on the recent report to the Governor of Missouri, by a Commissioner
appointed to examine the various prevailing systems of discipline.
Knowing, as we do, that its positions are totally indefensible, and
that those who may be persuaded to rely upon them, will be sadly
misled, we felt bound to say so. We are led to suppose there is
some current of political or local interest or influence, which our
plain-spoken comments unfortunately crossed, for we have been favored,
by some friendly hand, with a cutting from a Missouri paper, endorsing
to the letter--yea, and beyond the letter--the discreditable document
of the Commissioner, as “containing all the information necessary to
the proper re-organization of the Penitentiary”--“replete with the most
valuable and reliable amount of information”--“a valuable accession to
our knowledge on the subject,” &c., &c.
Now, we have not the slightest desire to detract an indivisible
particle of credit from the Missouri Commissioner, or his
investigations or his report, except so far as the best interests of
the people of Missouri are likely to be injuriously affected by what
we truly believe to be unfounded statements and erroneous opinions. We
have no doubt that if the whole subject were fairly presented to the
people and calmly considered, the policy of the State would be directly
the reverse of what the Commissioner proposes; and we do not feel
like seeing a powerful and highly influential community duped on such
a subject, though the agent of the mischief may be unconscious of its
perpetration, and may even have the most upright and honest intentions.
As we said before, so we say now, the _Rev. Mr. Hamilton’s_ report does
not present to the Executive, the Legislature, or the public of his
State, such a view of the subject to which it relates, as can possibly
secure wise and beneficial legislation; and inasmuch as crime and
convicts are peculiar to no latitude, soil, or climate, but are common
stock all the world over, we are interested in the disposition that is
made of them, and must have the liberty to speak as we think.
A horse-thief or house-breaker, who may serve his time out in a
congregate State prison in Missouri, and, by association there, become
an adept in his depredating vocation, is as likely to pursue it in
Pennsylvania as in Missouri or in Philadelphia as in St. Louis. If
he plunders a steamboat passenger on the Mississippi, he will not be
very careful to inquire beforehand whether his victim is a citizen of
Missouri, where he received his convict-education, or a citizen of
Pennsylvania, where his education would have been on a different plan,
and we trust with a different result; and hence it is that we make
common cause of this penitentiary-question, and insist upon it that of
all public questions it is the last that should be sucked into any of
the political eddies.
We took occasion, in our last number also, to comment freely on the
condition of the _New Jersey_ State Prison. We were totally ignorant of
all local questions, as well as of the political relations and bearings
of the subject. We simply stated that while the statute positively
required individual separation and interdicted convict intercourse
for any purpose, and under any pretence, except in cases of sickness
and by order of the physician, there were, in fact, 232 prisoners
occupying 182 cells! We ventured to say that this infraction of the
fundamental law of the institution should not be tolerated, but that
measures should be taken without needless delay to provide against its
continuance.
But behold “how great a matter a little fire kindleth!” No sooner
did our gentle and peaceful suggestions find their way to _Trenton_,
than they were drawn into the furnace of political strife. On one
side the faulty state of the prison is ascribed to the desire of the
ruling party to keep in popular favor by spending as little money
as possible! This insinuation is thrown back by the dominant party
with indignation, but at the same time the omission of the Executive
to recommend an enlargement of the accommodations, is vindicated
on the ground, that “the finances of the State did not warrant any
extraordinary expenditure, nor was the exigency of the case so great
as to justify the imposition of a State tax.” Now this is matter of
opinion. We think that no more urgent exigency of the kind could
possibly arise, to demand prompt and efficient action at any sacrifice,
than the association of convicts in a prison which is required by
law to keep them separate. The minority paper retorts with no little
spirit, and raises the general issue, whether the Democrats are a whit
more economical than the Whigs, and concludes with the sad confession
that the “leading politicians of all parties often sacrifice the public
weal unnecessarily upon the popularity-seeking pretext of economy”--and
here the subject closes, and the New Jersey convicts are left to pursue
their system of mutual instruction, as workers of iniquity!
Perceiving from the legislative journal of one of our youngest and
most thriving Western States, that steps were about to be taken
towards the adoption of a general penitentiary system, we made some
modest inquiries as to the probable result, and in reply received the
following information: “The Commissioners by whom the plan was got
up, were a set of politicians. One of them went East to get a plan,
and in talking with him, I found he was loud in his condemnation of
the separate system, though he admitted he had never seen a prison
on that plan, and was without the slightest knowledge of its nature
and operation! His own _greatest objection to it was on the ground of
expense_--nor would he believe that the whole resources of the State
were adequate to the building of a secure prison on the separate
system for one hundred convicts.” At this point we concluded to send,
by return mail, a copy of the number of our Journal for January,
1850, containing the plans and estimates for a separate prison, for
the reception of one hundred prisoners; but we were estopped by the
very next paragraph of our correspondent’s letter. “He would neither
receive information nor listen to reason on the subject. A large wooden
building was put up, and about forty convicts are in it, cutting stone
for the permanent building, which, at the rate they now work, will be
finished in about fifty years!”
