The English Prison System

by Sir Evelyn Ruggles-Brise

The great majority of cases dealt with under Section 1 of the Act are for cruelty to children (459 out of 586 up to the end of 1913) and the tendency of the day is more and more towards Summary procedure, owing largely to the delay, and expense, and trouble involved by commitment for trial under this Section to the Superior Courts.

With regard to Section 2, which enables Summary Courts to send to Inebriate Reformatories persons convicted of certain scheduled offences of drunkenness, only about 4,300 have been dealt with since the Act became law, although during that period more than 3,500,000 persons have been convicted in Summary Courts of drunken behaviour.

The reluctance of the Courts to pass long sentences of detention, especially in the case of men, (more than 80 per cent. of the commitments are women): the comparative ease and simplicity of commitment to Prison: the delay and difficulty involved by a comparatively cumbrous procedure; and an uncertainty as to the prospect of recovery, as a result of special treatment—all these things operate against any wide use of the law in Summary Courts, which is also hindered by the absence of any definite instruction as to the share to be borne by the State and the Local Authority, respectively, in the maintenance of these Institutions.

Opinion has, however, been by no means indifferent to the operation of the Act, and is far from being satisfied at the present time with the extent of its application. In 1908, the Secretary of State appointed a strong Committee to inquire as to the operation of the Law, and to report what amendments, either in law or administration, were desirable; and their valuable recommendations will probably receive the attention of Parliament in the near future. The principal proposals are in the direction of increasing the power of the Summary Courts, giving to Magistrates a discretionary power to send to Reformatories, in addition to, or in substitution of, imprisonment, all persons who are adjudged to be Inebriates and who commit offences now dealt with summarily by committal to Prison. It is also proposed that the necessity for proving three previous convictions shall be abolished, and that the State should, at its own cost, provide for the accommodation and maintenance of all Inebriates committed by Courts. With regard to penalty, the free use of the Probation Act was recommended under special conditions suitable to the case. If, however, Probation were not thought desirable, it was proposed that the first sentence to a Reformatory should be for a period not exceeding six months, to be followed by a period of Probation; but where an Inebriate forfeits such Probation, on breach of its conditions, he shall be liable to be committed to a Reformatory for a period not exceeding one year, again, on release, to be subject to Probation; but if he again forfeits such Probation, for two years, and, in the event of further forfeiture, for three years.

Should these recommendations be adopted by Parliament, it is possible that greater results than at present might be achieved, and the measure might find larger application. It is doubtful if the public sentiment is keen to penalize inebriety, when it does not result in serious harm to the community, by methods of long detention under discipline and control. In so far as the proposals of the Committee of 1908 modify these long periods by placing offenders on Probation, there may be disposition on the part of the Courts to take this course, except in cases where the overt criminal act resulting from inebriety is grave and serious, and where punishment under ordinary penal law is called for. There is, moreover, a feeling which operates against harsh or drastic sentences in the case of inebriety, due to the proved association between mental disorder and habitual drunkenness. Experience of the operation of the Law of 1898 has confirmed this belief. Of the more turbulent cases whom it has been necessary to transfer to State Inebriate Reformatories for purposes of control, it is found that a very large proportion are more or less defective in mind. That such persons should be segregated from their fellows, and from the opportunity of doing harm is, of course, a great gain; and, of itself, would justify the cost of these Institutions, which is considerable. It must be frankly recognized that in these cases the purpose of detention is for the public safety, and not with the hope of reform. The law protects the community by compulsory segregation within a limit of three years, although the criminal offence will probably in most cases only warrant a short sentence of imprisonment. This is something gained in the interests of order. It does not constitute an encouragement to make further efforts for the cure of habitual inebriety by means of costly Institutions, and for this reason, apart from the inherent difficulties of the case, rapid progress in dealing with this evil in this country can hardly be expected. The Prison Authority is only concerned with this question of inebriety as a factor of crime. By many writers, drink and crime are used almost as synonymous terms, yet nothing is so difficult as to trace the extent to which criminal statistics are influenced by drink. In 1913, the actual convictions for drunkenness represented 32 per cent. of the total convictions for all offences, but in addition to this, must be reckoned the number of offences to which drunkenness was directly a contributing cause. It is a reasonable inference that alcohol enters, as a contributing factor, into about 50 per cent. of offences committed in this country in any given year. To legislate against drink is indirectly, therefore, to legislate against Crime. As shown in Chapter XVII, a striking illustration has been afforded showing the great decrease in crime generally which has taken place during the War, when severe restrictions have been placed upon the sale of intoxicating liquor. In previous years, in times of industrial prosperity and plentiful wages, convictions for drunkenness have been enormous, and have obscured the decrease which has taken place, as a result of prosperity, in other offences, e.g., Vagrancy, and petty larceny.

