“I have just returned from a two months’ visit to about forty prisons in Belgium, Holland, Germany, England, and Scotland. In not a single cell of the thousands which I saw did I see two inmates imprisoned. One might say that the first principle of all in administering correctional institutions in Europe and in Great Britain is that prisoners shall never be ‘doubled up.’
“As for the situation in New York city on the night of September 10, at the Jefferson Market district prison, in four cells two men were sleeping, though only one cot was in each cell. In two instances the men were sleeping, one at the head and one at the foot of the cot; in two other instances, one of the men was sleeping on the floor. The ‘doubling up’ was occasioned by a lack of cell space for the male prisoners. On the ground floor there is for male prisoners a pen with bare boards, not separated off into bunks, where men sleep or try to sleep overnight.
“In the night court for men on East Fifty-seventh street the prison connected with the court was so crowded at 11.30 on that night that in several cells five and six men were confined, so closely as to forbid any of the men lying down unless on the floor. In one large room sixteen peddlers, fined $2, were awaiting midnight to pay $1 then remaining of their fine. The night keeper at the district prison stated that the prison is frequently grievously overcrowded, that ‘doubling up’ of three or four persons is common, and that on such nights as last night it is necessary to pack prisoners into the various cells and await the close of court, when the distribution can take place with some alleviation, but with a continuance of the ‘doubling up’ system.
“At the Criminal Courts building there are so-called prison pens in which persons not yet convicted are held often for hours pending their appearance in some one of the parts of the Court of General Sessions. Particularly on Fridays one of these pens, smaller than the cattle car of a freight train is packed with from fifty to seventy-five persons, mainly young men. No more improper or wretched preparation for a court trial could, it seems to me, be imagined than this pen. Fortunately our foreign visitors to the International Prison Congress last fall were not shown this pen. Grand juries and the Prison Association have since the first of the year frequently called the attention of the borough president to this condition, yet it remains unchanged. ‘Doubling up’ is of frequent occurrence in the Tombs. English law expressly provides that such ‘doubling up’ shall never take place.
“We cast around for explanations of crime waves, increasing tendency to criminality, and a growing disregard by young men in New York City of the principles of law and order. I fail to see how any young man going through the experience now daily undergone by hundreds of our young men can emerge from New York City’s prisons without a vindictive attitude of mind toward the city which maltreats him thus.
“The remedy is more money—more money for more cells and more prisons. For some years a new workhouse has been contemplated. It is as necessary to have an up-to-date workhouse as an up-to-date police force. If we are to have a night court for men, to save the innocent from overnight imprisonment, we must have a night prison which will not condemn the guilty to intolerable conditions of imprisonment. If we expect to reform our young criminals, we must provide a cell for each prisoner. And if the city is really concerned with the reduction of crime, its Board of Estimate and Apportionment must clearly recognize that it costs money to reduce crime, and that one of its first principles of useful imprisonment is separate confinement.”
DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT OF NEW YORK
By Kellogg Durland
[Reprinted from Boston Transcript]
The domestic relations court which was established in New York city exactly one year ago has already taken its place as a permanent institution of the city. The tremendous work of this court arouses wonder that the idea had not been adopted years ago and that it is not more widely emulated in other cities throughout the country. Chicago and Washington are the only two other cities where similar courts exist, and even in these cities the jurisdiction of the courts is not quite the same as in New York. There are two domestic relations courts in New York city, one located in East Fifty-seventh street in the same building with a magistrate’s court and a municipal civil court, and serving the needs of the residents of the two boroughs, Manhattan and the Bronx; the other is in Brooklyn, administering to that section of the greater city.
The domestic relations court is essentially a poor man’s court. In its prime office, indeed, it partakes of the nature of a conciliatory court, similar to the conciliatory courts of France, through which all domestic difficulties pass before any divorce or other serious case involving domestic infelicity, abandonment or non-support can enter the courts proper. Like the judges of the conciliatory courts in France, the judges of the domestic relations court in New York are chosen for their tact, patience, knowledge of mankind and sympathy with the frailties of men and women. Every case that comes into the domestic relations court these judges first try to adjust without legal procedure.