It will be observed that in the extract just made from Dr. G.’s report, the second year of imprisonment is designated as that in which the bodily and mental vigor of convicts generally begins to decline, and he also mentions those whose sentences range from two to ten years, as “requiring to be closely watched.” From which we infer, that in his opinion there is little danger to be apprehended from the first year’s seclusion; that in the second year there is no danger to be apprehended to the great mass of prisoners, but only to those who have “not sufficient mental vigor to resist the enervating tendencies of the discipline,” and who generally begin at that period to decline in body and mind; and as to convicts whose “sentences range from two to ten years, they should be closely watched,” &c.
Our general impression of the weight of authority on this subject, at home and abroad, would coincide with the opinion here expressed; but upon turning to the fable which is annexed to Dr. G.’s report we find, to our surprise, that in seven of the eight insane cases of 1851, the average period of prison-life at which the disorder appeared, was less than eight months; viz., one at four months, one at five, one at seven, one at eight, two at ten, and one at eleven months. In the eighth case the development of disease was postponed for three years and more! Only two of the eight were minors; five were whites, two mulattoes, and one black.
We need not question at all the soundness of Dr. G.’s opinion, nor the correctness of his facts. The conclusion to which they unite in constraining us however, is that the cause of insanity is not well-assigned. It is quite possible that the present condition of the prisoner, with all its antecedent anxiety and excitement and its prospective severity, combine to disclose, or give form and definiteness to a morbid condition of mind or body or both, which might not have occurred at all had he escaped detection or conviction; or which might not have taken that specific form under a different system of discipline; or which might be corrected by seasonable and judicious attention. That symptoms of a deranged state were discoverable so soon after commitment, and without any peculiarly exciting cause, seems to forbid the idea of attributing it wholly or chiefly to a denial of convict-association. And we apprehend, that if those very cases were at once transferred to Auburn or Sing-Sing, without the slightest change in their mental or bodily state, the parties would take their places at once in the shop-gang, and render their master-contractor as good an account of a day’s work as any of their comrades! They would be just as insane there, as in the Eastern State Penitentiary, but their eccentricities would not be likely to receive special investigation or care, and hence would never be reported as insane cases. The reports from congregate prisons fully warrant this position.
The careful reader of Dr. Given’s report cannot fail to see that his humane and honorable sympathies have led him, as we have already intimated, to overlook the inevitable necessity of inequalities in the operation of general laws. If he says, “we can rest satisfied to restrict the application of our system to those to whom it is applicable, I believe there will be quite as little insanity among them as if they were associated.” But to whom is it applicable? To all, except those whose mental character renders it unsafe to subject them to it. How many of this class are there? Why it is so small as to “admit of the most accurate supervision,” so that “the corrupting influences of association,” (if adopted,) “will be materially diminished.” But what is the number in units, tens or hundreds? Why last year it was eight in an aggregate of four hundred and forty-six! And may we regard this as the “certain proportion of convicts, who have not sufficient mental vigor to resist the enervating tendencies of our system?” Eight in four hundred and forty-six!
Of this class of convicts, more or less, it is said, that “an experienced observer will readily detect many of them on the day of their reception, and a few weeks’ observation will generally suffice for the discovery of the remainder.” If we bring this remark to bear on the eight cases of last year, we shall be compelled to circumscribe its application considerably. Two of them “were decidedly insane when received.” Of the remaining six, “one a mulatto, had been once or oftener insane before imprisonment;” his mother had also been insane, and he was syphilitic. Two others were not of the class which we are considering, for it is expressly stated that they “had not imbecile minds,” though “both had received a fracture of the skull, and were thus doubly predisposed to insanity.” Of the three that are left, one “was not considered actually defective in mind,” and of course he would not have been put among the class “who are deficient in mental vigor to resist the enervating tendencies of the system.” Nevertheless, his mind “was of such a character, that shortly after his reception, it was predicted that he would go deranged before the expiration of his sentence.” What that “character” was we are not told, nor is it needful for our present purpose to know. Then of the other two it is expressly said, that they were “considered as presenting no striking mental peculiarity on admission, either of strength or weakness.” One of them was three years and one month in prison, before exhibiting any marks of mental derangement, and the other ten months. If we do not misunderstand the report then, not one of the last year’s insane cases answers to the description of that “certain class of convicts, who cannot be placed under the usual isolation, without the greatest risk of insanity supervening.”
Perhaps we construe the language of the report in this connection too rigidly, for in another section, the “mental deficiency” of many of these same persons “which an experienced observer will readily detect on the day of their reception, or a few weeks after,” is described as “so slight, as hardly to challenge casual observation or to prevent their following successfully the ordinary pursuits of life.” We think it would be very difficult to modify the discipline of a prison, so as to provide for such minute diversities of mental power among convicts. They will have to take their chance with the other rogues, we fear.
Although Dr. Given in one passage of his report speaks of “a modification to a certain extent of the Pennsylvania system,” and “of association in workshops,” and “of associated labor,” we are happy to find that the general tenor of the document sanctions no such view. On the contrary, free, vigorous and timely “out-of-door exercise,” which is perfectly compatible in any form and degree with the principle of our system, is clearly in his opinion, the grand panacea for prison-ills. The gardener and waggoner, at the Eastern State Penitentiary are accustomed to employ as assistants, such convicts as need exercise in the open air, and an officer is specially appointed to “attend invalid convicts, and give to them at least one hour daily of out-of-door exercise, combined with improving social intercourse.”
It is obvious that these precautionary measures may be adopted to any needful extent, without any violation of our cardinal principle. Indeed, we see no evidence in the report before us, that they have not been employed during the past year, to the full extent which the exigencies of the institution have required. Not a case is mentioned or hinted at, in which suffering has been endured, or danger incurred for want of them. Indeed from the description which the Doctor gives of the position and treatment of a convict in our Penitentiary, at the present time, we can scarcely conceive of a system of penal suffering being administered with more judgment, care and lenity. In speaking of a keeper’s interpretation of the nature and responsibility of his office, Dr. G. says: “Aware of the vast power which his official position affords for influencing the prisoner, for good or evil, his physical, his intellectual, and his moral character are subjected to close scrutiny; and the nature of his work, the amount exacted of him, the extent and character of his social intercourse are regulated accordingly. If, after due experience, it is found that the employment of the convict is not adapted to his strength or capacity, the fact is reported to the warden, and intelligent suggestions offered as to his future treatment. If the prisoner’s moral conduct proves perverse, he is subdued by kind remonstrance, when for similar breaches of discipline he would formerly have been punished; and if symptoms of insanity, or physical disease portend, the deepest interest is felt, and every possible exertion made to avert the threatened evil.”
We know not what more could be asked, if the idea of punishment is not to be entirely foregone.
Indeed, we cannot avoid the conviction that in one particular at least, a pernicious indulgence is granted; viz., the use of tobacco. Dr. G. anticipates “quite as much censure as approbation,” will be bestowed on this item of treatment, and he may think himself very fortunate, if the scales are so nearly equipoised as that. For ourselves, we cannot qualify our condemnation of the practice on every ground. So far as the Dr.’s argument rests on strength of habit, it would be equally cogent for the use of intoxicating liquors; and we must suppose he speaks ironically, when he refers to “legislative chambers, halls of justice, or even our pulpits,” as furnishing invariably safe precedents in moral conduct. Convict-life is, and of right ought to be a life of privation; and the wise disciplinarian takes advantage of this period to cross the prisoner’s vicious inclinations at every point, and thus connect the process of punishment with the process of reformation. Dr. G. has seen “a strong stubborn man beg for tobacco with tears in his eyes.” We have seen such a man beg, in like manner, for a drink of grog, or the means of escape from prison. But it is “the painfulness of this privation” which answers, in our prisons, the purpose which the douche, or the yoke, or the cat-o’-nine tails are supposed to answer in other prisons. It is suffering with profit, for it breaks up a most vicious habit, and it is suffering without degradation, too. Why should we throw away such an advantage?