The English Prison System

by Sir Evelyn Ruggles-Brise

It will be seen from the foregoing short account of the history of Vagrancy that England has not yet adopted any special plan for dealing with this problem on the lines with which we are familiar in other Countries. It is possible that the growth of professional Vagrancy, manifested in an increase of those offences which are now grouped generically under the law of Vagrancy, may induce either the State or the local Authority to protect itself against what is at once an intolerable nuisance and a social danger, by the introduction of a System which will allow of the sequestration, for indeterminate periods, and under an austere system of detention, of that category of Vagrants, who, by a series of convictions for criminal acts, prove to be a danger to society. At the present time, however, no action in this direction is being contemplated by the Government, and the efficacy of imprisonment for the punishment of such offences is still relied upon, in spite of increasing evidence that short sentences are ineffectual as a remedy. So far as the casual pauper is concerned, it is likely that the recent action of the Local Government Board in the unification of the Casual Ward System will be further extended in that direction where the policy, carefully and energetically carried out by the Metropolitan Asylums Board, has already been fruitful in such excellent results.

(2) INEBRIETY:—

It is just fifty years ago since the need for special legislation for the proper control and treatment of inebriates, on the grounds that such persons contributed to crime and lunacy, and caused nuisance, scandal, and annoyance to the public, became apparent. At that time there was no process whereby an inebriate who became a public offender could be dealt with, except by short sentences of imprisonment; and no means whatever by which a private inebriate could be dealt with, however much he constituted himself a cause of nuisance or distress to his family. The futility of short sentences of imprisonment for the reform of the inebriate offender was fully recognised by prison authorities; by those who took an active interest in prison reform; and by magistrates, before whom the same drunkards repeatedly came, in no way improved by the only method then applicable; and was accentuated by certain notorious cases of persons who served, without improvement, hundreds of short sentences.

In 1872 a Select Committee of the House of Commons agreed that it had been shown, by the evidence taken, that "drunkenness is the prolific parent of crime, disease, and poverty" that "self-control is suspended or annihilated, and moral obligations are disregarded; the decencies of private and the duties of public life are alike set at nought; and individuals obey only an overwhelming craving for stimulant to which everything is sacrificed." No action was taken on this Report until 1878, when a Bill was presented to Parliament for dealing with the more easy and less costly part of the recommendations, viz:—those which concerned inebriates admitted voluntarily. No attempt was made to deal with the really important class, i.e., persons convicted as Habitual Drunkards. The Statute of 1879 did no more than permit the establishment of Retreats, to which inebriates could be voluntarily admitted. More than ten years later, in 1892, when the inadequate protection afforded by the Law against the nuisance and the evil of habitual inebriety led to a renewed agitation, especially against the repeated infliction of short sentences for ordinary drunkenness, a Home Office Committee of Inquiry, under the Presidency of an experienced Chairman of Quarter Sessions, Mr. J.L. Wharton, M.P., was appointed. This Committee aimed, as its composition shows, rather at an amendment of the Criminal Law, and the abolition of recurring short sentences of imprisonment, the futility of which had been fully demonstrated. At this time there was less concern with regard to voluntary inebriates who, on the application of relations or friends, might be compulsorily committed to Retreats, than with the grave social evil which resulted from the interminable commitment to prison of persons who by committing offences against public order came within the action of the Criminal Law, or who were proved guilty of ill-treatment and neglect of their wives and families, and who failed to find the required sureties for good behaviour.

The principle of the Act of 1898, which resulted from the findings of this Committee, was that the protection of the community, and the opportunity of reform, would only be obtained by relatively prolonged detention. The Act accordingly legalized detention for a term not exceeding three years (a) of persons convicted on indictment, where a Superior Court is satisfied that the offence was committed under the influence of drink, or that drink was a contributing cause, and where the offender admits that he is, or is found by a Jury to be, a Habitual Drunkard: (b) of persons convicted under various Statutes enacting penalties for drunken conduct, who, within the preceding twelve months, had been convicted summarily at least three times of any such offence,—such persons to be confined either in a State Reformatory or in a Reformatory established and maintained by local or independent authority.

Action was at once taken by Local Authorities throughout the country to provide for the reception of cases committed from Courts situate within their jurisdiction, but in the hope and belief that such accommodation would prove sufficient, no action was taken by the State to provide a State Institution until it became manifest that some special means must be created for dealing with cases which proved violent and intractable, and with which the local authorities were unable to cope; it being admitted that in order that these Reformatories might exercise the most beneficial effect, they must be conducted under conditions as far removed as possible from Prison methods and restrictions. Unless the State were in a position to undertake the charge of such cases, the only alternative would have been to discharge them, and, in fact, such discharges did take place, and it was made clearly evident that the establishment of a State Institution was essential to the proper working of the Act. It was accordingly decided, in 1900, to build a State Reformatory for female Inebriates on a plot of land contiguous to the Female Convict Prison at Aylesbury, and for male Inebriates it was decided to adopt a disused part of Warwick Prison which could be entirely severed from all connection with the penal quarters.

It was decided to confine the use of the State Reformatories to the reception and treatment of persons who had proved uncontrollable in the Local Reformatories. They are conducted on prison lines only so far as is necessary to ensure safe custody and control, and on strictly asylum principles in all matters referring to the treatment of inmates. The application of all restraint and punishment is controlled by the medical aspect of the question. The majority of inmates are persons who, through a long life of debauch, immorality, violence, and crime, have given constant trouble to the Police in the streets and to Prison Authorities during innumerable penal sentences. They are either too old, too confirmed in their habits, or too demented to afford ground for any hope of reformation. The value of the State reformatory will not consist in the production of actual results, but its existence will permit of certified institutions carrying on a work of reformation otherwise impossible. It will also ensure the retention to the end of their sentence of persons who are dangerous at large, a disgrace to the streets, and an important source of contamination to others. The pity is that at the end of such sentence the law requires the absolute discharge from custody of persons known to be so dangerous and so deleterious to the peace, morality, and health of the community at large.

These State Institutions are under the control of the Prison Commissioners, and form part of the Prison administration. They are controlled by minute regulations, approved by Parliament, and their function is to reconcile, as far as possible, a strict custody and control with certain alleviating conditions and privileges for those who deserve them. Their population is however, relatively small, the average for the three years prior to the War not having exceeded nineteen Males and fifty-seven Females. Since that date the numbers gradually fell, and, at the present time, there are no inmates in custody. The inmates of State Institutions practically represent the persons of both classes who are of a character and temperament incapable of control in local Institutions. As the number committed to the local Institutions diminishes, there is, of course, a corresponding reduction in the number coming under State control.

Although both Sections 1 and 2 of the Act give effect to a most important principle, viz., the special treatment otherwise than by imprisonment, of persons whose offence is due to morbid conditions, affecting the power of self-control, and whom it is practically useless to punish for the offence, while the predisposing condition is left untouched, yet experience, so far, does not furnish evidence that the power given to the Courts is either largely exercised or fruitful of curative effect.