Having fully sustained their claim to confidence, as a system of reformatory means, we naturally desire to see them rendered as effective as possible. And to this end we would have them adhere punctiliously to the original design for which they were instituted. This was not to inflict a penalty, but to interpose a shield—not to bring suffering upon the guilty, but to supply instruction, wholesome discipline and kind offices to the neglected and exposed. They may easily be perverted by opening their doors to youth (“young in years, but old in sinning”) who are thought to require some milder discipline than the penitentiary affords, but whose offences are really as rank and as indicative of deep-seated depravity as those of the oldest and the worst.
In determining, in any given case, whether to admit or reject an applicant, the managers of a House of Refuge would be governed, we presume, chiefly by the character, though in some degree by the size and physical strength of the individual, as a subject of mild, parental discipline. The question, how far a residence in the institution will be likely to bring about his radical reformation and the establishment of good habits has the first place; and another, and scarcely less important question would be, what influence will his admission have on others? If he is perverse and stubborn, and at the same time overgrown in size, so as require a disproportionate measure of care and vigilance, (in which case other and more hopeful subjects must be, to an equal extent, neglected,) his admission would seem inexpedient. Provision exists, or should be made for such an one elsewhere. So, also, if one is presented, deformed in body, deficient in mind, or of sickly constitution, and not likely to succeed in acquiring the knowledge of a trade, or unfitted to bear the proper discipline, he has higher claims on some other form of public charity. A House of Refuge is not meant for him, nor is it likely to benefit him.
An institution designed to keep boys and girls in due order and subordination, ought to be able to dispense with some of the more revolting appendages of a prison—such as unscaleable walls—narrow stone cells—and massive bars and bolts. We admit that all these are necessary the moment it receives a sturdy, hardened, hackneyed rogue of eighteen, sixteen or even fourteen; but it is a pity to force upon the whole establishment the gloomy appearance of a prison, rather than reject half a dozen youth of extra age and size, whom parents or friends naturally feel disposed to save from a felon’s doom.
The inquiry of chief interest, however, relates to character. What has been his career up to this time? Who have been his associates? To what species of crime has he been chiefly addicted? Has he, in the fury of unbridled passion, attempted the life of another? of his parent, or associate, or enemy? Has he deliberately forged another’s name? Has he been familiar with scenes of outrage and tumult? Is he a frequenter of the haunts of infamy? Has he good fellowship with a large circle of like characters with himself? These questions, or any of them, if answered affirmatively, would go far to turn the scale against his admission. The acts we have supposed, indicate in the perpetrator of them, a confirmed habit or propensity, which may, perhaps, be corrected; but not by the ordinary discipline of a proper House of Refuge. Nor should the attempt be made to employ it on so unpromising a subject, at the risk of introducing more evil than we can possibly hope to prevent. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive any good reason why a burglar or incendiary at sixteen, should be called a “delinquent,” and put to school, while the same grade of criminals at twenty, are called convicts, and sent to the penitentiary. Age, by itself, is a very unsafe criterion by which to determine the turpitude of crime or the appropriateness of punishment.
We do not say that no cases of this class can occur, in which the admission of the party to a House of Refuge, would be expedient; but, as a general thing, we should be disposed to confine its benign influence to those whose proclivity to a criminal career is but feebly though decidedly developed; whose delinquencies exist rather in an impatience or contempt of domestic restraints, than in deliberate violations of public law. The discipline, as well as the construction of Refuge-buildings and the usual means of safe custody, evidently contemplate a very young class of boys and girls, say from eight to twelve years of age, who may be incorrigible truants, disobedient to parents, insubordinate to masters, petty thieves, street-strollers, without a home or worse,—uneducated, unaccustomed to any kind of restraint. Such youth come under the discipline of an establishment, like our Houses of Refuge, with a prospect of great advantage.
Even those who have acquired fixed habits of lying, stealing, deceit and violence, are, at this age, physically reducible to order and industry. They are incapable of using dangerous weapons with effect—they are not likely to combine for outbreaks, nor to plot escapes. With wholesome food, and an hour or two’s recreation every day, they can be made to conform to stringent regulations, without great or long continued severity of discipline. Active employment in some handicraft, daily schooling, and proper religious culture, soon work a wonderful transformation in such a class of children, and if they can only be continued long enough to make their new course of life habitual, so that to be idle shall be as irksome to them as it once was to work, and to speak the truth shall be as easy as it once was to lie, the benefit of such an institution could not be overrated.
If the discrimination we have suggested, should be faithfully observed, we should find a very large class of youth who require penal discipline of a severer type, and for whom no provision is now made except in the penitentiary, which is quite as ill adapted to meet the exigency at this point, as the Refuge is at the other. We should, therefore, be disposed to take the most promising youthful inmates of the penitentiary, and the least suitable or most unpromising of the older inmates of some of the Houses of Refuge for juvenile delinquents, and provide an institution for them, that shall combine the severity of the former with the leniency of the latter. This idea is substantially embraced in the Parkhurst prison on the Isle of Wight, and is recognized to some extent in the new State Reform School at Westborough, Massachusetts.
The origin and peculiarities of these institutions, involve the vast and interesting subject of juvenile delinquency; its causes, effects and preventives, upon an investigation of which we promise ourselves some future opportunity to enter. As it is, our limits require us to pass abruptly to a few general remarks upon the present condition of our principal institutions designed for its correction.
From the twenty-first report of the Philadelphia House of Refuge, we learn, that during the year 1848, one hundred and sixty-eight inmates were received, (129 boys and 39 girls,) and 153 discharged, (116 boys, and 37 girls,) of whom, 89 were by indentures. Of the commitments, 86 were by request of parents or near friends. The average age of both sexes was a fraction over 14 years; but so far as the prospect of reformation is concerned, a girl is as old at 14 as a boy is at 18. There was only one death in the House during the year. Of the 65 boys indentured, 30 went to farmers; and of the 24 girls all were indentured to housewifery. The occupations of the inmates are, cane-chair seating, (48,) umbrella furniture, (57,) and razor-strop making, (71.) The income from the labor of boys during the year, was $5,598,88, and the total expenditures of the establishment, were $13,987,39. The principal of this institution has, at our request, furnished some valuable suggestions respecting the methods of administration and discipline, in establishments of this class, of which we gladly avail ourselves in the present connection.
He ranks classification, among the most obvious, important and difficult objects to be attained in such an institution. He admits that education, moral, intellectual, and religious, is all important; but he insists, that habits of industry and obedience, should be regarded as among the first and most desirable fruits of it. The power of habit, he thus forcibly describes: