At the subsequent session of the Legislature a bill, approved by the Board, was introduced designed to remedy the unsatisfactory and often disgraceful conditions existing in the prisons of various counties, and placing the control and management of all the county prisons and jails and the inmates thereof in Boards of Prison Inspectors to be named by the courts, one inspector to be a physician, and another, if desired, a woman. This carefully drawn bill, which, if it had become a law, would have inaugurated a most salutary reform where it is most needed in our penal system, passed the House, but was killed in the Senate. It was re-introduced in the last Legislature, but never even came out of committee.
A joint resolution, likewise approved by the Board of Charities, providing for the appointment of a commission to consider and report upon the advisability of establishing a state system of workhouses for misdemeanants, so that county jails and prisons could be used solely for the imprisonment of persons awaiting trial or otherwise detained, and for convicts sentenced to brief terms, met a similar fate. So also an act authorizing the pensioning of deserving superannuated employés of penal, reformatory and charitable institutions of the State.
Another bill, strongly approved by the Board, but which after its introduction never again saw the light of day, provided for the establishing of a State Reformatory for Women between the ages of fourteen and twenty-one. That such an institution is most urgently needed is only too well known to charity workers throughout the State. It is almost incredible that such a wealthy and otherwise progressive State like Pennsylvania should be considered too poor to make at least a beginning of an institution of this kind. Were the people of this Commonwealth familiar with the work done and the results achieved by such an institution as the Massachusetts Reformatory Prison for Women, they would compel their legislators to take action. Great movements in behalf of the social welfare can after all be carried through only when there is an intelligent, widespread and persistent public sentiment behind them.
The one progressive penal act for which the last Legislature deserves credit is the bill “providing for the selection and purchase, or the appropriation from State forest reserves, of a tract of land and the erection thereon of buildings for the Western Penitentiary; making an appropriation therefor; authorizing the removal thereto of the inmates of the said penitentiary, and directing the sale of the site now occupied by the said penitentiary, and the buildings and materials thereon.” This is in line with the recommendation of the Board of Charities, which, in its preliminary report for the years 1911-12, called renewed attention to the very unsatisfactory conditions surrounding the Western Penitentiary, and strongly urged its removal to some large tract of land in a rural section, so that labor, not in conflict with existing laws, might be provided for the inmates. In pursuing this course Pennsylvania will only be doing what some other States have already done or are about doing; and it is to be hoped that in due time similar provision will be made for the eastern part of the State. Might it not be well to keep in mind, however, the need of a central state prison for the confinement of habitual criminals, so that the two penitentiaries now in existence could be used only for first-termers? This would make the reformatory process contemplated by the indeterminate sentence infinitely easier.
Another bill of extremely doubtful utility passed by the last Legislature, authorizes the judges of the courts of quarter sessions and the courts of oyer and terminer, after due inquiry, to release on parole any convict confined in the county jail or workhouse of their respective districts, and place him or her in charge of and under the supervision of a designated probation officer. County jails as now conducted are not reformatory institutions.
It will be seen from this survey that Pennsylvania is not making rapid progress in improved penal legislation; nor is it likely that we can hope for better things until some future Legislature will see fit to empower the Board of Charities or a specially appointed commission of expert penologists to devise a carefully articulated and homogeneous system of penal and reformatory institutions for the State. Such a system should provide for a radical change in the construction, management and internal administration of the county prisons; it should include a state system of workhouses, a woman’s reformatory, a central penitentiary for recidivists, and a favorably located institution for criminals suffering from tuberculosis or dementia, where they could receive skillful treatment; it should make a strict separation between habitual criminals and first offenders, between young delinquents and those of mature years; and it should everywhere introduce approved reformatory methods, and make it possible to give those in confinement ample indoor and outdoor employment. It might, of course, be objected that a system so carefully planned and wrought out would be too expensive; but let it never be forgotten that in the end it is far better for the State, and indeed cheaper, to make men than to arrest, try and support criminals, and suffer the results of their depredations.
Philadelphia.
J. F. Ohl,
Chairman of the Committee on Legislation,
Pennsylvania Prison Society.