a
part of the price of their “blushing honors,” and set off against
the privileges and prerogatives of office. If a man is presumed to
be innocent till he is proved guilty, why should not a guilty man be
regarded as a hopeful subject of reforming influences, till he is
proved incorrigible? What would be the condition of every member of the
human family, if conviction of sin works a forfeiture of all claim to
sympathy and confidence?
There is a wide difference between a seasonable encouragement of
attempts to amend one’s life, and a blind confidence in professions and
promises. A kind look or word at a propitious moment, in the progress
of penal suffering, changes the whole influence of it. A frown or a
repulse will freeze into impenetrable hardness a heart that might be
melted into penitence by timely compassion and sympathy. If prisoners
are treated with less tenderness by Inspectors than is shown to the
wild beasts of a menagerie, we must expect them to resemble wild beasts
in ferocity when they are let loose. The true light in which Inspectors
should regard themselves is, as protectors of the public against
danger from such a source. They are appointed to superintend a process
by which the ferocious passions of a man may be subdued--his vicious
inclinations changed and right moral feelings and habits implanted. If
the highest and best object of penitentiary discipline is attained, he
who is received under it as a tiger, is discharged from it as a lamb.
The infrequency of such a transformation might not be so striking if
Inspectors executed their functions in a proper spirit. Not only would
their personal and official influence contribute more directly to this
result, but the whole economy and discipline of the prison under their
charge would take the same direction.
V. We have only to add, that no _political_ influences or
considerations should be allowed weight in the appointment of
prison-inspectors. We need not say that this remark has no local
application, though we have no doubt that it would receive the hearty
concurrence even of those who may regard the avoidance of such
influences as quite impracticable. Political parties live by power and
patronage. Offices of honor or emolument are the bribes that tempt men
into the strife for party-supremacy, and upon a due distribution of
these depends its maintenance, when it has been attained. But there are
some posts which involve labor rather than honor. The emoluments of
them but poorly compensate for the pains and self-denials they impose,
and the duties require qualifications so peculiar and so rare, that we
cannot afford to restrict the field of selection to any party. It is
difficult enough to fill them properly, “with the world before us where
to choose,” but the difficulty is rendered almost insuperable when a
large portion of the community, and possibly an actual majority, are
excluded, as out of political caste.
The choice of Prison Inspectors and School Commissioners and overseers
of education and reformation should uniformly fall on those who are,
on the whole, best qualified to serve, irrespective of all political
relations and considerations. If we must have a new set of officers
introduced into our prisons, and a new set of teachers and text-books
into our schools, whenever a revolution occurs in the position of
political parties, neither our prisons nor our schools will prove to be
of much value. When we can trace all the ignorance and all the crime of
the community to the door of one political party, we may be disposed
to charge on them the burden of taking care of dolts and rogues; but
so long as both are common to all political parties, it seems more
wise and equitable to draw from all the best skill in the greatest
force they can yield to enlighten the one and punish or (if possible)
extirpate the other.
VI. There is another negative qualification of prison Inspectors--not
mentioned last because we esteem it of the least consideration--and
that is the absence of all morbid and whimsical philosophy about
the _origin_ of criminal acts. There are some people who may, with
comparative harmlessness, indulge their fancy in framing theories
to account for crime, without involving criminality. They may amuse
themselves by analogies between the irregularities of the skull and
the proclivities to particular crimes, or by tracing a disposition to
larceny, robbery and murder to some physiological mal-formation, for
which the offending party is no more responsible than for his stature
or complexion. Or they may discover a process by which to lay the
blame of all crime on society, and show to their own satisfaction that
when a foul murder is committed, “Society” should be hung as the real
offender, and not the poor wretch whom (as they would say) the “state
of society” has betrayed into the commission of the deed!
