The session of the Physicians’ Association, held this morning, was most interesting, and was marked by some notable features. The President, Dr. S. H. Blitch, Ocala, Florida, presented a paper on “The Open versus the Close Penitentiary System of Handling Prisoners,” in which he took strong ground in favor of the former, especially in the South. He defined the “open” penitentiary system as that mode of social restraint according to which the prisoner sentenced to hard labor is required to perform skilled and unskilled service in fields, woods, and surface mining, and in such industries and occupations as do not necessitate his daily cellular or circumscribed confinement, as is the case under the “close” system. He claimed that in spite of criticism, the “open” system, wherever climatic conditions make it practicable, is far more conducive to the mental and physical rehabilitation of the convict than the “close” system. In the South, especially where the vast majority of prisoners are negroes who have been accustomed to life in the open air and to outdoor employment, the confinement in a “close” penitentiary would be most detrimental. The open-air system puts these men at work under conditions to which they have been accustomed from youth up, and the results demonstrate the wisdom of the plan.
In the discussion which followed this paper, Dr. Barrows said that many penologists felt that the Southern system had many advantages, but that other industrial and reformatory elements should be added. Dr. Wines saw an immense advantage in the Southern method, and claimed that Northern prisons would find it very beneficial to have farms connected with them for the outdoor employment of convicts.
The paper on “Prison Sanitation,” by Dr. W. D. Stewart, West Virginia Penitentiary, Moundsville, was followed by that of Dr. S. A. Knopf, of New York, on “The Tuberculosis Problem in Prisons and Reformatories.” The presentation made by this eminent specialist on tuberculosis was probably the most exhaustive on this subject to which the Congress ever listened. This very valuable paper, any condensation of which would do it injustice, is published in full in the New York Medical Journal, November 17, 1906, to which the reader is referred.
Dr. J. W. Milligan, Indiana State Prison, Michigan City, read a paper on “Mental Defectives Among Prisoners,” of which the following is a synopsis: Where reformation, not punishment, is the aim, a just estimate of the prisoner’s mental state is essential. Without this the indeterminate sentence cannot be successful. Communities as well as courts too frequently overlook mental defect as an important element in crime. Too many prisoners on admission are insane, epileptic, or feeble-minded. Epilepsy is not an infrequent factor, especially in atrocious crimes without motive, and overlooked because not of the pronounced type popularly considered characteristic of this disease.
Indiana prison records show among the defectives, a percentage for murder three times; for murder, manslaughter, and rape, twice; but for larceny, two-thirds that of the average for all classes. On admission, forty-four per cent. admit mental defect or criminal record, in the personal or family history. This tainted influx, and the fact that defectives are not paroled, explains why twelve per cent. of our population is insane, epileptic, or feeble-minded.
The psychosis are chiefly degenerative in type. Insane among prisoners are not especially difficult to manage; no harsh measures are ever justifiable. Indiana has as yet no institution for insane criminals; it needs one badly. A ward in the prison hospital gives good results, though far from ideal. Insane criminals should be judged in the light of modern psychiatry, and their rights and the safety of society carefully guarded.
AFTERNOON
Mr. C. W. Bowron, Superintendent of the Wisconsin State Reformatory, Green Bay, presented the Report of the Committee on Prevention and Reformatory Work, in a paper entitled, “Reformatory Sentences and Discharges,” which concluded with the following propositions:
1. That the authority to transfer prisoners from the reformatory to state prison is an essential safeguard to the successful management of a reformatory; and this power on the part of prison officials has been abundantly upheld by the courts.
2. That the so-called indeterminate sentence has been repeatedly held valid, but apparently upon the construction that it is a definite sentence for the maximum limit. It is therefore a misnomer.