“The point is to insist that the condemned misdemeanant, like the condemned felon, shall be committed to the custody of the state, which alone shall have the power to execute upon him, the sentence of the court. This simple measure may be relied upon to do away with one-half of our present grounds of complaint.
“I have no fear that, this first step taken, the state will not, sooner or later, see its way clear to take a second, and a third, and as many other steps as may from time to time appear to be expedient and practicable. ‘I do not ask to see the distant scene; one step enough for me.’
“I confess that I do not see how, at present, it is possible to dispense with the county jail as a house of detention. Ill-adapted as it is to that use, if we gain nothing, we at least lose nothing by conservatism as to this point. Consider the absolute necessity for having a place of confinement for prisoners awaiting trial. Consider the enormous cost of providing a new and improved house of detention in each county. If it should be said that so many houses of detention are not requisite, that the state might be redistricted for judicial purposes, or that prisoners might be carried back and forth between counties, remember that the witnesses would also have to be transported, at great expense. Neither of these suggestions is likely favorably to impress a practical mind. Possibly there are jails which might be remodelled, so as to serve reasonably well as houses of detention only; and there may be counties in which the present jails should be condemned as nuisances, and houses of detention, properly planned for that exclusive use, might there be built. These are details which may be left to take care of themselves. Why put off doing what we can do, because there are other things that we can not do? The time may come when we can do more. Why advocate reforms which are sure to provoke such a united opposition as to insure their defeat in advance?
“On this subject, however, there is one suggestion that may well be made. The population of our minor prisons might be materially reduced, if a more liberal use were made of the constitutional right of bail. The purpose of temporary release under bond is twofold; to relieve the public and to relieve the prisoner. It is expected that the courts will exercise this power in a liberal spirit, and they do. Some of them are authorized to release prisoners on their own recognizance, at the discretion of the court. Every court should possess this right, and greater use might well be made of it. In our large cities, there are many persons guilty of disorderly conduct, or charged with the violation of some police regulation, or some trivial or purely technical offence, who would face trial, without being held in custody, but are unable to procure bondsmen. In both civic and rural communities, there are also many whose family and business relations are such, that there is no reason to apprehend that they will seek to avoid trial by running away. The fact that such persons can not furnish bail is no sufficient reason for their imprisonment. In all such cases, the committing magistrate must of course use wise discrimination in the exercise of his right to waive the usual bail-bond.
“It is further desirable that the criminal code should provide for the probation of the accused, in advance of trial.
“By the adoption of these and other similar methods, fewer men and women would be exposed to the peril of moral contagion in prison, which, under our present system, affects even those who may be, and in fact often are, innocent. Moreover, it is an error to imagine that all who are guilty of the charges for which, under the statutes, if unable to pay a reasonable fine, they must endure a term of incarceration, are depraved. The boy who throws a ball through a plate glass window and is caught, is no worse than the boy who does the same thing and makes his escape without being arrested; nor the boy who can pay a fine, than the boy who can not.”
IN THE PRISONERS’ AID FIELD
NEW HAMPSHIRE SOCIETY AFTER STATE REFORMATORY
At the session of the New Hampshire Legislature which adjourned on April 15, the New Hampshire Prisoners’ Aid Association co-operated with the State Conference of Charities and Corrections and the State Federation of Women’s Clubs in the advancing of two measures which were deemed of immediate importance to the State.
The first of these was a resolution calling upon the Governor to appoint special commission of three members to investigate and report to the legislature, at its next session, in 1913, on the desirability of a State Workhouse or Reformatory. The resolution, which carries a sufficient appropriation to pay the expenses of the investigation, passed the legislature and received the signature of the Governor. A similar measure presented at three previous sessions met with defeat, owing to the false impression that a central state reformatory would mean additional cost to the taxpayers. This impression was weakened by the arguments before committees that the assembling of all minor offenders in one institution would make it possible to put them at some profitable industry and in the end save money. At present minor offenders are confined in about 20 county jails and houses of correction, in only one of which is there a population sufficient to operate an industry. In nine of the jails idleness is the rule. In the remaining institutions the prisoners are dependent upon work about the buildings and upon the farm, and when this work is slackest the prisons are fullest. It is hoped that the study of the commission will result in recommendations whose execution by the next legislature will in New Hampshire do away with the evils of the locally administered jail and house of correction.