[Under this heading will appear each month numerous paragraphs of
general interest, relating to the prison field and the treatment of
the delinquent.]
_Families of Prisoners Excite Discussion._—The subject of prisoner’s
pay for work done during incarceration is receiving wide-spread
discussion in this country. The note constantly struck is the need for
support of those dependent on the imprisoned bread winner.
In Rhode Island a bill has been introduced to the assembly increasing
the wages of jail term offenders from 25 cents to one dollar a day.
The members of the board of control of the prison at Jackson, Mich.,
favor a change in the method of paying the inmates employed in the
binder twine plant of the institution. The present law gives the men
10 per cent of the net profits of the plant each year. Some of the
evils of this arrangement are thought to be that the men have to wait
too long for their pay, and that they are kept in unnecessary doubt as
to the amount they shall receive. The plan of the prison board is that
they shall be paid from 10 to 15 cents a day for their services.
In Massachusetts the Springfield Republican, among other papers, has
recently advocated the extension of the present law, providing that
prisoners be paid nominal wages for the benefit of their families, to
include the inmates of work houses and all places of detention. Says
the Republican:
“In the workhouse the convicted mis-doer is set to broom making.
Why should not his family have the aid of part of such earnings?
Why should not all prisoners, in all parts of the country,
contribute, through state officials, to the support of their
hapless families? Wife and children have not broken the law—they
should not then be left to starve.”
* * * * *
_Finds Canadian Prisons Better Than Ours._—Considerable newspaper
prominence has been given to a report on Canadian prisons made
recently by the Rev. Dr. John Handley, who was commissioned by the
Governor of New Jersey to visit Canada and examine her prisons. The
Tribune of Providence, R. I., concludes from this report that Canadian
prisons are “somewhat in advance of ours in some respects.” The
Tribune thus discusses Dr. Handley’s report:
“The Canadian idea is that reformatory should be a large
custodial school rather than a penal institution; that it should
be removed as far as possible from the thought of felony and the
disgrace that attaches to any young man or boy who has violated
the law and thus become subject to a reformatory sentence. And in
accordance with that idea each Canadian prison has a large farm
attached, to which prisoners are sent to work. From the federal
prison at Toronto, for example, at least half the prisoners are
put to work on a farm where there are no surrounding walls, no
regiment of guards and no rigid surveillance, and yet from which
in two years only five prisoners attempted to escape.
“Dr. Handley has returned to New Jersey strongly in favor of this
farm idea as an aid in reformatory work. It is not, however, an
altogether new idea in the States. In several of our
penitentiaries men are allowed to work out of doors even a long
distance away, under only a light guard, and very few have
attempted to escape. The State homes, too, ordinarily have no
high walls around them, and the inmates are allowed many
liberties.
“How far farm regulations could be applied to offenders who have
been sentenced to state prison is another question, and one not
easy to answer. The experiment seems to work well in Canada,
however; and if farms could be utilized for the benefit of the
prisoners there would not be the objection made by organized
labor to most other forms of prison employment, since there is
always a market for farm products and nothing that could thus be
raised would affect farm wages or the prices of staple products.
Moreover, much of the farm yields would go toward the maintenance
of the prisoners.”
* * * * *
_A Bibliography For The Student._—A helpful tool for the student of
criminology and allied subjects has just been furnished in the form of
a “bibliography on crime, its causes and prevention, criminals,
punishment and reformative methods, with special reference to
children,” The pamphlet is the work of Mr. Paul A. Wiebe, of
Meriden, Conn., and comprises a bibliography of books, senate
documents, magazine articles, circulars, addresses and the
publications of various organizations, together with a brief list of
German publications. The collection is not so exhaustive as to be
confusing.
* * * * *
_Tuberculosis Among Prisoners._—That 16,000 persons infected with
tuberculosis are annually sent out into society by the prisons of this
country is a statement attributed to Dr. J. B. Ransom, physician to
Clinton Prison, New York. In the course of a recent address Dr. Ransom
showed the good results flowing from the special care in New York
prisons of those with tuberculosis.
In a similar connection the Lincoln, (Neb.) News says:
“Not long ago the statement is alleged to have been made by the
warden of the western penitentiary of Pennsylvania that
approximately 300 out of 1,300 inmates of that institution were
suffering from tuberculosis. In private conversation, says the
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, the warden of one of the
eastern state penitentiaries expressed his belief that six per
cent of the inmates of his institution had tuberculosis in some
degree.
“Only twenty-one prisons in fifteen states and territories have
provided special places for the treatment of their tuberculosis
prisoners and these have accommodations for only 800 patients. In
three-fourths of the major prisons and in practically all of the
jails of the country the tuberculosis prisoner is allowed freely
to infect his fellow prisoners, very few restrictions being put
upon his habits.”