“The office of prison Commissioner (the incumbent of which was
originally appointed by the Executive) was last winter made elective on
joint ballot of the Legislature. An applicant for the office succeeded,
by dint of a close siege, to induce the Legislature to appoint him.
But the Governor, knowing that this same man had been guilty of
extravagance and corruption in the same post before, exercised the
power of removal which was left to him; and when the newly elected
Commissioner came to the prison with the certificate of his election
in his pocket, he was met by the incumbent with a document from the
Governor, removing him from the office, and appointing the old one to
fill the vacancy!” “What will become of the convicts while politicians
are fighting for the custody of them,” says our correspondent, “is more
than we can tell.”
Now it might seem very idle in us to counsel those whose interests
are thus trifled with, to take the matter into their own hands,
inasmuch as those who now have it in hand, are their true and lawful
representatives. But with a free press and cheap postage, we have
a plain duty to discharge. As a society--we know no party sect or
section--we go for wholesome laws and for a prompt, even, and rigid
execution of them. We look upon crime as a public calamity. To prevent
it, and to counteract the temptations and provocatives to it, is a
most wise and philanthropic work, in which we gladly co-operate. Where
crime is consummated, however, and the guilty party is condemned in due
course of law, it is a question of deep public interest, what shall
be done with him? If he can be reformed and restored to a reputable
position in society, common humanity would dictate the use of all
practicable measures to secure this result.
One of the most reliable aids in this process, is the modicum of self
respect which may remain to the convict. The wreck is not total so long
as this single piece of timber is preserved. To cherish this where it
exists, or at least to avoid every thing that shall extinguish it, is
of the utmost importance. Will the separation of the unhappy man from
his fellow-convicts, and from the curious gaze of others, conduce to
this end. We think it will, in an eminent degree, and therefore we make
this a prominent feature of our plan. Will separation be better, on
the whole, even if the hope of reforming the culprit is but very faint
and remote? Yes; under all ordinary circumstances, and at all times,
it is best for a convict to be separated from other convicts. But
does not this feature of separation involve, in the prison structure,
great expense to the State? Not half so much as the absence of it.
Once settle the principle, that the separation of convicts, each one
from the other, is more likely to give the desired effect to their
punishment than association, and the question of expense becomes very
insignificant.
We are aware that if the bugbear of extraordinary expense were disposed
of, it would be urged forthwith, that separation, if it were as cheap,
is more hazardous to health and reason, and therefore inhuman. We
deny the position, and challenge the production of a single case in
which the mental powers of a convict have been destroyed or deranged,
or even weakened, as _the necessary and unavoidable result of the
most rigid separation_. The truth is, that statements on this subject
have been made with an inconsiderateness and flippancy which would be
unwarrantable in any connection, but are absolutely reprehensible here.
We do not question the soundness of the opinion of Dr. Evans and other
intelligent professional men, that seclusion in a prison cell, too long
continued, will be quite likely to terminate in the prostration of the
human intellect. But separation from convict society is not seclusion.
For the few hundred rogues with whom they are forbidden intercourse,
there are millions of honest people who may have access to them. We
admit farther, that separation may become seclusion by neglect, in
the same way that a clean prison may become a filthy one, or a humane
discipline inhuman, viz: by want of due oversight and care on the
part of those who are entrusted with the government of it. And when
this neglect or abuse occurs, we must not be surprised to find its
legitimate effects follow.
But we shall greatly err if we attribute all the insanity in a separate
prison (or indeed in any prison) to a peculiarity in its system of
discipline. There will always be those who take ground against a
system, no matter for what cause, and who, in their eagerness to
maintain it, will press into the service not only whatever bears the
semblance of truth, but many things which a little honest inquiry would
show, have not even this to justify the use that is made of them.
Insanity is found in a prison. There are (say) twenty victims of it.
Five of the sufferers are placed there on this very account, for safe
keeping. Three others were insane when committed, and were known to be
so by the committing tribunals. Three have been subject, for years, to
periodical returns of insanity, from which a prison-life is not likely
to exempt them. Six have an hereditary tendency to insanity, which any
irksome constraint would almost necessarily develope. And three are
insane from various causes “not ascertained,” as are scores in our
lunatic asylums.
