So far as we are acquainted with the actual condition of the various countries of the civilized world, we are compelled to the painful and humiliating conviction, that there are individuals amongst their inhabitants who are prone to, and actually will interfere with, and depredate upon the rights of others, unless they are subjected to moral or physical restraint. This fact has made it necessary that measures should be adopted to protect the general mass of society against the wrong-doing of these evil-disposed persons. It must be evident to all, that in originating and maturing these measures, or in framing and perfecting laws for this purpose, an intimate acquaintance with human nature, and a high order of wisdom, are essential pre-requisites to fit those upon whom the duty should devolve, to enter upon the highly important work. The instinct of self-protection would naturally, and even properly suggest, that the first object should be to secure the community against a repetition of the wrong-doing, by placing the individual who has committed a serious offence under such physical restraint as to make it impossible for him for a time to continue his evil course. This object may be secured by a close confinement of the culprit in a prison or penitentiary. But if we rest satisfied with having accomplished this, we are taking a very narrow view of a very broad subject. This same instinct, if its promptings are intelligently pursued, will convince us that the punitive character of this restraint or imprisonment should be such as to operate upon the fears of the evil-disposed who are at large, and thus deter them from yielding to temptations which may prompt them to commit offences against society or individuals. And, also, as this imprisonment cannot be permanent, the individual incarcerated should, through this source, as well as others, be made to feel that “the way of the transgressor is hard;” and from this experience (in the absence of any higher motive) be induced to so conduct himself, after his liberation, as not to render himself liable to be subjected to a repetition of these “pains and penalties.” At the same time, however, that the imprisonment and discipline provided, should embrace such elements as would subject the convict to a full sense of punishment, they should be carefully guarded from partaking of the character of vindictiveness or revenge. If this care is not exercised, the higher and more enlarged action of Christian philanthropy and duty, which should immediately follow that referred to as being prompted by the instinct of self-protection, which is, the temporal and eternal good of the offender, by his reformation, will be entirely defeated.
We are aware that in some countries, in framing their penal laws and discipline, the only object appears to be to prevent the continued perpetration of offences by the imprisonment of those convicted as offenders, and by the severity of their punishment to deter them from a repetition of their crimes after their discharge; the example of which punishment, it is desired, shall also operate to restrain others from entering upon and pursuing an equally criminal course. This object is effected, at the smallest possible cost to the community, by constructing their prison buildings, almost exclusively, with reference to the safe-keeping of the prisoners, making no arrangements for their separation, but congregating them together in large masses, with very little, if any, regard to difference in age or degrees of criminality. The consequence is, that instead of the prisoners being reformed or made better, by the discipline to which they are subjected, they are almost inevitably made worse; and many times, those who were committed on a charge of pocket-picking or some other minor offence, are fitted for burglars or the commission of the highest class of crimes on their discharge.
A valuable member of our Prison Society who has recently spent several years abroad, during which time he became very familiar with the penal system and the arrangement and manner of conducting the prisons of one of the countries of Continental Europe, having frequently visited and personally inspected the prisons, speaks of it as being generally admitted amongst the people there, that reformation was no part of their plan, and was never expected to result from the imprisonment of criminals. We are happy, however, in the belief, that this system is now viewed by nearly all countries as being a relic of the barbarism of the dark ages, which, besides partaking of the character of cruelty, evidences great short-sightedness and want of wisdom, if we consider how its results affect the best interests of the community. Instead of being a school of reform, through whose influence the number of those from whom outrages might be apprehended would be lessened, if it does not actually increase them, it at least makes life-long criminals of the most hardened character, of a large proportion of those subjected to its discipline, who, at the time of their first commitment, were by no means steeped in wickedness; many of them when quite young, having, in an unguarded moment, yielded to strong temptation to commit some minor offence, of which having been convicted, they have been thrust amongst the most abandoned outcasts of society, and soon lost to all hope of restoration, when by a really humane and Christian course of treatment they might have been led back from the by-paths into which they had, without due consideration, stepped, and have been brought to experience the happiness of a virtuous life, and to be a blessing instead of a curse to society.