This is not an imaginary supposition. Our own ears have heard a man of
much repute for active philanthropy, and sharing quite generously in
the confidence of the community, assert in an address to a large public
assembly, concerning a woman who was then under sentence for the wilful
murder of her child, that she was not the blame-worthy party--“She
went,” he said, “from door to door, and sought work. All objected to
employing her because she was incumbered with a child. Finding this
incumbrance a bar to her success, she threw it into the Schuylkill
river, and who would blame her?” asked the popular orator. “Those who
turned her from their doors are the guilty ones, and should now be
where she is, and in her place suffer the extreme penalty of the law!”
Now, a prison Inspector needs to be free from all such fancies. He has
nothing to do with the origin of crime or the blameworthiness of those
who are under his inspection. All these points were settled before the
convict came under his notice. All he has to do is to see that the
sentence awarded by legal authority is duly executed. He has a share in
the oversight of an institution established for that purpose, and his
simple duty is to see to it, that the penal purpose of his confinement
is fulfilled with due regard both to the dignity of the Commonwealth
and the rights of the convict--for a convict has rights as well as a
freeman--and the Inspectors stand between the parties, not to theorize
or speculate, but to oversee the process of punishment, that it may be
conformed in all respects to the provisions of law.
ART. III.--THE OLD ULCER OPENED AGAIN.
If there is any one point settled in the science of prison-discipline,
it is that which is embraced in the motto of this Journal, viz.,
that the separation of each convict from all other convicts, is the
only basis on which we can rest a reasonable hope of making him
better rather than worse;--or, to give the converse of the same
proposition,--the most skilful doctors of the body politic have
uniformly admitted that the association of convicts is sure to breed
the most pestiferous and incurable moral ulcers in their patients.
We had supposed this doctrine was so clearly established, and its
fundamental importance so generally admitted, that in Pennsylvania,
at least, it would rule. But either through the negligence of the
proper authorities to furnish the needful accommodations, or from the
overstocking of the prison with a class of persons for whose reception
and oversight no proper provision is made, or from a disregard to the
positive requisitions of the law, association is still allowed in some
of our prisons, and the mischiefs which have always sprung from that
source are re-appearing among us. The old ulcer has re-opened, and the
State doctors must see to it, and check it in season, or it will become
malignant and uncontrollable.
The following incidents are furnished on indisputable personal
authority.
The wife of a very respectable citizen of Philadelphia contracted
a habit of intemperate drinking. So resistless was the habit, that
she was accustomed to pawn any thing that could be removed through
the doors or windows to obtain the means of indulgence. No proper
receptacle for such persons being provided, there was no alternative
but that most painful one of a commitment to a prison-cell. It was
hoped that a brief separation from all opportunity to gratify her
appetite, would work a cure, especially when connected with the
severity of the discipline.
She was committed by due process of law to the county prison, and
during the brief period of her restraint, she was associated at various
times with at least _three_ vile malefactors, one of whom was under
indictment for murder. When she left the prison and returned home,
instead of being the sober, useful, reformed woman, that her wretched
husband expected, she had become familiar with the worst forms and
most notorious haunts of wickedness and infamy. She was not only still
intemperate, but far more degraded and hopeless in her condition than
ever before.
A girl at service, in a respectable family, committed some trifling
fault which irritated her employers, and induced them to commence a
prosecution against her for larceny. She was charged with stealing a
flannel jacket and a bonnet-ribbon.
On the trial it was proved that the former consisted of at least thirty
distinct pieces of cloth which she had sewed together, supposing the
fragments to be of no value. The ribbon she had taken from an old
bonnet, which had lain among the rubbish of a loft for two years or
more. She was found guilty, received sentence, and was committed in
execution of it to the county prison. Here she became the associate of
two, if not three different individuals, each of whom had been steeped
in crime, and though she went into prison technically guilty, but in
all good truth and justice guiltless, she came out a thorough bred
mistress of iniquity!
A committing magistrate states a case which fell within his own
knowledge, in which a thief and the receiver of the stolen property
were tenants of the same cell! And another case is mentioned, in which
a youth was associated with an old rogue, who gave him daily lessons in
the various branches of criminal science!
It will be perceived, that we impute no blame to any one for the state
of things here revealed. It is well known, that within a year or two
last past, persons have been detained in confinement in our county
prison for weeks, and even months, without any employment for mind or
body, and in some instances without a change of apparel! And it was
a remark of one of our judges made in a public assembly lately, that
“the condition of the county prison at that time was a fair sample of
what the worst prison in London was, when Howard began his reforming
efforts!”
We suppose this deplorable state of things is the consequence of
inadequate provision for the number and class of prisoners, whom the
officers are obliged to receive. We therefore go with our appeal to
the people, as represented in the legislative assembly, and earnestly
invoke their attention to the subject. It cannot be needful to spread
out in any new form the evils which are inevitably consequent on the
association of prisoners of any class or character, tried or untried,
with each other.
If it is fancied that the opportunities of mutual corruption are less
eagerly seized now, than they were in former years, or that association
may be allowed with less hazard, we can give the most unqualified
assurance that such fancies are vain. The evidence of the certainty of
contamination from contact, was never more conclusive than now. We have
this moment before us an official report of the thievish adventures
of a couple of boys, who were confined together in Cold-bath-Fields
prison, which serves not only to show the folly of giving such
facilities for planning mischief, but an extraordinary boldness and
success in its perpetration.
Having settled during the leisure moments of their imprisonment, the
scheme of a professional trip to Kidderminster, “as soon as they
were released they built a dog-cart, stole two dogs, and bought some
hardware to vend. Whilst they were buying it in the shop, their
comrades stole a dozen and a-half of brooms from the door, for which
the boys paid them half-a-crown. They took with them also twenty
sixpences and ten shillings in bad money, which they carried under the
false floor of the cart. They first stopped at Wimbledon, where they
paid a bad sixpence for some beer, and stole four silver salt-spoons
from a shelf, which they disposed of to the landlord of the house in
which they slept, at Kingston, for their lodging and five shillings.
On the next day a coach passed them, from which one of the boys cut
down a portmanteau, which turned out to be filled with papers. One of
them manufactured cloth caps, and stole a great coat from a customer
to supply him with materials. When they arrived at Kidderminster, they
visited a carpet factory in which one of them formerly had employment,
from which they stole at various times large quantities of twine and
string. They were always punctual at church, where they regularly took
occasion to commit thefts. In one town they succeeded in stealing three
watches. At a neighboring fair one of them obtained eight purses from
as many farmers, but having fallen under suspicion received a handsome
ducking in a pond. On their return to London they entered a vacant
house and took away a pair of decanters, a hearth-rug, and a great
coat, which realised 25_s._; and, after picking the pockets of some
soldiers of 2_l._, and stealing a watch and some silver salt-cellars,
they reached London _without detection_, where the silver fetched 3_s._
6_d._ an ounce, and the watches no less than 15_l._”
A narrower policy can scarcely be conceived, than that which withholds
the means of preventing crime, or counteracting the influences that
provoke or promote it. We can make a very close estimate of the expense
of keeping two practised rogues in separate places for a couple of
years, but what it will cost to allow them to associate, is more than
human wit can divine!
ART. IV.--PRISON MATTERS AT THE WEST, AND POLITICAL MANAGEMENT IN
GENERAL, AFFECTING PRISONS AND PRISONERS.
We have naturally regarded, with special interest, the movements in
our new States and Territories, on the subject of prisons. A system of
discipline once introduced, (no matter how defective the information,
or false the principles on which its adoption is based,) cannot be
changed without difficulty. And hence our desire that such deductions
as can be fairly made from past experience and observation, should
be familiar to those who are entrusted with the responsible task
of founding the penal institutions of a State, in order that the
superstructure may be safe and permanent.