* * * * *
_A French Study of Vagrants and How To Treat Them._—An interesting
classification of so-called “non-producers,” or vagabonds, has been
made by Etienne Flandid, who has recently conducted a study of the
criminal classes of France. M. Flandid has made his studies the basis
of a report which is being considered by the French senate.
He divides vagabonds into three classes. In the first class are the
infirm and aged. These, he believes, should be properly clothed and
fed and housed by the state or municipality. The second class contains
the “accidental out-of-works.” Under M. Flandid’s recommendation these
will be sent to a penal labor colony, where they will be kept and put
to work until employment is found for them outside of the colony. It
will be the duty of the state to seek to secure employment for them,
and to notify them and release them from the colony at the earliest
possible date. The third class contains the professional tramps, the
fellows who do not want work and who would not accept employment if it
were tendered them. This class is to be shut up in penal colonies for
periods of from five to ten years. After serving the first sentence,
if they do not secure employment, they will be returned to the penal
colonies and kept there for life, with plenty of good, wholesome work
to do. By ridding society of these three classes of people, or by
providing for them in the manner stated, he believes that crime will
be so greatly lessened that there will hardly be any use for the
police forces, save to gather in the few vagabonds as they develop. He
argues that nearly all crime is committed by one or the other of the
three classes named, especially by the third class.
Speaking editorially of this report, the Dayton, Ohio, _News_
says:
“Practically every country on earth today has its problems of the
unemployed. France is not alone in the matter. Even in this
country, where there is so much to be done, where conditions are
better than almost anywhere else on earth, we have the three
classes referred to by the Frenchman, and we have done little to
improve conditions. We have our civic societies, and our reform
organizations and our bodies of philanthropists. But we have not
gone to the root of the matter as have the French, and we have no
students devoting as much time to the study of the question as
can be found in other countries. We complain much about the cost
of living—as we have a right to—and we print thousands of
columns about the trusts and the tariff, as is well that we
should. But we are overlooking one of the real questions of
economy when we fail to study and to understand the problems
presented to us in the way of the unemployed.”
* * * * *
_Resignations Follow Criticism of Juvenile Court of Louisville, Ky._—A
somewhat acute situation has developed among those interested in the
work of the juvenile court and juvenile probation in Louisville, Ky.
As a result of what is by some persons characterized as the courts’
“totally irresponsible methods in caring for dependent and delinquent
children,” Bernard Flexner and several other members of the Juvenile
Court Advisory Board have resigned their positions. The straw which
broke the camel’s back was the appointment by Juvenile Judge Muir
Weissinger of a probation officer who is declared not only to be unfit
for such a delicate position, but also to have a noteworthy political
reputation. The Social Workers’ Conference held a mass meeting on
March 16, at which were adopted resolutions calling for the removal of
the probation officer in question. Speakers at the meeting declared
that for a year conditions in the juvenile court have been
intolerable; that children have been dragged into court and
brow-beaten, some have been wrongfully placed in unworthy homes, and
that all efforts to do something for them have come to naught. Judge
Weissinger declared that he would not remove the objectionable
probation officer until better evidence that he was unfit had been
adduced.
* * * * *
_Domestic Relations Courts._—In view of the interest with which the
whole country is watching the work of the domestic relations courts
newly instituted in the larger cities of New York, it is important
that the court’s own story of its activities be set before the public.
Recently such a court was instituted in the city of Chicago. Pointing
in this same direction is a recommendation contained in the 1910
report of the Boston Associated Charities that the delinquent husband
and father shall be constantly under the supervision of the court
during the continuance of its direction to him to pay for the
maintenance of his wife and child.
The domestic relations court for the Borough of Brooklyn, New York
City, has put out a report of its work for the four months ending
December 31st, 1910, these being the first four months of its
existence. Judge Edward J. Dooley says:
“That the predictions of the opponents of a separate domestic
relations court, that its organization would serve to promote
more antagonism in the family, that it would tend to harass the
husband, father and provident relative unnecessarily, have not
been fulfilled. Statistics show that the number of cases brought
herein since September 1st last, a period of four months, has
been 574, which would be at the rate of 1,722 cases for the year
1910, for abandonment and non-support in the borough of Brooklyn.
The number of cases of abandonment and non-support in the borough
of Brooklyn for the year 1909 was 1,907, thus actually showing an
apparent decrease of 185 cases of non-support for the year 1910,
as compared with the year 1909.
“The provisions of Chapter 168, Laws of the year 1905, of the
State of New York, which provides that the abandonment and
non-support of a minor child or children is made a felony and
extraditable has been put in execution, and it can be said that
on a meritorious case the negligent father who actually abandons
and neglects to support his minor child or children will be
pursued to the extreme boundaries of these United States,
arrested and brought into the jurisdiction of this court to stand
trial for such desertion and non-support.
“No statistical information can be obtained as to the amount of
money received in the magistrates courts of the borough of
Brooklyn for the year 1909, but from my personal knowledge I
venture to say that less than $1,000 was received therein to be
applied to the benefit of neglected wives and children during the
year 1909, or any year previous thereto, within the last decade.
For four months, from September 1st to December 31st, 1910,
inclusive, there has been paid into the hands of the probation
officers of this court, the sum of $4,968.45 or at the rate of
about $15,000 a year.”
Something of the spirit in which the domestic relations court was
conceived, and of the end which it was designed to further, may be
glimpsed from the following paragraph from Judge Dooley:
“To make the improvident and negligent husband and father, as
well as those who are liable for the maintenance of the dependant
relatives, namely, the grandparents, parents, children,
grand-children and relatives of a poor person of sufficient
ability, realize the obligations that the law has cast upon them,
to advise and admonish in the first instance as to their duty to
their dependants, and to punish if advice be not followed, has
been the rule and practice of the court. In other words, it is
not a tribunal constituted for vengeance, spite, anger or
petulant temperaments, to give vent to their wrath, but rather
for the calm, cool and considerate treatment of each individual
case in order that the greatest good may be accomplished to those
entitled to its consideration and help, and that the basic
foundation of the state, to wit, the family unit may be
maintained if possible.”
The total number of persons arraigned in the court during the four
months in question, including those transferred on September 1st, 1910
from the various magistrates’ courts, was 881 only two of whom were
women. Forty of these were convicted. 379 were discharged, and the
cases of the remaining 462 were still pending at the close of the
year. As to the nature of the offenses charged, 795 were accused of
abandonment of wives and children, and 86 of failure to support poor
relatives. The following table reveals some aspects of the probation
system as used by the court:
Number of persons placed under probationary
oversight 198
Completed probationary period and
discharged with improvement 23
Completed probationary period
and discharged without improvement 4
Re-arrested and committed 14
Absconded or lost from oversight 3
Pending on probation 154
* * * * *
_Charges of “Crime Wave” Lead to Grand Jury Investigation._—In an open
letter to the newspapers of the city, published during the latter part
of March, Magistrate Joseph E. Corrigan declared that crime was
flourishing in New York City more flagrantly than it had for years,
that criminals were allowed to carry on their work with little
molestation, that the police force was demoralized and cowed, and that
the responsibility for these conditions lay upon the shoulders of
Mayor Wm. J. Gaynor and upon his reforms in the police administration.
Within less than two weeks after the publication of this letter the
grand jury was at work, under the direction of special assistants to
the district attorney, upon the task of investigating these charges,
in an effort to ascertain their truth, and to fix responsibility for
the conditions described, in the event that those conditions were
found actually to exist.
Meanwhile the newspapers, public bodies and private societies, to say
nothing of the general community, were engaged in an intense and
aggressive discussion of the situation of the city with reference to
crime, heated tempers were being displayed in more than one quarter,
crimination was being met by recrimination, and only such a
catastrophe as the Asch building fire could divert the attention of
the city from the discussion of the “crime wave” and its causes.
Magistrate Corrigan’s general charges were followed by an array of
specific facts and instances, presented by himself, by some of the
newspapers, and by many private individuals, including social workers.
It was freely alleged that Mayor Gaynor’s doctrine of “personal
liberty,” and his discouragement of “needless and unjustifiable
arrests,” were responsible for the demoralization of the police force,
and the consequent influx of criminals of every sort.
To all this Mayor Gaynor finally entered a general and emphatic
denial. He praised the police force, scouted the idea of
demoralization, declared that the laws were being efficiently
enforced, and characterized the whole agitation as but a periodic
recurrence of a long series of similar protestations. Such outcries,
he said, were as regular in their coming as is the spring marble
season among boys.
The grand jury investigation bids fair to be thorough. Police
Commissioner Cropsey has been called upon for some extended testimony,
and the district attorney has declared his intention to probe the
situation to the bottom.
[1] From other extracts from report of this association
see REVIEW for February, 1911, page 10.
[2] For other information see the March REVIEW, page 24.
Transcriber's Note:
Words and phrases in italics are surrounded by underscores, _like
this_. Footnotes were renumbered sequentially and moved to the end of
the book. Dialect, obsolete and alternative spellings were left
unchanged.
The following items were changed:
Changed publication title to capital letters in the first paragraph
of the third article.
Removed duplicate anchor to footnote [2] from subtitle.
Added a missing endquote to text.
Spelling corrections:
‘orignated’ to ‘originated’ … Not one of these originated in …
‘pyschopathic’ to ‘psychopathic’ … and psychopathic experts …
‘centry’ to ‘century’ … at the end of the eighteenth century.
‘physican’ to ‘physician’ … to Dr. J. B. Ransom, physician …
‘necessitious’ to ‘necessitous’ … in necessitous circumstances …