We believe that all reflecting men must be convinced that the reformation of criminals, besides being a question of expediency, in which the community has a deep stake on the score of self-protection, is one, the promotion of which, so far as is in our power, is of the highest Christian obligation, in reference to both the temporal and eternal good of those who, having by their criminal conduct, forfeited the liberty enjoyed by the common mass of their fellow men, have, for the security of society, been committed to prison. In most Christian countries reformation, on the ground of expediency at least, and we trust, under some sense of Christian duty, is now acknowledged to be properly one of the elements of their penal systems; and, consequently, some provisions, either theoretical or practical, are adopted for the promotion of this object. It is much to be regretted, however, that most of the existing prison systems are such as greatly to interfere with, and many of them almost wholly to defeat the accomplishment of this vitally important purpose. This state of things exists to a great extent, not only in Europe, but throughout most of the Commonwealths of the United States.
The systems are generally “congregate,” either with little, if any, restraint from free social intercourse between the inmates, whatever may be their different degrees of depravity, or with the imposition of silence while together, and separation at night and at their meals only. The former of these, in our judgment, wholly excludes reformatory influences, unless it be through the immediate operation of Divine grace and mercy, which, we freely admit, can overrule obstacles however great; but this fact will not excuse us from doing our best to facilitate this operation. At the same time, also, that it excludes reformation, its attendant circumstances rapidly school the young offender in the ways of depravity and crime, and harden the more practiced in wickedness, and prepare them for the commission of still darker deeds than any they had previously been guilty of. Whilst the latter system, where silence is imposed, though certainly a step in advance of the former, as it cannot so extensively propagate criminality, yet from the fact that the prisoners cannot be approached separately, and that this system of silence and non-intercourse amongst them, under the strong temptation to the indulgence of their social propensities when placed in the presence of each other, is only maintained by harsh and severe discipline; reformatory agencies can hardly be brought to bear upon them, and efforts in this direction, very rarely, indeed, produce the desired effect.
It seems to us that what is generally known as the “Pennsylvania System,” which is that of entire cellular separation of the prisoners, by which they are precluded from either seeing each other, or holding any kind of intercourse by word or sign, is far in advance of any other system of imprisonment yet introduced. We do not propose at this time to go into a general explanation of its peculiar features, but may merely advert to a few prominent points in support of this position.
First, as regards the effectual restraint of those found guilty of crime from continuing their outrages upon the community; its security against escape, is fully equal to, if not greater, than that under any other existing prison system, and its punitive character, though really humane and mild, is looked upon with much dread by the evil-disposed, on account of their being subjected to separation from their fellow convicts, and therefore it is potent in deterring from a criminal course.
These primary objects of imprisonment being thus effectually secured, we are next to consider what are its effects, evil or good, upon the moral condition of those subjected to its discipline. And here the results of our inquiries are pre-eminently satisfactory. From the thorough isolation maintained, we think it must be evident, that no prison under it can ever become a moral pest-house, where the depravity and wickedness of one prisoner may be communicated to another, or, as it were, prove contagious, and thus spread moral corruption around him. As neither the words, countenance, nor gestures of one can be heard or seen by another, it is clear, that those committed are not subjected to such influences whilst in confinement, as will make them morally worse on leaving, than when they entered.
Having thus demonstrated, as we trust, that our system, without doing a moral wrong to the offender, thoroughly effects the purpose for which society claims the right to imprison—that of self-protection, by placing him under secure restraint—we have next to consider what is its adaptation to the higher and less selfish purpose, which immediately follows as a Christian obligation, that of promoting his reformation. In the first place, then, as there is nothing in the working of the system which calls for harshness of treatment; it is administered on principles of kindness, and consequently, instead of the prisoners being hardened, and their vindictive and other evil passions being called into action, they are softened, and the better feelings of their nature (which with many had so long slept, that the degraded beings were hardly aware that they possessed them) are awakened. Under these favorable circumstances, those who are desirous of communicating moral or religious instruction can visit each prisoner in private in his separate cell, and when the service is accomplished, leave him to his reflections, without being disturbed by the presence, or deterred from a serious consideration of his condition by the scoffs of depraved companions.
The purpose of this essay has not been to suggest the details of any particular system of imprisonment, but to call attention to the general principles which should control the subject. And especially have we desired to impress upon the reader the vital truth, that if we would hope to reform the prisoner, we must treat him with comparative kindness. We must do nothing, which either is or seems to be, by way of revenge or retaliation. Under the present dispensation we must not exact “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” If we do this, the prisoner feels that he is persecuted, and that as society is doing its worst by him now, he will repay it upon his discharge. In effect, that as every man’s hand is against him, his hand shall be against every man.