Whatever system of classification is adopted the reform idea must be faithfully considered. There should be an ample opportunity for study and for work, that both physical and intellectual powers may receive development. It has been proved by long continued observation that the typical criminal is weak in body and in mind. He may have intellectual cunning developed to a considerable degree, and may be capable of great physical efforts for spasmodic periods, but he is not a well developed being either physically or mentally.[5] Hence his reform must frequently begin with physical discipline and this followed by mental training, or the two must be carried on together. In the Kansas penitentiary the law requires prisoners to work ten hours at labor. Consequently they have left, for study and general improvement, their evenings and Sundays. There is a school on Sunday for all who wish to attend. This is a very meagre showing for any systematic training with a view to permanent reform. It would seem that eight hours of labor per day is sufficient for able-bodied persons if any intellectual improvement is expected of them. In many instances it would be more profitable to spend even less time in routine labor and give better opportunity for mental discipline and general physical culture. Mental discipline brings a reform of intelligence, of knowledge and of judgment which are supremely necessary in the care of persons criminally disposed and in the prevention of crime. In this respect a careful classification of the inmates of every prison should be had, whatever be the system adopted, and each individual should have a treatment that best suits his case. Men are not reformed in groups and companies but by special influences brought to bear upon the individual. The Elmira reformatory has been a living application of this theory. This institution has been taken as a model not only for America but for the whole world, and at present represents the most successful institution for the reform of young criminals yet established. It makes no distinction between the prisoners within and the people without any further than is necessary on account of the difference in conditions.
When prisoners enter the Elmira reformatory they are given grade two with the possibility of their falling to grade three or rising to grade one. Each grade is clothed differently from the others, and in that respect a discrimination in clothing is shown between the different groups or prisoners within the prison rather than between those within and the people without. All attempts are here made possible to make men dwell upon the better things of life, to turn their whole attention to the development of what manhood is still within them, and thus transform the criminal into independent and self-asserting manhood.
But classification should not stop here. According to our principle each individual should be treated according to the character of his crime and the condition of his criminality, indeed, according to his own character. Sweeping laws which pass upon a great mass of criminals, that are made inflexible and indiscriminative, are the most valueless that can ever be instituted for the guidance of the warden of a prison. In his judgment should rest the determination of many things concerning prison discipline. A warden should be a person especially trained for his position by long practice and theoretical study. So far as possible he should be removed from political regime, and be continued in office during good behavior and competent administration. There should not be too many laws and rules instituted by boards of supervisors, which tend to hamper him. In Kansas the Board of Directors of the state prison make the rules for the government of the warden. Ordinarily this check upon administrative government may be wise, but to a well prepared and competent warden such laws are liable to prove irksome in the extreme. Even the statutes passed by the state ought to be sufficiently flexible to give large discretionary powers to the warden. Too many boards are a supreme nuisance to rational government. There is no greater mistake made than in the creation of a prison law which shall treat a thousand prisoners as one man, whether in regard to their food, or to the hours they shall work, or to the method of confinement, or the length of sentence, or to grade marks, or to the method which may be taken to reform them. Consequently the singling out of each individual as a character study with a desire to give him the full benefit of all helpful measures to reform him, and to place him in a way to make himself independent after he leaves the prison is, indeed, one of the prime factors in prison discipline. The method of classifying together individuals of the same character and degree of criminality, with a view to make them mutually helpful by conversation and association rather than to deteriorate their character has been tried in some instances but as a rule it has proved a failure. Nevertheless it does seem that something might be done in this way. At least, possibly those who have a life sentence should be classified together in the same group. If prisoners must work together during the day time each group could be placed by itself. If in any kind of association there is contamination either by words or looks or signs, a few prisoners of the same degree of criminality could be classified together, which without doubt will make fewer chances for those who are very evil in nature to degrade others. How far this may be carried with success can only be determined by those who will make of it a practical example with an intense desire and determination to succeed. At any rate, it may be affirmed that the classification of prisoners in groups can be carried on with great skill and a great deal of benefit, if the buildings are arranged for this purpose: different dining rooms, different apartments and reading rooms, different associations in every way. The departmental system would have this advantage, that sets of rules could be made for the government of each separate department and would thus more nearly meet the conditions and needs of each separate group of prisoners. But such a classification is urged only in cases where the solitary system is practically impossible. In close connection with this classification might be considered the question of hereditary treatment. Every prisoner who enters any prison whatever should be carefully studied as to his past history and present life, in order to ascertain his own nature and the elements of manhood within him which are possible of development. A careful record of every prisoner, his past life, the crimes he has committed, his education, his conditions and associations should be carefully considered. This record will enable those who have charge of prisoners to study their character, and not only enable them to manage them better as a disciplinary means, but also furnish a means for such reform as the prisoners are capable of. It may do more even than this, in the study of the influence of heredity in crime. There are those who hold that not much can be made out of the fact that criminal fathers are more apt to have criminal children than others. But no one who has made a careful inquiry into hereditary taints can question that there is a great tendency in hereditary crime. The subject has not been studied sufficiently far to give data enough to warrant us in drawing mathematical conclusions. But cases have been cited where criminals have married and intermarried and large numbers of children have become criminals through many generations. An interesting fact is to be noted here, however, that a large number of the so-called hereditary crimes arise out of existing conditions rather than from blood taint; thus a child whose parents are thieves, and the companions of whose parents are thieves, grows up with his early life biased in this direction; all about him are men engaged in these corrupt practices and the early life is impressed with the supposition that this is a normal state of affairs and he naturally grows up to follow the calling of his parents and neighbors, just as an individual who is brought up to know nothing but farming, and considers this the legitimate calling of his father and neighbors, would seem likely to take to it as a livelihood rather than to something else with which he is less familiar.