Suppose now one who is hostile to the system of discipline pursued
in that particular prison, (whether congregate or separate,) should
group all these together, and affirm that the system was evidently
subversive of the reason of convicts, and ought to be abandoned
forthwith--“twenty-four of our fellow-creatures,” they would say, “have
already fallen a sacrifice! Who can justify the infliction of this
calamity, worse than death!” and so on.
Now, without denying that imprisonment of all sorts is an unnatural
state for any man to be in, and therefore likely to bring to light
whatever latent proclivities to physical or mental infirmity may exist;
or that there may be a neglect of hygienic laws, and a disregard of
those precautions, which professional skill or common prudence may
suggest for the counteraction of morbid agencies;--we confidently
affirm that the separation of a convict from his fellows, has no
tendency in that direction to make it an objectionable feature
of prison discipline. On the contrary, we believe its legitimate
influence, when administered by humane and intelligent men, (and no
prison should be governed by any other,) is highly favorable to moral
and intellectual and physical improvement, and more likely to answer
the ends of punishment, than any other system now known.
But to return to the political nuisance. It is not only into these more
imposing and expensive institutions (the patronage of which may be
supposed to avail something in political struggles) that the baneful
influence of party spirit intrudes itself. It was but lately that the
project of a House of Refuge in a neighboring State, fell through
between political parties. If we are not misinformed, one of the most
useful and successful institutions for the reformation of juvenile
offenders in our country, has been sadly embarrassed by the same cause,
and another of like character, all completely furnished and ready for
occupation, remains with closed doors till the appointing powers can
settle some political squabble.
If the influence of State politics is thus baneful, we need not say
how much more disastrous must be the intrusion of Church politics.
We deeply regret the attempt which, we understand, has been made in
some quarters to excite religious prejudices against these valuable
institutions for the reformation of youthful vagrants. A volume
has recently been published in one of our northern cities, (under
a fictitious title,) for the obvious purpose of engendering such
prejudices, and we have understood, from a source entitled to some
confidence, that any youth of the particular religious denomination,
(whose interests the author espouses) who reads the book, will be
likely to give trouble to the master who takes him under indenture!
Now, as American citizens, we are surely all alike concerned in
giving every child a good education, and in correcting as soon and
as effectually as possible every vicious habit and propensity. Hence
our common schools are public property, and should be not only out
of sight, but out of hearing of the din of political strife or the
roll of the “drum ecclesiastic.” Our institutions for the correction,
reformation and punishment of those who from neglect, perverseness or
incorrigible depravity become present or prospective pests of society,
should be elevated above all political or sectarian connections.
We cannot have a school, a refuge, or a prison for each of the
legion of parties in Church and State, and hence the impolicy and
unreasonableness of making existing institutions subservient to any
political or sectarian end. Away with all such suicidal schemes! The
ground these institutions occupy, or ought to occupy, is too sacred to
be entered by such unhallowed feet.
With these views we cannot but deplore the intermingling of political
interests or considerations, with the subject of prisons and
prison-discipline. The only effect of their introduction is to endanger
all the benevolent, public and permanent interests that ought to be
regarded, and to advance those that are purely selfish and temporary.
There is something utterly revolting to every human sympathy, in the
idea that a hospital for poor lunatics must be delayed till some
political party has strength enough to venture on the expense, or that
the adoption of a system of prison-discipline, or the establishment
of a House of Refuge for juvenile offenders and vagrants, should be
governed by so narrow a consideration, as its tendency to promote
or defeat a transient political end! Concerning all public men who
entertain such views, we say, “Oh my soul! come not thou into their
secret. Unto their assembly, mine honor! be not thou united.”
ART. V.--UNCERTAINTY OF CONVICTION AND PUNISHMENT.
Among the considerations which (we may suppose) exert the chief
influence in prompting a man to crime, or in deterring him from it, we
must regard the probability of detection and punishment, as by no means
the least. Not that a man who is about to commit a crime considers
very scrupulously either what measure of punishment is affixed to a
certain shade of crime, or what are the chances for escaping detection;
but there is a general conviction abroad in all communities on these
subjects, engendered by observing from time to time the proportion of
criminal acts that escape detection, and the proportion of criminal
actors that evade merited punishment; and this general impression
influences evil-disposed persons quite as much as any other class.
Hence when the idea prevails that the chances are quite even, in
favor of escaping detection, or that if detected, the chances are
quite equal, that the threatened punishment may be evaded, there will
be of course a proportionate relaxation of restraining influence upon
criminal propensities. Let two or three children in a family succeed in
a plan of disobedience in several instances, which are not detected, or
let the prescribed punishment be withheld from a few offences that are
clearly made out, and mischievous effects will soon become evident.
Perhaps some of our readers have never taken the trouble to survey the
stages through which a criminal process must be conducted, and the
embarrassments which attend it.
