Resolved, That the members of the society have learned, with sincere regret, the loss of their late fellow-laborer, John Haviland, whose efforts to develop the architecture of the separate system of imprisonment, have contributed greatly to its convenient administration in Pennsylvania, and to the establishment of the principal features of its methods of construction in other parts of the world in which it has been introduced.
Resolved, That the society desire to record their appreciation of the zeal and fidelity with which their deceased friend sought to promote by suitable architectural means, those enlightened and humane opinions upon which the separate system is founded; as well as to introduce where the opportunity was afforded to him, for its better administration, whatever improvements were suggested by experience, whether at home or abroad.
Resolved, That the President be requested to communicate to the family of the deceased, the sincere and respectful sympathy felt by the members of the society, in relation to the recent bereavement.
Art. II.—THE PENNSYLVANIA SYSTEM.—DR. GIVEN’S REPORT.
Notwithstanding the simplicity and unity of the principle on which the Pennsylvania system of prison discipline is based, there is often a vagueness of opinion and a looseness of expression concerning it that surprises us. What is the principle? It is CONVICT-SEPARATION—neither more nor less. We hold, with the inspectors of the English prisons, that “the separation of one prisoner from another is the only sound basis on which a reformatory prison discipline can be established with any reasonable hope of success.” We believe the reformation of prisoners can be, and in very many instances has been, accomplished in consequence of such a separation, which would not have been, and could not be accomplished without it.
Some persons have no faith in the reformation of convicts, under any process. With such the only inquiry is for the cheapest method of imprisonment, without reference to moral or physical consequences. Some are very credulous, and look upon the worst rogues as quite reclaimable under the influence of personal kindness and Christian counsel. We apprehend that if the probability of prison-reformation may not be determined precisely by the degree to which the offender is separated from criminal associations and suggestions, it depends mainly upon it. And it is our deliberate and long-settled conviction, that (other things being equal) the best appointed system of discipline will be of very little avail in its reformatory power, where convict-association, in any form or degree, is tolerated. This is not a partisan opinion. It has been entertained and expressed by many who are by no means committed to the separate system, as such. There is an obvious fitness in the idea, which can neither be gainsayed nor resisted.
We have said that the fundamental doctrine of the Pennsylvania system of prison discipline is embodied in one compound word—CONVICT-SEPARATION.—How can we conceive of a “modification” of this elementary principle? It must be adopted as a whole or rejected as a whole. The structure of the building, in which the separate principle is carried out, may be modified. The method of proceeding in the institution, as it respects instruction, whether in letters or trades, or as it respects privations, indulgencies and punishments may be modified. The cells, the occupations, the diet, the mode of heating and ventilating, &c., may all be modified, but the principle of separating the convicts one from the other, is, or it is not, the basis of the system. It is not susceptible of modification. If separation is the principle, it is one thing,—if association is the principle, it is another thing.—The degree of association or of separation, is not involved.
When, therefore, we are told of “a necessity for modifying, to a certain extent, the Pennsylvania system, by allowing a certain class of convicts to be associated” for any purpose, or for any period of time, the phraseology is open to misapprehension at least, if not to animadversion.
The phrase “modifying to a certain extent” is doubtless inadvertently used in such cases for the phrase “abandoning to a certain extent.” Words are significant of ideas, and ambiguity in the former, necessarily leads to ambiguity in the latter. If we speak of the associate system, as “modified” by the occasional separation of a stubborn class of convicts, or of the separate system, as modified by the occasional association of an imbecile class, we soon confound association and separation, and actually have neither the one nor the other. We apprehend that this is the very position to which some of the opposers of convict-separation would not be unwilling to see it brought. Indeed, some who profess to be staunch advocates of separation, have conceded (inconsiderately, as we think) that each plan has its own advantages, and that the best system would be the product of a combination.