The investigations of such men as Charles Booth in London[6] would seem to indicate that crime arises chiefly out of conditions, examples, and habits, rather than from the assumption that men are born to crime through any inherent psychological tendency. In this it is not intended to show that heredity does not have a large influence in the development of crime. Statistics have been prepared to thoroughly substantiate the fact that heredity plays a great part in the development of the criminal.
“Of the inmates of Elmira reformatory 499, or 13.7 per cent. have been of insane or epileptic heredity. Of 233 prisoners at Auburn, New York, 23.03 per cent. were clearly of neurotic (insane, epileptic, etc.) origin; in reality many more. Virgilio found that 195 out of 266 criminals were affected by diseases that are usually hereditary. Rossi found five insane parents to seventy-one criminals, six insane brothers and sisters and fourteen cases of insanity among more distant relatives. Kock found morbid inheritance in 46 per cent. of criminals. Marro, who has examined the matter very carefully, found the proportion 77 per cent., and by taking into consideration the large range of abnormal characters in the parents, the proportion of criminals with bad heredity rose to 90 per cent. He found that an unusually large proportion of the parents had died from cerebro-spinal diseases and from phthisis. Sichard examining nearly 4,000 criminals in the prison of which he is director, found an insane, epileptic, suicidal and alcoholic heredity in 36.8, incendiaries 32.2 per cent. thieves, 28.7 sexual offenders, 23.6 per cent. sharpers. Penta found among the parents of 184 criminals only 4 or 5 per cent. who were quite healthy.”[7]
Such being the awful tendency of crime to breed crime, questions arising respecting the causes of crime ought to be a careful study by all persons interested in criminology or penology.
The question has often arisen, How will you find out correctly about the past history of individuals? Some conclude that, because prisoners are dishonest, there is no method by which you can find out about their past life or early conditions. A careful study of this question by men who are expert in handling criminals, has convinced the public that this may be done. Possibly as much of the record of the prisoner as is convenient to be obtained, should be procured by the court and sent to the warden with the sentence. If it could not, the warden then could ascertain through a commission the past history of each prisoner as he comes to him and a full record of his life, condition, habits, etc. If this was not complete, it could be verified from time to time or be changed from time to time, as facts developed later on. Perhaps no one has succeeded any better in this line than has Mr. Brockway, general superintendent of the Elmira reformatory. Mr. Brockway presents the subject in the following letter:
F. W. Blackmar, Esq., Lawrence, Kansas:
Dear Sir:—Yours of the 21st. There is a mistaken impression abroad about the possibility of ascertaining from prisoners the truth on any subject. They are liars, in common with the remainder of the race not in prison. Perhaps more apparently so, but nevertheless they are not in this respect more untruthful than witnesses called to the stand in courts, witnesses who have never been and, probably, never will be in prison. My observation is, in the five investigations of my prison administration, had during long years of it, that the statements of prisoners before the several commissions were as truthful as are the statements of witnesses heard at trials outside.
The real difficulty in ascertaining the truth in the examination of prisoners is not very much more difficult than to ascertain the truth of any other common class of witnesses. It goes without saying that the examination of witnesses needs to be made by a competent, pains-taking examiner, before whom it is usually easily determined whether the witness is lying, prevaricating or making substantially a truthful statement. Moreover, it is possible by clues ascertained in the course of the examination from statements made by the prisoner,—names, dates, etc., to verify or disprove the accuracy of the statement he makes on his examination. There are some cases, not very many, where no clue can be had or dates or names ascertained. These, however, constitute such a small percentage of the prisoners examined, that it constitutes a class scarcely worth considering in this connection.