Part 15 (2/2)
In the abridged report of the proceedings of the International Congress, under the head of ”c.u.mulative Imprisonment,” we learn that the following question was submitted, and several important suggestions followed its presentation.
QUESTION: Ought prisoners on reconviction to be subjected to more severe disciplinary treatment than on the first sentence?
It was opened by M. Peterson, of Bavaria, who maintained that cases required treatment according to the degree of demerit shown on the prisoner's trial, and therefore, that instead of laying down one principle, the right course was to leave the judges to decide what should be done in each case.
M. Ploos Van Amstel, of Holland, and M. Stevens, of Belgium, advocated a merciful treatment as likely to have more effect than severity.
Mr. Aspinall, of Liverpool, read resolutions which the Liverpool magistrates had pa.s.sed, to the effect that it was desirable that c.u.mulative principles should be applied to the punishment of all crimes and offences, and that the magistrates should be empowered to transfer well conducting and deserving prisoners to homes for the remainder of their sentences. Voluminous statistics showed that there were numerous reconvictions up to seventy times, and that the conclusions arrived at, by the magistrates, was that it would be better for the prisoners and better for society if the c.u.mulative principles were carried out.
Dr. Guillaume, of Switzerland, mentioned his experiences in some of the cantons of his country, which had led him to the conviction that it was better to give the reconvicted such sentences as would enable the prisoner to learn a trade, by which he could earn his living in the labor market without being obliged to fall back upon the lines of crime, than to give short and severe punishments, which, by including a lessened diet, sent the criminal back into the world, not only unimproved in morals, but deteriorated physically.
It would seem, according to his views, that the design of imprisoning is, to bring back to society those once injurious, but who are now changed to good citizens.
Mrs. Julia Ward Howe, of Ma.s.sachusetts, advocated the merciful and kindly treatment as being the way to make a permanent impression upon the criminal cla.s.ses.
M. Robin, of France, stated that his experience led him to set his face against all pains and penalties in prison, as against Christian principles, and advocated the teaching of trades. All in all, strict adherence to Christian principles should be at the bottom of the treatment of criminals.
Count de Foresta, of Italy, held that the question was rather one of law than prison discipline. He urged that there was a line of prison discipline beyond which it was impossible to go without turning the discipline into cruelty.
Another question touching ”Prison Labor,” was brought forward and considered, as follows:
QUESTION: ”Should prison labor be merely penal, or should it be industrial?”
It was opened by the reading of a long and interesting paper by Mr.
Frederick Hill, brother of the late celebrated Recorder of Birmingham.
The substance of the paper was that labor, to be made useful and productive, follows natural laws, which are the same in prison as out of prison; that it is an advantage to the prisoner to fit him for usefulness and to make more easy his reform; that it will help pay the cost of his conviction and imprisonment; that upon release, he will be better armed against relapse into crime, as well as much better prepared to obtain an honest living than those whose labor has been merely penal; that the pains and privations necessarily attendant on the process of moral reformation are so great as to make it unnecessary, for the maintenance of the principle of deterrence, to superadd artificial pains and penalties.
Colonel Colville, Governor of Colbath Fields Prison, one of the largest London prisons, spoke very strongly against the tread-mill system of punishment which is in nearly all the prisons of England, and almost unanimously condemned by the prison officials.
The general opinion of the Congress was in conformity to views expressed by the speakers mentioned.
Under the question touching the moral value of visitation of the prisons by women, we find the following sensible views expressed:
”While the character of the visiting women depends upon chance, they are as likely to be indiscreet, and to interfere unwisely as otherwise. If they were selected as men are, or ought to be, for their fitness, their work would be done with good judgment and discretion. Then, again, criminal men separated from their families and from all gentle influences, need the ministry of good women for their reformation. The motherly influence of pure, gentle women will sometimes control and subdue the violent, when even blows would fail to do so.”
The whole force of the International Congress went in favor of the idea of _reforming_ the prisoners. For this the body advocated stimulating the prisoners' self-interest, thus:
”In this way, the prisoner's destiny during his incarceration should be placed, measurably, in his own hands; he must be put into circ.u.mstances where he will be able, through his own exertions, to continually better his condition. A regular self-interest must be brought into play. In the prison, as in free society, there must be the stimulus of some personal advantage accruing from the prisoner's efforts. Giving prisoners an interest in their industry and good conduct tends to give them beneficial thoughts and habits, and what no severity of punishment will enforce a moderate personal interest will readily obtain.”
They also advocated using the moral force:
”In criminal treatment, moral forces should be relied on with as little admixture of physical force as may be; organized persuasion to the utmost extent possible should be made to take the place of coercive restraint, the object being to make upright and industrious _freemen_, rather than orderly and obedient _prisoners_. Brute force may make good prisoners, moral training alone will make good citizens. To the latter of those ends the living soul must be won; to the former, only the inert and obedient body. To compa.s.s the reformation of criminals, the military type in prison management must be abandoned, and a discipline by moral forces subst.i.tuted in its place. The objects of military discipline and prison discipline, being directly opposed to each other, can not be pursued by the same road. The one is meant to train men to act together, the other to prepare them to act separately. The one relies upon force, which never yet created virtue; the other on motives, which are the sole agency for attaining moral ends. The special object of the one is to suppress individual character and reduce all to component parts of a compact machine; that of the other is to develop and strengthen individual character, and, by instilling right principles, to encourage and enable it to act on these independently.”
They tell us again ”that the self-respect of the prisoner should be cultivated to the utmost and every effort be made to give back to him his manhood.” ”There is no greater mistake in the whole compa.s.s of penal discipline, than its studied imposition of degradation as a part of punishment. Such imposition destroys every better impulse and aspiration. It crushes the weak, irritates the strong and indisposes all to submission and reform. It is trampling, where it ought to raise, and is therefore as unchristian in principle as it is unwise in policy.”
Farther, ”The system of prison discipline must gain the will of the convict. He is to be amended, but this is impossible with his mind in a state of hostility. No system can hope to succeed which does not secure this harmony of wills, so that the prisoner shall choose for himself what his officer chooses for him. But to this end the officer must really choose the good of the prisoner, and the prisoner must remain in his choice long enough for virtue to become a habit. This consent of will is an essential condition of reformation, for a bad man can never be made good against his will. Nowhere can reformation become the rule instead of the exception, where this choice of the same things by prison keepers and prison inmates has not been attained.”
They a.s.sert, too, that the officers should possess a hearty desire and intention to accomplish the object of reform in the prison. Regarding these officers they also say thus:
<script>