Besides the reluctance to prosecute, and thus expose one’s-self to a
very undesirable notoriety, and incur the enmity, and possibly kindle
the resentments of a malevolent and reckless heart, there is, in the
country-districts, an inefficiency of police arrangements, of which an
accomplished rogue well knows how to take advantage.
The avenues for escape are so various, and the methods of communication
(aside from telegraph lines) so uncertain and infrequent, that the most
wary police force is not seldom put to its wit’s end. In the country
districts a young thief or burglar can obtain considerable practice in
his profession before there is stir enough to prompt to his arrest. If
a hen roost or garden or orchard is robbed, the owner prefers to put up
with his loss, rather than be at the trouble to ferret out the rogue,
and after all be defeated. The manufacturer or trader who is defrauded
by a dishonest clerk, quietly dismisses the offender, and leaves it
for his next employer to find out the lad’s character for himself. The
course of reasoning is substantially this: The rogue will never have a
chance to play his game with me again. Perhaps this disclosure of his
criminal propensities may be the means of inducing him to reform; I do
not wish to be the instrument of blasting his character and prospects,
and bringing distress and reproach on his innocent family. Besides,
I have not much faith in imprisonment as a means of reformation or
discipline. So, on the whole, I will pocket my loss and send the
culprit to seek his fortune--by hook or by crook, as he lists. Many
a finished rogue is indebted for his proficiency in crime to this
humane-looking selfishness or morbid benevolence.
It is probably this general indisposition in private individuals to
incur the risk and trouble of prosecuting offences, that has led to
the establishment of associations for the purpose--such as societies
for the detection and prosecution of horse-thieves, counterfeiters,
&c., of which there are said to be not less than five hundred in the
counties of England and Wales. It has been said that the existence of
such societies is a proof that the State has abdicated its functions in
this respect, and that posterity will refer to them as evidence of the
imperfection of our present social condition, and of the misconception
on the part of the State of its primary duties.
But suppose a culprit is detected and prosecuted, what is the
probability of his conviction. We have not the means to determine
what it is in the United States, but out of 26,813 persons committed
for trial in England in 1850, 6,238, or about one in four escaped
conviction! Indeed, the number _acquitted_ by the verdict of a jury in
1850, exceeded the whole number _committed_ in 1810. The proportion of
acquittals is probably far greater in our country.
But if conviction is secured, there is still a wide range in the
measure of punishment. Even in the compact and uniform administration
of English law, the punishments for the same offences vary almost
indefinitely,--a verdict for manslaughter, for example, may be followed
by a sentence of transportation for life or imprisonment for an hour!
In our score or two of independent sovereignties, this diversity of
punishment for similar offences is much greater, and as every man is
disposed to expect indulgence towards himself, the lightest punishment
is expected, and a severe one is regarded as cruel and tyrannical.
The uncertainty to which we have referred, has been justly regarded as
a provocation to crime.
Those who feel tempted to transgress the laws must be supposed to
make some sort of calculation as to the risk they will run. If they
perceive that the advantage of a criminal course is more certain than
its punishment--or, at least, if it appears so to them--they will
pursue the course of their inclinations. But if the punishment,
however slight, were indissolubly associated with the notion of the
offence, the latter would be rarely committed. If the punishment
merely consisted, as Bentham says, in taking from the offender the
fruits of his crime and that punishment _were certain_, no more
such crimes would be committed; for no man would be so foolish as
to commit them. But, as there are so many chances of escape, it
is necessary to make punishments more severe than if they oftener
followed the offence. No measures, therefore, can be more humane than
such as tend to attach certainty of punishment to crime, because,
just in proportion as that certainty is increased, the severity of
the penalty may be diminished. Hence also it further appears that
the due proportion and immediate connection between crimes and their
punishment are points likely to have great weight with criminals;
because the great body of offences being larcenies, and perpetrated
from cupidity and not from passion, the thief will soon abstain from
plunder, and the forger from his counterfeit art, when common sense
calmly whispers that he will lose and not gain by the transaction.
The million (says a late writer) derive their impressions of legal
obligations by experience of it in the persons of others, if not
of themselves. They have no instruction in the principles of
jurisprudence, or of ethics; no access to tuition, either oral or
written, on subjects like these. Their estimate of the criminality
of excessive self-indulgence is formed by its visible effects. They
restrain an intemperate propensity because they see the drunkard
revelling in misery, or the thief carried away in handcuffs to the
cells of a prison. Such plain matter-of-fact lessons as these are
sufficiently intelligible, and their impressiveness ought not to be
diluted.
In a late English Magazine it is stated that of thirty-seven persons
sentenced to death in the year, eight only were executed; the sentences
of the rest being commuted. In commenting on this fact, the writer says: