SLOYD WORK.
This is not a trade, but a system of teaching, by draughting plans, used in manual training-schools and some of our reformatories. It ought to be introduced in all our reformatories, and would be extremely useful in the prisons among those of long terms with work, for it establishes practical thoughts as a foundation for a trade when dismissed.
NOVEL PUNISHMENT.
When Mayor James L. Schaadt, of Allentown, Pa., began his office a year ago, new ideas were inaugurated for evildoers, and generally with good effect. When but a few days in office, a party of boys were brought before him on some trivial charge of disorder. The offence needed some punishment, and the parents were too poor to pay even a small fine. The Mayor learned the family shingle was still in use in the boys’ homes, and as the boys were too young to send to the station-house for a day or two, the Mayor sent the boys home with instructions that they should be soundly spanked by their parents as a punishment, and to report at court the next day whether their sentence had been carried out. The scheme worked well until some of the fathers refused to do it, then the Mayor did it himself until he tired of it, and finally it was required to be done in the court-room by the police officer; the plan has worked well and the number has greatly decreased.
On many prisoners fines are imposed, and he trusts them to be paid on instalments, and they never fail to satisfy the obligation. It acts as a deterrent to committing a like crime. Squads of tramps are put to work on the city streets without guard, and they very soon skip out of town, fearing re-arrest and a long sentence.
THE WHIPPING-POST.
Judge S. C. Baldwin, of Philadelphia, is in favor of the lash, or whipping-post, for incorrigible boys, and especially for wife-beaters, as they are often the only support of the wife and children. The September Grand Jury made such a recommendation before Judge Pennypacker, and he considered it worthy of consideration. But most of our Judges considered it not in harmony with the twentieth century ideas, and were unwilling to express any decided opinion offhand, as the whipping-post was a radical change. Judge Michael Arnold thought it would shock the public mind too much, and that the reason why our present plans fail is because the prisoner has too easy a time in jail, not required to work. Judge Robert N. Wilson held that in detaining a husband it often caused more suffering to the wife and children to be deprived of support, and it was a serious question whether it would not be degrading and lower a man’s whole moral nature.
Judge Wm. W. Whitbank thought the matter too radical to be decided without a careful consideration.
Judge Abraham M. Beitler had very decided views, but the public does not realize the situation. If they would only sit one day in court and see the cases of brutality brought before us, they would very soon recommend more drastic punishment. What are you going to do with a man who beats his wife in a most brutal manner (while drunk, generally), but who is the sole support of that wife and children? If you put him in jail you inflict ten times more suffering on his family.
In regard to the opinion of the Grand Jurymen, that the House of Refuge is not operating for the good of society, because not all the boys are reformed and converted, all the Judges unanimously expressed themselves as not in sympathy with the view taken by the Grand Jury, for we all know of very many cases where the House of Refuge has done splendid work. One of the Judges said: