THE REGISTER OF PENNSYLVANIA. DEVOTED TO THE PRESERVATION OF EVERY KIND OF USEFUL INFORMATION RESPECTING THE STATE. VOL. I. EDITED BY SAMUEL HAZARD, NO. 51, FILBERT STREET. PHILADELPHIA, APRIL 5, 1828. REPORT ON PUNISHMENTS & PRISON DISCIPLINE. To the honourable the Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. [Continued from page 208.] NO. 14. reformation. No remedy it is alleged can be found for the radical evils existing, other than close, strict, solitay confinement by day and night, during the whole term of imprisonment. 2. Solitary confinement, without labour, will operate it is said, as the severest kind of punishment upon the individual convict; and, more than any other will produce a beneficial impression upon the public mind, and serve as a terror and warning to all evilly disposed. 8. Solitary Confinement, without labour of any kind. This species of punishment has been advocated by The advocates of this punishment derive their argusome respectable persons, in our commonwealth, and ments in support of this position from the well establishelsewhere, with great earnestness and animation, undered truth of the universal attachment of man to social inthe conviction, that no other project promises so favour-tercourse. Association is one of the first impulses of ably for attaining the great ends of penal infliction. It human beings in all conditions and characters, as it is is alleged, that the suggestion of solitary confinement found to be one of the strongest motives of action in as a judicial punishment for crime is entirely new, and every age. Whatever, therefore, counteracts or mortideserving at least of a trial; that no objections can be fies the ruling passion, must be felt with a sensibility prourged against it arising from the experience of other pri- portioned to the intensity of the impulse. Even the sons, while our own knowledge of its operation as a narrowing the circle by compulsion is a severe punishmeans of prison discipline, authorises us to entertain the ment. How severe then, it is argued, must be the sufmost favourable expectations of its efficacy on a broader fering of total and absolute seclusion from all mankind; scale and under suitable auspices. how subduing the misery of confinement within a narrow cell, without the possibility of beholding a human form, or hearing a human voice, without the least relief to the monotonous round of existence, or the slightest variety in the contemplation of the same gloomy objects. Pain, even of the most excruciating character, may be inflicted on a criminal, but in any event it must be of short duration, and its cessation or suspension produces sensations, more agreeable than existed previous to the infliction. But the unbroken tenor of solitary confinement knows of no degrees of suffering, and no comparison of feeling. It is all, one uniform unbroken inflic tion of the kind least easy to be borne by human feelings; and as such must be felt and acknowledged by the criminal as the severest of punishments; while it must be admitted to be a just retribution for his violation of the duties of social life, to withdraw him from society and leave him to drink of the bitter waters of perpetual solitude. To exhibit as fully and fairly as possible the views of those who would recommend to the adoption of this commonwealth the system of solitary confinement without labour, we shall lay before the legislature the arguments and reasoning by which they are enforced, together with such observations as have occurred to us in ro lation to them. 1st. It is alleged by the advocates of solitary confinement, in the first place, that it possesses the important and unique advantage of separating the criminals from each other; thereby rendering each convict for the time, an insulated being; and both sheltering him from the contagion of evil company, and rendering harmless whatever stock of vicious propensities he himself might pos sess. In proportion to the theoretical weight of this punishment it is supposed will be its influence on society.The spectacle of offended law consigning the culprit to a living tomb; the ideas attached to unmitigated solitude; the impression produced on those who enter the walls of the prison by the sight of the cells, and the inscriptions which it has been proposed to place upon them, cannot fail, it is said, to engender feelings of awe and terror, which will prevent the commission of crime. If the experience of criminals is to have any weight with their associates, surely those, who return to society after the expiration of their term of imprisonment in solitary cells, will have arguments enough, arising from their own recollections, to deter their companions from evil courses. As a punishment and warning, therefore, solitary confinement is supported. The prevailing evils of penitentiaries have arisen, it is said, from society. The association of individuals has been at all times and under all circumstances, powerful both for good and for evil. It produces some of the best results for society when good men unite; and in the same proportion in the society of a person it lends to vice and crime, a moral support of incalculable strength. The mere aggregation of individuals is well known to inspire sentiments of confidence and hardihood. When this association, however, ripens into intercourse, the consequences become positively and widely mischievous. A single irreclaimable convict is sufficient to taint the whole mass, to keep down any springing wish for amendment, to sear the conscience, and to excite the flagging or doubting spirits. The relation of former exploits, the expectation of new scenes of a similar character, but more fortunate result, the communication of lessons of skill and experience in the business of villainy, and the combination of new schemes to be executed in the event of enlargement, are all the ordinary routine of the inter- 3. Solitary confinement is beneficial for a third reason, course of convicts. Whether the association occur by say it advocates, because it operates directly and forciday or night, the result is pretty much the same. No bly upon the mind. When the sources of external exsystem of inspection or discipline can prevent an understanding between convicts when they are allowed to be in each others company. The principle or feeling of association still continues, however strict the watch kept over them, and stands in the way of every attempt at citement are removed; when the mind is no longer supplied with images and consolations from abroad, it must turn back upon itself for employment, and thus, will reflection be generated, and made active. Now, reflection in the mind of a criminal, must be beneficial, be cause it will convince him of the error of his ways, and lead him to resolve upon thorough reformation. The passions will be subdued by solitude, the suggestions and excitements of evil counsellors will no longer preoccupy the mind; and the seeds of good, which may have been originally sown, but which unfavourable circumstances have checked, may spring up under auspices propitious to their development. The bible, or some other suitable book will always be at hand to assist and enlighten; and thus in the retirement of the cell, the foundation may be laid of a virtuous and useful after life. Complete reformation, therefore, it is said, may confidently be looked for from a system of solitary confine ment. penitentiaries the theatres of ease and profligacy, instead of the abodes of sorrow and repentance. Deeply impressed as we are with the sins and dangers which infest these hospitals of crime, we should be among the last men in this community to suggest a doubt of the necessity and practicability of separating convicts from all intercourse with each other. We are anxious, indeed, to urge their separation by every argument in our power. But, while sincerely desirous to prevent the pernicious communication between convicts, we prefer the adoption of such measures for the purpose, as will comport with the general system of penitentiary punishment. It is not, we think, the dictate of a sound philosophy to proscribe all assemblages of convicts, because there 4th. In the fourth place, it is argued, that the public are times and circumstances in and under which such will gain by the adoption of this system, because the assemblages might be dangerous; any more than it term of imprisonment will necessarily be shortened.- would be wise in men, not convicts, to condemn themThe severity of the punishment of close solitary confine-selves to all the rigors of solitude, because there are ment, is said by its advocates, to be so great, that a much evils and dangers in general intercourse with mankind. lighter term of sentence will be found necessary. The practice of abjuring society on account of the Where a sentence of seven or fourteen years imprison- crimes and follies that exist in it, which prevailed in the ment is now inflicted, three or six years in solitude, will earlier ages of christianity, has, in most countries, given be found amply sufficient for the purpose of punish- way to a sounder and safer system, founded on a more ment. Thus, the public will save as much as the differ- enlarged view of the capacity and duties of our nature. ence between the periods of imprisonment; and more. It is more prudent, we conceive, and consistent with the over, will probably be benefitted by receiving back a spirit of the age, to examine into those points in which the repentant and reformed prodigal, instead of the confirm- structure of society is defective, or dangerous; to avoid ed and pestilent profligates, whom our prisons are now social intercourse in whatever quarter it is prejudicial, daily discharging upon the community. and to keep a strict guard and watch over ourselves in all permitted relations of society. The principle is the same, we respectfully suggest, with regard to the little community of convicts. It is more philosophical, perhaps more humane, to investigate the origin and causes of the corruption in penitentiaries; to inquire whether the evils attending the intercourse of criminals may not Such are the principal advantages, which, a number of our worthy fellow citizens believe, will arise from the adoption of the system of rigid solitude by day and night, without labour. Labour of any description, or to any extent, is earnestly deprecated by them, as interfering with the symmetry and hopes of their plan. It has been objected to by them, because impracticable (except un-have arisen from particular, rather than general causes. der peculiar circumstances) within the walls of the cell, and otherwise inconsistent with strict solitary confinement; and because it would be considered as a relaxation and an amusement, and therefore at variance with the main object of solitude, namely, severe punishment. These objections, however, will be fully stated and con-expensive experiment of total solitude. Those, who sidered hereafter. We propose, now, to examine the several arguments we have stated, in support of the advantages, which have been assumed for solitary confinement without labour; and shall proceed to express, as briefly as possible, the view which we ourselves have been induced to take of the subject. We shall consider the several points in the order we have already stated. 1. In the first place, then, it is argued for the system, that it puts an effectual period to all intercourse between convicts, and thereby the great evils of the existing penitentiaries are removed. This argument, it will be seen, applies to solitary confinement of every character, with, or without labour. We shall therefore consider it in reference to both. Whether they are not attributable to some particular seasons of their intercourse, rather than others; and whether it is not practicable to modify and govern that intercourse, so as to prevent the recurrence of the evils complained of, rather than to embrace the sweeping and would proscribe all assembling of convicts, no matter for what good purpose, lest evils might collaterally arise, have, it seems to us, overlooked or neglected, an intermediate process by which perhaps the same end may be obtained, at less hazard, and under more favourable circumstances for the public. We shall, therefore, proceed to consider, under what circumstances the intercourse between convicts is most prejudicial to themselves, and inconvenient for the public, and, how far the prevailing evils and vices of penitentiaries can be obviated, without the total destruction of all association. It may be assumed as demonstrable, that the night season is that, in which the communication between convicts, who are in the same apartment, can take place We are prepared to admit, in the fullest extent, that with the greatest facility, and to the most dangerous exthe intercourse between convicts is an evil of the great- tent. According to the prevailing and indeed necessa est magnitude; one, which as it taints and poisons the ry system pursued in the prison at Philadelphia, Boston, whole system of penal discipline, and, by its conse- New York, Baltimore, and some other places, the priquences, infects even the population outside of the prisoners, after having finished their labour for the day, are son, no effort or sacrifice would be too great to destroy, locked up in rooms in size of from twenty to thirty feet and, which any remedy, however severe, must be adopt- square, to the number, on some occasions, of thirty in ed to cure. Our own researches and personal inspec- each room; where they remain, without inspection, until tion of prisons, made under the direction of the legisla- the hour for breakfast next morning. During the sumture, have given us ample reason to be satisfied, that the mer season, this period amounts to eleven hours, and in evils of a communication between convicts, have not the winter to fifteen, and, on the average of the whole been exaggerated by those writers, who have so earn-year, is equal to the period passed outside of the sleepestly invoked public attention to the subject. We have ing rooms. One half, then, of the allotted time, for witnessed, in more than one penitentiary, a confident which criminals are sentenced to confinement in these and hardened assurance in the looks and manners of the prisons, and, which the law considers as passed in peni convicts, which argued, what indeed was abundantly tentiary discipline, is in point of fact, either spent withevident to the observation, the almost total want of re-out any discipline, or control at ail, and as we shall prestraint over their intercourse with each other. Every where, re-conviction was in proportion to the looseness of prison discipline, which has rendered most of our old sently see, in unbounded license, or else utterly forgotten in sleep. We might add to this period of exemp tion, the Sundays, and those days, in which, in conse 1828.] PENAL CODE AND PENITENTIARY SYSTEM. 211 quence of unfavourable weather, or other circumstances, Governor Plummer, of New Hampshire, Lincoln, of the convicts are prevented from performing their usual Massachusetts, Wolcott, of Connecticut, and Clinton of labour, and, necessarily, locked up in their rooms, but New York. We might cite many passages from the we are willing to confine ourselves to the period be- writings of capable observers in corroboration of the tween the cessation of labour at night, and the resump-facts above stated, but we forbear to press them on the tion of it the next morning. It might easily be conceiv- legislature. ed, were there no existing proof, how this interval would be spent by a company of criminals, where no control or inspection could conveniently be maintained over them. But, we are not left to conjecture on this subject. All accounts agree in representing these night rooms as the means of the most corrupting communication, and the scenes of the most hideous depravity; as the asylum of free and unrestrained conversation, where the opportunity is eagerly seized to relate former exploits, to plan new adventures of villainy, to elevate the character of crime, and to dissipate the suggestion of conscience. We shall quote a few passages from documents of authority which support this position. In a memorial of the "Philadelphia society for alleviating the miseries of public prisons," and of the inspectors of the prison of the city and county of Philadelphia, presented to the legislature of 1803, it is stated that the convicts are for want of room, obliged to be kept in too large numbers, in one apartment, by which the amelioration of their morals is either prevented, or greatly impeded, the keeping of them attended with greater hazard; and they have more opportunity of laying plans of escape; their labour is rendered less productive than it might be, and the idea of solitude is nearly obliterated." In the valuable reports of the Boston "Prison Discipline Society," we find the evils of intercourse at night among convicts, so fully and emphatically stated, that we shall we trust, be excused by the legislature for copying their language. "Another cause of the increase of crime is the crowded state of the night rooms in the penitentiaries. In the New Hampshire and Vermont penitentiaries, from two to six are lodged in each room; in Massachusetts from four to sixteen; in Connecticut from fifteen to thirtytwo; in New York city twelve; in New Jersey ten or twelve; in Pennsylvania twenty-nine, thirty and thirtyone; in Maryland from seven to ten; in Virginia from two to four. In Philadelphia the rooms are eighteen feet by twenty; and it is a common rule to allow to each convict a space on the floor six feet by two; as large as a coffin. If a convict is not already lost to virtue, it is difficult to conceive in what manner his ruin can be consummated more speedily, than by thrusting him into such a place." Several opinions of competent persons are cited in support of this conclusion. Mr. Pittsbury, the superintendant (at that time) of the New Hampshire penitentiary, states that the plots which have been designed during his term of service, have been conceived and promoted in the night-rooms. He has spent much time in listening to the conversation of the convicts at night, and thus has detected plots, and learned whole histories of villainy. Judge Cotton, superintendant of the Vermont penitentiary, declares that great evils might be avoided, could the state prison be so constructed, that the convicts might lodge separately from each other.The commissioners of the Connecticut legislature, state, that their principle objection to the existing prison, in that state, is the manner in which the prisoners are confined at night; turned in large numbers into their cells, and allowed an intercourse of the most dangerous and debasing character. "It is here, they add, that every right principle is eradicated and every base one instilled. It is a nursery of crime, where the convict is furnished with the expedients and shifts of guilt; and with his invention sharpened he is let loose upon society, in a tenfold degree a more daring, desperate and effective villain." Similar opinions have been expressed by the superintendants of the penitentiaries of New York, New Jersey and Virginia; and the expediency of applying the proper remedies has been urged in emphatic language by There is one feature in the miserable picture of evils produced by crowded night rooms, of a character so frightful and revolting that we would gladly pass it by without comment, did it not appear to us necessary to impress deeply on the minds of the legislature, the paramount importance of separate dormitories. We allude to the nameless and unnatural crimes, which concurrent testimony proves to have been frequently perpetrated in those chambers of guilt and misery. We are spared the task of entering into any particulars upon this subject by the nature of the offence. It is sufficient to remark, that the prisons of Massachusetts, Connnecticut, New York and Philadelphia, have been defiled and outraged by the commissions of sins, which alone require of the legislature in imperious language, an immediate and radical change of system. In the eloquent language of the governor of Massachusetts "nature and humanity cry aloud for redemption from this dreadful degradation. Better even that the laws were written in blood, than that they should be executed in sin." It appears then, from this authoritative testimony, that the great evils of intercourse between prisoners arise from their association at night. It would seem to follow that a sufficient remedy would be found for these evils in abolishing all intercourse at night, by providing separate rooms for the prisoners. Let us consider, now, whether association together in the day time be necessarily productive of evils, of a nature imperiously to require the separation of criminals. If we are able to show, that convicts may be brought together in the day time, without necessarily producing the evils so justly deprecated, then we shall have gained another, and a very important step in the discussion of this important subject. We defer, for the present, an examination of the question whether the employment of convicts at hard and productive labour jointly, or severally, is or is not desirable, with reference to the public, and to themselves, and assume it for the argument's sake as settled, that labour in some shape is preferable to idleness. If labour be not imposed by law, and the discipline of the prison, as a duty and punishment, then we agree, at once, that solitary confinement is the only thing left, and that it must be adopted and inflicted to any extent, and at any hazard, rather than that the spectacle should exist for a moment, of the unchecked communication of an idle and profligate horde of convicts. But if labour, strictly and laboriously pursued, be an essential part of the system of discipline, and, if the convicts be brought toge ther in the day time for this and no other purpose, then, we believe and maintain, that perfect silence, submission and order to the full extent, excluding all communica tion between them, during the period of labour, may be enforced by the employment of a reasonable number of keepers, or superintendants, of common firmness and ability. The first and essential points, in this view of the question, undoubtedly are the employment of a competent number of persons, to direct and enforce the la bour of the convicts in their workshops, and the enactment and rigid enforcement of severe penalties for the transgression of the rules, requiring strict silence and abstinence from all intercourse by looks or gestures. The first of these is surely not difficult, nor does it ap pear to us a priori, that a large body of superintendants would be requisite. If the natural bent of a convict's mind can be so far constrained, as to compel him to labour, and not only that, but by the force of discipline he can be brought to execute the most difficult and delicate workmanship, as every penitentiary in this country has witnessed, is it unreasonable to suppose, that the same class of persons may be trained and enforced to habits of silence and order? The same authority which compels pay with his life the penalty of his transgressions, is by and disposition to license, might by the force of example be brought to acquire habits of sobriety and industry. Every thing, therefore, seems to us, as we have already intimated to depend upon the degree of discipline maintained. If the prisoners in the workshops are allowed the free use of their tongues, and hands, and eyes, we admit, most readily, that these apartments may become the scenes of as much corrupting conversation and profligate intercourse as the night rooms. But, on the other hand, if strict discipline be maintained, if conversation be totally and effectually prohibited; if the hands of the prisoners be kept steadily employed upon their work, so that signs cannot pass between them, and if their eyes be likewise fixed on their labour, as must, necessarily, be the case, in most instances, then, we cannot think, that the assemblage of convicts in common workshops, classed as they may be, can possibly be prejudi 1828.1 PENAL CODE AND PENITENTIARY SYSTEM. cial to the objects of penitentiary punishments. Those who aver their belief to the contrary have not, as far as we have been able to ascertain, supported their averments by any specification of the manner in which the contagion may be communicated, or by any evidence of facts derived from existing prisons. It may be remarked in addition, that if the mere consciousness of the neighbouring presence of other convicts be criminating and injurious, then, the knowledge that convicts are in adjoining cells, must also excite a feeling of companionship, equally prejudicial; and for that reason even this kind of confinement should be avoided; and the cells ought to be built, no matter with what expense, at a considerable distance from each other. We do not believe, however, that either in one case or the other, mere vicinity would produce any evil effect on the prison or the prisoner. We shall in another part of this report advert | to the testimony in corroboration of our views with which an examination of some of the prisons in the U. States has furnished us. We submit, therefore, that it is sufficiently manifest, that convicts may be employed together, in common workshops, without necessarily incurring the evils deprecated, and the existence of which is urged as sufficient to justify their total separation. We have already shown, that these evils are to be attributed to the assemblage of convicts in common night rooms, and we have suggested that the most rational mode of removing the complaint is the obvious one of separating the prisoners at night. We answer then to the first argument urged in favour of total solitary confinement, that to obtain the desired result, it is not necessary that convicts should be separated from each other's presence on all occasions; and therefore, that infliction of solitary confinement would be an exercise of power unphilosophical in principle, and uncalled for by circumstances. 213 restore the cruel code of the most barbarous and unenlightened age." Notwithstanding, however, that such high authorities unite in representing solitary confinement as an universally severe and oppressive punishment, it may be allowed to us to suggest that the expressions used by both parties, are too broad and general; and, we may be permitted to enquire, whether a distinction does not exist in human nature, which renders solitude as a punishment grossly unequal. It will be remembered, that the opinions of the writers first quoted refer to the operation of solitary confinement on the mind or feelings of the convict; in which light also it is chiefly viewed by Roscoe and La Fayette; and it is to this point that we propose now to confine ourselves. We shall have occasion hereafter to treat of its effect upon the body and senses. It seems to us, therefore, that in its effect upon the feelings or sensibilities, compulsory solitude may produce very different results. If we suppose the case of 2 person of delicate moral organization, whom a course of education and training may have rendered acutely sensible to the stings of shame and remorse; we can conceive that, for a time at least, the weight of solitude upon such a person would be almost intolerable. The uninterrupted reflection on the past, which would present only scenes of horror and guilt, the upbraidings of conscience, and the prospect of the unhappy future, would combine to torture the mind of such a convict, into a condition to which bodily pain would undoubtedly be preferable.— Whether a total overthrow of the intellect would not be the consequence, in the case of such an individual, is a question into which we do not at present enter. Supposing the mind still to remain unshaken, it may still be a question, whether the all-powerful force of habit may not, even in such a case, render solitude familiar and endurable. However this may be, the effect of solitude upon the educated and refined, is not to be considered as the measure of its operation upon the great mass of convicts, who certainly are not persons of very lively sensibility, or active consciences. It will be borne in The punishment of solitary confinement consists, as mind, that it is of solitary confinement in idleness that has been already stated, in the compulsory disruption of we are now speaking, and that, in general, it must be the connection between the individual and society, and, inflicted upon persons, whose moral sense has become especially in the case of solitude without labour, in the blunted by long familiarity with vice, to whose rememmonotony of the convict's life. The character of this brance there seldom arise the endearing thoughts of species of punishment has been described in strong lan- home and domestic relations, and by whom laborious inguage, both by its advocates and opponents. In the let-dustry, in any shape, is felt as one of the most onerous ter of the Inspectors of the Philadelphia Prison to the and mortifying inflictions. To such men, it seems difficommittee of the senate, in 1821, to which we have be- cult to believe, that mere idleness, though in solitude, fore referred, we find the following description of its can appear as a punishment of a very grievous nature. supposed practical operation: "To be shut up in a cell It is true, that they are cut off from their ordinary amusefor days, weeks, months, and years alone, to be depriv- ments, and profligate excitements; but this is the conseed of converse with a fellow being, to have no friendly quence of every restraint in a well regulated prison, voice to minister consolation, no friendly bosom on which and is not peculiarly the merit or the grievance of solitato lean, or into which to pour our sorrows and com- ry confinement. It is contended that the mere sameplaints, but, on the contrary, to count the tedious hours ness and monotony of life, produced by idle solitude is, as they pass, a prey to corrodings of conscience, and the of itself, a punishment of the harshest kind, to all classes pangs of guilt is almost to become the victim of des- of convicts; that the slow progress of time, and the abpair." On the other hand, William Roscoe of Liver- sence of any thing to occupy or divert attention, must pool, an earnest opponent of the system, makes use of be felt with a degree of intensity, in comparison with the following expressions, in relation to solitary confine- which hard labour would appear as a luxury and amusement. "This mode of punishment, the most inhuman, ment. Now, we have two remarks to make upon this and unnatural, that the cruelty of a tyrant ever invented, argument. In the first place, no allowance is made for is no less derogatory to the character of human nature, the working of an agent, which as we have already rethan it is in direct violation of the leading principles of marked, is all-powerful for good or evil. We mean hachristianity” and, afterwards, says of the convict in soli-bit. It is a true, though very common remark, that there tude, that he will pass "through every variety of mise- are few things to which human nature will not accustom ry, and terminate his days by an accumulation of suffer- itself. The first days or weeks of solitude will, doubting which human nature can no longer bear." And less, be irksome to all descriptions of convicts; and it is, we have the opinion of the great and virtuous La Fay- perhaps, because heretofore it has not been the practice ette that, to adopt this system would be, "to revive, and to confine convicts in solitude for more than a very few weeks in Philadelphia and some other places, that such exaggerated ideas of the influence of solitary imprisonment have been entertained. Gradually, however, by 2. The next argument in favour of solitary imprisonment without labour is derived from its supposed efficacy as a positive punishment upon the offender. • Journal of the Senate 1820-1, page 337. † Roscoe on Penitentiary discipline, London 1827, p. 24, 26. + Letter of Gen. La Fayette, quoted in Roscoe on Penitentiary discipline, page 31. |