In his Report for 1909, Dr. Branthwaite, the Inspector under the Inebriates Acts, furnishes a most valuable and interesting analysis of the life history and mental and physical conditions of 1,031 persons. This investigation was conducted by himself personally, and throws a flood of light on the nature of the problem to be dealt with. He states that as a result of his inquiry, "three points of vital importance stand out clearly—(1) the close association between inebriety and psycho-neurotic disturbance, (2) the physical unfitness resulting from a life of uncontrolled inebriety, and (3) the necessity for the organisation of more suitable methods for dealing with persons who offend against law and order by reason of habitual drunkenness."

"The presence of obvious mental defect in a large proportion of cases, and (in cases not obviously defective) the criminal tendencies, the proneness to immorality, the uneducability, the early age at which disorderly habits commence, the ease with which all inmates become excited by alcohol, and their unreasonable behaviour in a hundred different ways, are conclusive evidences of the existence of a mental state far removed from normal, in nearly all cases committed to Reformatories. To attempt to attribute all such conditions to vicious indulgence in alcohol is absurd; they existed in the large majority of cases long before drunkenness appeared, or they developed pari passu with the drunkenness from a common cause. When mental defect is obvious, it will usually be found responsible for the drunkenness; when not sufficiently definite to be recognised, a modified morbid strain, a heredity of disorder, a psycho-neurotic fault, a constitutional peculiarity, call it what we may, will generally be discovered as the key to the position."

His condemnation of short sentences in Prison as a cure for inebriety in all its forms is expressed as follows:—

"The arguments in favour of the substitution of something better than the short sentence prison treatment of inebriates hold good, whether the individual be reformable or not. The routine of a prison is no more suited to the needs of the habitual drunkard than it is suited to the treatment of any other form of mental unsoundness. The inebriate requires careful medical attention, regular bathing, physical exercise and drill, with a view to the recovery of physical, as a preliminary to recovery of mental health. His condition demands harder, more continuous and healthy work than is possible in the confines of a cell, or even within the restricted area of prison walls. Either in the form of education, work or play, he wants occupation of some sort throughout the day, in company with his fellows, under supervision only just sufficiently strict to prevent its misuse. Discipline is essential, but it should be the discipline of army barracks, or a ship; not the necessarily hard routine of a prison. Punishment, as such, must be kept in the background, and, so far as is possible, encouragement for good conduct, and reward for good work, should replace the fear of the results of bad conduct and idleness. But, above all, he requires medical treatment for his disordered mental state applied as early as possible after the condition is recognised. The nearer an Inebriate Reformatory resembles a mental hospital in all its arrangements, the better will be its suitability for the work it has to do, and the more the mental aspect of inebriety is kept in the foreground, the more satisfactory will be the results of treatment and control."

It is true that the views expressed by Dr. Branthwaite seem to indicate as a rule the dependence of habitual inebriety on pre-existent "mental defect", and will not, as such, be accepted by general authority; and it is well known that a strong tendency to drink to intoxication exists in very many persons and families who show no other signs of deficient intelligence or loss of self-control. But the experience of many other observers who have dealt with inebriates committed by the courts to reformatories under the Act undoubtedly corroborates Dr. Branthwaite's opinion that notably large numbers of such inebriates have been markedly defective in mind from even their earliest years.