The English Prison System

by Sir Evelyn Ruggles-Brise

It would, perhaps, in any case, have been impossible to have given a definite opinion on the value of the system until a longer period of time had elapsed. Such a judgment is rendered more difficult by the fact that the operation and effect of the System has been, of course, greatly affected by the intervention of the Great War. However, reports of the Central Association, to whose care these men are entrusted after release on conditional licence, and the reports of the Advisory Committee (an unpaid body unconnected with official administration appointed by the Secretary of State, under the Act, to advise him when, in their opinion, conditional liberation may be opportune without danger to the community, and with reasonable possibility of good behaviour), furnish material on which an estimate may be formed, both as to the future working and the success of the system.

Since the Act came into operation on the 1st August 1909, 577 persons have been sentenced to Preventive Detention. Of 389 cases released, no fewer than 325, or 84 per cent., were considered sufficiently promising to be released on licence, while of the remaining 64 who served their whole sentence of Preventive Detention, many were mentally or physically deficient. Of the 389 cases, the Central Association has recently reported that no unsatisfactory report has been received in the case of 210, or 54 per cent.

The singular success of the Central Association in dealing with these cases on discharge, representing, as they do, the worst and most dangerous class in the community, naturally suggests reflection as to the comparative merits of the systems of licensing on discharge from Penal Servitude and Preventive Detention, respectively. Under the Penal Servitude system, a convict can, by industry and good conduct, reduce his sentence by as much as one-fourth. On discharge he remains, during the unexpired portion of his sentence, under a licence which compels him to report his place of residence to the Police of the district, and to notify them of his intention to remove, and of his arrival in a new district, and to report to the Police once a month. A prisoner under Preventive Detention remains in custody only until the Advisory Committee are able to report that, if licensed, there is a reasonable probability of his abstaining from crime; but he is licensed, not to the Police Authorities, but to the Central Association—a voluntary Association subsidized by the Government for the after-care of convicts. The form of licence is quite different from that used on discharge from Penal Servitude, and compels a man to proceed to an approved place, not to move from that place without permission, to be punctual and regular in attendance at work, and to lead a sober and industrious life to the satisfaction of the Association. The Police licence may be described as negative in character, viz:—it only prescribes that a man shall abstain from crime. The licence to the Central Association is positive, as prescribing that, under careful and kindly shepherding and supervision, a man shall actually work where work is found for him, and shall remain at work under the penalty of report for failing to observe the conditions of licence. The difference between the negative and positive forms of licence has been the subject of much discussion in the United States of America, where the English methods, as prescribed by the Penal Servitude Acts of last century, have been ruled out of court by a strong public opinion, which insists that for many of the crimes for which men are sentenced to Penal Servitude, it is neither necessary nor reasonable to inflict a long period of segregation under severe penal conditions. It is felt there, as it is by many people in this country, that a comparatively short period, followed by discharge on positive licence, with liability to forfeiture on relapse, would restore many men to normal conditions of life before the habit of hard work had been blunted by imprisonment, and family and other ties broken, and would save large sums of public money now spent on imprisonment.

The application of the principle of Preventive Detention to our Penal Servitude System would, of course, involve the question of the Indeterminate Sentence. That opinion is hardening in the direction of some such system in lieu of Penal Servitude is demonstrated by the fact that at the last International Congress in Washington in 1910, a resolution in favour of the Indeterminate Sentence, as a punishment for grave crime, was carried unanimously by delegates representing most of the countries of Europe and of the civilised world.

The successful working depends almost entirely on the capacity and discretion of the Advisory Committee, appointed under Section 14(4) of the Act of 1908, and what success has been attained is due to the care taken by the Committee in the investigation of each individual case, and in the suggestions offered to guide the Secretary of State in deciding the question of conditional release. By the death of Sir Edward Clayton, Chairman of this Committee since 1914, a great public loss has been sustained. He devoted himself during the latter years of his life with untiring energy to the duties of this office, for which he was pre-eminently qualified by his long experience in prison administration, as well as by largeness of view and understanding of the criminal problem. From the elaborate Memorandum which he wrote shortly before his death, it appears that his experience at Camp Hill made him a strong advocate of the Indeterminate Sentence, and he feared that the fixing of a definite limit, irrespective of a man's reformation, may defeat eventually the intention of the Act. The intention of the Act was, it will be remembered, primarily that there should be no fixed limit of detention, but Parliament thought otherwise, and the present limit of ten years, with a minimum of five, was decided upon.

Sir Edward Clayton was succeeded by Mr. Arthur Andrews, J.P., as Chairman of this Committee. Mr. Andrews has devoted himself for many years with great zeal to the functions of the Committee over which he now presides. He has lately reported to the effect that, in the opinion of the Advisory Committee, after reviewing the history of the Scheme since its inception in 1912, "it is an unqualified success." They consider the Scheme, as now applied, "is highly satisfactory, and productive of the best results; and that great credit is due to all concerned in its administration. The reformative influence of Camp Hill and the Parole Line System deserve commendation, and the fact that none of the 175 prisoners who have been located in the Parole Line Cabins made any attempt to break parole, and that it has only been necessary to remove three for misconduct, testifies to the success of the plan which provides a stepping-stone from imprisonment to liberty."

"The Committee also desire to make special reference to the work of the Central Association, and to the excellent system of providing employment and keeping in touch with the men under their supervision. The success of the Preventive Detention Scheme is greatly due to the exhaustive efforts of the officials of the Association."

On reviewing and comparing the figures afforded by the Central Association's Reports, there can be little doubt that Preventive Detention, as a supplement to our penal system, has, so far, yielded much more favourable results than could have been originally expected. The Committee recognise that the high proportion of successes is probably, to a considerable extent, attributable to the war, inasmuch as the Army provided a wide field of employment, and the labour market offered almost unlimited work for both skilled and unskilled men. As a result, many habitual criminals have renounced their criminal tendencies in favour of honest work, and those who have joined the Army are there the subjects of a disciplinary organisation which is probably an important factor in their reformation.

There is, of course, an element of doubt as to whether all these men would have abstained from crime in a normal environment, but the manner in which they responded to their country's call indisputably proves that in the worst of criminals there is a latent moral strain which can be brought to the surface under favourable conditions; and, moreover, the splendid example afforded by those who acquitted themselves so well has probably a more far-reaching effect on their late fellow prisoners at Camp Hill than is apparent.

These facts certainly justify the hope that a successful attempt has been inaugurated for dealing with the problem of Habitual Crime and of Recidivism. As an additional security that the great powers vested in the judge may not be appealed to lightly, and without the fullest consideration, the Act provides that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions must be obtained before a charge for dealing with a prisoner as an Habitual Criminal can be inserted in the indictment. This is sufficient guarantee that the intention of Parliament, viz:-that the somewhat drastic provision, by which the offender guilty of a grave crime can, after expiating a sentence of penal servitude for that offence, be deprived of his liberty for another period of ten years in the general interest, and for the protection of society, shall not be applied to persons who, as stated in Mr. Churchill's Memorandum, are "a nuisance rather than a danger to society, or to the much larger class of those who are partly vagrants, partly criminals, or who are, to a large extent, mentally deficient." In other words, it must be clearly understood that this defensive power is not meant to be used as a protection against Recidivism in petty offences. It does not touch that large army of habitual vagrants, drunkards, or offenders against bye-laws and Police Regulations, who figure so largely in the ordinary prison population. It is a weapon of defence to be used only where there is a danger to the community from a professed doer of anti-social acts being at large, and reverting cynically on discharge from prison to a repetition of predatory action or violent conduct. Used in this way, with caution, it is, I think, an invaluable instrument for social defence. It has remained rusty during the war, only 80 having been sentenced under the Act during the last four years; but it remains ready for application in the event of the recrudescence of grave habitual crime, and it is earnestly to be desired that both Judicial and Police Authority may make use of the great powers conferred upon them by the Act to relieve society, at least for a time, of those who are its professed enemies. The Act also applies to women, but only eleven have been sentenced to Preventive Detention since the Act came into force, and at present there are none in custody.